Yet you are constantly insisting that your retarded little toy is proof that the collapse would have been arrested by the lower structures. Make up your mind.
My model is proof that the supports of a vertical structure must sustain damage in order to be pushed down from above, which requires energy. It takes 0.118 joules to crush one of my single paper loops. But the people who claim that the buildings could collapse rather interestingly don't discuss the amount of steel that was on each and every level of the towers and the amount of energy required to crush each level. How physics works can be demonstrated on a small scale but the square cube law without detailed data makes it absurd to claim it is PROOF. But people that need to play psychological bullsh!t games instead of doing physics need to play word games to try and do their mind games. Physics is incapable of caring about psychology. psik
The NIST should have it and they claim it is in a SAP database which is available. Gregory Urich says he put it into a spreadsheet which is also available. But Urich admits he did a linear extrapolation of the wall panels from the 9th floor to the top. But his data does not match an article from an engineering magazine from 1970. There also seems to be data missing regarding the horizontal beams in the core. Urich says my raising the issue is a Red Herring but his extrapolation puts more mass higher up thereby increasing the potential energy and the columns lower down would have to be thinner and therefore weaker. So those changes would make a collapse more likely in any simulation based on that data. So if anybody has the correct data I don't know who they are. psik
Wrong yet again. Your model only proves you don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about modeling a structure or what constitutes proof. That information has been provided to the engineering community in the form of detailed computer models of the structures. I've provided you that information before. The square cube law makes EVERYTHING wrong since the mass can't be the same given the difference in size. That is why they don't use scale models. Yet you insist your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) washer and paper toy is proof.
The capitalization was for emphasis not anger. I would be interested to know what sources you have used to formulate your conclusions on flight 93. Perhaps you could link these sources and explain why you find them credible.
And you keep demanding that someone conduct the same demonstration with a scale model and we keep telling you it can't be done. Square cube law precludes the ability to create a scale model that has the same buckling strength, the same mass distribution, the same structural design as the actual towers. The only place such a model could be built is in a computer, and such a model was built in Sap2000. Simulations on the Sap2000 model showed that the building collapse was possible. People have the mass distribution of the building. They just haven't satisfied you're as of yet (after TEN YEARS) undisclosed level of precision. Just how precise do we need to be? Do we need to know how many staplers there were on the 45th floor? Regardless, the calculations have been done. You've been told that the calculations for mass distribution could be varied as much as 50% from top to bottom and the building would have still buckled. (By an engineer that used to be a truther by the way) You challenged that claim, but I have never seen you demonstrate either physically, or mathematically, that the 50% claim is false. The washers must have taken damage as well, then. How much were the washers damaged?
I've asked Psik to use the bare minimum values he believes to be realistic just to prove his claims are true. He steadfastly refuses to do this because he knows that even with minimum realistic values his claims are completely false.
I have said many times my model is built as weak as possible. That makes it minimum values for strength to support the weight. The collapse is arrested. What is stopping any engineering school from building a bigger and heavier model of the same design. Where has P911 or anyone else built a model that can completely collapse? Where has anyone computed the amount of energy required to collapse any of the levels of the core? A stack of 109 masses supported by magic in a computer simulation takes 12 seconds to collapse just because of the conservation of momentum. So how does Doctor Sunder of the NIST explain his saying that the north tower came down in 11 seconds? Interesting that engineering schools do not have to PROVE that a collapse could occur. They don't even have to ask about accurate data. psik
You can say it all you like. It doesn't make it true, or valid science. One day you'll figure out why. Hardly. There are many materials with different properties that behave differently. I wonder what would happen if you had access to this stuff: http://www.hrl.com/hrlDocs/pressreleases/2011/prsRls_111117.html My guess is your proof would behave differently. Unless of course you used some kind of magic "paper loops" that behave exactly like structural steel.
You mean your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) toy isn't a good model? Well holy (*)(*)(*)(*)! Who would have thunk it? Why should we? We all know your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) little toy is nothing but a retarded prank to hopefully trick those who know nothing into thinking you may be on to something. I've already told you how to build a model that can completely collapse and one that more closely reflects on the design of the towers. You've rejected that design simply because it shows all your claims to be nothing but bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Here it is again for your edification. Take a dowel like you have in your current model. Start at the bottom. Tape just enough paper to the dowel to support a washer and fold it out so that it will support a washer. Place a washer on the paper. The washer now represents a floor. The paper represents the connections between the core and the floors just like in the towers. Lather rinse repeat as many times as you want. Now take a washer and drop it on the top washer. It will collapse and the collapse will accelerate all the way down the dowel just like we saw on 9/11. I can already hear your whining; "But what about the CORE!" The majority of the weight of the towers was in the floors, not the core. This model accurately represents how the floors would have shorn off from the core since their attachments to the core were designed to support the weight of the floor plus the contents and plus a healthy safety margin. These attachments were NOT designed to support the entire weight of the building, much less the weight of two floors. Unfortunately for you, you still think of each floor as a distinct mass, not a mass made up of tens of thousands of parts which can and did fail on their own. Engineering schools have not only proven the collapse could occur, but that it could have occured through the heat of the event alone regardless of the structural damage. Source
as usual,you took this thread starter and the other loyal Bush dupes to school and disproved their ramblings.they know it to.This thread starter and the other 9/11 apologists have obviously never read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY or they would know how they just talk crap and ramble and and lie all the time.
What exactly is your position concerning 93s wreckage and what evidence has significantly informed your opinion.
How is your post anything but 'talk crap and ramble'? Pot meet kettle.... Sheesh. If your going to assert that I am a lying dupe who has been schooled why dont you back it up. Where have I lied? Where am I wrong? If you are so convinced 9/11 is a conspiracy lets see your smoking gun and hear why you think its credible. BTW not very nice to accuse someone of being a liar.
None of it was buried. The people who claimed most of it was lied. The title of my thread is kind of a giveaway: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...ly-lacking-flight-93-mostly-buried-claim.html
Odd, then; the people who worked the scene say it was. I wonder who to believe? No, wait: I don't. I'll believe the people who were there.
Are you basing your conclusion that no wreckage was buried solely on that thread? Is there a primary source of information aside from the above link that has led you to conclude that the official story of 93 is BS?
Then they are lying. Tell them to come here to the forum and I'll tell them that. Let's believe Mr. "I have photographic and video evidence showing a lot of the plane buried, but I refuse to prove that I do."!!!
Afraid to go directly to them? I'm not surprised. You are the perfect example of a 'truthers' credibility.
Partly on it. Will you now retract your "ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE" statement? What do you mean exactly? Like a media report that says "Nothing was actually buried in the ground though"?
I can't force people to contact me back. Say, you can put an end to all these by simply posting some of the "plane buried" footage you claim to have. Will you? OK, Mr. "I have photographic and video evidence showing a lot of the plane buried, but I refuse to prove that I do."
