Even pre-schoolers have a native undestanding of Fudd’s First Law of Opposition, “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.”
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
I did read the entire article, YEARS AGO. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, your mind was closed and/or you just didn’t get it. But, as Forest’s mama would say, stupid is as stupid does. Case in point:
What a really stupid thing to say. Do you think that it helps your case?? 
Well, that’s an interesting question. Does it never give you pause that only loony 9/11 CT Truther types buy into this bullshit? Seriously…does it never give you pause that only 9/11 CT Truthers can see the seemingly (to you and them) crucial pont about mass distribution? That only you/they understand physics, while experts in those fields don’t? That you have to resort to giving me a link to a loony CT site in order to show how stupid an article from a major publication is after rolling on the floor and laughing your ass off when, to put it gently, the joke is really on you?
And you just swallowed that? You didn’t, I don’t know, fact check to see if it was true? Never once thought ‘hm, wonder why all of the professional engineering organizations out there aren’t saying anything about that and are actually looking into revising building codes based on 9/11’? You just looked him in the eye and bought his line of bullshit??
Wow. That’s…something.
And no actual physicists, structural engineers who work on sky scrapers or others actually in the field noticed? Again, has it never occurred to you that, perhaps, the fact that you aren’t any of those things (a physicist, a structural engineer or someone who is even in the field, or has any sort of special knowledge or even non-specific knowledge about any of this stuff) and, clearly, don’t actually have a good grasp of even the basics might…just might…have something to do with the obvious disconnect? That looking Richard Gage in the eye and hearing his answer might mean that, while he believed the horseshit he told you, it didn’t necessarily mean it was right?
It’s funny in a sad sort of way. You are a microcosm of the 9/11 Truth movement, and hell every other CT out there. When confronted with facts you go to all sorts of convoluted ways to handwave them away. There is nothing that will ever convince you. You can be shown that even folks you cite don’t believe the horseshit anymore and you can handwave that away with another cry for about where it was shown experimentally. Some ignorance simply can’t be fought, at least not in an individual. However, you are a text book study on how CTers are immune to any sort of reason, and by doing and saying the things you have, hand waving away all attempts to try and explain, reason or educate you, I think you’ve done your part in showing those theoretical folks on the fence how idiotic the whole 9/11 Truth movement and their theories really are. So, keep coming back and keep posting…I think you are actually helping others, even if you, yourself are beyond saving.
And here you move from fanatically silly to just saying dumb things to see your words on the screen.
Where are the large numbers of astrophysicists discussing the moon landings? Things that have been explained require no comment unless one intends to make money writing a book or magazine article or unless one is confronted by one more lunatic who has a need to believe that real events occurred in some alternative reality. There have been multiple investigations, (I noted several in my post), that included many architects and engineers qualified to talk on the topic. The rest of the qualified people have had no reason or incentive to spend the energy and time to write articles that say nothing more than “Yup. That’s how it happened.”
Only the lunatics have an incentive to keep talking about it.
When a copy of the so-called “Judas Gospel” was discovered a few years ago, there were only a couple of articles written on the topic by biblical scholars–and they all said the same thing. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars said noting because the first few people who commented got it right, (we’ve know that such a work existed and what it said in outline since the time of Irenaeus, around 150 C.E.), so the thousands of other biblical scholars had no need to say anything. Your big claim that massive numbers of architects and engineers have said nothing is simply you trying to invent a reason to be skeptical when, in fact, that “silence” reinforces the validity of the reports from N.I.S.T., MIT, and Popular Mechanics.
Russell was never part of the actual study by Stanford. He is an electrical engineer who happens to be at the same school spouting off on stuff which he has no training or experience that he does not understand. (He is also a fruitcake who has supported the “pod plane” theory of substituted aircraft along with a number of other conspiracy theories reaching back as far as first century Rome.) Where are the other Stanford architects and engineers writing to support his bullshit?
Relax, tom. For a lot of people understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head, and psik’s head has room for lots of bees.
