is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

they pulled 7 with cables?

 

Nope. Didn't happen. Did you miss that?

OOOH! Are you talking about Silverstein talking to the fire chiefs? Right. We're suppose to believe truthers that the fire department went in to WTC 7, rigged it with explosives, and brought it down without anyone knowing. Either that or Silverstein had it pre-rigged with explosives and the fire chiefs did nothing to bring this little fact to light. Truthers are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid!

 

so silverstein tied cables up to wtc7 and pulled it down himself?

 

Nope. Was he talking to demolitions experts? No. He was talking to fire chiefs. According to Silverstein and the fire chiefs and the historical record, pull it meant pull everyone back from the building and let it burn itself out. That command was given hours before the actual collapse. Anything else?

 

The Silverstein "pull it" meme is so stupid, it doesn't make sense at all.

 

so they decided to pull it...hours later it came down... ok i got it now.

 

Good for you! I knew if we stuck with it long enough you would finally get it! 3..... 2...... 1.......

 

The percentage relative to WHAT?

The TOTAL MASS of the building.

What was the percentage difference between the first level and the 110th level. The steel was 1/4th of an inch thick at the top and 4 inches thick at the bottom. That is a 1500% increase.

You just make pronouncements and expect people to accept them as true.

ROFLMAO

You think the distribution of mass down the building is irrelevant but say you can build something like the towers. I have never even seen the weight of steel in the floors outside the core specified. You never see the weight of concrete specified either but that is easy to compute, 600 tons from the dimensions and density.

psik

 

No the weight of the area that part of the core is holding up. Do I have to spell EVERYTHING out for you?

I never understood the overwhelming need for truthers to lie. Here is the dimensions for each column in the core. Find one that is only .25 of an inch at the top. Most I saw were slightly more than .75 of an inch.

Regardless, over the span of a "level" as you call it where the overall weight is in the high tens of thousands of tons, a couple dozen more tons of steel per level isn't all that much.

You're just pissed off because I can back my (*)(*)(*)(*) up whereas all your posts do is whine about it.

Yet you claim your retarded little toy accurately represents the collapse mechanism of the towers.

So I ask again. What are the parameters for the tower I will build that will prove you wrong? Why can't you provide them to me? Is it because you know I can do it and your hopes and dreams of being the truther who exposes the conspiracy get dashed all to hell along with your retarded toy?

 

It must relate to your inability to THINK.

Where did I say I was talking about the steel of the columns IN THE CORE?

There were 236 columns around the perimeter of the building from the 9th floor to the top. Lon Waters does not have that data on his site. Why is that? Lon Waters does not have data on the horizontal beams in the core connecting the core columns. Why is that? All of that would affect the weight of steel on each level.

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter columns 47% of the weight. Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the perimeter columns were 1/4th inch thick at the top. Since there were 236 of them it would make sense that they would be thinner than those in the core.

But I did not mention that the core columns were wider at the bottom in addition to having thicker steel. So that would contribute to the higher percentage of steel also/

You are so eager to accuse someone of lying you pick on trivial crap and ignore the obvious.

Cheers, you win debating points. I am so impressed.

psik

 

You mean like running away from listing the criteria for a model that, if it collapsed, would convince you of the feasability of a collapse? What is so hard with that one simple request? I know if I do it on my own, no matter how well it is done, you are going to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan that it is in some way flawed while still bragging about your toy you claim models the towers.

So how about it, champ? Give me the specs. How many. What weight. How high. Come on. What do you have to lose other than your credibility?

 

Why am I supposed to give you specs when you keep saying my model is a toy? You should already know enough to make a better model and explain to the world why it is superior.

Physics is not about CREDIBILITY. Everyone should be able to duplicate an experiment and get the same results. Credibility is about believing WORDS. YOU say my model is a TOY. So you build one that is not. You should not need any help from a toymaker like me. Show the world your CREDIBILITY.

Notice you didn't say anything about the thickness of the steel at the top of the perimeter columns. Oh sure, I'm the one that is stupid because you can provide a link to Lon Waters' website.

ROFLMAO

psik

 

Try to keep up. You are suppose to give me the specs because the whole purpose of this excercise is to prove to you it can be done despite your constant whining to the contrary.

OK, so whatever I build will be acceptable? You'll **** about nobody has ever built a collapsing model?

I thought you were talking about the core columns. My bad. See how that works? Funny how truthers never quite get the hang of that one.

So it is settled then, right? Whatever I build that mimics the towers at least as much as your retarded toy proves you are wrong. After all, physics doesn't care about your credibility, right? You've made the claim. It is time to see if you're actually right or not. If, however, you turn around and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about some little detail and pretend it invalidates the experiment after I prove you wrong, I am going to throw this thread back in your face because you had your chance to detail exactly what the parameters should be.

