Doesn’t an “experiment” have to be controlled by definition?
Shouldn’t the steel lower down the building have been thicker to support more weight and therefore more difficult to damage? But then people who have decided what to BELIEVE don’t need or want accurate data. We would not want to confuse them with THE FACTS.
They might have to come to conclusions about themselves which are not too flattering.
psik
True. I admit we had some sloppy experimenters - they couldn’t get the EXACT same plane, they didn’t hit the towers at the exact same spot, etc.
The “control” was the previous 30-odd years of the towers standing w/o planes impacting them.
Unless you want to build another WTC using late-1960s era construction methods, materials, and codes, a true model will never, ever be built. At least not one to your exacting standards. :rolleyes:
People who begin sentences with “shouldn’t the…” is not worried about accuracy, right? A factual statement would be:
“The first 10 floors used 42% more steel, per level, than floors 11-110. Floors 1-10 had X amount of steel, while floors 11-110 had y amount of steel.”
But don’t start your objection with “shouldn’t the…”, without any data, and then rant about facts vs. belief. Just because you believe the steel must be greater at the bottom doesn’t mean that it necessarily was. That’s where facts come in*.
In matter of facts, belief is not required. It is a fact that the planes impacted the towers. It is a fact that these towers were structurally sound prior to the impact. It is a fact that the towers collapsed because of the damage caused by the impact.
It is belief that anything else occurred to affect the physical collapse. It is belief that makes you deny the fact of what you saw - you believe that you cannot figure out what happened w/o knowing how much concrete was in the building, but the fact remains that knowledge of concrete loads is irrelevant, based upon the facts that were observed on September 11th and analyzed thereafter.
Believe it!
*And you don’t even have to speculate, given that you were linked to the actual floor plans. Review them and let us know the numbers, Kthxbai!
The core columns in the lower parts of the towers were thicker and more difficult to damage. However, that played no role in the collapse. It was the floors that collapsed in an avalanche, and the floors were the same strength all the way down. Each floor only needed to support its own weight, not the weight of anything above it.
**Someone is wrong on the internet! **Yet, I am going to be sucked into this, against my better judgement. I cannot resist the siren’s call.
Since you are the only one that believes this, why can’t you just give up talking about it? You’re not going to convince anyone here. Be happy in your superiority!
What do you think you gain by this discussion? Especially since you never give your own theory.
I wonder-do you believe everything you say? Or, when you are alone at night, with just your thoughts, do you begin to doubt? Do you think, maybe what everyone else is saying could be true? I think that would be difficult to do, because if you did:
When someone Just Asking Questions questions your devotion to the Truth Movement, it’s time to move on.
From now on, you could really speed things up by just giving us the nonsensical answers that would be acceptable to you right after you ask your questions. That would save the rest of us the time and effort of doing research that will only be automatically rejected by you. Stop pretending that you are “just asking questions” and just tell us what you think really happened.
It’s true. It’s a little known fact, but I and a couple of my buddies actually built the Chrysler Building in seventh grade. We got a B+.
You got dinged for those ugly spikes 3/4 of the way up, didn’t you?
hey, I’m just asking questions!
I’m more interested in the psychology of truthers. Watching the events on 9-11 live, I knew the buildings were coming down about 30 minutes or more before they did collapse. It was that obvious. Why is it so disbelieved?
I wonder what it is about some people that make them question the ‘official’ story. Do they also wonder about less controversial things? Do they believe that there is no difference between premium and regular gas? That milk doesn’t really come from cows, but is a synthetic product made by Big Ag? That THEY are keeping it a secret that Pi is really 3.14159365… and that Big Math is keeping it a secret?
How do they function day to day, when the whole world is conspiring against them? Or is it only the big stuff that is in question? Any why? Don’t they worry that they are being monitored through their cell phones, their laptop cameras, their bathroom fart fans?
These arguments always remind me that there are people who if they don’t understand how something works then really believe that it couldn’t have happened.
(Only been here six months and he’s on to us. Move in.)
psikeyhackr, if you aren’t satisfied with the NIST report, the 9/11 Comission report, the Popular Mechanic’s report, or any of the other official reports, what version are you currently satisfied with? Which version do you hold to be true or most likely to be true?
If you are of the impression middle schoolers could build a skyscraper, I’ll stay out of any building you endorse.
I’m still trying to figure out why psikeyhackr thinks his position is improved by admitting “It’s middle school physics that baffles me, not any of that graduate school stuff.”
Tell that to these guys. Riveting came first. Of course, since Canada didn’t get its first skyscrapers until the Montreal World’s Fair, some 35 years later, you can be forgiven your mistake. 
That was that asshole Jimmy’s idea.
HOLY CRAP! JUST ASKING QUESTIONS WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
Everyone that says “I’m just asking questions” is secretly admitting to being a co-conspirator!
I had thought that your earlier statement was among the stupidest posted on the SDMB. Now you have outdone yourself.
Which, of course, explains why every legitimate architect and civil engineer with any experience in constructing tall skyscrapers has been duped into believing the “official” story, while the only people who “recognize” that it is false are people who have no experience in the subject.
So you can claim that the change in thickness played not role. What evidence can you provide?
The walls of the perimeter box columns got thicker also. But we are not supplied with that data either.
psik
Saying something is hilarious is just a demonstration of opinion not really much of a belief.
But all you have to do is look at the photographs of the tilted top portion of the south tower. The NIST even admitted that it tilted somewhere between 20 and 25 degrees. Frank Greening said it tilted 25 degrees in 5 seconds.
Now try finding some scientists or structural engineers who have mentioned the center of mass of that tilted top portion in TWELVE YEARS. You can find thousands of links on the Internet about SUVs tilting over that mention the center of mass or gravity.
http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age11-14/Mechanics/Statics/text/Stability_/index.html
But it is not discussed about the top 30 stories of a skyscraper, an event that has never occurred before or since. 
Yes that is HILARIOUS!
psik