You mean psikey’s part of a hive-mind? 
An even more basic question that the conspiracy theorists never answer: If the above was the motive, why the hell didn’t the administration bother to make it look like Iraq was involved in the attack? Instead, Bush & Co forced themselves to (a) put off their Iraq conquest dreams for a couple of years while we fight in Afghanistan; and (ii) gin up a completely new set of excuses to go after Iraq.
Instead, we are presented with a group of conspirators who are simultaneously brilliant enough to pull off mass murder in front 1000s of ground witnesses and millions of TV witnesses without their involvement leaking out, yet dumb enough to pull off the conspiracy in a way that doesn’t advance – indeed, that hinders – their agenda.
Let’s stick to addressing his words and leave the personal remarks out of this.
[ /Moderating ]
So the Empire State Building was completed before electronic computers or transistors were invented but the physics of skyscrapers are beyond the comprehension of electrical engineers.
But even though the nation that put men on the Moon can’t specify the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers designed before 1969 and cannot demonstrate the north tower collapse experimentally everyone is supposed to shut up and think what they are told.
So far I haven’t see the Conservation of Momentum with any so called explanation. Just what is supposed to inspire awe in Stanford. If there study is so great why hasn’t anyone duplicated it?
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html
We can find stuff that mentions Stanford but explains nothing. That is really great!
So do you know of a link to this Stanford study that says something about the Conservation of Momentum and the collapse time of one of the twin towers?
psik
Are you trying to persuade me that you are trolling?
The Empire State Building was constructed using radically different methods than those employed in the WTC. Saying “skyscraper” does not make them equivalent. Saying that they are equivalent indicates that either you are truly too ignorant to participate in this discussion or that you are trolling.
Beyond that, how many electrical engineers participated in the design of the Empire State Building? Intelligence is not an issue, (although, given Russell’s other enthusiasm of Conspiracy Theories, mental health might be). Ignorance is the issue and a person trained in a totally different field of engineering cannot be pointed to as an expert on an area in which he or she is not trained.
I have no idea whether the Stanford people are trying to satisfy the bugaboos that you have invented. They clearly are studying the collapse, even today.
STANFORD ENGINEERS STUDY 9/11 FOR LESSONS ON HOW TO HELP BUILDINGS WITHSTAND THREATS
And actual structural engineers from Stanford participated in the earliest examinations:
Structural engineer to discuss impact of the World Trade Center collapse
And if you think that you are going to get any traction by trying to pick apart the Stanford participation as though we will not notice your avoidance of the studies by N.I.S.T., MIT and Popular Mechanics, you will further persuade me that you are trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
Hey! I’m not the one coming this><close to accusing him of trolling.
Well, I was attacking the post, not the poster, but I’ll back off. The Forest’s mama thing was probably skating right on that edge. My apologies to all.
I certainly wouldn’t trust any skyscraper built and designed by an EE.
yawn Stuck record time. The reason nobody is making an experiment to your liking is because they see no point to it. They have little desire to jump through hoops and waste time and resources to satisfy CTers who have demonstrated time and time again that they simply cannot be satisfied unless they get the answer they want to hear instead of the answer reality give.
Just FYI, Psikey believes that we don’t understand the physics of the Empire State Building because it was completed a year before the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick.
You’re really bad at reading comprehension, and you have a really bad memory of the things you yourself have said earlier in this very thread. Earlier you were complaining that NIST only modeled up to the point that the collapse was initiated, not the collapse itself. Your point, such as it was, seemed to be that you thought that even after the top section collapsed down onto level 93 or whatever, the lower part of the building should have arrested the collapse.
Then I addressed that very point, that the lower part of the building couldn’t have arrested the top once it started moving, because each floor only has enough strength to support its own weight (plus a safety margin), not the entire upper part crashing down onto it.
So here’s the deal: NIST was absolutely correct that pancaking floors are not what initiated the collapses, it was bowing inwards of the perimeter columns due to the floor trusses buckling. Once the perimeter columns bowed in, they could not support the great weight above them and failed at that point.
