about that WTC tower "collapse"

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jul 13, 2014.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol:

    I'm not the one putting out garbage videos trying to simulate the collapse of the twin towers using a wooden dowel, washers, and paper now am I?

    What a joke...
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ONLY way they were like a 'controlled demolition',is the fact they fell downward,there was no 'precision operation' and anything else you claim is a product of your imagination,NOT reality
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So CONTROLLED DEMOLITION isn't a precision operation?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is.
    What happened on 9/11/01 was not.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, a controlled demolition IS a precision operation.

    The problem is, the buildings that collapsed weren't "precise". I asked you above if a precise controlled demolition would spew debris in a 600 ft radius and you ignored the question.

    Explain to me how you think the tower's collapse was considered precise.
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes they are.....But then that didn't happen on 9/11
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where did I say it simulated the collapse of a tower.

    It demonstrates unavoidalbe physical principles.

    Are you saying the towers were not strong enough to hold themselves against gravity?

    Are you saying the destruction did not require energy?

    If we do not have accurate data on the distribution of mass then the "experts" cannot even accurately compute the Potential Energy. What engineering school has done that in 13 years?

    psik
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you kidding me? One of your videos is titled "WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test"! The wooden dowel is the core, the washers are the floors, and the toothpicks are supposed to replicate the floor supports.

    It demonstrates that you have no clue how complex support systems react to a descending mass. I mean come on now. Toothpicks to represent the floor connections?

    Do you understand the difference between something being designed to support a STATIC weight above as opposed to that same mass DESCENDING? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be asking such questions.

    Answer me this. How much energy was created by the upper section IN DESCENT compared to that same mass being static? Now tell me how much each floor was designed to support. PSI perhaps? Do you have these numbers?

    And what numbers have your truther experts come up with that refutes anything? Case in point. The video FEAs I have posted. If it is indeed a farce and that the planes should not HAVE penetrated the WTC perimeter facades, then why hasn't anyone from your side shown this to be the case. 13 years and NOTHING.
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How can the wooden dowel be the core if it cannot possibly sustain any damage from the moving masses involved?

    You just think in idiotic terms of position instead of the forces involved.

    My loop and washer model is 24 inches tall and 2 inches wide. A 12 to 1 ratio. The WTC was less than 7 to 1.

    You just aren't smart enough to comprehend the physics. The model just demonstrates mass, acceleration and the strength to hold the static load. Of course the intent is to demonstrate the physics involved in the WTC collapse but to say it is a model of the building is a gross exaggeration.

    The only way I can think of to make a good tube-in-tube model is with a 3D printer.

    psik
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roll:

    So if your model is NOT supposed to be the WTC towers and the ratio is wrong, how can you sit there and expect that video to be representative of the physics displayed when the towers collapsed?

    Are you even listening to yourself?

    Your "model" suggests that the upper section should have stopped.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You also didn't answer my question.

    How much was each floor supposed to withstand load-wise? Do you have a number? What is the load of the upper section as it descended? Have that number?
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain something to me psikeyhackr.

    How can you admit that your model was NOT, repeat NOT, a model of the WTC towers, yet expect that model to give an accurate account of what was SUPPOSED to have happened that day?

    That's the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

    You have a complex structure with composed of many individual pieces of varying strength, all connected together with varying connections, and have structural subsystems designed to handle different loads throughout.

    Your videos are garbage.

    1. You use a toothpick to represent the floor connections to the core and perimeter columns.
    2. You use a metal washer to represent that floor system comprised of many different components.
    3. You use a wooden dowel to represent the core system which was comprised of many different components.

    How in the hell do you expect accurate results when your models stink on ice? This is just bogus science on your part and you're misleading those that view your videos and don't know any better. I suppose if I wanted accurately show the physics involved in a collision between two semi trucks, I could buy Hot Wheels trucks and smash them together and then publish the results. Isn;t that right psikeyhackr?

    Sorry to break the news to you, but it's not my understanding of physics that's in question here.
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The supports in my "model" are tested to b AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. That is not how skyscrapers are designed. So if my weak as possible model will not collapse then how could a real skyscraper do it.

    psik
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You tested nothing! Only one scenario.

    What if I changed the washers out to use 1.25 lb weight plates like those used in weight lifting and performed your experiment? What about 2.5 lb. weight plates? I'll bet you I'd get different results. This simple change in your model PROVES your understanding is completely bogus.

    Correct!

    What are individual floors designed to hold up? Are they designed to withstand a falling mass from above? I have asked you before, but you keep sidestepping the questions.


    Like I asked in the first question, what if I used the weight plates instead of washers. I bet it collapses all the way down. Why the different results?
     
  15. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then you would have to design supports to be as weak as possible RELATIVE TO THE WEIGHT they had to support. The concept is UNCHANGED.

