Do you mean NIST cannot tell us or NIST has not told you
No. Not really. There was a mass. That mass went from being a static load to a live load. The immediate structure under it could not handle that load, nor could the structure underneath that, etc.
Yet there has not been one scrap, one shred, one iota of evidence that the structural failure of the towers was grossly different than the model NIST presented as you claim.
So basically all you are doing is whining and claiming a victory without the slightest cause.
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
There are these buildings called skyscrapers. The first level of a 110 story building MUST be strong enough to support the weight of 109 levels. Obviously every level further up must support one level less of weight. But it is the steel that must support that weight. And that does not even count the strength necessary to resist the wind. The NIST can’t even tell us the total weight of the concrete though they did it for the steel.
[/QUOTE]
There have, of course, been several different teams who have modeled the collapse…here is one done by Discovery and, I think, used in one of the shows debating various points in the CT against science. And NIST has several models as well that they used. The fact that they haven’t told you the precises weight of everything and that you feel this is some sort of fatal flaw just shows that you lack and understanding of modeling. It’s like disputing the theory of Evolution because someone can’t tell you precisely and in pedantic detail how, exactly, life originated or what it had for breakfast on it’s first day.
The only reason anyone would go to the ridiculous expense of figuring out exactly what the weight was of every aspect of the towers would be to forestall this sort of God of the Gaps type rebuttal, and frankly, it’s not worth it, because folks like you would just find some other point to nitpick.
And of course, here we see one of the main differences between conspiracy theorizing and honest scientific discourse. Given the wealth of data and analysis on this subject, no rational scientist would look at it and say “No, I need X data further or I will reject the whole thing”. At least, they wouldn’t without a competing hypothesis, which would in turn definitely require its own evidence. No such evidence is forthcoming from psikeyhackr, because that’s how science works, and most emphatically not how conspiracies work. No, he gets to demand a piece of evidence he would find convincing (just like creationists get to demand “all the missing links” or vaccine denialists get to demand the vax-unvax study), and he doesn’t seem to care that said piece of evidence is so unreasonable to obtain that it will never happen, and that it is in fact completely worthless because of outside issues.
Excuse me, but that is not how rational inquiry works. That’s the twisted thought process of denialism.
Where did I say I deny what? My only point is that the north tower collapse has not been explained on the basis of what we know. But then we don’t know the steel and concrete mass distributions.
The simple fact is I haven’t seen a single complete collapse model built by ANYBODY.
A computer program with 109 masses that computes collapse time based strictly on gravitational acceleration and the Conservation of Momentum is not difficult to code. But it is obvious from just changing the mass distribution that the collapse time is affected by that distribution but that does not take into account the energy that would be lost in breaking supports strong enough to support the weight. So how can anyone prove that mass distribution is irrelevant?
So engineering schools can’t build self supporting but complete collapse models in TWELVE YEARS. Who has even tried?
And then you can accuse me of being unscientific. Wanting to understand things for oneself is unscientific. :smack:
But then 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been completed since 2001. So how can any structural engineers claim that this is complicated physics?
Why do you keep asking these questions when you have no intention of listening to the answers? Do you have any new questions that haven’t already been answered multiple times?
psikeyhackr the only thing you showed here was how you avoided dealing with the fact that nowadays computer models are used and they were used already as XT pointed out.
PBS had a team that also used computer models to point out how the collapse of the towers was not the same.
This is the third separate thread that you have interrupted to rant about a model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. You have never actually provided any point to your ranting, but, at least, on this occasion you have, yourself, provided the reason why your silly rant is utterly meaningless.
The model of the bridge, as you have finally admitted, was not built for the purpose of discovering why the bridge collapsed. It was built prior to the collapse in an era before computers, to physically determine what might cause the bridge to collapse. Now, of course, we have an additional 70+ years of experience, technology, and the aid of computers to discover what and why things happen. You have now cluttered up too many threads with this nonsense.
Your claims that NIST is either incapable of or unwilling to provide the information that you want to see are ludicrous. Where is the evidence that anyone has tried to get that information and had NIST refuse? The fact that you have not seen it laid out on Fox News is not proof that the information is not available.
Until you can provide evidence that NIST is hiding something or evidence that there is some essential information that they do not know, you will stop hijacking these threads with your silly rants.
This, by the way, ranks among the top ten dumbest statements in SDMB history. When a building is built, the physics employed are recorded by the architects and engineers to be used on the next project. They are also often published for others to review. The complexity of a problem has nothing to do with how often it can be reproduced. Nuclear bombs are complex, but we have built and exploded hundreds of them. Open heart surgery and brain surgery are both complex, and thousands of those occur each year.
I have no idea what idea you thought you were “proving” with the quoted paragraph, but the one thing that you did prove is that you tend to post nonsense without giving any thought to what you are saying.
Ok, there a couple of problems with both of these responses, which make for good sound bites, but only serve to try to stifle any debate.
First of all, kerosene does not burn hot enough to ignite thermite. That’s why magnesium is used.
The “inferno” as The Hamster King calls it, as well as the airplanes that caused it were a psych-op. Shock and awe designed to look like movies and used to numb the masses. The quote from The Hamster King perfectly shows the desired result, a statement easily proven false, but no one calls it.
Second, traces of thermite reaction were found throughout the WTC dust. The fact that just about everyone on this board hand wave that fact away does not make it any less true.
My point is there was never a real investigation. We started being fed the official myth just hours after the collapse. Everything the public was told after that was in service of that myth.
Some people noticed some problems with the myth, and started investigating on their own, at great personal loss. Of course most of the evidence was inaccessible or destroyed by then, hell Jessie Ventura was not allowed to even look at the WTC steel. Even the 9/11 commission had to admit that NORAD lied to them.
I think it’s you that says the chain or custody of evidence was broken in regard to the WTC dust, and therefore the findings are not valid.
I can make the same case against the official myth. It really is no wonder to me why there was not a real investigation right from the start.
The official myth would have been discredited immediately.
And of course, you’re wrong. The north tower collapse has been explained very thoroughly on the basis of what we know. It’s just that you’re holding out for a piece of evidence that you know is never going to exist, because it’s unreasonable and because the world has moved on.
No, demanding unreasonable standards of evidence in order to accept a well-supported hypothesis, then rejecting it when your unreasonable standards are not fulfilled without any sort of viable alternative hypothesis is unscientific. If the towers didn’t come down due to planes and fires, what’s the alternative hypothesis that’s as viable given what we know? Oh wait, there isn’t one.
Citation needed.
There was the 9/11 Commission investigation, the Popular Mechanics investigation, The NIST investigation, PBS Nova, this guy, that guy, all these guys… There was tons of investigation, both from inside the government as well as outside. The result was an overwhelming flop for conspiracy theorists. Of course, for conspiracy theorists, no investigation that disagrees with them is “real”. It’s all either compromised or assuming the “myth” or corrupted by the government or <insert excuse here>.
Well, no, the reason it’s not valid is because it’s paint chips. Seriously, the claims of nanothermite are just dumb.
Yes, I know about the NOVA show, but it reeks of propaganda. It plays like they were told what to say to uphold the myth.
I see it more like we have things that are known to be out and out lies. The fact that there are architects & engineers that say the NOVA story is not possible just piles on.
I don’t believe it would have taken 1000’s of people to pull off 9/11. For example, there was one man in charge of North American Air Defenses on 9/11. A squad of skilled men could have easily rigged the WTC in the months leading up to 9/11. The hijackers were quite obviously patsies that couldn’t handle a Cessena, let alone a twin engine jet airliner.
Any kind of real investigator would have a field day with this.
