9/11 Troofers are Idiots

It sure didn’t take long for the emails to start pouring in after I made this comment:

I also get about 1-2 emails a week from people who have developed a “new paradigm”? in physics or believe their 5 second video of the collapse of the Twin Towers is proof that the US government planted explosives that caused the collapse, so I’ve seen all manner of the irrational.

Here is a good example from my inbox:

Here’s where we’re at:
The 9/11 Truth movement has a scientific explanation of what happened to WTC 7 >>> Controlled Demolition. We also have evidence, several videos of its collapse, all of which contain several features of controlled demolition. No Debunker has made the claim that controlled demolition would not scientifically explain the collapse of WTC 7. No Debunker has come up with an alternative scientific theory to explain the features on the WTC 7 collapse videos, including the global free fall speed of collapse. We also should not allow political theories to pollute science. It been 6 years since 9/11. 6 years of unrefuted scientific evidence is long enough to declare with certainty that, yes, indeed, this was a controlled demolition.
At some point, we need to move along, folks.

I will attempt an answer after the jump, though I can assure you that this will only increase the amount of email I get from these folks.

The 9/11 Truth movement has a scientific explanation of what happened to WTC 7

Yes, controlled demolition could be used as the foundation of a collapse model. However, the data does not fit your model for WTC 7 and your model is a complete violation of Occam’s razor.

We also have evidence, several videos of its collapse, all of which contain several features of controlled demolition

The videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. The videos are evidence that buildings fell down. You can analyze the videos and fit the data to a controlled demolition model or another model. The data from the videos does not fit a controlled demolition model. Controlled demolition claimants do a poor job of analyzing the video. They show only up to the point that the perimeter columns hit the ground and conveniently leave out the remaining 40 stories of building. They do the same with WTC 7 videos.

No Debunker has made the claim that controlled demolition would not scientifically explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Controlled demolition COULD scientifically explain the collapse. However, it does not.

No Debunker has come up with an alternative scientific theory to explain the features on the WTC 7 collapse videos, including the global free fall speed of collapse.

Let’s see. The bottom half of the south side of WTC 7 had a gaping hole and raging fires. Numerous civil engineers on the site before the fall reported that the building’s structural integrity had been severely compromised and would inevitably fall. Because of these reports, the firefighters were “pulled” from the area. The building fell down starting on the south side and collapsing over towards the south (not in its “footprint”: one of many 9/11 Troofer lies). Free fall collapse is another lie similar to the same assertion for the Twin Towers. It took at least 18 seconds for WTC 7 to fall completely.

We also should not allow political theories to pollute science.

Agreed.

It been 6 years since 9/11.

Agreed.

6 years of unrefuted scientific evidence is long enough to declare with certainty that, yes, indeed, this was a controlled demolition.

Your evidence does not exist.

At some point, we need to move along, folks.

Agreed. Accept reality and move on.

I get email constantly about “peer-reviewed” research that “proves” that the towers were brought down via controlled demolition. Most of the time, these folks bring up cold-fusionist and 9/11 Troofer Steven Jones, who at one point was a professor of physics at BYU. To be fair to Dr. Jones, even though he coined the term “cold fusion” and his seminal work on the subject was flatly rejected by Nature and every other respected journal in physics, some of his more minor work in the area is actually pretty interesting. He also didn’t receive anything near the thrashing given to Pons and Fleischmann, since he had the good sense not to present bogus data to the national media before beginning the peer-review process. He saved that level of idiocy for 2001.

The articles supposedly “proving” the culprit was controlled demolition appear in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Let’s see, what is the impact-factor on the “Journal of 9/11 Studies” Oh. You don’t know what “impact-factor” means? How many indexes carry the “Journal of 9/11 Studies”? Oh. You don’t know what a journal index is? It used to bother me that the average Troofer pretends to have carefully researched and weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion. However, they haven’t because they don’t know how to conduct research. The rank-and-file ditto-head idiots that listen to and believe Alex Jones don’t bother me that much anymore. I do have a problem with people like Steven Jones. He SHOULD know better.

So … where is the evidence to support my side?

Peer-reviewed, primary sources that suggest the towers collapsed due to excessive heating and that progressive collapse models are consistent with observed data:

“Behaviour of lightweight composite trusses in fire: A case study,” STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 7 (2): 105-118 APR 2007

“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007

“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007

“Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (10): 1066-1072 OCT 2005

“Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses,” FIRE AND MATERIALS 29 (4): 181-194 JUL-AUG 2005

“Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers structural frame in multiple floor fires,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (6): 654-657 JUN 2005

“Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks,” JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 131 (1): 6-15 JAN 2005

“Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 130 (10): 1177-1187 OCT 2004

“How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 38 (6): 501-533 OCT 2003

“A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 37 (7): 707-716 OCT 2002

Here is a great secondary source that discusses progressive collapse and how studies of the WTC collapse have contributed to stricter building codes:

“Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards,” JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES 20 (4): 418-425 NOV 2006

Why does Alex Jones or Steven Jones not cite these studies or even attempt to address them?

I refer you to debunking911.com for more.

« AAPT New Faculty Workshop Part II

Internal Energy, Work, Heat and Bad Questions »

190 Responses to “9/11 Troofers are Idiots”

on 10 Mar 2009 at 7:11 am1Conspirama

ilovephysics.com :: free online physics help, tutorials, forums ……

The 9/11 Truth movement has a scientific explanation of what happened to WTC 7 >>> Controlled Demolition. We also have evidence, several videos of its collapse, all of which contain several features of controlled demolition. ……
on 21 Mar 2009 at 7:40 pm2psikeyhackr

Can you build a 1360 foot without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put where? So why don’t we know the distribution of mass after SEVEN YEARS? How would that affect a supposed collapse because of the conservation of momentum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik
on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:39 am3Christopher Moore

What in the hell are you talking about?
on 25 Mar 2009 at 10:47 am4Christopher Moore

By the way, I welcome anyone to write an article for this website that specifically discusses the contents of any of the journal articles that I mention above. I will publish it on the front page with complete author attribution and links to your website.

If you feel that your YouTube demonstration is proof that progressive collapse is not a workable model, then by all means explain where the structural engineering papers listed above went wrong. Specifically, I would love to read commentary on this article: JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007.
on 30 Mar 2009 at 9:57 pm5psikeyhackr

{{ What in the hell are you talking about? }}

There are these buildings called skyscrapers. They are usually very tall and must hold themselves up in addition to withstanding the wind. This means the designers must decide how much steel and concrete to put on every level. Consequently this presents a problem for the top 15% by volume supposedly coming straight down and completely destroying 84% in less than double freefall time. It would have to be magic.

It has something to do with the conservation of momentum.

Demanding to know the distribution of steel and concrete in said building is a minimum requirement. There should have been at least 50 stories of the north tower still standing. I supplied enough information for anyone to repeat my test for themselves if they are sufficiently interested.

It is more like people that can’t comprehend obvious physics can’t figure out that they have some kind of mental deficiency. But there are a lot of us, we can’t be wrong. YEAH RIGHT!

psik
on 31 Mar 2009 at 7:55 am6Christopher Moore

You should check your premises, since this statement is a flat-out lie:

“Consequently this presents a problem for the top 15% by volume supposedly coming straight down and completely destroying 84% in less than double freefall time.”

The fabrication is in the last five words. The buildings certainly did not come down in “less than double freefall time.” I’m not sure where you wackos keep getting this from, but it is not true.

“It is more like people that can’t comprehend obvious physics can’t figure out that they have some kind of mental deficiency.”

You have shown that it is probable that the buildings should have fallen with an average acceleration less than 9.8 m/s^2. I am 100% in agreement with you, and so are the authors of the peer-reviewed journal articles I cite above. What you haven’t shown is that the building DIDN’T fall with an average acceleration less than 9.8 m/s^2. You are arguing against a claim that you completely fabricated. We call that a straw man.

Please read these articles:

“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007

“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007

If you want to make an argument against progressive collapse, then you should at least understand the models and what they tell us; or, continue to fabricate boogie-men with your head up your ass and waste money on Alex Jone’s bullshit.
on 04 Apr 2009 at 2:51 am7psikeyhackr

Well why don’t you tell that to the NIST because they have a podcast on NPR where they say 11 seconds. The last time I checked 11 seconds was less then 18 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

The NIST would not lie, would it? ROFL

And the buildings came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume. That is 15 tons of air on each level by the way. They averaged 862 tons of STEEL per level.
on 11 Apr 2009 at 3:44 pm8truth seeker

Christopher Moore,

WHY DON’T YOU CHALLENGE DR. STEVEN JONES TO AN OPEN DEBATE?? BE A MAN QUIT FN AROUND ON YOUR BLOG AND STEP UP!! IF YOU REALLY ARE AN HONEST PERSON YOU WILL DO IT!! IF NOT WELL THEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE.
on 11 Apr 2009 at 9:44 pm9Christopher Moore

Truth Seeker, the debate has been going on for years in the engineering literature. You know, those scholarly articles I’ve been talking about that you haven’t read. I prefer to let those with the requisite experience and training argue to details. They have. Read the damn articles.

What I want to know is why Steven Jones won’t address the engineering literature concerning the collapse. Or, a little closer to home, why won’t you address the articles I cite? Why do you refuse to even read them?
on 11 Apr 2009 at 9:49 pm10Christopher Moore

Oh, and my offer still stands. I would be happy to publish Dr. Jones’ thoughts on any of these articles. He has not yet attempted to address the engineering literature, or even the sharp rebuke he received from his engineering colleagues at BYU.
on 14 Apr 2009 at 7:05 pm11psikeyhackr

{{{ Truth Seeker, the debate has been going on for years in the engineering literature. You know, those scholarly articles I’ve been talking about that you haven’t read. I prefer to let those with the requisite experience and training argue to details. They have. Read the damn articles. }}}

You mean those SCHOLARLY ARTICLES that don’t tell us the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. I emailed Frank Greening about one of his scholarly articles in 2007. Ran into him on JREF in May of 2008. He divided the total mass of the tower by 110. So his calculation of potential energy with all of his calculus assumed every level had the same weight. But the building had SIX BASEMENT LEVELS. Wasn’t that part of the TOTAL MASS? Doesn’t there have to be A LOT OF CONCRETE in the foundation of a 110 story skyscraper. That is 110 above ground. He hasn’t responded on JREF since last May.
on 14 Apr 2009 at 8:36 pm12Christopher Moore

I could care less about what Frank Greening has to say, since he is NOT a structural engineer by training and his work in this area has not appeared in actual peer-reviewed literature.

For what you are looking for, why don’t you try these article written by engineers and published in peer-reviewed journals:

“Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks,” JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 131 (1): 6-15 JAN 2005

“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007
on 14 Apr 2009 at 8:41 pm13Christopher Moore

BTW, ignoring the below-ground floors would be reasonable when estimating the total potential energy during a collapse … to the ground.

I won’t comment specifically on the rest of Greening’s analysis since I’m not very familiar with it, and because it is unnecessary when I can point to a dozen scholarly articles written and reviewed by experts with a combined 200+ years of experience in the relevant field.
on 10 May 2009 at 6:25 am14psikeyhackr

Oh, a person has to be a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER tounderstand GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS?

ROFL

Didn’t structural engineers have to figure out how muchsteel to put on every level to support the concrete, etc. that went on every level? So why don’t we have a table telling us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS? Why aren’t STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS demanding that that information be made public?

Greening’s ignoring the below ground mass would make sense if he had separate data on above and below ground mass but have you seen them specified separately in SEVEN YEARS. He just divided the total by 110 so it seems he assumed the mass of the six levels below ground was actually above so his potential energy calcs had to be off. Wouldn’t there be a lot of concrete in the foundation? I haven’t heard any of our Brilliant STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS pointing out this error.
on 25 Jun 2009 at 12:41 pm15Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr:

Please enlighten us as to why you keep *demanding* to know the “distribution of steel and concrete on every level”.

What *exactly* would this information tell us? How would that information pertain to the collapse of the WTC towers? Please, I’m simply dying to know.

As far as I can tell, you (as all troofers) are poking at an inconsequential detail or piece of data that you are unable to comprehend, and are trying to turn that into some sort of fulcrum. Another way you troofers operate is you take something, yell about it to all your troofer buddies, and use that as some sort of rallying cry, ala, “Silverstein said ‘Pull it’ which means detonate the planted charges!!!!!1111myiq”.

Go to school, get a degree in mechanical engineering (like I did), and proceed to debunk your own gibberish.

Actually… you might need to get a refresher in “grade school physics” yourself.
on 03 Jul 2009 at 11:42 am16psikeyhackr

I was debating between electrical engineering and mechanical engineering in high school. I went with electrical. I applied to MIT and got an interview but not accepted.
So you claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering but you can’t figure out that a skyscraper must get heavier toward the bottom because it must be stronger to support the greater weight above? Look at Lon Waters’ site on the thickness of the steel columns in the core. So if the mass increases toward the bottom then how does that affect the supposed downward acceleration due to the conservation of momentum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

Is that too difficult for a mechanical engineer to understand?

I trust most experts to pretend their area of expertise is more difficult to understand than it really is.

Then there is the matter of the impact on the south tower. How much did the building move on impact? Isn’t that a conservation of momentum problem? Shouldn’t we know the mass in the vicinity of the impact? Do you experts need to keep the peons ignorant to pretrnd to be intelligent?
on 04 Jul 2009 at 4:36 pm17Christopher Moore

Read the articles in the engineering literature. I’ve cited them for you in the post. They will answer your questions. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when I continually point you to were you can find the answers?

Please, read the papers. Then, come back and comment about what you have read. If you are actually interested in researching the “truth”, then … you know … do some actual research.
on 06 Jul 2009 at 2:59 pm18A research lesson for 9/11 Truthers | ilovephysics.com :: physics educators and students

[...] prompted to write this by a commenter (psikeyhackr) on this post. You see, in the post I listed about a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the engineering [...]
on 07 Jul 2009 at 11:15 am19psikeyhackr

You can make claims about peer reviewed crap all you want.

The WTC towers used 12 different gauges of exterior wall panels. Why don’t you or any of those peer reviewed papers just tell us the number and weights of the exterior wall panels? If you don’t have that information then you must admit that you don’t know the weight of steel on every level of the towers.

You simply expect everyone to BELIVE you because you can wave degrees around and write papers. You expect LAYMEN to doubt their own intelligence about a grade school physics problem so none of you even try to create something as simple as a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. Education is an overpriced sacm pretending things are more difficult to unrestand than they really are. 40 years after the Moon landing and our nitwit economists can’t talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles. LOL

How many peer reviewed economics papers have been written in the last 40 years?
on 07 Jul 2009 at 11:53 am20Christopher Moore

See my newest post here:

http://www.ilovephysics.com/2009/07/06/a-research-lesson-for-911-truthers/

Again, if you want an answer to your question, then read the following articles:

“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007

“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007

These articles SPECIFICALLY address the questions that you ask. I’m not asking you to believe anything on faith. I’m just pointing you to where you can find answers to the questions that you pose. In the post I referenced above, I even tell you exactly how to go about getting copies of these papers.

Furthermore, the collapse of a modern skyscraper is hardly a “grade school physics problem,” for exactly some of the reasons you point out — variations in mass as a function of height, multiple wall panel layers, etc.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 12:50 am21Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr:

Please explain this paragraph:

“So you claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering but you can’t figure out that a skyscraper must get heavier toward the bottom because it must be stronger to support the greater weight above? Look at Lon Waters’ site on the thickness of the steel columns in the core. So if the mass increases toward the bottom then how does that affect the supposed downward acceleration due to the conservation of momentum?”

What EXACTLY is your point with all this? Seriously. Why do you keep acting like intelligent engineers (like myself) are “dodging” a “serious question”?

The towers were struck by heavily-laden Boeing 767s traveling at high rates of speed. The most immediately relevant equations to this situation are:

F=m*a

and

Ek=1/2*m8v^2

Once you get even a slight grasp of the significance of these fundamental descriptors of the Real World, go ahead and come on back and engage in “debate”.

Wow… I just watched that video link. Laughable, to say the least. Trying to simulate a 110-story skyscraper with a bamboo stick , toothpicks, and some metal washers is… asinine. Yes, asinine. Not gonna be PC or anything here.

Again, I have to wonder… why are you hung up on this little piece of trivia, one of those little non sequiturs that troofers get tunnel vision about?

First, explain the alleged significance of this information, and how it relates to the attacks of 9/11/01. Just do that much at least.

Then explain how this bit of information relates to your totally cohesive theory about the WTC collapses. Yes, I am asking you to lay out, in all of its gory detail, what YOU believe happened. No, you can not refer to the NIST report, YouTube videos, or Alex Jones. Let’s hear YOUR “theory”.

Thanks. I’m anxiously waiting.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:00 am22Geekengineer

Oops, typo…

Ek = 1/2*m*v^2

I guess my mechanical engineering degree didn’t prepare me too well for drinking-and-debunking.

Oh yes, I DO have a degree in mechanical engineering, as I “claim”. Unlike a few people out there, I think its pretty lame to lie about your credentials over the interwebnetz. That’s just dumb.