Last chance, hot shot.

 

Where you get off telling ME what I am SUPPOSED TO DO is beyond my comprehension.

I presume it is part of your Authoritarian Over-inflated Ego trip.

You can insult me and my model all you want but I am under some obligation to you because you can accuse me of whining?

ROFLMAO

Build any kind of screwy model you want. I can't stop you and would not try if I could. If you build one and make a video and put it on YouTube then maybe I will comment. Until I see it I do not know what I will think. Maybe I will regard it as too stupid too respond to. I don't know. I am not going to worry about it until I see it. But you can be sure I will be paying attention to the distribution of mass down the structure.

Two of my thickest washers are the same thickness as 3 of the thinnest. I do not have a scale to measure each individual washer. The average is 1.7 oz. So the top one is about 1.4 and the bottom one about 2.1 oz. So a complete collapse means the 15% of height at the top must be less than 15% of the total mass and it must accelerate the mass below in addition to disabling the supports.

Have fun! My model is very simple but it still took a lot of hours of experimentation figuring out how to make it as weak as possible. So if you can actually make a tube in tube design you have A LOT of work ahead of you. You can't even know the strength of all of the connections of the floors outside the core relative to the weight of the floors. So I say it can't be done with current information do to all that is missing.

The 9/11 Affair goes on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

psik

 

Ostensibly it's the same ego trip that would cause someone to demand that he build a physical model.

 

So you can't tell the difference between a DEMAND and a CHALLENGE.

More of your semantic difficulties no doubt.

But it is a open challenge to everyone. If they want to complain about my model and say it is a toy or irrelevant then why shouldn't they build a model that demonstrates the workings of their paradigm of physical reality.

You and he can TALK forever but a RELEVANT model that anyone can duplicate would be far more SCIENTIFIC.

psik

 

I never claimed to be a structural engineer. Where have any structural engineers questioned the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers in the last TEN YEARS? Oh yeah, experts do not have to explain grade school physics to everybody. Everyone is supposed to just BELIEVE them because they have degrees. But in actual fact it seems that most engineers and physicists are saying absolutely NOTHING.

Of course if everybody understood that the collapses were IMPOSSIBLE then those "engineers" end up with egg on their faces. The Conservation of Momentum is so hard to understand. It takes years of education. ROFL

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_08.htm

psik

 

Apparently it does for some. After all, you haven't figured it out yet.

 

And you haven't built a physical model that can completely collapse either.

You have not demonstrated that reality conforms to your talk. You can just keep talking.

Of course that means that you have to deny reality that does not conform to your talk. Crushing versus buckling makes all the difference. ROFLMAO

Oh yeah, rotation too. Can't forget rotation and pinning.

psik

 

Well Psikey my boy thanks for the laugh. Of all the truthers I've run into on line both here and in other places you are far and away the most scientifically backwards. Physics isn't aoubt Math??? You've got to be kidding. Physics is almost entirely math. In fact in most universities it was at one time a requirement for a math major.

 

Teaching the subject of physics may involve a lot of math but are you saying that physics did not work the way it does now before the math was invented?

Are you saying the moons of Jupiter do calculations to figure out how to move from one microsecond to the next?

What mass does math besides human brains?

And if the math is so important shouldn't everyone want accurate data on the WTC? How many tons of steel were in a single floor assembly? How do you do the math without the data?

The math worshippers have a bit of a contradiction there.

psik

 

Math is how you express physics. It is how one proves or disproves a theory based on physics. Everyone understands this but you. Oh wait. You DO understand that physics is expressed through math, but use your pathetic whining as illustrated above to run away from the fact all your claims cannot be proven mathematically. Pretty pathetic attempt, psik.

 

So how do you do the math without the data?

How many tons of steel were in a single floor assembly? Provide an official source. The NIST has yet to specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Great PROOF that NCSTAR1 report.

psik

 

I've told you numerous times to use minimum values because even with minimum values you get the same results. Have you done so? No. You've ran EVERY SINGLE TIME. Now continue to run. We both know your claims are nothing but hot air.

 

1. You keep asking for data that you have no idea what to do with if you had it.

2. The data exists in the models created to test the building's performance.

The greatest benefit of a BIM is the ability to generate very good estimates of the types of data you keep demanding. Far more important to a design engineer is the shape of the building and the individual support elements. If you know the shape of the material and the density of the material it's very easy to determine the mass of the material. If you really need this information for your washer and paper loop model, simply FOI it. The SAP2000 data has already been made available, but the SAP2000 models where not the only models created. They were just the models that the person who submitted the FOI was familiar with. Maybe you'd rather have a revit model? You're just not asking the right people for it. Submit a FOI request.