    It would take more energy to destroy stronger supports.

    My are you brilliant!

    The fact that skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible is UNCHANGED.

    psik
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh really?

    Pray tell all of us here what math or criteria you used to determine that the washers you chose were of the correct weight or design so that they were relative to what your toothpicks could support weight-wise.

    I need you to tell me so I can use the same criteria to make sure my experiment matches the same parameters yours did.

    My guess is that you'll either disappear or not provide the criteria you used.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just so I understand you correctly.

    You weighed each washer and then determined,based on that weight, that a single toothpick was the weakest support possible? Is that correct psikeyhackr?

    Did you then stress test a number of objects connected to the wooden dowel to see at what stress limit (in PSI perhaps) each object failed? Then compared that number to the PSI of the washer to come up with what was relative to the weight of the washers, where you finally chose toothpicks out of all the objects tested?

    You see psikeyhackr, you're coming very close to being shown just how wrong your "understanding" of structures and physics actually is.

    I'll make another guess. You used no such criteria to pick out your toothpicks as supports and just decided to use them because that's what you had lying around. Now you're going to try and hold me to a criteria that you never used just to TRY and look like you know what you're talking about.

    Let's see where this goes shall we?
     
  18. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You think mathematic out ranks empiricism?

    Ultimately it was the empiricism that determined what mathematics we use. The universe ran without mathematics long before humans showed up.

    I just bought the washers and then tested the paper loops to destruction to determine their static load capacity.

    That is what would have to be done with a bigger heavier model.

    psik
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And I just destroyed your conclusion by making a slight change to your model. If I changed the washers to weight plates as previously described, the mass above then reaches reached the bottom instead of being stopped. So now the empirical data shows your conclusion to be incorrect. Why?

    Since I showed you how you erred by simply making a change to your model, you then throw in the "you would have to design supports to be as weak as possible RELATIVE TO THE WEIGHT they had to support." parameter into the mix. So I am asking you yet again. Since you are saying the "supports need to be as weak as possible RELATIVE to the weight", am asking you what criteria you are asking for. I even gave examples. What's funny here is the fact that my weights are even HEAVIER than your washers making the supports even weaker than your previous experiment.

    So again, what is the criteria you used to make the relative comparison between support and weight to make your experiment viable? In order for others to reproduce your experiment you need to define this. Like I said above, I made the same supports even weaker just by adding more individual weights in place of your washers and got different results.

    All you've really succeeded in proving is that it depends on the amount of weight being dropped from above.

    Furthermore, in one of your videos, you made the statement that since the mass of the lower section of the towers was greater than the mass of the descending upper section, the lower section should have stopped the upper section's descent.

    Answer a question for me. In your experiment, please explain how the mass of the washers below where your descending mass stopped played any part in stopping it from continuing down?

    This ought to be good.
     
  20. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The description under my model says I left it standing for 3 days before the drop test.

    What kind of model are you saying that you left standing for days?

    You just make up BS and spout it.

    psik
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    allow me to engage in a hypothetical case here,
    if you used iron weights from the gym, and used a wooden dowel to aline the whole assembly and when the hypothetical walls were in place to support the stack, remove the center dowel and then by whatever means you choose, initiate collapse, now watch carefully, the fact that you may have made the walls of your skyscraper as consistent as you possibly can, after the collapse of a few floors, what happens, does the upper bit tip and slide off to one side or another? Thus ending the action. The fact is that the towers were the work of human hands and therefore had inconsistencies inherent in the structure, this added to the fact that the damage from the alleged airliner crash was NOT universal over an entire level, adds up to a guaranteed slide off event before the building could be totally destroyed. There are a LOT of different out-comes that do NOT involve "total collapse" so WHY is it that our tax dollars were spent on a document that states
    "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation ... " ? Your tax dollars at work .....
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This made no sense whatsoever!

    The point of this whole discussion is that the model in your video in no way accurately represents the physics involved in the collapse of the towers. You did one test and claim that it shows that the descending load should have been resisted by the floors below and should have stopped. I asked you to change the washers to weight plates and you proceed to invent garbage parameters as reasons why that change is invalid. It PROVES that your conclusion and model are bogus.

    By the way, you seemed to have missed this question.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just noticed this.

    This is PROOF that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You tested your paper loops for STATIC LOAD CAPACITY by dropping weight on them?!?

    Do you even know what a STATIC LOAD is?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you expecting the floors of the towers, comprised of hundreds of individual structural components each, to act the same a weight plate, which is one individual component? Answer a question. What was the calculated PSI load of the floors of the tower. Do you even know what that means genericBob? What happens if I exceed that load in any area of the floor?
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    DUH!

    I said I left it standing for THREE DAYS before I did the drop.

    Are you saying that was not STATIC?

    psik
     

Share This Page