Education is not an “overpriced scam”… unless you’re talking about someone earning a liberal arts degree, but trying to pass themselves off as an engineer, or someone who can talk about engineering concepts based on YouTube-based research, etc.

“You can make claims about peer reviewed crap all you want.”

Huh. Interesting. You proclaim loud and clear your absolute ignorance of science and engineering in general. Better hope your airbag doesn’t deploy in the event of a car crash - its design and implementation were the result of peer-reviewed research and documentation (just one example of many).
on 14 Jul 2009 at 12:37 am23psikeyhackr

{{{ What EXACTLY is your point with all this? Seriously. Why do you keep acting like intelligent engineers (like myself) are “dodging” a “serious question”?

The towers were struck by heavily-laden Boeing 767s traveling at high rates of speed. The most immediately relevant equations to this situation are:

F=m*a

and

Ek=1/2*m8v^2 }}}

I love these people who claim to be “intelligent” engineers then expect to persuade people with vague terminology like “heavily-laden” and “high rates of speed”. What the hell does that mean?

The maximum take-off weight of the plane was 200 tons. Airliners are rarely loaded to maximum. At impact the weight was less than 150 tons and that included the 34 tons of fuel. There were 10,000 gallons aboard and the maximum capacity was 25,000 gallons. Does that qualify as HEAVILY-LADEN? Why can’t you just say 540 mph for the south tower? Don’t you actually know?

The south tower was deflected all of 14 inches by the impact but the building was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind so it doesn’t look like your so called HEAVILY-LADEN plane strained the building to the limit.
Now if you want to impress us with your physics knowledge by posting

F = m*a

then why don’t you want to know the mass of the building in the vicinity of the impact? Why haven’t any EXPERTS been talking about that for nearly EIGHT YEARS? Why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? How can we do the physics of analyzing this problem without that? Don’t you need accurate data to do physics?

Do you just expect to IMPRESS people with equations when you don’t know the data to plug in for the variables? That doesn’t sound too “intelligent”. LOL

Don’t you people LOVE physics?

So why don’t you treat your readers as though they are intelligent and provide some actual INFORMATION?
on 14 Jul 2009 at 10:01 pm24Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr

Again, you are not explaining, in crystal clear detail, the *significance* of the information you keep yammering about.

What is so goddamn important about the mass at each level? Be specific in your answer, because until you explain the “need” to “know” this information, and how it affected the events of 9/11, it’s just trivia.
on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:05 am25psikeyhackr

You can’t even specify the mass and speed of the plane and accuse me of “yammering”!?!?

No further response is justified.
on 15 Jul 2009 at 9:52 am26Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr

The masses and speeds of the aircraft are well-documented. Do you question the information that is readily available (and that I have no need to regurgitate)?

Again, what is the significance of the information you are demanding? Imagine you had the information you were demanding… Now what are you going to do with that information?
on 15 Jul 2009 at 3:15 pm27psikeyhackr

{{{ The masses and speeds of the aircraft are well-documented. Do you question the information that is readily available (and that I have no need to regurgitate)?

Again, what is the significance of the information you are demanding? }}}

OH, so you can pretend to know it and therefore don’t have to state it and say anybody that cares to can look it up.

But we are talking about PHYSICS! When one mass hits another mass then BOTH MASSES MUST BE KNOWN to analyze the results.

So let’s see you find the quantity of steel that was on the 81st level of the south tower. Tell us the quantities on 80 and 82. Tell us where there is a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level. The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete of the entire building. Gregory Urich does an interpolation for the perimeter panels because the NIST does not tell us the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels. Why aren’t you INTELLIGENT ENGINEERS asking about that? LOL
on 15 Jul 2009 at 8:25 pm28Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr

“LOL” indeed.

I will ask… *again*… what is the significance of the information you are so fixated on?

Please, I’m just a stupid mechanical engineer who is barely able to dress himself in the morning.

State clearly and concisely the relevance of the data you are demanding - much in the same way a spoiled child screams for a piece of candy.

You are stamping your feet for data regarding the construction of the WTC towers. Please let us know why this particular piece of information is important. Don’t go off on tangents - just answer the question.

I’ve even said “please” quite a few times… just answer the damn question.
on 15 Jul 2009 at 11:52 pm29psikeyhackr

{{{ State clearly and concisely the relevance of the data you are demanding - much in the same way a spoiled child screams for a piece of candy. }}}

Apparently all you can do is pretend to not to be able to read. I already wrote this.

{{{ The south tower was deflected all of 14 inches by the impact but the building was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind so it doesn’t look like your so called HEAVILY-LADEN plane strained the building to the limit.
Now if you want to impress us with your physics knowledge by posting

F = m*a

then why don’t you want to know the mass of the building in the vicinity of the impact? Why haven’t any EXPERTS been talking about that for nearly EIGHT YEARS? Why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? How can we do the physics of analyzing this problem without that? Don’t you need accurate data to do physics? }}}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik
on 16 Jul 2009 at 10:13 am30Christopher Moore

In Psikeykackr’s defense, he has stated why he feels what he asks for is necessary. To an extent, he is correct. Of course, these issues are dealt with in the engineering literature, specifically in one of the papers cited within the article I discuss in the more recent post:

http://www.ilovephysics.com/2009/07/06/a-research-lesson-for-911-truthers/

Once you point out where these discussions take place, he then resorts to demanding an accounting without using “fancy calculus”. I’m working on another post right now about how “fancy calculus” is most definitely required for such a complicated problem, even when simplified to a one-dimensional system. Also, I’ll discuss how Psikeyhackr’s major hang-ups, as have been drawn out in another comment thread, stem from misconceptions he holds about basic physical principles: specifically, conservation of momentum and impulse-momentum.

The preview: momentum is not conserved, nor should we expect it to be conserved.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:21 pm31psikeyhackr

{{{ Once you point out where these discussions take place, he then resorts to demanding an accounting without using “fancy calculus”. I’m working on another post right now about how “fancy calculus” is most definitely required for such a complicated problem, even when simplified to a one-dimensional system. }}}

Rubbish, where does Bazant explain how the top portion crushes the lower without suffering any damage itself? The calculus is a distraction.

Why don’t you explain it? You behave as though people are not supposed to think of things that you don’t mention. You expect to control other people’s thinking and get away with leaving out whatever information you like.

Kind of like a magician saying, “Watch my right hand.” While he does the trick with his left.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 6:02 pm32psikeyhackr

By the way, were you assuming I didn’t know about Bazant?

I have known about him for years. He is part of the problem with all of you “physics professionals” in our universities. Why didn’t you expose his silly BS years ago? How are you going to pretend to know physics for the next 100 years and yet not ask how the top falling portion of skyscrapers could possibly crush the lower portion without progressively crushing itself. And the buildings had to get stronger all of the way down.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/bazant-completely-blows-it.html
on 16 Jul 2009 at 6:38 pm33Christopher Moore

Rubbish, where does Bazant explain how the top portion crushes the lower without suffering any damage itself? The calculus is a distraction.

He does.

Answer this question: how can a human break a board or smash a cinder block without breaking his/her hand? The mass ejection that Bazant talks about goes straight to the heart of your question. That you don’t have the background in physics or engineering to understand it is not Bazant’s problem.

Here is another question: in any building collapse, is momentum conserved?

You are correct (or at least the blog you refer to) that there is no “evidence” that “proves” progressive collapse. There never can be. Any reasonable scientist would tell you that. However, they have developed a model that fairly accurately predicts the observed motion from the video and the seismic record. They do this without having to resort to strange claims about pre-planted explosives. BTW, I have yet to see ANYONE mathematically model the collapse based on a controlled demo assumption and fit it to the known data.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:27 pm34psikeyhackr

{{{ Answer this question: how can a human break a board or smash a cinder block without breaking his/her hand? The mass ejection that Bazant talks about goes straight to the heart of your question. That you don’t have the background in physics or engineering to understand it is not Bazant’s problem. }}}

Those objects are supported at the edges and they are being struck in the center.

There were 47 core columns going up through the center of the building. The core of the north tower had to come down on the intact core of the lower 95 levels. And then you don’t want to know the mass of the steel on every level to explain how it be accelerated to come down in less than 18 seconds. NO! We can’t be bothered with the conservation of momentum here, can we? LOL
on 19 Jul 2009 at 12:29 pm35Moon landing hoax: People believe the dumbest things. | ilovephysics.com :: physics educators and students

[...] gotten into tangles with the 9/11 Troofers on this site before. But I’m always amazed at what people will believe. The moon landing was faked! Come [...]
on 19 Jul 2009 at 2:07 pm36psikeyhackr

It looks like you can just play psychological association games.

You are trying to associate people talking about the physics of 9/11 with people that believe the Moon landing was faked. But you have it backwards. Getting to the Moon involved Newtonian physics and engineering just like the construction of the World Trade Center and analyzing the impacts of airliners.

Tomorrow will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. So it is unfortunately hilarious that the nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of skyscrapers designed before 1969.

{{ I responded to this before. Is somebody editing posts? I’ll save it this time so I don’t have to retype.}}

psik
on 19 Jul 2009 at 3:48 pm37psikeyhackr

Oh, I see. There were no deletions. He duplicated the post from the other thread.
on 28 Jul 2009 at 4:04 pm38Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr:

To quote you:

“Rubbish, where does Bazant explain how the top portion crushes the lower without suffering any damage itself?”

I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this… are you saying the upper ~20 stories of each WTC tower were “undamaged” as they began their collapse? Are you saying that the top chunk of each tower was “intact” as the towers were destroyed due to catastrophic aircraft impacts, fires, and structural failure?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Ba%C5%BEant):

Bažant’s analysis led him to a four-point failure scenario.

1. Severed and significantly deflected columns at the point of impact redistributed stress to other columns, exhausting their load capacity.
2. Because insulation was stripped from many structural steel members, the jet-fuel induced inferno heated remaining columns up to 600°C, causing them to lose up to 85% of their strength.
3. Heat and stress combined to induce both viscous and plastic properties in the remaining columns. That, and thermal expansion, caused the floor trusses to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward. These factors along with the deflection of some columns due to aircraft impact induced multistory buckling of the outer frame wall tube.
4. As a result of the buckling of the outer frame, the upper part of the tower fell through at least one floor height. The kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that could be absorbed by the floor below, triggering progressive collapse.

Are you disagreeing with Bazant’s assessment of the evidence and data? What, specifically, do you not “believe”?

Hell, #1 explains the whole damn thing in a nutshell. You poke a big enough hole in the perimeter columns, and you’ve suddenly made a significant reduction in the structural integrity of the tower. You almost make it sound like the core columns were the only things holding each tower up. The towers were designed around teamwork between the core and perimeter columns.

Regarding your wailing about “how many tons of concrete and steel were used, etc., etc., etc.”… Have you contacted any appropriate authorities about getting your grubby hands on WTC plans/blueprints/BOMs? Maybe you can try that. Once you fail at getting the intricately detailed information you are so adamant about, then you can continue ranting and raving.

Until then, go to a library and read some books. Anything will do.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 7:42 am39psikeyhackr

You say that steel loses 85% of its strength at 600 C. The graph is here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

What you don’t say is that the core temperature of the steel has to rise to that point. What you don’t talk about is how much steel was in the fire and how that quantity of steel could rise to that temperature in less than 2 hours due to a hydrocarbon fire. You keep talking about research and not doing it. You just expect people to accept superficial and incomplete information.

Why do you keep talking about libraries when the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report is on the internet. Why don’t you just tell us the tons of steel on 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83? Can’t you find it in the library? LOL

How do you build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how much steel to put on every level? The brilliant individuals in our universities can’t demand that information in SEVEN YEARS but everyone is supposed to BELIEVE they are competent.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 1:21 am40psikeyhackr

{{{ I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this… are you saying the upper ~20 stories of each WTC tower were “undamaged” as they began their collapse? Are you saying that the top chunk of each tower was “intact” as the towers were destroyed due to catastrophic aircraft impacts, fires, and structural failure? }}}

So you don’t know anything more accurate than ~20 stories.

The north tower was hit at the 95th floor and the south tower at the 81st.

So it is 15 stories on the north tower and 29 on the south, almost twice as much above the impact zone for the south tower.. There had to be significant differences in the quantity of steel at those levels. So how is impact analysis done without knowing the amount of steel? So where is the data on that?
on 04 Aug 2009 at 8:47 am41Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr

“There had to be significant differences in the quantity of steel at those levels.”

Yes, the South tower collapsed first due to a higher impact speed and lower impact height relative to ground. The lower impact point meant almost twice as many floors were being supported by reduced structure as on the North tower.

Plus the fact that the South tower was struck near a corner, as opposed to the North tower’s nearly centralized impact zone.

Have you tried to contact the relative agencies/authorities to get copies of the towers’ blueprints and bills of material? That would give you the answers you so desire. Oh, then you could perform your own FEA. That is your goal, right?

So, what’s your point again? It’s still unclear.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 5:03 pm42psikeyhackr

I have emailed the NIST and 3 people at Purdue sisnce they made that simulation of the north tower impact. Two people responded from Purdue telling me to contact professor Sozen. I had already emailed him. He never responded.

But my real goal is to get people to understand grade school physics. What I notice is that you don’t make very specific statements. You just make assertions that have shallow plausibility..

{{{ Yes, the South tower collapsed first due to a higher impact speed and lower impact height relative to ground. The lower impact point meant almost twice as many floors were being supported by reduced structure as on the North tower. }}}

Lower impact height means it had to support more weight but it also means it had to be built stronger to support that weight therefore it had to be more difficult for the plane to damage. So after almost EIGHT YEARS you haven’t been demanding to know the amount of steel on every level so you really can’t do an analysis that is worth a damn but you expect people to believe things on the basis of vague generalizations.

What were the weights of the 12 different types of exterior wall panels? You don’t expect the NIST to tell us that? No wait, did you even know there were 12 types of wall panels before I mentioned it? What does the NIST say was the total for the concrete in the towers? You think PHYSICS is figuring things out without data?
on 04 Aug 2009 at 11:12 pm43Geekengineer

“But my real goal is to get people to understand grade school physics.”

[facepalm]

Okay, so you want to perform your own FEA and “prove” “everyone” “wrong”.

Gotcha. I’m curious what your email actually said. That might explain why you haven’t gotten a response…

The towers were not explicitly designed to withstand aircraft impacts. The structures supported increasing vertical loads when going from top to bottom. Plus there were the obvious wind, tidal, and seismic loads experienced by the entirety of any structure.

Perhaps you were thinking they were built like fortresses, with the express purpose of beating back attacking airplanes?

“You think PHYSICS is figuring things out without data?”

Okay, so you’re a physics professor. Good for you. Oh wait… what is your level of education? Any degrees under your belt? I’m just curious, as you blog with an (alleged) air of authority.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:55 pm44psikeyhackr

{{{ The towers were not explicitly designed to withstand aircraft impacts. }}}

You haven’t done any research on this subject, have you? Or are you a liar?

{{{ 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…” }}}
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The towers were designed to withstand the wind. They were supposed to sway 3 feet in a 150 mph wind.

The 81st floor of the south tower deflected 14 inches as a result of the plane impact. So if the building could sway 3 feet under hours of buffeting by wind why couldn’t it handle a 2 secon impact by a plane? Didn’t the mass in the vicinity of the impact have something to do with that? So why can’t you tell everyone the quantity of steel on those levels? Why don’t you even bring up the subject? That is what this model was built to demonstrate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

It must be too difficult for our engineering schools. LOL

It is NOT everyone! Obviously the majority say nothing. I don’t see a vast number of people agreeing with Bazant. The majority refuse to get involved.

After EIGHT YEARS expert would look pretty silly saying the distribution of steel is important to the analysis. Why weren’t they saying that in 2002? The NCSTAR1 report only admitted the distribution of mass was important in one place. In the report about shocks to suspended ceilings.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:19 pm45psikeyhackr

{{{ Okay, so you’re a physics professor. Good for you. Oh wait… what is your level of education? Any degrees under your belt? I’m just curious, as you blog with an (alleged) air of authority. }}}

I admit that I have never taken a course in structural engineering in my life. I took physics in high school and college but I was building and launching rockets in grade school. So I consider this entire business to be grade school physics. Skyscrapers are not rocket science. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed.

Does anyone need a PhD to know a skyscraper must hold itself up? Does it take a genius to know the steel on every level must support the combined weights of all levels above? So why haven’t the experts told us how much steel and concrete was on each and every level of the buildings in SEVEN YEARS. Apparently you think having AUTHORITY means not having to explain the obvious.
on 09 Aug 2009 at 7:19 pm46Geekengineer

“I admit that I have never taken a course in structural engineering in my life. I took physics in high school and college but I was building and launching rockets in grade school. So I consider this entire business to be grade school physics. Skyscrapers are not rocket science. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed.”

The funny thing is… this entire paragraph makes sense. Your lack of understanding of structures, that you built rockets in grade school just like everyone else (including me), and the fact that the mechanisms of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are based on very simple physics. The Empire State Building factoid is a bit of a non sequitur, but whatever.

Still trying to determine your point regarding the BOMs (bills of materials - you might want to google that) of the WTC towers. How exactly is that relevant? I’ve asked that question quite a few times, and I think you’re deliberately ignoring it.
on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:13 am47psikeyhackr

{{{ The Empire State Building factoid is a bit of a non sequitur, but whatever. }}}

Oh sure, and the term non sequitur shows you are so intelligent and educated.

