• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis[W:222, 344. 1463]

psikeyhackr said:
You are demonstrating more brilliance by the post. If a "weak as possible" model cannot collapse straight down then why should we believe a skyscraper designed with a safety factor would? :roll:

psik
Click to expand...

A model of what though?
Your model bears absolutely no resemblance to the WTC tower construction, which makes it a strawman model when discussing the WTC collapses.

Many of us have pointed this out many times.

Please explain how your model should be considered relevant.
 
Kat Dorman said:
oz will say you ****ed up at more fundamental stage, in demanding all the support be completely crushed like a Bazant model, NOT like the towers which were dominated by connection failure. This is also true. But if you insist on making a model with full crushing - it can be done theoretically but it's nowhere as easy or cheap as what you did.
Click to expand...

Which you CLAIM are dominated by connection failures. But where is there a single shred of evidence that a floor assembly ever fell on another floor assembly? So where is there a model that can collapse based on connection failures?

All you have is TALK. Who can even specify something as simple as tha amount of concrete in the towers?

You can come up with excuses to bitch about my model but no one has produced one that accounts for the collapse. :roll:

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Which you CLAIM are dominated by connection failures.
Click to expand...

https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

As part of the National In-
stitute of Standards and Technology
World Trade Center Investigation, failure
modes of the connections attaching the
composite floor system to the exterior wall
of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were surveyed. Met-
allographic analyses of intact and failed
welds of the main load-bearing truss seats
complemented the survey to identify the
location of metallurgical failure for these
connections. Above the aircraft impact
floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to
85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were
randomly distributed. However, over 90%
of floor truss connections at or below the
impact floors of both buildings were either
bent downward or completely sheared
from the exterior wall suggesting progres-
sive overloading of the floors below the
impact zone following collapse initiation
of the towers
Click to expand...
 
Aka "roosd" << all those were UPPER CASE - I'll flush my browser caches later
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
There is a column in the tables called "number of observations". How many truss seats were in the building?

It was about 200 for each standard floor assembly with 1/3rd around the core. That should be around 17,000 truss seats.

But the number of observations does not even reach 100. I am impressed! :roll:

psik
Click to expand...

You think silly paper loop models have any bearing on 911.
No one is impressed with your complete and utter lack of knowledge about physics.
 
Quag said:
You think silly paper loop models have any bearing on 911.
No one is impressed with your complete and utter lack of knowledge about physics.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, dropping 15 stories onto 90 stories wouldn't slow it down to take more than 30 seconds. Some sources say 11 seconds.

My Python program that had no paper loops and only computed slow down due to the Conservation of Momentum took 12 seconds and it did not expend energy breaking truss seats.

Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - VIDEO: WTC - Gravitational Collapse Demo

But then "experts" don't even want to demand accurate data on the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down the towers. My program computed different results with changes in mass distribution.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Oh yeah, dropping 15 stories onto 90 stories wouldn't slow it down to take more than 30 seconds. Some sources say 11 seconds.

My Python program that had no paper loops and only computed slow down due to the Conservation of Momentum took 12 seconds and it did not expend energy breaking truss seats.

Let's Roll Forums - View Single Post - VIDEO: WTC - Gravitational Collapse Demo

But then "experts" don't even want to demand accurate data on the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down the towers. My program computed different results with changes in mass distribution.

psik
Click to expand...


More nonsense from a guy who doesn't know basic physics.
Just like the "flight instructor" that doesn't know anything about aviation.
Perhaps you should try learning about the subject before you try and use it to promote your BS cts about 911.
Of course if you actually did that it would be hard for you to actually continue to believe any of your nonsense, so I guess ignorance is bliss as far as truthers are concerned.
 
psikeyhackr said:
There is a column in the tables called "number of observations". How many truss seats were in the building?

It was about 200 for each standard floor assembly with 1/3rd around the core. That should be around 17,000 truss seats.

But the number of observations does not even reach 100. I am impressed! :roll:

psik
Click to expand...
It's not a very good sample size, and not random in its collection process. If it were truly random, maybe not so bad. Certainly not as bad as you seem to think.

25s1kya.png


So, what do you have in the way of evidence?
 
It's no longer surprising that you ignore pointed questions, instead seizing on little **** that you think are "gotchas" (which they are not).

Want to address this?

Where you ****ed up was choosing a support that offers more resistance AFTER it fails than before.


You see, I don't need connection failures to invalidate your position(s). It turns out the same either way.
 
Kat Dorman said:
It's no longer surprising that you ignore pointed questions, instead seizing on little **** that you think are "gotchas" (which they are not).

Want to address this?

Where you ****ed up was choosing a support that offers more resistance AFTER it fails than before.


You see, I don't need connection failures to invalidate your position(s). It turns out the same either way.
Click to expand...

A sample size of 1/3rd of 1% is a pretty little ****. :lamo

A model that costs less than $50 and can be duplicated by grade school kids is hardly conclusive. But considering that the EXPERTS haven't made a model that can collapse in FIFTEEN YEARS at any cost and be duplicated by anyone hardly makes their point conclusive however.

I resent having to waste the time looking at such idiotic drivel as a sample size of less than 1%.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
A sample size of 1/3rd of 1% is a pretty little ****. :lamo
Click to expand...
That's better than the percentage for nationwide exit polling. Granted, exit polling doesn't work well when there's massive widespread vote fraud, but it used to work very well.

Total 2012 eligible voters is 215,081,000:
2016 electorate will be the most diverse in U.S. history | Pew Research Center

About 70,000 voters nationwide for survey analysis, tens of thousands more in larger sample for projections purposes:
Exit poll and related survey methodology

70000/215081000 = 0.03%

"Tens of thousands more" would undoubtedly still be less than a tenth of percent.


What is your point again? Ah, that's right... incredulity from someone known for saying POTENTIAL ENERGY is a DELUSION.
 
And, of course, I can ask you for YOUR sample size on observations which go towards refuting my claim of collapse dominated by connection failure.

That would be ZERO.
 
Kat Dorman said:
And, of course, I can ask you for YOUR sample size on observations which go towards refuting my claim of collapse dominated by connection failure.

That would be ZERO.
Click to expand...

But that is the thing about CLAIMS. It ain't no PROOF so why give a damn? It is silly that you brought it up.

But "experts" can't make a model in FIFTEEN YEARS! That is funny.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
But that is the thing about CLAIMS. It ain't no PROOF so why give a damn? It is silly that you brought it up.

But "experts" can't make a model in FIFTEEN YEARS! That is funny.

psik
Click to expand...


Your paper model nonsense discounts you from any serious discussion about anything to do with physics.
 
Quag said:
Your paper model nonsense discounts you from any serious discussion about anything to do with physics.
Click to expand...

Of course, because you are not smart enough to compute the Potential Energy. :lamo

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Of course, because you are not smart enough to compute the Potential Energy. :lamo

psik
Click to expand...
:lamo the guy who knows SFA about physics is trying to be smart.
You fail at that as much as you do at physics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom