9/11 No Longer Matters

Isn't he the guy who built the model with the rings of paper and washers???

<snicker, snicker>

That's about as stupid as Richard Gage and his cardboard box stunt.

 

So in simple terms, the top 15% could be said something like: "if the head goes so does the body"?

 

Notice that you ignore the issue of the paper loops being AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the Static Load. Another factor is the low cost and ease of construction so anyone can duplicate it for themselves.

But then there is the minor detail that NO ONE has built a physical model that can completely collapse FROM ANY MATERIAL. So do it and then talk.

psik

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I've told you how to build it numerous times. Build it like the towers using the same materials you were already using. But since you are still far to scared to admit it, here is how to build it.

Take a dowel and as many washers as you want. Tape paper strips to the dowel and bend enough out to hold the washer in place. Drop a single washer on the top of the stack and you will end up with a complete collapse despite all of psik's whining about a complete collapse being impossible.

 

When you build a model of ANY MATERIAL that has more than 20 similar levels and can be completely collapsed where components SUSTAIN DAMAGE in the process I will give what you say some degree of credence.

until then YAWN!

psik

 

Yawn all you want. The paper supports will fail and thus sustain damage. Don't tell me you're expecting the washers to sustain damage! No matter how you look at it, your entire premise has been proven false. Keep moving the goal posts, though. It just proves the complete lack of honesty.

 

or he could just take his medicine every day like the psychiatrist says to.

 

An excellent demonstration of your vast intellect.

It never occurred to me to tell that to anyone.

psik

 

It's not just the material, Psi. Like I keep telling you. The issue is the scale, and the design. But until you actually learn something about structural mechanics, you're not going to be able to wrap your head around that fact.

 

So build a self supporting model of any material you, to any scale you want of any design you want. Where have I set any limitations on that?

Let's see you or anybody else make the top 15% by height and 15% or less by weight of the model destroy 90% of what is below in a gravitational collapse.

psik

 

You keep asking the impossible....why?

The only way tocorrectly answer your challenge would be to build a 1:1 scale model of the towers,using the same materials..

I'm sorry,but your doubts don't warrant that expense

 

So you want 105% collapse? No WONDER you can't show the math! You can't even understand such simple concepts as complete collapse. And you wonder why people mock your toys and your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims.

 

I think that problem is due to awkward phrasing. It's possible that he means 90% of the remaining 85% or 76.5% of the entire building crushed by the top 15%.

What's odd about the claim:

Is that his contention has always previously been that the top 15% contained much less then 15% of the total mass of the building due to the need for columns to have a greater cross sectional area at the bottom of the building than at the top. It appears that he's now changed his mind about the distribution of mass. Either he's learned that the hat truss system added a considerable amount of mass to the top of the building, or he misspoke.

Anyway, I gave him a simple design change that would change the outcome of his test considerably. Whether he wants to implement it or not is no skin off my nose. I already know how slender columns behave differently than cylinders with a radius that is longer than its height.

 

Leave it to him to be vague and awkward.

I am still amazed any rational adult could actually believe a dowel, some washers and some paper accurately models the twin tower and PROVES it couldn't have collapsed.

 

Well, he's trying to model a principal, not the tower, but there seems to be a lot that he doesn't understand about the mechanics of the situation.

He doesn't seem to understand that gravity can't be scaled.
He doesn't seem to care that the performance of a structural member is related to the shape of the member, the composition of the member, the temperature of the member, the eccentricity of the load, and a host of other things that he hasn't controlled for in his model.
He doesn't seem to understand how the ratio of strength of a structural element relates to the scale of the element.
He doesn't understand the mechanics of buckling, or what happens when an eccentricity is created by overloading.

What's odd to me is that these are things that I would think he should be interested in. Why he hasn't tried to learn about them after all this time is beyond me.

 

Because then he would have to admit that it collapsed the way "they" said it did.

And I'm sure he doesn't want to do that.

 

So why haven't "THEY" built a physical model that does what they say? A physical model can be tested repeatedly and experimented with. A physical modle does not care what ANYBODY says. A physical model cannot escape real physics.

A computer model does not really do physics. A computer model runs code based on equations. Equations can be wrong or incomplete. Computers can ba a complicated way to lie.

But even a correct computer model requires accurate data. So why don't we have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

The mass in a skyscraper has to be held up like the paper loops in my model hold up the mass of the washers. Mass has inertia. A collapse from the top would have to involve the conservation of momentum. So the distribution of mass down the building must be relevant to any supposed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

 

This is why they can't build a physical model. It cannot escape real physics. A scale physical model requires scale physics and this cannot be accomplished in this universe.

 

Whereas uncalibrated physical models are a very simple way to lie.

 

Question: Were the floors rated to support 10 to 20 times or more the weight they were already supporting?

 

Some people at least understand the physics of the tower collapses, including #7, which while it hadn't been directly impacted by a plane, had in fact been severely damaged by debris from the twin towers. I'm surprised that Jesse Ventura has latched onto the tired, ignorant conspiracy claims regarding that building, actually. I thought he'd have been smarter than that. Not sure why - maybe I just had overly high hopes.

NIST has explained the collapses. Given the damage, the fires and the actual physical construction of all the buildings in question, it does all make sense if you take the time to look into it and don't let some emotional bias keep you from understanding the facts.

If there was any non-extremist Muslim conspiracy involved, it would have been in the planning and execution of the plane attacks, not in how the buildings came down after.

 

How is that if they are built to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

The paper loops are calibrated relative to the weight they must support. It takes from 12 to 15 washers to crush a single paper loop.

Skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible. They are designed with safety factors and must withstand the wind. My stack is so weak it cannot even stand up straight without the dowel.

A brilliant physicists like yourself should not tell such obvious fibs. Anyone can duplicate my experiment for themselves.

Where is an experiment that can completely collapse? How can computer models be made without complete and accurate data? How much did all of the steel trusses and corrugated steel pans weigh in the standard floor assembly? Curious that we never see that info in TEN YEARS.

psik

 

The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers in 10,000 pages.

psik

 

Psik, I know you're running from this question because you know where it leads, but answer it anyway.

Question: Were the floors rated to support 10 to 20 times or more the weight they were already supporting?

 

You've been given the complete and accurate data. Why do you have to lie time and time again? In fact the data I gave you was even in a format to be used in computer models. This data was released by the NIST years ago and here you are still lying your ass off about it.