What kind of electronic computers did they have to design the Empire State Building? Doesn’t it have to hold itself up? Evidently they managed to get the distribution of steel correct.

So how is it that almost EIGHT YEARS after the destruction of the WTC the people who have taken those structural engineering courses haven’t told us the distribution of steel and concrete? Why aren’t you LOVERS OF PHYSICS demanding that information? How can you analyze the conservation of momentum of the collapse without it?

You think you can play psychological games trying to demonstrate that your opponent is stupid but you can’t insist on the relevant information to show that you are smart. Why don’t you want to know the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels if you know so much about structural engineering? How could the building be constructed without getting that correct?

Whatever! Non sequitur!
on 11 Aug 2009 at 8:56 am48Geekengineer

Yikes!

Again, how *exactly* is the information you are crying for relevant?

The towers were struck by airplanes. They burned. Their structures became too weak to support the loads of the floors above the impact zones. They collapsed.

Again, what are you getting at?
on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:51 pm49psikeyhackr

{{{ They burned. Their structures became too weak to support the loads of the floors above the impact zones. They collapsed. }}}

So if you love physics so much then why don’t you want to know the distribution of mass so you can do a conservation of momentum analysis to figure out why they collapsed so fast? You don’t seem to be a very technical geek. You just expect to impress the non-geeks with shallow BS. LOL

You keep avoiding detailed information and expect people to BELIEVE vague generalizations. Why didn’t the Bejing hotel collapse from a buch bigger and longer lasting fire?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7879571.stm
on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:40 pm50psikeyhackr

{{{ Again, how *exactly* is the information you are crying for relevant? }}}

So the Geekengineer doesn’t know the conservation of momentum?

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3

Here it is applied to a collapse:

Fall of Physics
on 12 Aug 2009 at 9:34 am51Geekengineer

Again (for the nth time), what is your POINT?
on 12 Aug 2009 at 1:55 pm52Geekengineer

Yeah… I checked out that message board in your link there. Pretty funny stuff. Your stuff, I mean.

I like that wolfekeeper dude… he’s got your number.
on 12 Aug 2009 at 7:28 pm53psikeyhackr

{{{ I like that wolfekeeper dude… he’s got your number. }}}

It doesn’t surprise me that you like him. You have equivalent mentalities.

I notice that neither of you even tried explaining anything wrong with my gravitational acceleration combined with the conservation of momentum. No one has accomplished that on any other site even though it has been on the net for more than a year.

And you want to pretend that you know physics. ROFLMAO
on 12 Aug 2009 at 10:59 pm54Geekengineer

Actually… there is nothing *right* with your little experiment, at least when it comes to the collapses of the WTC towers. You still have not explained the point of your cute little toothpick pagoda.

I’m sorry… are you trying to perform “serious research” by posting a video on YouTube and visiting troofer sites?

Interesting. As in “your condition is listed in a medical textbook” interesting.

Why not put together a cohesive document explaining your point (if you even have one), with all of the necessary calculations, and submit it to a respected journal?

What’s stopping you? Sure as hell ain’t me.

In fact, I encourage you to do that - try to get published. Then, and perhaps only then, will you finally realize your…. well, you know.
on 13 Aug 2009 at 9:08 am55psikeyhackr

{{{ Actually… there is nothing *right* with your little experiment, at least when it comes to the collapses of the WTC towers. You still have not explained the point of your cute little toothpick pagoda. }}}

And all you can do engage in is propaganda.

No comment on the math in Fall of Physics. No attempt to explain why the stationary mass slowed down the collapse in my “pagoda”. All you can do is say everyone should accept AUTHORITY even though AUTHORITY hasn’t bothered to talk about the distribution of steel and concrete in skyscrapers for almost EIGHT YEARS. AUTHORITY has the right to lie and hide information about grade school physics.

That is what school is really about psychological conditioning, not getting people to think. Thinking is a threat to MORONS in Authority.

It’s kind of like the science of economics. 40 years after the Moon landing and they can’t talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles or how much Americans have lost on the depreciation of that crap since 1969.
on 13 Aug 2009 at 4:34 pm56Geekengineer

Your little experiment is far too simplified to be taken as analogous to the WTC tower collapses. The FEA performed by several different organizations takes into account far more (*ahem*, infinitely more) variables than you did.

Okay then, you’ve got to get yourself out there and exposed to the media.

Start running around with a bullhorn like Alex Jones. That seems to work really well for him.

Yes, please, show the “experts” how wrong they are by getting published in a peer-reviewed journal of engineering. Oh wait, there’s that pesky “authority” again…

You’re a brick wall that really isn’t worth talking to, now that I think about it… You’ve made up your mind that you hate authority, that only you understand physics, and that toothpicks are the Key to Everything.
on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:27 am57psikeyhackr

So why can’t you just explain what is incorrect about Fall of Physics and why couldn’t the NIST tell us the quantity of concrete in the towers in their 10,000 pages that cost $2,000 per page?
on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:38 am58Geekengineer

Why don’t you explain your point behind your video first? As in, clearly state the purpose of your “experiment”, and how it relates to the NIST findings, etc. Seriously, put together one cohesive paragraph that states your purpose. Take a look at some published papers to get an idea of how they’re put together.

Hell, why don’t you contact NIST directly? This is a free country - give it a shot. Ask nicely, “Please provide me with the data you used to compile your report.” Have you tried that?

Quite b!tching about it on message boards and go to the source. Unless you’re simply seeking attention with your crappy video… then it all makes sense.
on 15 Aug 2009 at 8:15 am59psikeyhackr

Why don’t you explain why the NIST can’t tell us the quantity of concrete in the towers and why you people that LOVE PHYSICS are not making a big stink about that missing information?

My videos are self explanatory to anyone that is not a MORON.
on 17 Aug 2009 at 5:14 pm60Geekengineer

So you still refuse to type a concise, to-the-point paragraph explaining your need, desire, thirst for the information you keep clamoring for (via some guy’s blog and other non-NIST-related sites).

Your videos are self-explanatory to those who do not have an appreciation of the complexity of events like the collapses of the WTC towers. You are attempting to prove some sort of point with your little home movie, but you are failing - epically.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:13 am61psikeyhackr

{{{ Your videos are self-explanatory to those who do not have an appreciation of the complexity of events like the collapses of the WTC towers. You are attempting to prove some sort of point with your little home movie, but you are failing - epically. }}}

You are the one pretending to know physics but you don’t know or ask about the distributions of steel or concrete in the larger of the two masses involved even though the larger is more than 1000 times greater than the smaller. People pretending that their area of expertise is more complicated than it really is need to proliferate complexities.

Great physics 40 years after the Moon landing. ROFL

Apparently the engineering departments in colleges all over the country are going along with this by saying nothing. But how can they claim it is important EIGHT YEARS after the fact without admitting they should have spoken up about it in 2002?

The NIST produced 10,000 pages at $2,000 per page but can’t come up with 232 numbers with the quantities of steel and concrete on every level of the towers. And it took them THREE YEARS to fail to do it. LOL

Then our colleges expect to TEACH PHYSICS for the rest of the Century!?!

Duh, the conservation of momentum doesn’t apply to the complexities of the WTC collapses so we don’t need to know the distributions of steel and concrete. ROFLMAO
on 18 Aug 2009 at 1:08 pm62Geekengineer

Take a strength of materials class to understand why your ubersimplified model does not take into account real-world scaling.
on 20 Aug 2009 at 11:41 am63psikeyhackr

{{{ Take a strength of materials class }}}

Oh right! Strength of materials makes the conservation of momentum irrelevant. The tons of steel on each level of the towers is completely irrelevant to the total strength of each level.

ROFLMAO
on 20 Aug 2009 at 9:51 pm64Geekengineer

Jesus freakin’ christ, you’re denser than depleted uranium. And that’s really, really dense.

I told you to get an education, specifically in the subject strength of materials (just as a start - you have a lot to learn about engineering). That way, you would realize your simplistic toothpick film has nothing to do with the WTC tower collapses.

Do you even understand what I mean by “scaling”? Apparently you do not.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 1:23 am65psikeyhackr

{{{ Jesus freakin’ christ, you’re denser than depleted uranium. And that’s really, really dense.

I told you to get an education, specifically in the subject strength of materials (just as a start - you have a lot to learn about engineering). That way, you would realize your simplistic toothpick film has nothing to do with the WTC tower collapses. }}}

Wow, I’m so impressed by your vocabulary.

Steel can handle over 20,000 psi. But what was the cross sectional area of steel on each level of the WTC? Most levels were 144 inches tall so the volume of columnar steel could be computed. Since steel is 490 pounds per cubic foot the weight of steel could be computed.

So why haven’t they just told us the tons of steel on every level by now? The designers had to make the building hold up its own weight so they had to compute this stuff before 1966. Why do you want everybody to do idiotic busywork? Do you think you are demonstrating how smart you are with all of this blather that really says NOTHING? You haven’t supplied any data about anything.

The south tower deflected 14 inches when the plane impacted. Now how can the impact be analyzed without knowing how much mass was what vertical distance from the impact point? Why haven’t our so called engineers been pointing out the importance of that for SEVEN YEARS?

Maybe that uranium has rotted your brain and you are projecting your disability.

Eight Year Essay
on 21 Aug 2009 at 7:47 am66Geekengineer

That’s pretty good… you’re the one blathering on, trying to use big words to sound intelligent, but you’ve said nothing of substance this whole time.

You’re still not clarifying the specific need for the information you are crying for.

I’ll ask you AGAIN - what will you do with the information once you get it?

Simple question. Answer it. What will you do with the information once you get it?

Are you saying that if the government were to publish a BOM for the towers’ construction, it would be some sort of epiphany? Would the rivers run red, the sky turn green, the flowers grow teeth? What? What would happen?

Are you saying the NIST report is based on models that were made without this information? Are you saying the towers shouldn’t have collapsed? Are you saying the upper portions of the towers would still have collapsed, but the rest of the towers would have remained standing? Is that what you’re saying? Because you sure as hell haven’t actually SAID anything.

And IF you’re saying the rest of the towers should have remained standing, you really need to go to school and try to earn a degree in mechanical engineering. You are sorely in need of an education in the subjects that relate to the WTC attacks.

I am willing to bet that your average everyday citizen doesn’t have immediate access to the plans and BOMs for the WTC tower construction. Woopdeedoo. What would Joe Six Pack even do with that information?

Does that mean the information was also not available to NIST and other organizations that have performed FEA analysis on the collapses? Nope.

Petition your congressperson to get your hands on this information. Quit bitching about it on ilovephysics.com. Seriously. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Do you think you’re going to sway someone’s opinion toward some dark, mysterious conspiracy? Is that your whole deal with this?

The internet is a strange place… people who are clueless about something can do a quick blog, and other idiots will pick up on that and spread it. It’s like plain old gossip, only the internet allows for total anonymity, which makes the gossipers that much bolder, since they don’t ever have to show their face. You’re kind of like that - you’re making a whole lot of noise about something that has already been taken into account, and hoping other ignorati will follow your siren song of stupidity.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:59 am67Chris Moore

I told you to get an education, specifically in the subject strength of materials

To help our friend out with this, here are my notes from my Thermodynamics of Materials course:

http://www.longwood.edu/staff/moorejc/courses/324/notes.html
on 21 Aug 2009 at 11:23 am68psikeyhackr

{{{ Are you saying the NIST report is based on models that were made without this information? Are you saying the towers shouldn’t have collapsed? }}}

The towers should not have collapsed because of airliner impacts and fires. If the NIST doesn’t tell us what the information was then there is no way to tell what their model was based on.

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers. Shouldn’t people that LOVE PHYSICS have noticed that absence by now? They did it for the steel.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 7:59 pm69Geekengineer

“The towers should not have collapsed because of airliner impacts and fires.”

And yet… they did.

Explain that.

Would you have designed them differently? I know you haven’t taken any structural engineering courses, but surely you’ve got what it takes to design and build a superior skyscraper, right?
on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:29 pm70psikeyhackr

{{{ “The towers should not have collapsed because of airliner impacts and fires.”

And yet… they did.

Explain that. }}}

You don’t have to explain why we don’t have the distributions of steel and concrete after EIGHT YEARS but you want to talk about classes in STRENGTH OF MATERIALS. Isn’t the quantity of the material going to have something to do with the strength on each level? So how is it the building could supposedly do a top down gravitational collapse in less than 18 seconds and yet you LOVERS OF PHYSICS don’t ask about the distribution of mass?

Explain how a less than 200 ton plain could do that to a 400,000+ ton building without help. Is the concept of eliminating a negative beyond your comprehension?

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” - Sherlock Holmes

You people who profess to LOVE PHYSICS demonstrate that love by not demanding the information about the building to make it possible for you to demonstrate what you claim happened actually did happen. And than want to say “What will you do with the information once you get it?” If you love and know physics so well you should want it and know what to do with it yourself. Consider what you show everyone by avoiding it. Oh you great Pretenders to Physics and Scientific Truth. ROFL
on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:33 pm71psikeyhackr

{{{I told you to get an education, specifically in the subject strength of materials

To help our friend out with this, here are my notes from my Thermodynamics of Materials course:}}}

What’s wrong? Couldn’t you figure out that the conservation of momentum had more to do with a less than 18 second collapse from 1360 feet?
on 21 Aug 2009 at 9:51 pm72Geekengineer

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

The Sherlock Homes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) quote is exactly what you are completely misunderstanding. The physics of the attacks were actually quite simple, from a common-sense point of view:

1) High-speed aircraft impacts large skyscraper.

2) Aircraft completely penetrates skyscraper.

3) Skyscraper’s interior absorbs majority of aircraft, thus resulting in massive internal damage to said skyscraper.

4) Aircraft’s fuel (only some of which ignited on impact) flows throughout impact zone and down to lower floors, causing horrific fires throughout structure.

5) Impact damage to skyscraper significantly reduces fire resistance and load-carrying capacity of structure at and around impact zone.

6) Support structure at and around impact zone reaches “tipping point”, beyond which the floors above the impact zone can no longer be supported by remaining structure.

7) Large multi-floor section of skyscraper begins downward movement due to gravity’s inexorable pull.

Upper section of skyscraper induces massive dynamic loads on remaining skyscraper below, effectively plowing downward through it.

9) Skyscraper, which is emphatically NOT made of toothpicks, is reduced to rubble in a matter of seconds due to a combination of gravity and the skyscraper’s structure’s inability to withstand massive dynamic loads imposed upon it.

10) Yes, this happened twice. Two planes, two buildings, same result.

“Explain how a less than 200 ton plain could do that to a 400,000+ ton building without help. ”

What “help” are you dreaming up? Are you saying the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, or some such nonsense? Are you?

Please lay out, in painful detail, EXACTLY what you think happened. Don’t dodge the question. Don’t be a p___y about it - tell us what you think. Don’t be a typical troofer and say, “I don’t believe the ‘official’ story, and I’ll argue every single point, but I sure as heck ain’t gonna tell ya what I think actually happened.”

You’re still being quite evasive regarding what you will do with the information you are so desperate for.

“’What will you do with the information once you get it?’ If you love and know physics so well you should want it and know what to do with it yourself.”

You - yes, YOU - are the one clamoring for this information, but are NOT explaining the relevance of the information in very specific terms.

You keep throwing around the term, “conservation of momentum”, too. Please explain, clearly and concisely, the relevance of this term in your constant jabbering. Just state the reason you keep talking about it.

You see, if you are trying to establish a position and communicate this stance to others, you are doing a terrible job of it. You might want to take a course in business communication, or just basic writing. At this particular moment, I’m actually trying to help you (dunno why… I must be tired from carrying my huge brain around). There, you see? Mechanical engineers who have a bit more of a clue than you about… everything… do have a sense of humor!

Oh, please do check out Mr. Moore’s suggested material. It would do you a world of good to not only learn to write clearly, but to also have a clue about the subject(s) at hand.
on 21 Aug 2009 at 9:52 pm73Geekengineer

WTF… I guess “8″ and “)” next to each other make a smiley. Not what I intended.
on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am74psikeyhackr

{{{ 1) High-speed aircraft impacts large skyscraper. }}}

Oh, it was such high spped the building stopped in in 0.6 seconds. I’m so impressed!

{{{ 2) Aircraft completely penetrates skyscraper. }}}

You mean if it had come out the other side then it would not have penetrated. Is that more of you non sequitor junk?

{{{ 3) Skyscraper’s interior absorbs majority of aircraft, thus resulting in massive internal damage to said skyscraper. }}}

And that is supposed to mean what? Are you ignoring the deflection of the building by 14 inches and oscillation for FOUR MINUTES? How do you compute that energy without knowing the distribution of mass? So you ignore what you want and pretend it didn’t happen and claim to be talking about physics.

{{{ 4) Aircraft’s fuel (only some of which ignited on impact) flows throughout impact zone and down to lower floors, causing horrific fires throughout structure. }}}

Where is you evidence of these TERRIFIC FIRES anywhere else in the structure? This is what FEMA actually said.

