Psik, what is your theory as to why the buildings went down?
I disagree. We do believe it. But! We believe it because of all the positive evidence that it happened the way it happened, and the lack of negative evidence that it didn’t happen.
All Psychiehacker has shown is that we don’t have even more positive evidence than we already have.
This is getting ridiculous. How many times are you going to post links to nonsense CT sites that spend all their efforts showing that the aircraft fuel could not have weakened the steel enough to cause a collapse when the very NIST report cited by your own link, (but then carefully excluded from the quotes by the authors of the site), agrees that the fuel fires would not have weakened the steel, sufficiently, but that the other office materials (an acre worth on each level), were enough to weaken specific trusses.
And while you keep nattering on about how no one “can come up with” the amount of steel on each level, you have failed to demonstrate that they did not know that–only that you have not bothered to look it up. At this point, your circular arguments that simply repeat the same refrain over and over, with additional insults as you can get away with, is beginning to look like trolling.
Give it a rest.
Bragging on your intelligence on an anonymous board when you fail to demonstrate that intelligence in conversation is not persuasive. Neither is this sort of disingenuity:
Obvioulsy, to anyone smart enough to recall the actual thread, the level is the level of the building or the bunk bed, since there was much made of “levels” against “stories” earlier on.
[ /Modding ]
The way that I’ve been reading Psik’s arguments is that he is claiming that we (or the NIST) believe that the initial impacts were enough to bring the buildings down, which is why he focuses on oscillations, how far the buildings moved upon impact, the amount/weight of the steel in each level, the amount of time passing between impact and collapse, etc. To me, it seems that he completely discounts the effects of the fires and assumes their effect to be nil, and assumes that we think the same.
After all, unless I missed it, he hasn’t given his theory as to how/why the buildings collapsed. So I’m a bit confused as to what his point actually is.
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
How do you compute what the fire could do in less than 2 hours if you don’t know the quantity of steel in the vicinity of the fire?
[/QUOTE]
You only need to know the quantity (and more important the quality) of steel that was in the supporting structure and in the vicinity of the fire. I know you don’t get this, but the entire building didn’t have to melt like wax for the structure to come down…only a few key elements did. This concept, seemingly quite easy to grasp, is, sadly, beyond most if not all of the CT crowd. I wish I could understand why it’s so difficult a concept for you (and them) to wrap your head around.
C’est la vie, I suppose. I’d think it would be child’s play for a former MENSA member…
-XT
Your first cite was as filled with “ifs, buts and maybes” as the most whacked-out ‘no-planer’s’ ramblings. Quick quote -
Your second and third seem to be the same thing, and the very first words in the pdf’s are as follows:- “Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were discovered in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC7 and the second from either WTC1 or WTC2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2 respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.”
You’re not going to suggest that such vague bollocks is representative of anything conclusive, are you?
Feel free to keep offering up solid bollocks in the meantime.
I never claimed to have them in the first place. It’s the Defenders Of The One True Theory who are claiming to have cast iron cojones that can never be rattled.
It’s my understanding that “bollocks” is, in addition to nonsense stated as fact, a state of mind.
Anyway, the prevailing theory can indeed be rattled - as soon as someone has some actual evidence worthy of rattlefication. Got some?
No taxation without rattlefication!
I’ve just rattled the evidence of “investigation of the metallic structure” by pointing out that the investigators weren’t even sure where the metal came from.
So far, the physics that you’ve presented is either inapplicable or misleading or just plain wrong.
As a case in point, you’ve been repeatedly pointing out that you don’t know the mass distribution in the towers. However, the reason you want that information is to calculate tower displacement:
This calculation requires knowing the tower stiffness, not mass.
I suggest that, to answer the questions you want to ask, an exact mass distribution is not necessary. Rather than worrying about mass distribution, you might wish to make sure your physics is both correct and applicable to the poblem at hand.
And you’re assuming that these were the only steel pieces that were found and tested?
No, but I’d assume they knew exactly where the pieces they have stated that they tested, actually came from. What kind of scientist deals with such loose categorisations as “apparently”?
ivan astikov Please answer this simple question that has been asked of you several times.
What do you think caused the buildings to collapse?
Well, let’s put it this way, if it is so blindingly obvious that the buildings would have collapsed, had they been hit by fully laden passenger planes, in those particular places, it is entirely possible that some powerful group could have arranged that to happen. Anyone want to take a stab at what would have happened had the planes struck higher up the building?
Whether towers one and two were brought down using additional methods, does nothing to explain how #7, after receiving asymmetrical damage, came down from one viewing angle in a perfectly symmetrical manner.
Indeed. And even Al Qaeda had significant difficulties. Remember, their first attempt failed, and their second attempt could have failed if things had gone differently.
As for your second paragraph, you answer your own question within it–“from one viewing angle”. It’s the same basic principle.
It’s also possible that space aliens directed those planes. There was a powerful group that arranged for it to happen: Al Quida. We have huge amounts of evidence that they did the deed and OBL admitted it on tape. You’re now invoking some shadowy organization when there’s no evidence for it and no plausible explanation what their motivation would be. If you have evidence, present it, but all you have is unsupported handwaving to explain away a problem that doesn’t exist.
Which they definitively were not.
Except it didn’t, and even if it did, it wouldn’t prove whatever you are suggesting.
You didn’t answer the question. More precisely, you answered it with a rhetorical question. :rolleyes:
The above link has plenty of evidence and analysis which disproves the fiction that WTC7 collapsed in a “perfectly symmetrical manner”. Now, it might have looked like it did (from certain “veiwing angles”), but it most definitely did not.
.
Horsehit!
The stiffness AND THE MASS are both necessary. And of course the quantity of steel is going to be a factor in the stiffness. You don’t suppose thicker steel is more stiff do you? You don’t suppose thicker steel will be heavier do you?
psik