As I pointed out back in post #718 this is just wrong:
[QUOTE=Valgard]
Do you mean you can’t separate how strong a hunk of steel is from how much it weighs? If so this is also completely wrong. Structural steel doesn’t have “a strength” unless you’re thinking of the gross physical characteristics. The actual load capacity of, say, a steel column depends on a number of factors including how & where it is loaded, the exact geometry of the column and so on. It’d be really basic engineering to design two steel columns where the lighter one can carry a considerably greater load than the heavier one.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely wrong.
Let’s be blunt here - when it comes to engineering you do not know what you are talking about. Not a bit. You have confirmed this yourself, both literally and figuratively, several times. For all of your talking about basic physics I am honestly questioning your grasp of that as well since the simple concepts of scaling and modeling don’t seem to make any difference to you.
There’s nothing wrong with being unfamiliar with a topic, asking questions is how people learn, but that’s not what you are doing - you keep saying the same incorrect things over and over and I hate to disappoint you but no matter how many times you say 2+2=5, it’s still going to be 4.
So the fire in the Beijing hotel RAGED for how long? But the building didn’t collapse.
And then we don’t know the quantity of steel in the fire so how can anyone compute how hot the steel could have gotten in that time. Oh yeah, BELIEVEING doesn’t require data.
I never took a course in architecture or structural engineering in my life. My pledge father was an architect and we could see the Sears tower being constructed from campus. But electrical engineering requires physics courses and the Empire State Building was completed before transistors were invented. Human beings have been building complex structures for thousands of years. I am not in awe of structural engineering. There are variations in 4 ton steel girders just as there are variations in transistors with the same part number. But transistors are more complicated than steel girders.
I do not believe for one second that a 1360 foot skyscraper can be constructed with the same amount of steel on every level. Putting the same amount of steel at the top would mean the steel lower down would have to support more weight so it would need to be significantly stronger meaning still more weight.
This 9/11 problem should have been solved in less than a year. The structural engineering profession has painted itself into a corner with its tacit consent to the Official Conspiracy Theory. It should be possible to explain to grade school kids why it is doubtful that normal airliners could destroy those buildings in less than 2 hours. But to not talk about the distribution of steel and concrete after all of this time is absurd. Some people just need to obscure the grade school physics by waving degrees in the air and pretending this is complicted.
A skyscraper may be big and expensive but a netbook computer is far more interesting. But most of the dummies with Computer Science degrees won’t explain how a von Neumann machine works if they even understand it and plenty of them don’t.
Besides being of a more modern construction, unoccupied, with very little material added to the floors as it was under construction, with no jet fuel or a plane toss at it.
[quote]
(bolding mine)[list=#]Why was the AIA logo scrubbed from your material and website in May 2008?
[li]Who compiled the list of controlled demolition features you use in your presentations? [/li][li]Why does your list of CD features keep changing? [/li][li]Why do you use any NIST and FEMA information at all when you think they are full of lies and deceit? [/li][li]Do you really believe that no steel-framed hi-rise building could collapse from fire, not ever? [/li][li]Why do you fault NIST and FEMA for “using the same scientists” when you always use Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan? [/li][li]Why do you claim that NIST denies the existence of molten metal under the Pile when it is only a single person on their staff speaking for himself that has done this? [/li][li]Why, if there are so many people who heard explosions on 9/11, can’t you play a single recording with distinctive explosive sounds while the buildings are collapsing? [/li][li]Why do you continue to show only the last few seconds of the collapse of WTC 7? [/li][li]What part do you think the state of Israel played in the attacks of 9/11? [/li][li]Why do you consider Chandler’s confirmation of NIST’s Building 7 modeling as proof that the modeling is wrong? [/li][li]Did you know that the designers of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing did an extensive study of the WTC collapses before designing the Beijing building?[/list][/li][/quote]
Really? Sure, it could. It would just be less efficient of a design.
I’ve seen that the core columns were constructed in (IIRC) three different thicknesses - the thickest for the lower 1/3 and the thinnest for the upper 1/3. I’m not sure about the perimeter columns, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their thickness was reduced as you went up.
But in either case, I can’t see either one of these making a huge difference in the weight of a particular floor. I doubt that the weight of everything from the 10th to the 11th floor levels would be that different from the weight of the stuff between the 100th and 101st.
Then no uniform column of any material could ever stand. Common counterexamples to this kind of “logic” would include telephone poles, lamp posts and the wooden dowel in your own video.