“The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes
that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that
would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was
available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been
transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings,
consumed in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away
from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained
on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.
As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several
of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.”
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

You just make up BS as you go and expect people to believe it.

{{{ 5) Impact damage to skyscraper significantly reduces fire resistance and load-carrying capacity of structure at and around impact zone. }}}

So you can just make this pronouncement even though you don’t even know the quantity of steel in the impact zone. You can’t even figure out how hot the steel could get in less than two hours in an inefficient open fire since you don’t know how much there was.

{{{ 6) Support structure at and around impact zone reaches “tipping point”, beyond which the floors above the impact zone can no longer be supported by remaining structure. }}}

The south tower moved horizontally 20 feet 56 minutes after impact which no one has even tried to explain. The NCSTAR1 report mentions “center of mass” four times and “center of gravity” six times but never says anything about the center of mass of that tilted top portion of the south tower.

{{{ 7) Large multi-floor section of skyscraper begins downward movement due to gravity’s inexorable pull. }}}

Oh wow, that BIG vocabulary again, “inexorable”. I am so impressed.

It’s too bad it doesn’t actually demonstrate any competency at physics. The conservation of momentum involves mass hitting mass. The net result is affected by the magnitude of the masses. Now what was the distribution of mass in the top falling portion which had to decrease going up and what was the distribution of mass in the lower stationary portion which had to increase going down? So how did these two masses crush each other and why wasn’t the top portion arrested? Why don’t you want to know the distribution of mass to do the physics properly?

How long are you going to keep up this hilarious propaganda where you advertise your lack of detailed information. Very Scientific!

So why don’t you just want to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each level of the towers so you can try to do some REAL PHYSICS that you pretend to love. Like analyzing the south tower oscillation. How much of the planes kinetic energy shook the building versus what did structural damage. Why hasn’t that engineering study been done in EIGHT YEARS?
on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:29 am75psikeyhackr

{{{ “Explain how a less than 200 ton plain could do that to a 400,000+ ton building without help. ”

What “help” are you dreaming up? Are you saying the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, or some such nonsense? Are you? }}}

I’m not dreaming up anything. You have just demonstrated that you BELIEVE the plane could do it. But you don’t even show you know anything about the details of the building to explain how the plane could do it. You think just throwing in the word “inexorable” is adequate.

BELIEVING ain’t science. Now how many tons of steel were on each level withing 5 stories of the impact point?
on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:01 am76Geekengineer

“Explain how a less than 200 ton plain could do that to a 400,000+ ton building without help.”

Hmmm… you’ve been starting from a false premise.

Two (2) Boeing 767s were deliberately crashed into, and thus caused the collapse of, two (2) large skyscrapers. Please refer to my previous long email (which I’m guessing you didn’t read) to get the short version of what happened.

Now, what you’re saying is that the planes required “help” to cause the collapses.

Please submit your theory of what happened. What “help” was necessary, why was this “help” necessary, and why are you making this whole thing more complicated than it really is?

I don’t have to “believe” that the planes could cause such catastrophic destruction. That’s irrelevant. What matters is that it DID happen.

One of my favorite quotes, from Phillip K. Dick: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

Think about that for a while.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:59 am77Christopher Moore

What’s wrong? Couldn’t you figure out that the conservation of momentum had more to do with a less than 18 second collapse from 1360 feet?

We’ve already established that you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to conservation of momentum. In the first semester of a college course in physics you will learn something about momentum, what constitutes a system, and external forces. You will also learn that a conservation of ENERGY approach is more appropriate for this particular problem, ESPECIALLY if you are interested in time-of-fall.

This is what the authors did in the peer-reviewed literature I refer to. They used a conservation of energy approach to determine time-of-fall, which they matched to the seismic record. They then modeled a controlled demolition, which DID NOT fit the seismic record.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 1:17 pm78psikeyhackr

{{{ We’ve already established that you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to conservation of momentum. }}}

You haven’t establiashed anything you just keep making claims. The conservation of momentum is obviously about mass hitting mass but you don’t demand the data on how much mass was where to figure out how much hit what. You just expect everyone to be impressed by institutionalized intellectualism.

Is a table with the tons of steel and concrete on every level too difficult for you to understand? Or is it too EASY for laymen to understand? So you want peer reviews by people who all ignore the necessary information. How is it that all of these peers fail to point out that the NIST does not even specify the total of the concrete in the towers?

You people are as bad as the economists that can’t talk about the planned obsolescence of cars and how much Americans lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year. We are supposed to pay for schools that teach distorted nonsense.
on 23 Aug 2009 at 2:06 pm79Christopher Moore

(1) Momentum is not conserved, since there is one hell of an external force acting on the system: gravity. You can call facts “institutionalized intellectualism” all day long, but reality will keep being reality.

(2) Approximations of the distribution of mass are given and discussed in GREAT detail in the articles I have referenced. I keep telling you this. You keep ignoring it. How many significant figures do you need? 1? 5? 20? Why don’t you tell me exactly how precise the data you want needs to be and exactly why it has to be that precise. Also, please specifically address the articles I’ve pointed you to by first describing exactly what their methodologies are and then why you consider them inadequate.

(3) Planned obsolescence of cars? Ummmm. They are complicated machines with moving parts that rub on each other. Stuff wears with time. Any item that does so over a relatively short period of time will depreciate in value. This isn’t planned, unless you mean that the Second Law was “planned” by God. Economists and personal finance experts talk about this ALL THE FREAKIN’ TIME! I’m not an economist but I know that a new car can loose as much as half its value in 1 year. Hell, my grandmother knows this, and she never attended college. How in the hell do you support the notion that this is some grand conspiracy that the “institutionalize intellectuals” are keeping hidden from common folk when this knowledge is known by pretty much anyone with a pulse?

You have completely jumped the shark on that one, dude.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 1:12 am80psikeyhackr

{{{ (3) Planned obsolescence of cars? Ummmm. They are complicated machines with moving parts that rub on each other. Stuff wears with time. }}}

A turbine car almost won the Indy500 in 1968. Turbines were banned. A turbine engine has far fewer moving parts than a piston engine. What sense does it make to ban the fastest technology from a car race?

When the airlines used piston engines they would overhaul them every 400 hours of operation. Once they switched to turbines they went 10,000 hours between overhauls.

In 1995 the number of cars in the US passed 200,000,000. At $1,500 in depreciation per car per year that is $300,000,000,000 per year. Of course that does not include stoves, refrigerators, air conditioners or all of the other nations on the planet. You are of course free to research what economists say about Demand Side Depreciation. Our colleges do a really great job of teaching economics.

Have you noticed that double-entry accounting is 700 years old? How difficult can it be with today’s cheap computers? Has anyone suggested mandatory at your school? Of course since it is so easy it should be taught as a high school course not in college.

http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-11714,00.html
on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:08 pm81Christopher Moore

Turbines are very nice for peak speeds. Not so much for variable speed. I’m not saying a turbine car couldn’t be practical. Chrysler made one. But if you want to talk dollars saved on maintenance, then how about factoring in fuel consumption, which the turbine will loose, and badly. Also, there is nothing stopping you from starting a company and producing a turbine car. If it’s such a great idea, then go make a bunch of money doing it. Or is the illuminati keeping you down?

Now how about addressing my second point:

Approximations of the distribution of mass are given and discussed in GREAT detail in the articles I have referenced. I keep telling you this. You keep ignoring it. How many significant figures do you need? 1? 5? 20? Why don’t you tell me exactly how precise the data you want needs to be and exactly why it has to be that precise. Also, please specifically address the articles I’ve pointed you to by first describing exactly what their methodologies are and then why you consider them inadequate.
on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:11 pm82Christopher Moore

Have you noticed that double-entry accounting is 700 years old? How difficult can it be with today’s cheap computers? Has anyone suggested mandatory at your school?

Double-entry accounting IS one of those things taught to EVERY accounting student at EVERY major university. Are you suggesting that it is not?
on 24 Aug 2009 at 8:20 pm83Geekengineer

Wow… psikeyhackr… you not only know zilch about mechanical engineering, structural engineering, metallurgy, statics, kinematics, dynamics, and physics, you are also absolutely clueless when it comes to cars.

Absolutely, positively, indubitably CLUELESS.

Read up on turbines, especially for automotive applications. Learn how a piston engine totally rips a turbine apart when it comes to variable speeds, as the esteemed Mr. Moore pointed out.

Hell, how about the Wankel rotary engine? It also has practically no moving parts when compared to a conventional reciprocating engine. Where is it? In a very, very select few applications, and currently the big pimp is Mazda.

Learn why the Wankel is not the best solution for automotive power. Read, read, read. Oh… that involves reading someone else’s research, and it is entirely possible they are a card-carrying member of the Illuminati, the Freemasons, or perhaps the Knights Templar.

Apparently you have an allergy to institutions of higher learning. Well, good luck with your delusions of adequacy. Hopefully you don’t drive on my roads, vote in my district, and don’t breathe my air.
on 25 Aug 2009 at 6:12 am84Christopher Moore

My father is a Freemason. I am suspect!
on 25 Aug 2009 at 10:01 am85Geekengineer

Indeed, you’re one of the educated elitist glitterati. You and your big books and deep thoughts. You’re dangerous.

Wait… isn’t the hallmarks of a totalitarian state the elimination of the intellectuals? Isn’t passionate hatred and distrust of our educators the beginning of the end of a free society?

*Someone* who’s been commenting here is on that path…
on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:20 am86psikeyhackr

{{{ My father is a Freemason. I am suspect! }}}

You keep changing the subject from physics to conspiracy.

I don’t give a damn who did it.

If you LOVE PHYSICS so much why don’t you want accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete? How do you expect to do physics without it?
on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:29 am87Christopher Moore

If you LOVE PHYSICS so much why don’t you want accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete?

OK. Let’s try ONE MORE TIME: Approximations of the distribution of mass are given and discussed in GREAT detail in the articles I have referenced. I keep telling you this. You keep ignoring it. How many significant figures do you need? 1? 5? 20? Why don’t you tell me exactly how precise the data you want needs to be and exactly why it has to be that precise. Also, please specifically address the articles I’ve pointed you to by first describing exactly what their methodologies are and then why you consider them inadequate.
on 26 Aug 2009 at 12:57 pm88Geekengineer

I’m gonna tell you you’re wrong, but I’m not gonna tell you why, nor will I tell you what I think happened, nor will I read your supporting documentation (wouldn’t want to be bothered with that), nor will I answer any of your prerequisite questions!
on 26 Aug 2009 at 3:21 pm89Winston

Christopher, have you seen this film? It’s the best one and uses the scientific method to prove that you’re wrong. Richard Gage shows why controlled demolition fits ALL the data, while your fire theory does not.

9/11 Blueprint for Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314&ei=DoqVSofLJoaCwgOuo5mDBQ&q=9%2F11+blueprint+for+truth

It’s been endorsed so far by 786 architects and engineers. Would that many endorse something that was BS? I don’t think so.

See their public statements here.
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
and here
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Some of these statements are from structural engineers with 40 or more years of experience with structural engineering and steel.

That’s VERY IMPRESSIVE, wouldn’t you agree?

Do you think structural engineers with 30 or 40 years of experience would endorse BS? NO WAY.

Read their statements.

Also, professional decorated pilots who have flown 757’s with many years of experience have said that the hijackers cannot train on a cessna plane and then suddenly jump into a 757 cockpit and fly it. That is not possible. See their statements here.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
on 26 Aug 2009 at 3:23 pm90Winston

Chris,
How would you explain this one? Have you flown a 757 before? If not, can you argue with someone who has for 35 years?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

* Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” http://americanbuddhist.net

* Article 7/17/05: “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.” http://www.arcticbeacon.com

* Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.” http://911underground.com
on 26 Aug 2009 at 3:32 pm91Winston

Chris, is this your idea of objectivity by NIST?

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

While several government agencies, including NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) produced reports on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings, they pointedly did not analyze the debris for the presence of explosives. This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report…

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….
on 27 Aug 2009 at 8:49 am92Geekengineer

Hey Chris, apparently you really hit the wasps’ nest. All the loonies are coming out to play.
on 27 Aug 2009 at 9:11 am93Christopher Moore

You haven’t seen my inbox. This site generates more crazy emails than I would have ever imagined a few years ago. I have one guy that emails EVERY DAY, pointing to comments he has made on other blogs about all kinds of crazy stuff.

I’m half tempted to toss my original mission and make my blog an outright bash-a-tin-foil-hatter site. The traffic would explode. But then I probably wouldn’t get called by reporters to comment about stuff that I actually care about.
on 27 Aug 2009 at 1:56 pm94Geekengineer

Understood.

The interwebnetz is a wild wooly place, chock full of armchair geniuses who have never touched a textbook in their life, but are all-knowing when it comes to physics, engineering, and government conspiracies.

In fact, the one absolute truth that troofers fail to recognize is the complete inability for the US government to cause the attacks of 9/11 through the use of holograms, planted explosives, and cruise missiles.

Have any of these troofers ever worked on a government program? I say, “Hell no”. If they did, they would realize how much of a clustertruck government programs can be (I mean, are).

An image of a monkey and a football comes to mind when I think of trying to secretly plant enough explosives in the WTC towers to bring them down while making everyone think that hijacked civilian airliners are being used when in fact they are holographic cruise missiles fired from nonexistent black helicopters that NO ONE SAW - with all of this being coordinated by a government agency… whew, that’s really flying in the face of Occam’s Razor.

Anyhoo, yeah, maybe you should start up a separate blog for the fumbducks out there who don’t have the courage to actually debate in public with actual professional engineers and educators.

Leave this site for real physics.
on 27 Aug 2009 at 7:39 pm95Fangbeer

If you want a laugh Google Psikeyhackr’s screen name. He’s all over the internet these past few months with the same screed. He’s been told the same thing in every location, but he just keeps at it. I found him on counterknowledge.com, but he’s been on Jref, and various other places too.

In each and every location we’re told that the high school physics genius knows more about structural engineering then…

Well. just about everyone in the world.

Isn’t it amazing?

I know I’m amazed.
on 27 Aug 2009 at 9:34 pm96Fangbeer

What sense does it make to ban the fastest technology from a car race?

Yeah, if you can’t figure it out it people who would do such a thing must all be either idiots, or greedy capitalists trying to leverage the market for ill gotten gains. As a side note, someone’s apparently never heard of restrictor plates.

What’s it like in that world you’ve created for yourself, Psikeyhackr? Are you the king?
on 29 Aug 2009 at 9:40 am97psikeyhackr

{{{ OK. Let’s try ONE MORE TIME: Approximations of the distribution of mass are given and discussed in GREAT detail in the articles I have referenced. I keep telling you this. You keep ignoring it. }}}

The NIST says the original design of the towers called for 14 types of exterior wall panels but the manufacturer requested that two types be upgraded and was granted permission so only 12 types were used. So one of the reasons we only have approximations is that we don’t know the quantities and weights of each of the 12 types of wall panels.

The NIST says one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

But you think it is too much trouble for the NIST to come up with 24 numbers about the wall panels? They only held up 50% of the weight of the building. Why should we bother finding extra-solar planets then. What good does that information do us? Do you understand what SCIENCE is about?

Love physics my ass!
on 29 Aug 2009 at 9:51 am98psikeyhackr

{{{ Hey Chris, apparently you really hit the wasps’ nest. All the loonies are coming out to play. }}}

ROFL

People that disagree with dummies that can’t demand accurate mass distribution information on skyscrapers that supposedly collapse from the top down must be loonies. LOL

The steel had to weaken in less than 2 hours but you don’t demand to know how much was in the fire. So why didn’t that hotel in Beijing collapse due to a fire that lasted for hours?

Of course after EIGHT YEARS you college people would look awfully STUPID having to admit the planes couldn’t bring the buildings down. You have painted yourselves into a corner. I can always point out that we don’t have the data on the exterior wall panels. How do you explain not insisting on needing it?
on 29 Aug 2009 at 10:02 am99psikeyhackr

{{{ Double-entry accounting IS one of those things taught to EVERY accounting student at EVERY major university. Are you suggesting that it is not? }}}

My point is, if it is so old it must be pretty easy. Why isn’t it taught to EVERYONE? How many people have to handle money and make financial decisions? How many people must have made bad decisions in the last 20 years to put the economy in the current state?

The entire economics profession forgets to talk about how much America and the whole world loses on the depreciation of automobiles every year. Ever heard of planned obsolescence?

Subversive

Our schools are not designed to educate. They are designed to control the distribution of knowledge. Maybe we can use computers and the internet to short circuit them.
on 29 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am100Christopher Moore

People that disagree with dummies that can’t demand accurate mass distribution information on skyscrapers that supposedly collapse from the top down must be loonies.

Let’s see if you will actually answer the question this time: How many significant figures do you need? 1? 5? 20? Why don’t you tell me exactly how precise the data you want needs to be and exactly why it has to be that precise. Also, please specifically address the articles I’ve pointed you to by first describing exactly what their methodologies are and then why you consider them inadequate.
on 29 Aug 2009 at 1:47 pm101psikeyhackr

{{{ You should check your premises, since this statement is a flat-out lie:

“Consequently this presents a problem for the top 15% by volume supposedly coming straight down and completely destroying 84% in less than double freefall time.”

