So how is resonance an excuse for not having the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers? The Conservation of Momentum is so much easier to understand. So why not get the story straight on the simple before making up esoteric pseudo-intellectual BS? psik
if i remember correctly (and i have a memory like an elephant) you stated that you couldn't find this information for ANY "skyscraper" you searched for. are you saying the resonance hypothesis isn't plausible? it probably played more of a role than either of us realize. in this respect, a scaled model will never work. and it probably explains why NIST hasn't been able to construct one.
If you have raced on foot against men and they have worn you out, how will you be able to compete with horses? And if you feel secure only in safe and open country, how will you manage in the thick undergrowth along the Jordan River?
I cannot speak for Trippy... but I would use Science and Logic... and thus, use an SUV to compete, and easily overtake, the horses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for the undergrowth - there are ways to navigate the densest of brush and the darkest of wood, if you but know them. Many people think Courage is the antithesis of Fear... it is not. Knowledge is... True Courage is simply the ability to practice that Knowledge, even when it may not be popular to do so.
Even the tallest man, when standing in a grove of mighty Oak trees, must bow to the whisper of the evening breeze.
I said I could not find the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level for any skyscraper. That is true and I have not changed that statement though I have not been looking for some time. The NIST admitted in 3 places that they needed to know the weight distribution for the towers in order to analyse the motion due to aircraft impact so it is not like I am asking about irrelevant information. What of it? psik
if this info isn't available for any skyscraper, what is it that makes WTC 1&2 unique? apparently this info must be gotten through some other means, other than by simply asking for it. you might be phrasing your search criteria wrong. it seems to me that this info would be included with the blueprints, either directly or indirectly.
True courage is facing The Truth and admitting to Him you are a liar, and subsequently telling the other liars to do the same.
I would not call that courage - that would be Honor. Honor for yourself, and Honor for those to whom you speak.
The blueprints of the WTC do not show the horizontal beams in the core. I did not see the thickness of the walls of the perimeter box columns shown either. There is no reason to give a damn about skyscrapers that have not supposedly "collapsed" from the top down. But now we can't tell how much lighter the top might have been than the bottom. psik
[crickets chirping] I seem to have been ignored... We seem to have lost track of the real/interesting issue here. The real/interesting issue is why has psikeyhackr chosen to parrot this pointless crap. There's no point in trying to discuss the mass of the building -- even if you answer it, it doesn't solve any issues for him. The real interesting thing here is why/how he thinks all engineers on the planet are part of a massive conspiracy and what theory he actually believes, since he clearly believes the conventional explanation is wrong.
"Science education is anti-dogma?" Oh really? When was the sequence of science education decided for US high schools? The biology, chemistry, physics sequence. http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/10/should-we-teach-physics-not-biology-first/ 1893! Considering that the structure of the atom was not known at the time shouldn't that sequence have been reconsidered long ago. Maybe it should be Newtonian physics, chemistry, biology and then Einsteinian and other post-Newtonian stuff. Science is not about BELIEVING! It is about at least Trying to KNOW. Experiments have been a pretty common technique. Science seems to be whatever most people believe it is. Or can be convinced it is. Wouldn't the simple thing be to just prove what is supposed to be scientifically obvious and end this nonsense. It only took 4 months to make a model in 1940. psik
That doesn't really have anything to do with whether what they are learning is dogmatic. I do some relatively mundane engineering: HVAC. I design and study lab heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. And I'm helping write new standards to govern the ventilation of labs because things have changed (energy is more expensive) than it was when the standards were written decades ago. Being unafraid to challenge the conventional wisdom is one of the most critical aspects of my job. It already has been, but it is up to you to end your nonsense. I do appreciate that you answered one of my questions: you believe that the silence among engineers is due to a vast conspiracy among engineers that is so entrenched that it even captures engineers who were kids at 9/11 and those who received their training before 9/11. But my other question remains unanswered: What is your hypothesis for what caused the WTC to collapse?
Some energy source not supplied by the aircraft had to have destroyed the structre below the impact levels for the entire structure to come down that quickly. In the case of the south tower that energy caused the upper portion to tilt/rotate 22 degrees in 5 seconds according to Frank Greening. He said 25 degrees but the NIST says 20 to 25 degrees and Richard Gage says 22 degrees. That is why the center of rotation and center of mass are important. But since all skyscrapers must hold themselves up the distributions of steel and concrete are important. So without that information all supposed analyses the destructions of the twin towers are crap. psik
I assume the energy source is unknown? And what, exactly, led you to this conclusion? Looks like idle speculation and incredulity to me. Because you certainly have no evidence of such an event.
Again... why is the rotation supposedly important? What factor does it play? The point at which the structure is rotating indicates that the support has already given way and total failure is imminent - rare is the case where a part of a building twisted, separate from the rest, and it did not collapse/fall off... and most of those involve impacting/leaning/landing on other structures...
You can assume whatever you want. I do not claim to know what it was, or if there was only one. Watch the collapse of the Spire and see how it seems to turn into dust. I have no idea what could cause that. When I was in college we could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. In fact I saw it through a window sitting on a couch in the living room of the frat. My pledge-father was an architect. So there was lots of talk about skyscrapers among the architects though they mostly talked about how much money the architectural firm was making. One architect made a scaled wooden shape of the building, it was about 18 inches tall. But the point is you get to thinking about what such a structure has to do to hold itself up and withstand the wind. The WTC was different from the Sears Tower in that the floor area was constant all of the way up both towers. It took me two weeks to come to the conclusion that the straight down collapse that I watched on television on 9/11 made no sense whatsoever. But at the time I expected this crap to be resolved in less than a year. I find this 13 year scientific farce even more shocking than what happened on 9/11. It only took 4 months to make a functional model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I never saw the WTC towers. How could I have any physical "evidence"? The middle school physics is all of the evidence necessary. 13 years and "scientists" don't discuss how steel must be distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up but 50 buildings over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 9/11. :wtf: psik