But perhaps you want to see something big made of steel? Go look at a radio mast. Here’s a nice photo:
Scroll down to post #5 and look at “Radio Tower Hoyt”. It’s actually smaller at the bottom - a not-uncommon design. According to your logic, how can it possibly be standing?
This is just ludicrous. I’ll spell it out for you using really simple words:
There is no reason why you cannot build something (like a level of a skyscraper) able to hold, say, 100 times (or more) it’s own weight. You can then assemble a big uniform stack of those things. Voila, problem solved.
You simply do not understand that there is a difference between how much weight something can support and how much the support itself weighs.
And you do not understand that the actual geometry of a structural member is absolutely critical in determining how much load it can support. Want an example? Hold a sheet of paper on end and see how much weight it can hold (hint - none). Now fold that same sheet of paper accordion style and stand it on end. Now see how much weight it can support (hint - much more).
Do you actually have a college degree? In what?
The only problem I can see is that you do not understand what you are talking about on a number of levels. You said earlier that you don’t give a fig about Conspiracy Theories, that seems to have just gone out the window.
By saying that it should be possible to explain why something that did happen could not happen you’re showing what I think everyone here already knew, which is that you made up your mind in advance and you want to make the evidence (and basic math, physics, engineering, etc) fit your predetermined conclusion.
Build something so that you can drive from one side of the Grand Canyon to the other.
One solution is “Fill it up with concrete”. That would work but it’s not very elegant.
The skill of engineering lies in determining how much of that concrete you can remove and still be able to cross the canyon. It’s all about “How efficiently can you accomplish the design goal”.
One might think that means you should design every member of a structure to hold exactly its design load and nothing more so you aren’t wasting material, however that may wind up costing you a ton more money - it’s a huge amount of extra design work, connections can be more complicated, if you’re dealing with reinforced concrete the forms will keep changing, construction will be harder, there will be mistakes, etc.
But now all of the structural engineers can explain why they can’t tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of skyscrapers that were designed before the Moon landing even though it is now 40 years after the Moon landing. In addition the Empire State Building was designed and constructed before transistors and electronic computers were invented. But we are supposed to believe the events of 9/11 are so difficult to analyze.
Specialists need to pretend simple shit is complicated.
My models are obviously too complex and expensive for our engineering schools that charge $100,000 + for four years of education to have constructed.
This is from MIT. I was so impressed back in 2002.
You put together a dowel with toothpicks. You dropped a weight and every toothpick broke. Then you added washers above each toothpick, and then only a few toothpicks broke.
And this means that the World Trade Center couldn’t collapse? Because since the floors weighed a lot, the weight of the floors above couldn’t possibly collapse the floors above?
I can build a model of the WTC where everything breaks. You built one where not much breaks. Why do you think your model is a better analog of the real WTC than mine?
If you think the Empire State Building, which was designed before transistors, is constructed simply, you’re right. For instance, the top floor doesn’t have half the concrete and steel of the next-to-top floor, or 1/3 the concrete and steel of the third from the top, or 1/4 the concrete and steel of the fourth from the top, and so on.
If a skyscraper has 100 floors, sure, the 1st floor holds up 100 floors, the second holds up 99 floors, the 50th holds up 50 floors, and the top holds up only 1 floor. That doesn’t mean the top floor has 1/100th of the strength of the ground floor. It might be that the 50th floor is half as strong as the ground floor, but maybe not. And even if the 50th floor is half the weight of the ground floor, so what does that prove? That since the lower floors were stronger they absolutely positively couldn’t collapse due to lighter floors falling on them? That’s a non sequitor.
Since it’s so important to know the mass/steel distribution of the WTC, and since this information is apparently hidden from us by the Conspirocracy, I would like to posit the following challenge to psykeyhackr:
Please link to us the sort of data which you’re looking for about any building in the world. Doesn’t matter if it’s about the Fox Theater in Atlanta, GA or the Kuala Lampur towers or my apartment complex. I’m kind of interested in seeing an example of the set of data you’re looking for, even if it’s not about the WTC.
No one has made this claim, so you are out of line submitting such an obvious straw man argument.
At this point, you have demonstrated that you are ignorant of the topic, that you rely on fallacious, (and even dishonest), sources for your purported “information,” (claiming that you have no interest in Conspiracy Theories while relying exclusively on Conspiracy Theory sites for your "information), and you continue to make accusations that you cannot support.
I am beginning to wonder just how serious you are about the discussion and the more you post snide comments and baseless accusations, the more likely I am to think that you are engaged in something other than a serious (if seriously misguided) debate.
Tone it down and limit yourself to accusations that have some basis in reality.