The fabrication is in the last five words. The buildings certainly did not come down in “less than double freefall time.” I’m not sure where you wackos keep getting this from, but it is not true. }}}

I went back and looked at stuff you wrote. How do you explain this from Dr. Sunder at the NIST then?

Sunder from NIST

Sunder says 11 seconds. So you must be accusing the NIST of lying also. I pointed out that podcast to the nitwits at JREF also. They say Sunder “misspoke”. But they didn’t call him a WACKO. I am really impressed by you people that LOVE PHYSICS but haven’t been asking for something as simple as a table specifying the steel and concrete on every level. You Just constantly refer people to some other paper somewhere. You never say what you regard as an acceptable approximation of the amount of steel on the levels in the impact zones just, go look at this paper, go look at that paper.

It’s like you can’t think for yourself and expect everyone else to have the same mental deficiency.
on 29 Aug 2009 at 1:53 pm102psikeyhackr

{{{ Let’s see if you will actually answer the question this time: How many significant figures do you need? 1? 5? 20? Why don’t you tell me exactly how precise the data }}}

I keep telling you we don’t have the data at all. Gregory Urich uses the total weight of the exterior wall panels and does some kind of liner interpolation.

I am saying there is NO REASON for the NIST to not tell us the quantity and weights of each of the 12 types of wall panels. What is your objection to them providing that or why don’t you think they should be able to do it?

Or is it that you just object to people questioning AUTHORITY?

But then you are accusing Dr. Sunder of the NIST of being a LIAR. LOL
on 30 Aug 2009 at 11:42 am103psikeyhackr

{{{ Understood.

The interwebnetz is a wild wooly place, chock full of armchair geniuses who have never touched a textbook in their life, but are all-knowing when it comes to physics, engineering, and government conspiracies.

- with all of this being coordinated by a government agency… whew, that’s really flying in the face of Occam’s Razor. }}}

LOL

I pointed out THE FACT that the government agency didn’t specify the total for the concrete in the towers even though they did it for the steel, not you. But you people that claim to LOVE PHYSICS and then talk about conspiracy theories and Freemasons and don’t point out THE FACT that the NIST says nothing about the Center of Mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. And you call me a liar for saying the building came down in less than 18 seconds even though Dr. Sunder of the NIST says in a podcast that it came down in ELEVEN SECONDS.

But then you want pretend that you are intelligent and Logical by throwing around the terms “non sequitur” and “Occam’s Razor”. You brought up the cruise missile, I never said anything about it. You can’t even say anything rational about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper. I bet you didn’t even know the weights of the exterior wall panels weren’t available until I brought it up. LOL

So you people can’t demonstrate that you KNOW REAL PHYSICS since you don’t actually bring up relevant issues about the physics of 9/11. All you can do is keep referring us to other AUTHORITIES that you accept and expect everyone else to accept them. Frank Greening divided the total mass of the building by 110 and ignored the 6 basement levels and the fact that skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. But if we had a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level then we could tell how bottom heavy the WTC towers were. But you people that LOVE PHYSICS don’t demand information that simple from the AUTHORITIES YOU WORSHIP.

ROFL
on 30 Aug 2009 at 11:52 am104psikeyhackr

Eight Years of REAL PHYSICS can’t tell us the tons of steel on the 81st level of the south tower.

Our engineering schools are brilliant!

150 tons of airliner and fuel hit the building at 550 mph.

How many websites can’t tell us that the 81st floor moved less than 16 inches on impact? You people that do REAL PHYSICS wouldn’t be interested in such trivia. So how much mass had to be in the vicinity to allow that effect? How many REAL PHYSICS people never researched the motion?
on 30 Aug 2009 at 1:00 pm105Geekengineer

“So why didn’t that hotel in Beijing collapse due to a fire that lasted for hours? ”

Was that fire the result of a high-speed airliner causing massive impact damage while contributing many tons of jet fuel to the conflagration? You can not compare the WTC attacks to the Beijing fire. You can not compare the B-25 impact with the Empire State Building to the WTC attacks. In fact, the WTC attacks were completely unprecedented in scope.

“Our engineering schools are brilliant!”

I agree.

“But then you want pretend that you are intelligent and Logical by throwing around the terms “non sequitur” and “Occam’s Razor”.”

Sorry… I didn’t meant to confuse you with relevant terms.

“But you people that LOVE PHYSICS don’t demand information that simple from the AUTHORITIES YOU WORSHIP.”

Hmmm… you really are a new-age troofer nut, thinking that people “worship” “authority”. That’s a really childish statement, actually.
on 30 Aug 2009 at 2:16 pm106psikeyhackr

{{{ “So why didn’t that hotel in Beijing collapse due to a fire that lasted for hours? ”

Was that fire the result of a high-speed airliner causing massive impact damage while contributing many tons of jet fuel to the conflagration? }}}

How do can you figure out how much structural damage was done if you don’t even know how much steel was in the impact zone? And you don’t have brains enough to ask. Why did the building move less than 16 inches as a result of the impact if it was so fragile?

((( “Our engineering schools are brilliant!”

I agree. }}}

So you have fallen into the Chasm of Sar.

{{{ You can not compare the B-25 impact with the Empire State Building to the WTC attacks. In fact, the WTC attacks were completely unprecedented in scope. }}}

Who are you accusing of making that comparison?

I never did any such thing. You are the first person to mention that collision in this thread. Just the weight of fuel that went into the WTC was three times the weight of a B-25 so why are you bringing it up? I researched that long ago and concluded it was irrelevant.

Our engineering schools should have figured out within a year that airliners could not have destroyed those buildings that quickly and they should have been talking about the distribution of steel, but we still don’t have it.
on 30 Aug 2009 at 4:00 pm107Geekengineer

“Our engineering schools should have figured out within a year that airliners could not have destroyed those buildings that quickly and they should have been talking about the distribution of steel, but we still don’t have it.”

Then make it your mission to get away from your computer and actually travel to each and every engineering school in the world to tell them how wrong they are about not teaching a very minor bit of trivia regarding the WTC collapses.

Do it. Seriously. Get off your duff, quit using the internet as a shield, and go about on your crusade to educate the poor, misguided masses.

Meet face-to-face with the people you accuse of ineptitude. Are you a brave person? Do you have the courage to face those whom you accuse?

Pack up your calculations and be prepared to defend your “research” as if it were a thesis. Have your talking points ready, but know your every word can be questioned, your every point torn apart, your every diagram dissected.
on 30 Aug 2009 at 4:27 pm108psikeyhackr

{{{ Do it. Seriously. Get off your duff, quit using the internet as a shield, }}}

What shield? I get to show that you are a dummy. You brought up the B-25 when no one else considered it worth mentioning. Were you assuming that no one knew and thought you could show that you were smart? You can’t tell us the distribution of steel just as none of the engineering schools can. My only objective is to get the LAYMEN to put their brains in gear and notice what they aren’t being told.

This is a crux in psychohistory. It involves noticing that schools indoctrinate people to think what they are told instead of producing people that comprehend things and think for themselves.

I concluded in two weeks that those airliners could not possibly have made those buildings collapse straight down. The distributions of steel and other mass would have made the downward acceleration IMPOSSIBLE. But in EIGHT YEARS the engineering schools can’t tell us the distributions of steel and concrete. As far as I can tell they aren’t even insisting on getting the information. I use the internet to point out to people the information that the engineering schools are leaving out. So the schools must explain why.

You explain how it is that you LOVE PHYSICS and yet you can’t think to ask the obvious questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

You are on the internet also but you don’t have any videos demonstrating any physics. You just TALK about “non sequitur” and “Occam’s Razor” and expect that to impress people. Confusing your ego with your intellect obviously.
on 31 Aug 2009 at 11:04 pm109Geekengineer

What do you mean, “what shield?” Think about it: you’re sitting on your arse, arguing on many, many different internet forums about a subject that you are obviously passionate about. So passionate, in fact, that you have damned all institutes of higher learning as dens of charlatans.

Have you done any of that preaching directly to the professors and researchers you accuse?

No.

Why haven’t you? Why don’t you walk up to the nearest engineering school and proceed to “teach them a thing or two about a thing or two.”

Good luck with that.

You still haven’t figured out that earning a degree means you have what it takes to LEARN. As I have learned from my college experience, professors are there to facilitate your learning, to foster a sense of curiosity coupled with a desire to follow through with a plan of action. College is a place to learn how to learn. Oh, and to learn actual facts along the way (and drink adult beverages, and get laid, all sorts of fun stuff - you should try some of them).

Wooooo…. you pwned me on the internetz by showing that I am a “dummy”. Wow, your kung fu is the BEST!

I brought up the B-25/Empire State Building because you brought up the Beijing hotel fire. Neither of these instances are related to the WTC attacks (except for the B-25, for obvious reasons - but only in a tertiary sense).

Watch this video, then promptly purchase a bus or plane ticket to discuss it with the authors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Watch the damn video and think about it dispassionately. I know, I know, your fingers are deep inside your ears.

***”The distributions of steel and other mass would have made the downward acceleration IMPOSSIBLE. “***

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? What the fu_k are you talking about? Be specific: what the hell are you talking about?

Dude… your little stick video assumes a fixed, unmoving, essentially infinitely strong (due to scaling) central column that is completely unaffected by either impact damage (aircraft strike) or thermal stresses (resulting fires). Your experiment has zilch to do with the WTC towers. Absolutely, totally, completely unrelated in scope or execution.

You didn’t take that strengths of materials class I told you to take. You would have at least learned about column buckling, and all sort of other things directly related to the mechanisms of the collapses of the WTC towers.

Why should I post videos of myself demonstrating basic physics concepts? What’s the point in that? I did a whole lot of experiments in college, and frankly, the reports were a b!tch to write… all the error calculations got pretty boring. Sorry Mr. Moore, my TA was really, really focused on the error calculations. So much that we sort of lost sight of the point of the experiments… hey, that sounds like psikeyhackr’s problem.

I have no need, nor any desire, to “impress” anyone over the internet. You have demonstrated the need for some sort of acceptance, perhaps recognition (of what, I’m not sure) through your constant haranguing of others regarding a multitude of subjects. You’ve demonstrated a lack of understanding of the “big picture” regarding the WTC tower collapses, and are trying to make yourself seem relevant by coming up with a vaporous “mystery”.

Obviously you’re impressed by my using the terms “Occam’s Razor” and “non sequitur”. Well, that’s great. I am not sure why these are terms new to you - they should be in the lexicon of anyone with a even a modicum of intelligence.

LOL… ***I*** have an ego problem? Wow… you really are paranoid.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:09 am110psikeyhackr

{{{ So passionate, in fact, that you have damned all institutes of higher learning as dens of charlatans.

Have you done any of that preaching directly to the professors and researchers you accuse? }}}

Actually as far as I can tell most of the institutions are very quiet on the subject. They are saying NOTHING! I find that curious in itself.

So which of those institutions has pointed out that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers even though it does it for the steel? I haven’t seen you tell us that total and describe where the report contains that info.

I have been saying that on the internet for TWO YEARS and not one person has called me on it with the information. So what does that say about your institutions and this issue? I haven’t seen you say I am wrong about the weights of the 12 types of exterior wall panels either. Didn’t they have to hold up 50% of the weight of the building? The NIST report says 53% and 47% between the perimeter and the core but I don’t try to remember which is which.

But I don’t know of any institution asking for an accurate distribution of mass so how can this collapse be analyzed for conservation of momentum and the fact that the mass below the impact point on the north tower should have slowed it down A LOT.

Does Chris have any comment about Dr. Sunder saying the north tower came down in 11 seconds? He called me a LIAR on that subject.

You seem to be more concerned about EGO then PHYSICS. I don’t really care about such “non sequitur” crap. I use Occam’s Razor to shave off trivial BS.

You brought up the B-25. The 10,000 gallons of fuel that went into the WTC weighed 34 tons. A B-25 is only 12 tons. Its maximum speed is 275 mph and it was because of fog that it hit the ESB so they probably weren’t going at max. The plane that hit the south tower was doing 550 mph and kinetic energy is the square of the velocity. So what does it say about your LOVE OF PHYSICS that you bothered bringing up the B-25? I was so impressed.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:04 am111Geekengineer

From one of your earlier posts:

“The steel had to weaken in less than 2 hours but you don’t demand to know how much was in the fire. So why didn’t that hotel in Beijing collapse due to a fire that lasted for hours?”

You brought up the Beijing fire, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I brought up the B-25 because at least that instance involved an airplane hitting a building. You obviously missed my point.

“You seem to be more concerned about EGO then PHYSICS. I don’t really care about such “non sequitur” crap. I use Occam’s Razor to shave off trivial BS.”

I still don’t understand why you keep talking about my ego. You’ve been quite arrogant about knowing some sort of secret about the collapses, and yet you won’t share it. Hmmm.

“I have been saying that on the internet for TWO YEARS and not one person has called me on it with the information.”

Again, I implore you to take your arguments to the Real World. You really don’t get it, do you? If you have something to say, don’t say it on the internet, say it in real life. Go toe-to-toe with these professors you hate so much, tell them what time it is.

“But I don’t know of any institution asking for an accurate distribution of mass so how can this collapse be analyzed for conservation of momentum and the fact that the mass below the impact point on the north tower should have slowed it down A LOT.”

“Should have”? Really? If they don’t have the information, and you don’t have the information, then how can you sound so arrog-, I mean, sure of yourself? Is it because of your little video adventure?

Your experiment has a central column that does not bend or break. The WTC towers’ did not have the advantage of a backbone that didn’t collapse.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:39 pm112Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr:

You are “Ralph Coleman”, if you know what I mean.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil?utm_source=a-section
on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:56 pm113psikeyhackr

{{{ “The steel had to weaken in less than 2 hours but you don’t demand to know how much was in the fire. So why didn’t that hotel in Beijing collapse due to a fire that lasted for hours?”

You brought up the Beijing fire, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I brought up the B-25 because at least that instance involved an airplane hitting a building. You obviously missed my point. }}}

Dude you are full of crap and think you can talk people into believing that you are not full of crap.

There are FOUR different reasons why the quantity and distribution of steel are relevant to this problem. Steel is a good conductor of heat. Therefore in a fire the steel is going to conduct the heat away from the fire tending to prevent the steel in the fire from getting hot enough to weaken. Also the quantity of steel is relevant to the issue because the more steel the longer it would take to heat even if it were not being conducted away. But the south tower has a 56 minute time limit. So you supposed lovers of physics need to explain how the fire weakened the steel in 56 minutes but you don’t even want to know the quantities of steel on each level within the vicinity of the fire.

Shouldn’t physicists have some understanding of probabilities? You need to comprehend things like radioactive decay you know.

So what is the probability that the only 3 skyscrapers to totally collapse due to fires all did it on the same day in the same place and one of them WAS NOT hit by an airliner but the Beijing hotel had a bigger fire that burned all night and didn’t collapse even though it was about the same size as WTC7.

That doesn’t even bring up the conservation of momentum of the plane impact. the conservation of momentum involved in the collapse and the supposed potential energy of the building that some people claim is important. All of those things involve the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. So why don’t all of the lovers of physics at our engineering schools want that information? Why do I hear so much SILENCE?

Sure, the B-25 was so important even though the weight of just the fuel that went into the WTC was THREE TIMES the weight of a B-25.. ROFLMAO
on 02 Sep 2009 at 1:32 pm114Chris Moore

Why do I hear so much SILENCE?

You don’t keep hearing silence. You keep getting told exactly where to find the information that you are looking for. You claim it is not accurate enough, but you won’t tell anyone why it is not accurate enough, and exactly how accurate the information you want needs to be.

The reason you keep doing this is because you are moon-bat crazy.

BTW, momentum wasn’t and shouldn’t have been conserved during the collapse. Why don’t you tell me why? It’s simple grade-school physics.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:23 pm115Geekengineer

@psikeyhackr:

“Steel is a good conductor of heat. Therefore in a fire the steel is going to conduct the heat away from the fire tending to prevent the steel in the fire from getting hot enough to weaken. Also the quantity of steel is relevant to the issue because the more steel the longer it would take to heat even if it were not being conducted away.”

“Steel is a good conductor of heat.”

Yes, steel is a pretty good conductor of heat. True enough.

“Therefore in a fire the steel is going to conduct the heat away from the fire tending to prevent the steel in the fire from getting hot enough to weaken.”

And just where was the steel going to conduct the heat to, in the case of the WTC towers? What was the available heat sink? Have you ever taken a course in heat transfer? Obviously not.

“Also the quantity of steel is relevant to the issue because the more steel the longer it would take to heat even if it were not being conducted away.”

Again, just where was this heat going to be conducted to?

Please explain, in the clearest terms, exactly how to came to these conclusions. Provide diagrams, schematics, and calculations to support your really crazy idea.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 2:48 pm116Geekengineer

“Dude you are full of crap and think you can talk people into believing that you are not full of crap.”

I forgot about that little tidbit.

Seeing the context in which you made that statement, please explain your reasoning.

You brought up the Beijing fire, I pointed out that neither that nor the B-25/Empire State Building case had anything to do with the WTC attacks, you missed my point about all that, and you say I’m “full of crap”?

You should look in a mirror sometime, see who’s making the wild claims and slinging (lame) insults for no reason other than you’ve nothing to stand on.