Once this got going, the perimeter columns funneled the leading edge of the collapse wave so that it was largely focused on the next floor below. As the wave accumulated, the part behind the leading edge of the wave then pushed out the perimeter columns, which were left without lateral support because the floors were no longer there, and the perimeter columns were flung outwards.
I wouldn’t call it pancaking, because that gives the impression of intact floors stacking up on each other; instead it was an avalanche. But in any case, in order for the lower parts of the building to arrest the falling upper part, the floor supports would have had to withstand many floors worth of debris impacting them at high speed. No floor was strong enough to do that, therefore the collapse continued all the way down.
I did mean force…been out of school too long.
So I finally had a minute to spare so I thought I would research this “fact” you keep waving about of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.
All I can say is either you have the weakest google-fu of anyone around, or you know the 425,000 figure is wrong.
Here is a cite from The New York Museum that says
Note the use of the word complex That would include all the buildings, the foundations, the slurry wall sidewalks and exterior stairs.
Or this one
That would be for one tower and 2X 163 is not 425 so that would tend to support the cite from the museum.
Also of interest in the second cite is a second page entitled Nutty 9-11 Physics I came across this:
There is a difference between “doesn’t have to” and whatever it actually did.
All he is proposing is SPECULATION.
Where is the experiment? Where is accurate data on the distribution of mass down the building? Now even if all that happened was breaking welds that still required energy. How much? Because of Newtons 3rd Law the falling 10 stories could not remain intact while destroying 90 stories that had to be stronger and heavier and welds do not eliminate mass and the Conservation of Momentum.
So he can repeat the JREF mantra
“Static, Dynamic, Static, Dynamic”
Try finding “Conservation of Momentum” on the “Nutty 9-11 Physics” site. Good Luck! My computer program which simulates collapses based on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the Conservation of Momentum still takes 12 to 14 seconds and does not lose energy to breaking welds so how does Steve Dutch account for that? I looked over his site years ago.
conservation site:https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/
That is why I built a static model that supported its own weight and raised the mass at the top. It still arrested even though the supports were only paper.
All you guys can come up with is TALK and 8th grade math with incomplete data.
Are experiments too difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon?
psik
So, psi; what you’re now telling us is that you don’t know what geology is. Your posts already show you don’t comprehend any aspects of engineering.
You’re really bad at this engineering thing, aren’t you?
And the Scientific American article? What’s your rebuttal to that? Just going to hand wave again, or roll on the floor laughing? You built a model that doesn’t scale or show anything, then all you do is hand wave and whine about the fact that no one is out trying to prove that the towers could have collapsed using old analogue systems or experiments while ignoring the computer models used. Then you whine somemore about how no one is trying to prove, to your satisfaction through experimentation something that only you and other 9/11 Truthers need proof for…proof being defined as impossible to provide data, since you and they won’t accept anything short of ‘you are right, the buildings really were destroyed by magical explosives planted by fairy ninjas, and it would be impossible for a building to collapse any other way’.
You’ve been shown the facts and you refuse to even read them, as noted by your ROFLMAO, because, you see, my link wasn’t actually to the Popular Mechanics debunking site, but was an article about that article. Your claim that you read it was a load of horseshit, since what you (might) have read in the past was the Popular Mechanics debunking article itself. Calling it ‘stupid’ then and now with a drive by link to a 9/11 CT site just shows you aren’t really even interested in a good faith debate.
I have to give you this though…at least you haven’t tucked tail and bolted. It’s clear you really, truly believe this horseshit and are a complete convert, and that you are willing to stand in here regardless of how silly and stupid your theories are shown to be or how ignorant you demonstrably are about the actual physics involved. At least you are willing to stand in here and take it for your faith, so that’s something…unlike the majority of your fellow 9/11 Truther types (including the OP) who have long ago tucked tail and fled for easier climes (probably on some circle jerking Truther site where they can all join the echo chamber).