Everyone appreciates an honest answer to an honest question.
Well the Great Wall Of China was completed 500 years before Frosted Lucky Charms were invented and yet nobody is able to explain why they’re so magically delicious.
No, the basic principles are really quite simple and they’ve been explained multiple times here and elsewhere. Specialists love the opportunity to explain their field to laymen. I’m absolutely serious about that. Ask an engineer about their job at a party - you do so at risk of your time.
Well I went to a state school (UIUC) so I wouldn’t know about them high-falutin’ places. As has been explained to you repeatedly, your model is not too complex, it’s not too simple, and it’s not even “wrong”, it’s just not (as you yourself specifically acknowledged) a model of the structure that you’re interested in.
And since you’ve raised the point I’ll ask my question again:
The main problem dealing with CTers such as Psikeyhackr, is that they have invested some much emotion and time in their pursuit of the truth as they have come to believe it, that they just aren’t objective anymore.
He’s researched what the building is made of. He’s built toothpick models. He’s made videos of the toothpicks. Are they accurate? Hell no. Does it matter? Nope.
Went to a friend’s house to watch a basketball game a couple of weeks ago. A guy there wanted to talk about the Kennedy conspiracy. Although my friend tried to wave me off we got into it. He begged me to walk next door to go to his garage, because he actually built a model of Dealey Plaza! A frink’n model! At that point I realized that nothing was going to change his mind.
Psikeyhackr has so much invested at this point, that he just can’t admit that he’s wrong. Not that he doesn’t want to. He cannot. Because psikeyhackr’s wasted so much of his time on this pursuit, that he can’t admit that it was a waste. He’s shown the video to his brother, to the next door neighbor, to anyone he can rope in. The guys at work have heard all about the “experiments” a hundred times. He probably has drawings all over his bedroom in mom’s basement. To change his mind would force him to admit to everyone in his life that the windmill he’s been tilting at for the last eight years was an illusion. And that’s something he just. Can’t. Do.
So debate him all you want. Just understand that you are asking him to make a life changing event. And that isn’t going to happen.
[QUOTE=spifflog]
So debate him all you want. Just understand that you are asking him to make a life changing event. And that isn’t going to happen.
[/QUOTE]
There doesn’t seem to be any debate here. It’s the equivalent of me debating quantum mechanics with a physicist…except that I actually vaguely remember my 4 years of college physics courses on the subject, where as Psikeyhackr is attempting to debate structural mechanics, statics and civil engineering without seemingly even that rather tenuous background. Heck, I even had 2 years of civil engineering type courses (the U of A believed in ‘well rounded engineers’…gods know why), and I wouldn’t attempt to seriously debate on this subject. It would be like comparing my tooth pick bridge I built in high school physics to a modern equivalent and asking why it doesn’t scale up properly (and why they don’t just build bridges out of bailing wire, tooth picks and Elmer’s glue).
At any rate I’m not seeing how it’s possible to get through to someone such as Psikeyhackr on this subject. His main contribution seems to be rolling on the floor frequently and laughing, while spouting uninformed and frankly ignorant non-sense about subjects he doesn’t even have a tenuous grasp of understanding.
The kicker is that by and large the majority of experts, people who DO actually understand this stuff (having, you know, gone to college to study it and all) and who have actually looked over the data on the collapses of the WTC buildings are nearly unanimous about at least the gross causes of the collapse. Oh, they may differ on little details, or the exact sequence of events causing the collapse (I’ve seen models where it varies in exactly which beams let go in what order but still result in the same collapse sequence). The few people who don’t agree are mainly not experts in the field, but instead folks like Psikeyhackr who, generally, don’t have a clue on this subject. And that should say something right there…because unless nearly every civil engineer, architect, materials engineer, etc that have looked at this are in on this vast conspiracy (:dubious:) then it’s ludicrous to take seriously the ravings of a bunch of untrained and unschooled ‘experts’ who just ‘feel’ that the buildings couldn’t have possibly collapsed when and how they did…and who use YouTube video or it’s equivalent to ‘prove’ their case.
Oh psikeyhackr I am so disappointed. I thought you were one of the FEW SOULS who looked beyond the LIES of the so-called “MEDIA” and saw the TRUTH for what it was. Now I realize that while you are part way through the LOOKING GLASS you haven’t made the final leap. The so-called MOON LANDING is just another hoax perpetrated by our shape-shifting reptilian overlords. Have the chemtrails so clouded your mind you cannot see this? Stop being one of the SHEEPLE who believe the lies of the reptile controlled MSM. You are so close.