I’ll say it again: get out from behind your desk and go visit the various institutions you continually bash. Show them what you think, and why you think it. Don’t expect blogging to change the world - actually DO something.

I wish you luck, really I do.

You’ve proven yourself to be such a cunning linguist and a master debater.

Take your show on the road and become the hero you’ve always dreamed of being.

Please. Go. Now.
on 02 Sep 2009 at 9:04 pm117psikeyhackr

{{{ You should look in a mirror sometime, see who’s making the wild claims }}}

So it is a WILD CLAIM that the $20,000,000 NCSTAR1 report which took 3 years does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers even though it does it for the steel.

It is a WILD CLAIM that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the numbers and weights of the 2500+ exterior wall panels on each of the towers.

It is a WILD CLAIM the the nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing almost EIGHT YEARS after they were supposedly destroyed by airliners.

I have already given the 4 reasons for wanting that information to analyze the events.

But LOVER OF PHYSICS that you are you cannot comprehend how that information is relevant to the Conservation of Momentum and heating steel to the point of weakening.
on 03 Sep 2009 at 12:03 am118Geekengineer

“So it is a WILD CLAIM that the $20,000,000 NCSTAR1 report which took 3 years does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers even though it does it for the steel.”

I went to a ranch the other day, and watched a cow slaughtered out back. I saw a rancher whip out his gun and fire it. It looked like the bullet struck the cow in the head. Then the cow collapsed. It was butchered, and I had a delicious steak.

Now, the problem is, I saw the cow collapse immediately after the gun was fired, but why didn’t the rancher tell me the mass of the cow’s bones???

I mean, come on, it had FOUR LEGS!!!!!!!111myIQ

Now, you’re trying to tell me that those four legs wouldn’t have held that cow up, even if it was allegedly shot in the head? Geez, everyone knows that four legs means an animal will still remain standing, even though its brain was blended by a bullet.

I’m going to sit here, blogging about Cow Collapse until I’m blue in the face, because somebody has to blather on about this obvious cover-up!!!

And no, I am not going to go talk to the ranchers, the gun manufacturers, the cow whisperer - none of these people. Why actually talk to the people involved with Cow Collapses when I can yak about it nonstop on the interwebnetz?

Do you get it yet, psikeyhackr?

There comes a point when you need to step back and look at the issue at hand. Two airplanes struck two buildings. Massive structural damage and fires caused the structures to fail.

What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?
on 03 Sep 2009 at 3:51 pm119psikeyhackr

{{{ I went to a ranch the other day, and watched a cow slaughtered out back. I saw a rancher whip out his gun and fire it. It looked like the bullet struck the cow in the head. Then the cow collapsed. It was butchered, and I had a delicious steak. }}}

The planes that hit the WTC were inanimate objects.

The skyscrapers were inanimate objects.

Congratulations! You have joined the group of Brilliant Individuals that have compared the death of an animate biological entity to the collapse of steel and concrete buildings. I suppose you think a cow can stand without eating or moving for 28 year also. What did the towers eat for the 28 years they were standing? LOL

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739
on 05 Sep 2009 at 6:06 pm120Geekengineer

I was simply mocking you and your ignorance/arrogance.
on 06 Sep 2009 at 12:06 am121psikeyhackr

{{{ I was simply mocking you and your ignorance/arrogance. }}}

With cows and and a B-25. ROFL

I admit my ignorance. I don’t know the distribution of steel in the WTC. But I point out that the NCSTAR1 report doesn’t have the information. Why haven’t all of the Lovers of Physics noticed and been yelling about it?

Why did this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

56 minutes after the plane impact and 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating? The broken portion of the building moved horizontally at least 20 feet. The Lovers of Physics should be chomping at the bit to understand and explain that. But it has been EIGHT YEARS and I don’t hear them pointing out that the building only moved less than 16 inches due to the plane impact compared to the 20 feet in that video.
on 08 Sep 2009 at 10:36 pm122Fangbeer

What the hell are you arguing now?

You do understand that heat reduces steel’s limit of proportionality? The heat pushed the steel beyond its elastic limit on non uniform sections of the structural system. Other [read undamaged] sections of the system retained a higher elastic limit because the fires were not as hot in those areas. They retained their shape longer which created this motion that you’re talking about.

Watch the gaping hole on the left side of your video. The weight of the floor systems clearly pull the outer structural members inward. This causes the remaining weakened outer columns to fail on that left side. This shifts load to fire weakened core columns, and also the outer members on the right side. You can’t see what’s going on inside the building, but you can see where the outer columns fail. It’s at a point much higher in the structure. This causes that pivot you were talking about.

By the way, I can’t imagine how you’re measuring that as 20 feet.
on 09 Sep 2009 at 9:56 am123psikeyhackr

{{{ By the way, I can’t imagine how you’re measuring that as 20 feet. }}}

The vertical white lines you see on the side of the tower are perimeter columns. They are 3′4″ center to center. Follow the edge of the upper broken portion as it goes inward. It gets hidden behind dust but you can see the angle of the tilt farther up. Freeze the video and extrapolate the line. You can tell how far over it had to be by the intact perimeter columns farther down. It looks like it moved horizontally about 7 columns to me.

The heat does not change the mass. How did that much mass move that fast?

Oh that’s right, we don’t know the mass. You LOVERS OF PHYSICS don’t want to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

How much does a floor slab weigh with the corrugated pans and all of the trusses? Where was the center of mass of the upper broken portion of the south tower?
on 09 Sep 2009 at 10:19 am124Fangbeer

That doesn’t indicate that “the broken portion of the building moved horizontally 20 feet.” Do you really believe that edge to be the center of mass for the upper block? Seriously?

The upper portion clearly rotates around its center of mass due to the structural failure of its support system.
on 09 Sep 2009 at 11:54 am125Geekengineer

“The upper portion clearly rotates around its center of mass due to the structural failure of its support system.”

I was going to say the same thing a few days ago, but figured psikeyhackr would be too dense to understand the concept. Well, we’ll see what she comes back with.
on 09 Sep 2009 at 11:57 am126Fangbeer

Well, I should clarify that the upper portion attempts to rotate around its center of mass, but that action is resisted by the horizontal shear of the remaining support structure.
on 09 Sep 2009 at 7:41 pm127psikeyhackr

{{{ .” Do you really believe that edge to be the center of mass for the upper block? Seriously? }}}

Are you incapable of thinking or just incapable of reading?

I never said anything about where I thought the center of mass was.

Since I don’t know the steel and concrete on every level I can only speculate about how far it was above the break. I am not interested in speculating. I am only interested in pointing out the incompetence of the NIST for not supplying the information. And showing the silliness of people who claim to LOVE PHYSICS but allow the NIST to get away with not supplying the obviously relevant information.
on 09 Sep 2009 at 9:00 pm128Fangbeer

Speaking of incompetence, you just made a claim that was completely refuted and you just went right back to your same rant. Let’s go back to that.

You claimed:

“The south tower moved horizontally 20 feet 56 minutes after impact which no one has even tried to explain.”

That claim (based on the evidence and argument that you presented) is clearly and irrefutably incorrect. Not only did the tower not move as you described, but many serious scientists with an established and well demonstrated understanding of the problem have tried to explain it. Successfully I might add.

You then claimed:

“The broken portion of the building moved horizontally at least 20 feet.”

That claim is also clearly incorrect.

Both of these claims, made by you, underscore your limited understanding of this problem. If you think this is a high school physics problem, perhaps you should crack open your textbook again and do some review. You’re getting some pretty basic things wrong here.

The more you make your demands for exact mass distributions, the more they appear to be a silk dress on a sow. It’s painfully obvious at this point that you’re trying to poke holes in a report you haven’t read, by citing science you don’t understand. It’s quite comical, and I have to say, pretty pathetic at this point.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that you don’t need to know exactly where the center of mass is to understand the principals of motion that were displayed in that video. What you described is not horizontal motion. It’s angular motion. Even that’s too simple a way to describe it. In reality there were many modes of motion at play as the top portion of the building began its decent into the lower portion. Motion wasn’t just through 1 dimension, as you suggest.

Just as you don’t need to know the precise location of the center of mass for the top portion of the building, you also don’t need to know the precise mass of the building, or the precise distribution of mass of the building from level to level. You’ve been told repeatedly all over the internet that you don’t need to know it. You’ve been told by professionals. You’ve been told by laypeople. You’ve been told by people who presented you with a very well thought out proof that you haven’t read. You’ve been told by people who have read that indisputable proof.

You just don’t need 100% accurate mass quantities in order to demonstrate that a fair estimate of mass (driven by those principals that you don’t understand) more than exceeds stress and strain limits of the structural systems that held those towers together. The big point that you keep missing, and we keep repeating is that the strain and stress limits of the structure are exceeded by such a wide range of masses that it’s more than fair to assume that that 100% accurate mass that you keep demanding falls well within the tolerance of the proof.

And what’s also clear, is that even if you had those masses, you wouldn’t know what to do with them to establish your own proof. And that’s pretty much the end of that.
on 10 Sep 2009 at 5:12 pm129Fangbeer

While I know you’re not going to answer any of my previous questions, I watched the video you posted again and I have new questions for you.

What is the exact mass you plan to remove from your precise but non fancy calculations to compensate for those columns that remain visible above the crush zone? Let me rephrase that in terms you are accustomed to.

What is THE EXACT MASS on EVERY FLOOR that you plan to REMOVE due to VIDEO EVIDENCE that any HIGH SCHOOL IDIOT could see wasn’t FALLING 2X faster then FREE FALL. 8 YEARS. UPPERCASE!!

Clearly those pieces were not part of the inelastic floor on floor collision. Do you plan on eyeballing it like you did with your hilarious 20 horizontal feet claim?

Did you figure out why momentum is not expected to be conserved yet?
on 11 Sep 2009 at 9:03 am130psikeyhackr

{{{ Clearly those pieces were not part of the inelastic floor on floor collision. }}}

I never said anything about a floor on floor collision. That is the nonsesne from you people claiming the planes could collapse the buildinngs and trying to say the tube-in-tube design of the towers made it possible. There is NO EVIDENCE of floor slabs disconnecting from the core and falling on each other. That is nothing but speculative delusion. So how did the core of the upper portion come down and destroy the core of the lower portion? The columns were interconnected with horizontal beams.
on 11 Sep 2009 at 11:45 am131Geekengineer

They didn’t have to disconnect from the core to cause the whole mess to fail.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90071
on 11 Sep 2009 at 11:59 am132Fangbeer

You are mistaken. There is evidence for just such a failure of the floor truss connections. This evidence was gathered by examining the floor truss connections themselves.

http://files.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

Above the aircraft impact
floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to
85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were
randomly distributed. However, over 90%
of floor truss connections at or below the
impact floors of both buildings were either
bent downward or completely sheared
from the exterior wall suggesting progressive
overloading of the floors below the
impact zone following collapse initiation
of the towers.

Beyond that, if you wish to assert that “There is NO EVIDENCE of floor slabs disconnecting from the core and falling on each other.” What do you suggest happened? After the event the building was clearly in a big pile of rubble and the floors were clearly layered in a manor that would suggest such an event took place. How did they get that way if they didn’t disconnect from the core and fall on each other? How did the floor truss connections all get bent downward if their support system was falling at the same rate? Did fire fighters rearrange the rubble pile and bend the connections as part of the coverup?

How do your intended mass calculations (You know the ones. I’ve asked for them repeatedly from you but you keep avoiding that little issue) account for the assumption that floors didn’t disconnect from the core and fall on each other?

Wasn’t that the point of your little you tube video showing washers disconnecting from a support core and falling on each other?
on 12 Sep 2009 at 11:48 am133psikeyhackr

{{{ The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed
and fell down onto the next. }}}

I love this. They are claiming the pancake theory. But if that is the case then why does the NIST say this? I see a wave of destruction coming down the building in the videos but I don’t see any FLOORS moving. I have encountered people that think they can tell me what I am seeing before.

{{{ NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. }}}

Your expert sources seem to be contradicting each other. LOL

Where is there a single picture of a piece of floor slab as much a 20 feet long on top of another piece of floor slab? Those floors were 200 feet by 200 feet.
on 12 Sep 2009 at 11:11 pm134Fangbeer

Who did you just quote? Are you now arguing with yourself?

Or is that your attempt to respond to someone schooling you somewhere else on the internet?

What was the point of your Youtube video showing an unscaled pancake collapse if there was no pancake collapse?
on 13 Sep 2009 at 9:52 am135psikeyhackr

{{{ They didn’t have to disconnect from the core to cause the whole mess to fail. }}}

It is not just a matter of falling, it is how far and how fast/

So explain how the top portion of the core could come down on the rest of the core and crush it and how it could happen in less then 18 seconds while taking the conservation of momentum into account, without knowing the distribution of steel.

Try telling us where you can find the weights and thicknesses of the horizontal beams in the core. ROFL
on 13 Sep 2009 at 1:00 pm136Fangbeer

You’re really a broken record, aren’t you?

Why do you keep asking the same questions and then refuse to respond to the answer?

Why do you keep making statements of fact that are proven to be false?
on 14 Sep 2009 at 10:07 am137psikeyhackr

{{{ You’re really a broken record, aren’t you? }}}

The laws of physics are a record but they can’t be broken.

That is why I point out that the Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. They had to figure out the distributions of steel and other masses before the invention of the computer and transistor.

But here we are EIGHT YEARS after 9/12/01 and people who claim to LOVE PHYSICS don’t insist on knowing the weights and quantities of the 12 different types of wall panels that supported 50% of the weight of the buildings above the 9th floor. I think I’ll start calling it the 9/12 SOAP OPERA because it is certainly an insult to the people that died on 9/11. But of course to you that is just another non sequitur.

As far as we can tell the laws of physics are billions of years old and they don’t change so there is nothing to say but the same CORRECT things about a Grade School Physics problem. How much steel and concrete was where? Why don’t we know after EIGHT YEARS? Why weren’t the people that love physics asking that question within 3 months of 9/11. Why do they tolerate the NIST not specifying the total for the concrete EIGHT YEARS later?
on 14 Sep 2009 at 10:37 am138Geekengineer

Again, what are you going to do with the information once you get it?

Let’s just pretend you get your wish and a huge folder with all of the relevant data is dropped on your desk.

Then what?
on 14 Sep 2009 at 11:02 am139Fangbeer

“That is why I point out that the Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. They had to figure out the distributions of steel and other masses before the invention of the computer and transistor.”

What the hell does the construction of the Empire State Building have to do with the design and construction of the WTC? Are you attempting to claim that the Empire State Building was designed using the same standards as the WTC towers? That’s just outright false.

You don’t have any clue how buildings are designed and constructed, do you?
on 15 Sep 2009 at 9:18 am140psikeyhackr

{{{ What the hell does the construction of the Empire State Building have to do with the design and construction of the WTC? Are you attempting to claim that the Empire State Building was designed using the same standards as the WTC towers? That’s just outright false. }}}

Gee, you people are so brilliant.

It’s a skyscraper. It has to withstand gravity. It has to withstand the wind.

It’s the same physics problem.

Ever notice the similarity among airplnes? The same physics problem.

That is why we should know the distribution of steel and other mass. That is where the conservation of momentum and the IMPOSSIBILITY of that collapse time comes in. I think 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. All of science is going to look really gutless and stupid because of this. Can’t demand to know the distribution of steel in a couple of skyscrapers. LOL

Have you ever seen anyone specify the weight of a complete floor slab assembly in EIGHT YEARS? The corrugated pans had to be there to pour the concrete. The trusses were made so the upper knuckles would be embedded in the concrete. So the entire assembly was like a single unit. So why isn’t the total weight of one unit ever specified? I figure it should have been about 1100 tons but I have never seen it mentioned. Some science!
on 15 Sep 2009 at 1:40 pm141Fangbeer

Every time I read one of your posts I can’t resist thinking of Kyle’s mom on South Park screaming, “what what WHAAT?”

“Ever notice the similarity among airplnes? The same physics problem.”

Construction methods of airplanes are all similar to each other which are all similar those of skyscrapers?

You mean to try and tell me that a jet fighter with the engine in the center is constructed the same as a passenger jet with the engine on the wings, which is constructed the same as a bi-plane with big pontoons for landing on a lake, which is constructed the same as a fucking skyscraper? Are you serious?

“It’s a skyscraper. It has to withstand gravity. It has to withstand the wind.”

Yes, they both do those things, but they do them remarkably differently. To say that they should behave the same because they are both “sky scrapers” is like saying that a dump truck should behave the same as a formula one racer because they are both vehicles.
on 15 Sep 2009 at 6:16 pm142psikeyhackr

{{{ Construction methods of airplanes are all similar to each other which are all similar those of skyscrapers? }}}

Ah, so you admit you aren’t smart enough to figure out the obvious?

Planes are similar to each other. They have to solve the same physics problem.

Skyscrapers are similar to each other. They have to solve the same physics problem.

How can that NOT BE OBVIOUS?

Try finding the distribution of steel and concrete on any skyscraper. Gravity works the same everywhere on this planet. Is it a guild secrete or something? If it weren’t for 9/11 why should anyone outside the business give a damn. But because of 9/11 we should have had it years ago.

You people that claim to LOVE PHYSICS should have been demanding it years ago.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident for the 21st century. Will it take as long to resolve?
on 15 Sep 2009 at 8:22 pm143Fangbeer

“How can that NOT BE OBVIOUS?”

What’s obvious is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and there’s nothing I can say that can change that. The WTC and the Empire state building are as structurally dissimilar as a dump truck and a race car.

I’m done with the back and forth. You haven’t put anything interesting into the discussion for quite some time now and I’m no longer interested in putting in any more effort into your ignorance.
on 16 Sep 2009 at 8:55 am144psikeyhackr

{{{ The WTC and the Empire state building are as structurally dissimilar as a dump truck and a race car. }}}

Anyone that wants to can compare pictures of the ESB and the WTC and judge the similarities for themselves. The buildings performed the same functions.

Now how similar are the functions of a race car and a dump truck? They both move mass over roads. But most likely the dump truck could carry multiple race cars but a race car could not carry one dump truck. Was there that great a difference in size betweenthe ESB and a WTC tower? You just advertised that you are being TOTALLY RIDICULOUS with that statement and don’t give a damn about correct physics. You just think you can win a debate with verbal bullshit.

Debating Newtonian physics 40 years after the Moon landing is ridiculous. All of the physics departments in the country have made fools of themselves by not talking about how the steel has to be distributed in ALL SKYSCRAPERS in order to support themselves. That is CRITICAL to the analysis of any suppsed top down gravitational collapse.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century. Physics has been a travesty since 9/12/01. How long is this 9/12 Soap Opera going to continue?
on 17 Sep 2009 at 8:34 am145Geekengineer

“How long is this 9/12 Soap Opera going to continue?”

You’re the star of the show, apparently. Why don’t you tell us how long you’re going to keep blabbering on and on and on about information you wouldn’t even know what to do with? That pretty much governs when your little “travesty” is over.
on 17 Sep 2009 at 11:44 am146psikeyhackr

{{{ The WTC and the Empire state building are as structurally dissimilar as a dump truck and a race car. }}}

ROFLMAO

I’m the star?

Then you must be the comic relief. LOL
on 17 Sep 2009 at 1:07 pm147Geekengineer

Just out of curiosity, do you have any scientific, engineering, or other technical education or experience?

I know, I know… that may involve earning a degree from an evil school, or working for an evil corporation.
on 17 Sep 2009 at 4:16 pm148psikeyhackr

{{{ The WTC and the Empire state building are as structurally dissimilar as a dump truck and a race car. }}}

ROFLMAO

{{{ Just out of curiosity, do you have any scientific, engineering, or other technical education or experience? }}}

Dude this is the internet. Anybody can claim anything and nobody can prove anything about themselves.

I can say these things are true and I can’t prove any of them over the internet but you are the one talking about race cars and dump trucks. ROFL

I won a National Merit Scholarship. I applied to MIT and got an interview but not accepted so I went to another engineering school. I never took a structural engineering course in my life but you must take physics to get a degree in electrical engineering. My pledge father was an architect and we could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus.

Like I need credentials to point out how silly it is to talk about race cars and dump trucks. LOL

Now how do you build a skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level? So why don’t we have a table with that information by now? And why aren’t the PROFESSIONALS of the relevant fields demanding that information? I haven’t even seen Richard Gage demanding it. He got a surprised look on his face when I mentioned it at his seminar in May of 2008. He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity works the same way all over the planet and it hasn’t changed since 1966. How much more computing power should Gage and his buddies have at his disposal compared to the original designers?

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century. This nonsense is going to be a black eye of engineering for decades. But the peons must be kept confused about grade school physics to keep them from noticing.
on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:08 pm149Fangbeer

“Was there that great a difference in size betweenthe ESB and a WTC tower?”

Yes. That’s why I said that their designs are as dissimilar as those of a dump truck and a race car. Your argument that they are “similar” and that they “have to solve the same physics problem.” is what’s “TOTALLY REDICULOUS.”[sic]

Empire State Building
Style: art deco
2 acres at the base
87 floors
2,158,000 sq ft rentable space.
1250 ft to 102 floor observatory, (16 floors are unoccupiable tower structure)
1,453 ft with tower.
73 elevators

WTC
Style: modern high design
less than 1 acre at the base (208ftx208ft from base to 110th floor.)
110 floors.
4,300,000 sq ft rentable space (per tower)
1,350 feet
1,728 ft with tower
99 elevators

The Empire State is 2 acres at its base, and thins considerably toward the top in a tiered pyramid design. The WTC was less than an acre at its base and did not thin toward the top.

The Empire State uses closely spaced columns and column clusters throughout the entire floor plan of the building. The WTC had central columns and closely spaced columns in the outer perimeter without any columns in the floor area.

The Empire State has 2,158,000 sq ft rentable floor space. Each WTC tower had 4,300,000 sq ft rentable space

The outer walls of the WTC are load bearing. The outer walls of the Empire state building are curtain walls (non load bearing).

The Empire state’s columns are riveted wide flange (I beam). The WTC columns are tube frame. (WTC was one of the first buildings to use a tube frame design.)

Empire state columns are surrounded by 8 inches of fireproof brick. WTC columns had a couple of inches of spray on fireproofing.

The Empire state is clad in limestone. The WTC was clad in aluminum.

The Empire state’s main design criteria at the time was a competition with another automaker for the tallest height. The WTC’s main design criteria at the time was a floor space stipulation by the port authority.
on 17 Sep 2009 at 6:01 pm150psikeyhackr

87 floors
2,158,000 sq ft rentable space.
1250 ft to 102 floor observatory, (16 floors are unoccupiable tower structure)

110 floors.
4,300,000 sq ft rentable space (per tower)
1,350 feet

{{{ “Was there that great a difference in size betweenthe ESB and a WTC tower?” }}}

BULLSHIT!!!

It was a 2 to 1 difference in floor space and nowhere near that in height.

Try calculating the ratio on the dump truck to race car that you brought up. ROFL
on 17 Sep 2009 at 7:15 pm151Geekengineer

“Dude this is the internet. Anybody can claim anything and nobody can prove anything about themselves.”

You have proven this true, in your case, far beyond your understanding.
on 17 Sep 2009 at 8:21 pm152Fangbeer

“BULLSHIT!!!”

I agree. Your claim that the Empire State Building is similar to the WTC just because they both “solve the same physics problem” is bullshit.

“Try calculating the ratio on the dump truck to race car that you brought up.”

It looks like the point is just about to dawn on you. A race car is not analogous to a dump truck even though they are both vehicles. The Empire State Building is not analogous to the WTC even though they are both buildings.

The understanding of the structural design of a building is critically important if you are trying to determine how that building will behave when a force is exerted on it. The design of the WTC is nothing like the design of the Empire State Building. Comparing the two is like comparing the behavior of a dump truck to the behavior of a race car.
on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:09 am153psikeyhackr

{{{ The understanding of the structural design of a building is critically important if you are trying to determine how that building will behave when a force is exerted on it. The design of the WTC is nothing like the design of the Empire State Building. Comparing the two is like comparing the behavior of a dump truck to the behavior of a race car. }}}

Horseshit!

The columns in the ESB are evenly spaced and the columns in the WTC were concentrated in the CORE and to the perimeter. BIG DEAL! Both buildings still have to have the steel properly distributed vertically to deal with the weight and they still had to cope with the sheer force of the wind. The difference in mass and volume between a dump truck and a racing car would be far more than two to one.

Your glorious NIST can’t even tell us the quantity of concrete in the towers. The engineering departments at our colleges have turned themselves into a joke and you are doing it to yourself here trying to exaggerate trivial differences between the ESB and WTC. But if you search you will find you cannot locate the distributions of steel and concrete on any skyscrapers. It’s as though it is a guild secret. It must be made to look complicated.

Information hiding seems to be a characteristic of the culture. The economics profession can’t talk about planned obsolescence and the depreciation of durable consumer goods. Double-entry accounting is 700 years old and we have netbooks more powerful than 1980 mainframes but out educators don’t suggest that accounting be mandatory in the schools for everyone. The educational system is designed to dribble out trivia and pretend it is complicated.
on 18 Sep 2009 at 8:54 am154Christopher Moore

I never took a structural engineering course in my life but you must take physics to get a degree in electrical engineering.

As someone who teaches physics to electrical engineers for a living, I can tell you that many manage to get degrees in EE with a very limited understanding of physics, especially mechanics. In fact, most leave with a poor conceptual understanding of electric circuits!

Dude this is the internet. Anybody can claim anything and nobody can prove anything about themselves.

I use my real name. It’s pretty easy to verify who I am and my credentials. Since I’m a Virginia state employee, you can even look up my salary. Of course, I agree, it really makes no difference. You are objectively wrong on so many levels that I could be a minor league hockey player and still be right.

The distribution of mass of the WTC is discussed in GREAT detail in the literature which I have repeatedly pointed you to. Why do you refuse to answer my simple questions: (1) why isn’t the mass distribution discussed in the literature not accurate enough, and (2) how accurate does it need to be and why?

You asked Richard Gage for this information?! Are you kidding me?! Of course he had a confused look, since he is as big an idiot with respect to this issue as you are. Read all of the literature I reference. The answers you seek is in there.
on 18 Sep 2009 at 5:41 pm155psikeyhackr

{{{ The distribution of mass of the WTC is discussed in GREAT detail in the literature which I have repeatedly pointed you to. Why do you refuse to answer my simple questions: (1) why isn’t the mass distribution discussed in the literature not accurate enough, and (2) how accurate does it need to be and why? }}}

So why don’t you try telling us the weights and quantities of the 12 different grades of exterior wall panels and specify the source.

{{{ As someone who teaches physics to electrical engineers for a living, I can tell you that many manage to get degrees in EE with a very limited understanding of physics, especially mechanics. In fact, most leave with a poor conceptual understanding of electric circuits! }}}

I have to agree with that. The schools mostly teach people to memorize and often don’t present information in a rational manner. Schools are designed to make money off people that need to be educated not really to do a good job of educating them.

Try these:

Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics by Stan Gibilisco
The Electricity
The Art of Electronics by Horowitz & Hill
The Art

The funny thing about both of those books is that they never use the term von Neumann machine. Chapter 10 of the Art of Electronics has about the best explanation of one that I have seen in print however. I never saw or heard the term in my years at IBM. The way this society works depends on important information being difficult to get. If it was easy to find what the best books were who would need to go to college? ROFL
on 28 Sep 2009 at 11:35 pm156Fangbeer

“Anybody can claim anything and nobody can prove anything about themselves”

Really?

You’ve made the following statement in multiple places on the internet under the pseudonym you use here. (psik)

“The funny thing about both of those books is that they never use the term von Neumann machine. Chapter 10 of the Art of Electronics has about the best explanation of one that I have seen in print however.”

Oddly enough someone else also made an almost verbatim statement:

http://netbookation.com/readlst02.htm

THE ART OF ELECTRONICS has about the best explanation of the workings of a von Neumann machine that I have seen in print, but that terminology is never mentioned in the book. There is an artificial division between Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and each pretends the other doesn’t exist. I will agree to ignore the Citadels of Pseudointellectualism if you will.

Naba Barkakati

http://www.linkedin.com/in/nabab

Now he doesn’t claim to have worked for IBM on linked in, and I have serious doubts that you have the education that he claims to have. What I do believe is that you are regurgitating stuff by Naba Barkakati because you think that maybe it makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about.
on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:25 am157Geekengineer

Okay, so you are allergic to school. Got it.
on 06 Oct 2009 at 12:03 pm158psikeyhackr

{{{ Okay, so you are allergic to school. Got it. }}}

Oh sure, that is how I won a National Merit Scholarship.

So why can’t you figure out that the distribution of steel is important to analyzing a supposed top down gravitational collapse in a skyscraper if school is so great? Ever think that schools turn out a lot of pseudo-intellectuals that want people to think they are smart so they just make things unnecessarily complicated and talk a lot of bullshit?

So why shouldn’t everyone know the tons of steel on every level of the towers? Watch that Purdue simulation and notice the the core columns don’t move when the plane impacts. So the impact didn’t make the building sway? Great Simulation from that school! ROFL
on 16 Oct 2009 at 7:39 am159Christopher Moore

Waaaaaay off topic, but I actually use the following text in an electronics course that I teach:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com
on 16 Oct 2009 at 10:50 pm160psikeyhackr

{{{ Naba Barkakati

http://www.linkedin.com/in/nabab

Now he doesn’t claim to have worked for IBM on linked in, and I have serious doubts that you have the education that he claims to have. What I do believe is that you are regurgitating stuff by Naba Barkakati because you think that maybe it makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about. }}}

ROFL

Well I don’t see what it is you are claiming I am quoting by this Indian guy I never heard of but you can believe whatever you prefer.

But your coming up with psychological bullshit that you think can be used to attack me doesn’t change THE FACT that you and no one else I have run across can come up with the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels of the WTC. That matters to this problem not whether or not I worked for IBM.

So why don’t you concentrate on that?

Don’t tell me. YOU CAN’T COME UP WITH ANY RELEVANT FACTS that really have to do with physics. 150 ton airliner SUPPOSEDLY destroys 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours and the nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. That is hilarious!

What happened on 9/12…..1962?
on 19 Oct 2009 at 9:31 am161Geekengineer

“150 ton airliner SUPPOSEDLY destroys 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours and the nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. That is hilarious!”

Wait wait wait… why did you use all caps with the word “supposedly”? What are you saying?

State clearly and concisely what you think happened to the towers. You’ve dodged the question several times, on several different forums, but it’s about time you actually told us what you think happened, since you seem to “know” what *didn’t* happen. Come on, enlighten us.

Also, you expect the government to publish the bill of material for the WTC for each and every citizen, as some sort of public service? As in, a summary list of all materials used in the construction of the WTC? Possibly packaged as a whole with detailed blueprints of each and every floor, from lowest subbasement to tip of antenna tower?

Really?

Just what in the hell do you expect the global public to do with this information?

Are you expecting every household on the planet to receive via mail a thick envelope stuffed with material lists and drawings?

You are truly tilting at windmills, and it is both disturbing and entertaining. But mostly disturbing.

It’s a good thing you are physically and mentally incapable of actually visiting your nearest university to argue with the physics and engineering faculty, because doing so would send you into such a fit of rage a vein in your forehead would pop.
on 19 Oct 2009 at 5:13 pm162Fangbeer

I think I’d like to see an unmoderated debate between Psikeyhacker and a red tailed, African Gray parrot. Considering the number of times that he’s posted the exact same phrase in rebuttal to countless different questions, I’d have my money on him to out parrot the parrot.

Though parrots do live a considerable amount of time…
on 21 Oct 2009 at 9:33 am163psikeyhackr

{{{ Wait wait wait… why did you use all caps with the word “supposedly”? What are you saying?

State clearly and concisely what you think happened to the towers. You’ve dodged the question several times, on several different forums, but it’s about time you actually told us what you think happened, since you seem to “know” what *didn’t* happen. Come on, enlighten us. }}}

The towers were obviously destroyed.

The towers were obviously hit by airliners.

The question is, “Could airliners and fire caused by them alone have done the destruction. I am not going off into endless speculation about who and why. I am just dealing with the unavoidable physics.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Therefore the people that design the skyscrapers must figure out how much steel to put where. So why don’t you PHYSICS GENIUSES want to know the distribution of steel in the towers? Why haven’t you been demanding it for EIGHT YEARS? Have you already decided what you prefer to believe and don’t want to do the science? You don’t want to challenge AUTHORITY that doesn’t put the relevant information in their 10,000 page report. It’s easier to be good little boys that believe what they are told even if it is obviously STUPID.
on 21 Oct 2009 at 10:08 am164Geekengineer

“The question is, “Could airliners and fire caused by them alone have done the destruction. I am not going off into endless speculation about who and why. I am just dealing with the unavoidable physics.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Therefore the people that design the skyscrapers must figure out how much steel to put where. So why don’t you PHYSICS GENIUSES want to know the distribution of steel in the towers? Why haven’t you been demanding it for EIGHT YEARS? Have you already decided what you prefer to believe and don’t want to do the science? You don’t want to challenge AUTHORITY that doesn’t put the relevant information in their 10,000 page report. It’s easier to be good little boys that believe what they are told even if it is obviously STUPID.”

State clearly and concisely what you think happened to the towers. You’ve dodged the question several times, on several different forums, but it’s about time you actually told us what you think happened, since you seem to “know” what *didn’t* happen. Come on, enlighten us.
on 21 Oct 2009 at 10:09 am165Geekengineer

State clearly and concisely what you think happened to the towers. You’ve dodged the question several times, on several different forums, but it’s about time you actually told us what you think happened, since you seem to “know” what *didn’t* happen. Come on, enlighten us.
on 21 Oct 2009 at 10:10 am166Geekengineer

State clearly and concisely what you think happened to the towers. You’ve dodged the question several times, on several different forums, but it’s about time you actually told us what you think happened, since you seem to “know” what *didn’t* happen. Come on, enlighten us…
on 21 Oct 2009 at 2:12 pm167Fangbeer

I am not going off into endless speculation about who and why. I am just dealing with the unavoidable physics.

It’s funny to me that you talk about unavoidable physics. You’ve avoided reading the NIST report. You’ve avoided looking at the sap2000 model data. You’ve avoided Bazant’s calculations. You’ve avoided the papers Chris made you aware of. You’ve avoided explaining how your model is even remotely congruent to the collapses. You’ve avoided providing your own calculations. You’ve avoided rational argument.

Seems to me that the only person here avoiding things is you.

But I can tell from your model what your misconception is. You think that the NIST report describes a collapse that initiated in a manner similar to washers sliding down a dowel. If you had read the report, you would know this is not the case. You would know that collapse initiation and the ensuing progressive collapse did not occur in neat and tidy “floor units” like your model suggests. You would know that knowing the exact mass of a “floor unit” and it’s supporting steel is not as important to the description of the failure mechanics of those systems as you think it is.

Armed with this false premise you search for terms within the report that you do not find.

Armed with this false premise you’ve constructed a false model.

Armed with this false premise you’ve misunderstood models created by people who do have a valid premise.

Armed with this false premise you’ve repeated a demand for data that you would have no clue how to utilize to accurately model the collapse.

And sadly, like a typical truther, you get your “real facts” and “real data” from internet hacks who are either just as confused as you are, or who blatantly fabricate data.
on 22 Oct 2009 at 3:37 pm168psikeyhackr

{{{ It’s funny to me that you talk about unavoidable physics. You’ve avoided reading the NIST report. }}}

Oh yeah! Who pointed out that the south tower was deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor and the building oscillated for four minutes? Where do you think that information came from? How do you know how much of it I have read? I just admitted that I didn’t read the whole thing and am not about to.

If you know so much about it why don’t you tell us where it specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers. It specifies the total for the steel IN THREE PLACES.

Demonstrate what YOU know about it.
on 22 Oct 2009 at 5:50 pm169psikeyhackr

{{{ It’s funny to me that you talk about unavoidable physics. You’ve avoided reading the NIST report. }}}

By the way, I concluded that there was no way an airliner could destroy buildings that size, that fast after two weeks of thinking about it. The conclusion was based on how mass had to be distributed in a skyscraper. That was long before work on the NCSTAR1 report was even begun.

So I didn’t need to read the whole thing. When I learned about it and downloaded it the first thing I did was search it for info on steel and concrete.

As I say, “They never even specify the total for the concrete.”

There are REAL GENIUSES working for the NIST.
on 22 Oct 2009 at 9:54 pm170Fangbeer

By the way, I concluded that there was no way an airliner could destroy buildings that size, that fast after two weeks of thinking about it. The conclusion was based on how mass had to be distributed in a skyscraper.

Oh it was clear to me that you had come to that conclusion based on your own limited knowledge, and that you did not take the time to educate yourself on the matter.

You have no idea how mass is distributed through any building, let alone that of the WTC. You have no idea how stress and strain are distributed through a building. You have no idea how the structural systems in the WTC worked to distribute that stress and strain. You have no idea how those systems were compromised. You have no idea what it would take to compromise them. You have no idea what a progressive collapse is. You have no idea how to define one.

What has be completely baffled is that you have the gall to call people who do know these things, who are educated in these fields, who do understand that “fancy calculus” that you can’t seem to wrap your head around idiots. Meanwhile, you place your utter faith in the flawless ability of the original architects of the design to not only build a building that pushed the boundaries of performance of any previous conventional building, but also to withstand massive structural damage and raging fires.

Psikey: Here’s a hint as to why I think the logic of that thinking is so frustratingly stupid. These are the same kinds of people you call idiots.
on 22 Oct 2009 at 11:47 pm171psikeyhackr

{{{ Oh it was clear to me that you had come to that conclusion based on your own limited knowledge, and that you did not take the time to educate yourself on the matter.

You have no idea how mass is distributed through any building, let alone that of the WTC. }}}

So you keep talking trash but you don’t tell us where the NIST specified how much concrete was in the WTC. All you say is TRUST THE EXPERTS that don’t provide any relevant information.

Just look at the Toronto tower:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Toronto%27s_CN_Tower.jpg/250px-Toronto%27s_CN_Tower.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Toronto%27s_CN_Tower.jpg/250px-Toronto%27s_CN_Tower.jpg

The weight of a thin slice is going to be proportional to the square of the width and obviously the width is not increasing in a linear fashion. The same must apply to all skyscrapers but they must cope with live loads also. That tower is almost nothing but dead load.

So why aren’t all of you EXPERTS claiming to know physics demanding the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? But then you just expcet people to BELIEVE you. LOL
on 23 Oct 2009 at 6:56 am172Christopher Moore

For the thousandth time, I have told you exactly where you can find an IN DEPTH discussion of the mass distribution for the Twin Towers. Scroll up and find the reference.

You keep working from two false premises: that (1) experts aren’t interested in the mass distribution, and (2) that they haven’t even sought out that information. They where (and are) interested. They determined a function for mass distribution a long time ago. Then they published it in a freely available, peer-reviewed engineering journal. Other groups using that distribution function found that progressive collapse would be inevitable for a WIDE range of coefficients. Going from one extreme to the other, and everything in between results in the same conclusion: progressive collapse.

It does involve a lot of “fancy calculus.” However, I would assume you had a course in differential equations if you are indeed an electrical engineer. You can solve time-domain RLC circuits, correct?
on 23 Oct 2009 at 9:42 am173psikeyhackr

{{{ For the thousandth time, I have told you exactly where you can find an IN DEPTH discussion of the mass distribution for the Twin Towers. Scroll up and find the reference. }}}

Discussion ain’t good enough. Give us some simple FACTS.

Tell us the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels. That would only be 24 numbers, for Christ’s sake! Why does that need discussion? Why don’t you people that claim to know physics want decent information on the subject? You just need to keep this issue smothered in vague complicated bullshit to give the impression that you know what you are talking about..

Could it be that you don’t have the numbers and have never had sense enough to ask for yourself? You have just BELIEVED what AUTHORITY told you and never really analyzed it for yourself? But after EIGHT YEARS you would look DAMN SILLY to be saying this can’t be solved without that information and not having pointed that out years ago.
on 23 Oct 2009 at 9:58 am174psikeyhackr

{{{ You keep working from two false premises: that (1) experts aren’t interested in the mass distribution, and (2) that they haven’t even sought out that information. They where (and are) interested. }}}

NO! I don’t GIVE A DAMN about any experts in the slightest.

The laws of physics don’t GIVE A DAMN about anybody. I am saying this is a SIMPLE GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS PROBLEM and most people don’t need experts to tell them what to think about it.

The WTC towers were 110 stories. The 109th level had to have enough steel to support the 110th. The 108th level had to have enough steel to support the 109 and 110. The 107th level had to have enough steel to support three levels. Etc., etc., all of the way down the building. So why don’t we just have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level and not have lots of DISCUSSION?

Why is that too difficult for EXPERTS?

It seems your primary concern is having people TRUSTING EXPERTS.
on 24 Oct 2009 at 7:38 am175psikeyhackr

{{{ It does involve a lot of “fancy calculus.” However, I would assume you had a course in differential equations if you are indeed an electrical engineer. You can solve time-domain RLC circuits, correct? }}}

But don’t the values for resistance, inductance and capacitance have to be KNOWN to solve the problem?

So why can’t you demonstrate to us that you KNOW the weights and quantities of the 12 types of exterior wall panels? Didn’t that affect the damped oscillation of the south tower after impact, of which the NIST has created a graph? So why do you just talk this trash about discussion and refer us to other papers that don’t have those 24 numbers? Why don’t you just list the numbers and say where you found them?

Math is great, but you have to have the correct data to plug into the equations. Plenty of EXPERTS just want to intimidate people with math and use it to talk bullshit. So where is the CORRECT DATA to plug into the fancy calculus?
on 04 Nov 2009 at 10:16 am176Fangbeer

Tell us the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels.

How will the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels help you to calculate an energy balance when examination of the debris shows plainly that the building did not fall in precise levels like you model shows? Heck, a simple examination of the video that you posted here shows that the building did not collapse in neat levels like your model shows. There are clearly structural members that remain standing moments after much of the surrounding building has already fallen.
on 04 Nov 2009 at 7:55 pm177psikeyhackr

{{{ examination of the debris shows plainly that the building did not fall in precise levels like you model shows? Heck, a simple examination of the video that you posted here shows that the building did not collapse in neat levels like your model shows. There are clearly structural members that remain standing moments after much of the surrounding building has already fallen. }}}

Are you admitting that something other than the airliner and fire produced those effects?

Because if you are not then the effects must be explained by the portion of the building above the impact point coming straight down, in which case the distribution of mass is important. So why aren’t you lovers of physics demanding the information?
on 05 Nov 2009 at 12:22 am178Fangbeer

Are you admitting that something other than the airliner and fire produced those effects?

What do you mean admitting? I thought this was about examining the evidence. I thought this was about physics in all capital letters. Are you finally showing your conspiracy theory colors?

Anyway, what I said was: The evidence is that the building did not fall down in precise levels in the manner that your math assumes. The evidence shows that 90% of the floor truss connections below the impact floors of both buildings were bent downward, or sheared off. This means that the floors accelerated faster than the columns that held them. If this is the evidence, and it is, your energy balance equation cannot include the mass of the spandrels in with the mass of the floors.

Your calculations fail to allow for the fact that the damage to the truss connections show that the columns and the floors could not have been traveling at the same velocity. Your “grade school” momentum calculations falsely assume each level as a unit has a unified velocity. Clearly your math does not model the collapse.

The mass and durability of the floor truss connections, by the way, do not increase in a direct correlation with the height of the building.
on 06 Nov 2009 at 9:57 am179psikeyhackr

The MASS of the building increased toward the bottom because more steel was required in the columns of the core and the perimeter.

You can’t tell us the distribution of steel in the buildings so you need to change the subject to the truss connections. It is that mass of steel that brings up the simple subject of CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.

You are saying the falling mass from the top 13% by volume of the north tower crushed the rest aren’t you? So why don’t you want to know the distribution of steel? Who cares about truss connections?
on 06 Nov 2009 at 1:17 pm180Fangbeer

I’m saying and always have said that your model and your math does not accurately represent the actual collapse. Your math assumes the velocity of an entire “level” of the tower to be uniform. This was not the case as demonstrated by the evidence found within the rubble.

Who cares about truss connections?

Obviously you don’t, which is why you don’t understand the problem, and have not accurately modeled it with your toothpicks or your math. Your attempts to reduce the collapse to simplistic terms so that you can say that it takes simple grade school math to solve problem are thwarted by the evidence that you present. The video that you show of the collapse clearly shows structure of the building that remains standing well after some of the portions of the building that structure previously supported had collapsed. These portions would be mass that you are attempting to include in your calculations that should not be included.

If the failure of the floor sections preceded the collapse of the outer and inner columns, (which it did as evidenced by the sheared and bent floor connections and the video that you posted here) then the simple calculation of F that you are attempting can only include the mass of the floors. This is because the A for those other masses that you are attempting to include (Spandrels and columns) were not the same. They did not fall at the same rate, and should not be included in F=MA. And if you’re honest with the actual calculation you’ll note that the floors did not decrease in mass as the building ascended and that your whole theory is blown out of the water.

In other words, the data you use for your F=MA calculation fails to establish that the entire level accelerates at the same rate. You keep complaining that you don’t have accurate data for M. The truth is you don’t have accurate data for A either. You couldn’t possibly.
on 06 Nov 2009 at 4:47 pm181psikeyhackr

{{{ If the failure of the floor sections preceded the collapse of the outer and inner columns, (which it did as evidenced by the sheared and bent floor connections and the video that you posted here) then the simple calculation of F that you are attempting can only include the mass of the floors. }}}

Why do you need to say IF?

The NIST rejects the pancaking theory now.

{{{ NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. }}}
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The destruction of the north tower by an airliner and resulting fire depends upon the mass above the impact zone coming straight down on top of the mass below the impact zone and that mass not being able to withstand the force to such a degree that most of the material came down in less than 18 seconds.

So what is your problem with wanting to know the distribution of steel such that the building could stand for 28 years and withstand 100 mph winds and yet collapse in less than 18 seconds? We don’t even know the amount of steel that was in the impact zone that could supposedly weaken in less than 2 hours.

This is GREAT PHYSICS built on IGNORANCE.

After EIGHT YEARS all of the college physics departments need for people to believe this was complicated. We can’t even get a table with the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. An impressive feat for the nation that put men on the Moon. How would that information harm all of your chatter about trusses?
on 07 Nov 2009 at 11:32 am182psikeyhackr

{{{ The destruction of the north tower by an airliner and resulting fire depends upon the mass above the impact zone coming straight down on top of the mass below the impact zone }}}

I should have said:

The Official Conspiracy Theory depends upon “the destruction of the north tower by an airliner and resulting fire …”

Now why shouldn’t the physics analysis proving that could happen include the distribution of steel in the tower? In actuality the supposed analysis doesn’t even tell us the amount os steel in the impact zones.
on 07 Nov 2009 at 11:40 am183Fangbeer

I notice that you say nothing about my proof that your math and your model are wrong.

Oh, and NIST does include the distribution of steel in the tower [It's in the SAP2000 model data] and they cannot use it to do your momentum math.

You

Are

Wrong.
on 07 Nov 2009 at 9:06 pm184psikeyhackr

{{{ I notice that you say nothing about my proof that your math and your model are wrong. }}}

It is not my fault that you think math PROVES something.

My Fall of Physics was only to demonstrate that mass would slow any collapse and changing the distribution of mass would change the speed of any collapse. Therefore it does not even make sense to talk about any collapse without knowing the distribution of mass. Are you saying that you have PROVEN that the conservation of momentum does not work?

But you seem to object to everyone knowing the distribution of steel in the WTC.

As far as I am concerned I have PROVEN that all of you people not demanding that information are ridiculous. So you explain why the NIST could not provide it in a 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000. You expect people to BELIEVE things regardless of what they are NOT BEING TOLD. I simply expect people to put their brains in gear and apply it to some grade school physics.

Why don’t you just tell us the weights and quantities of the 12 types of exterior wall panels or expalin why no one knows after EIGHT YEARS?
on 07 Nov 2009 at 9:59 pm185Fangbeer

It is not my fault that you think math PROVES something.

What nonsense is this? Did you really just type that? Really?

Are you saying that you have PROVEN that the conservation of momentum does not work?

I’m saying I have proven that your application of the conservation of momentum is incorrect. A point you have yet to rebut.

But you seem to object to everyone knowing the distribution of steel

Please quote from my post where I object, or seem to object to everyone knowing the distribution of steel. This is a straw man, just like your conservation of momentum straw man. I object to your use of this incorrect math and misapplication of the principals of physics to attempt to libel myriad people in myriad professions as idiots. Your F=MA calculations are not correct. Your model of the collapse is incorrect.

You are wrong.
on 09 Nov 2009 at 9:17 am186psikeyhackr

{{{ I’m saying I have proven that your application of the conservation of momentum is incorrect. A point you have yet to rebut. }}}

You don’t know the difference between CLAIMING things and PROVING things. My math is here:

Fall of Physics

Anyone that cares to and knows how can check it for themselves. They can also wade through your verbal BS if they care to.

Are you saying that physics didn’t work before math was invented?

How can your math be any good if you can’t even plug the correct values into the variables? You even can’t tell us the distribution of steel in the buildings? You can’t tell us the quantity and weights of the 12 types of exterior wall panels.

Even your math is delusional. ROFLMAO

People claiming to know physics have been embarrassing themselves for the last EIGHT YEARS by not pointing out the information necessary to analyze the event. What is so complicated about a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers?
on 09 Nov 2009 at 9:57 am187Physicist explains the World Trade Center Collapses - Page 2

[...] rockets in grade school. So I consider this entire business to be grade school physics" http://www.ilovephysics.com/2008/07/…#comment-90848 By his own words, he has ZERO qualifications in physics … he does however "claim" a [...]
on 09 Nov 2009 at 1:41 pm188Fangbeer

How can your math be any good if you can’t even plug the correct values into the variables?

Yes, that’s exactly my point, Psikey.

Alright, let’s turn this around. You have not proven that the spandrels, the floors, and the center columns all fell at the same velocity. Your calculations assume that they did. You assume that the entire mass of a level has a single A

Why?

I contend that the three had different velocities through the entire period of the collapse. I proved two pieces of evidence that fully support my contention. What is your evidence that each level fell as a complete unit?
on 09 Nov 2009 at 2:21 pm189Fangbeer

Are you saying that physics didn’t work before math was invented?

What the hell is wrong with you? Who are you paraphrasing here? Where do I even suggest that physics doesn’t or didn’t work?
on 16 Nov 2009 at 1:09 pm190psikeyhackr

{{{ Your F=MA calculations are not correct. Your model of the collapse is incorrect. }}}

ROFL

Fall of Physics doesn’t contain any F=MA calculations. Acceleration under normal gravity near the surface is constant regardless of mass. So you are saying that a calculation which is not there at all, is WRONG.. All I am using is acceleration and time and the quadratic formula. You are demonstrating REAL GENIUS now.

Tell us which case is wrong and where force is specified in it.

I guess I mus assume you don’t even understand it. I have posted that on various boards since July of 2008 and not one person has found a problem with it.