DarronS - 24 September 2011 08:54 PM

So, psikey, after 10 years, what is your alternative theory? What made the buildings collapse?

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

It is called eliminating a negative.

Do you have a problem with explaining the phenomenon based on KNOWN DATA?

Oh, but you don’t care about having accurate data.  Like knowing the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings.

Very scientific.

I provided an experiment.  Crushing supports requires energy.  It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop.  The structure does not have enough potential energy to crush itself.  But the potential energy of the towers cannot be accurately calculated if the mass distributions are not correct.  Steel at the bottom was 5 inches thick but only 1/4th of an inch at the top.  And that does not even include the width of the columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

So after TEN YEARS the physics profession has a problem if there is no way the top 15 stories could destroy the rest in less than 25 seconds.  But most sources provide numbers of less than 18.  That 25 is just for the spire.

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

It is common in science to stick to a theory unless a better one is available. Darron’s question is legitimate. Yelling and do-it-your-self constructs like yours do not help to establish a new theory.

GdB - 25 September 2011 08:06 AM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

It is common in science to stick to a theory unless a better one is available. Darron’s question is legitimate. Yelling and do-it-your-self constructs like yours do not help to establish a new theory.

I was under the impression that getting the data correct before coming up with a theory was the practice.

Did Einstein know about the Michaelson-Morley experiment?

Did Newton know about Kepler’s work.

Theory without data is for people who think they are intelligent.  Accurate data has a tendency to to eliminate stupid imaginings.

Of course there is experimentation also.  Tends to make it possible to control the variables.  Computers should do that also but computers will propagate whatever errors or lies are programmed into them.  Curious how that Purdue simulation has core columns that remain stationary during impact but the NIST says the south tower was deflected by the impact.  You just can’t trust those stupid computers.

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

For someone who doesn’t give a damn you sure make a lot of noise.

The hand-picked commission presenting the official theory themselves said they were lied to and a proper investigation is called for. Why isn’t that the noise you’re making if the official narrative is the one you’ve backed?

DarronS - 25 September 2011 08:27 AM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

For someone who doesn’t give a damn you sure make a lot of noise.

I said I didn’t give a damn who or why that does not mean I don’t give a damn about the physics.  After TEN YEARS the physics profession is an accomplice after the fact.  Can’t demand information as simple as accurate distribution of steel data.

I also make models that can’t collapse straight down.

Where is your model that can?

And as for noise, you sent me the private message to get my attention.  I didn’t send one to you.

psik

I know the REAL Mr. Spock would easily conclude that the two airplanes caused the buildings to collapse!  Especially once he confirmed that the news and video footage of the two planes crashing into them actually happened!
I’m positive the REAL Spock would call that logical!  The REAL Mr. Spock was smart!

Unfortunately Psikeyhackr, your “nervous tick” wouldn’t even register a “Fascinating!” from Spock! You wouldn’t be on Spock’s radar.

VYAZMA - 25 September 2011 11:35 AM

I know the REAL Mr. Spock would easily conclude that the two airplanes caused the buildings to collapse!  Especially once he confirmed that the news and video footage of the two planes crashing into them actually happened!
I’m positive the REAL Spock would call that logical!  The REAL Mr. Spock was smart!

Unfortunately Psikeyhackr, your “nervous tick” wouldn’t even register a “Fascinating!” from Spock! You wouldn’t be on Spock’s radar.

So you KNOW there is a REAL Mr. Spock?

Fascinating  

psik

I had a discussion with a guy the other day on just this subject. He’s a hedge fund manager who was taking his millions and his family and leaving the country for Greece because the U.S., in his words, is too corrupt ( I know.. and he’s going to Greece ?.. I don’t get it either). You would think he had to be reasonably smart to run a successful hedge fund and become independently wealthy and yet he was convinced beyond reason that the WTC was not brought down by the planes but by explosives planted ahead of time. It was all he could talk about and yet when i asked him for evidence, he like most conspiracy theorists could only quote questionable comments from shadowy figures ( the mythic guy who use to work for the FBI etc). The thing is you can argue with these types of people all day and get no where. My response to them now is to simply quote Carl Sagan and tell them that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t't see any reason to waste valuable time on such people unless they’ve done their homework and have something worth listening to. I can go watch reruns of X-files if I want to indulge in that sort of stuff.  It sets a simple bar they can never rise to because they don’t have any evidence. All they have is rumor and wild theories but no hard evidence.

Psikey doesn’t even have rumors, MacGyver. He just waves his hands around and demands people spoon feed him answers, then he rejects whatever anyone says. He has no theory. He has no clue. He has nothing, yet he keeps making noise.

Psikey has repeatedly asked how the Twin Towers could have fallen with only the jet fuel as an incendiary agent. Now that we have the answer he rejects it and keeps pointing to his ridiculous model. You should look it up on YouTube. It is really quite pathetic.

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

DarronS - 24 September 2011 08:54 PM

So, psikey, after 10 years, what is your alternative theory? What made the buildings collapse?

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.  It is called eliminating a negative.  Do you have a problem with explaining the phenomenon based on KNOWN DATA?  Oh, but you don’t care about having accurate data. 

You seem to be asking for more complete, and more precise data.  Being so passionate about the topic could you maybe contact the people who analyzed the collapse or designed the buildings for those details?  Asking us is just rhetorical.  If you don’t care about physics, and you truly want the physical data, then I’m puzzled.

GdB - 25 September 2011 08:06 AM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2011 08:00 AM

I have told you before I don’t have a THEORY and don’t give a damn who did it or why.

It is common in science to stick to a theory unless a better one is available. Darron’s question is legitimate. Yelling and do-it-your-self constructs like yours do not help to establish a new theory.

Yes GbB, the current theory is like a baseline.  We’ve gotta’ start somewhere! From there we refine the idea with better and better data/theory.    The world has started with the engineered theory, now who has better data/theory?  Until then the current theory is sound enough, I say.

I don’t think that a paper model accurately models a steel and concrete tower, paper crumples without even ripping, the real materials are different.

I just saw a TV broadcast the other day, Stuck with Hackett: builds a dirt boat and foundry.  The show is about him assembling junk from a junk yard into a piece-of-junk machine that sort-of functions.  In the episode he wanted to go land sailing, he builds a “dirt boat” (three wheels, a seat, and a sail).  He wants to forge the connection between the mast and the chassis out of aluminum, so in that episode he builds a foundry.  He managed to get the aluminum melted, it flowed like water, he used a computer fan to fan the flame, and dripped oil onto the fire as fuel, and it melted the aluminum in steel cauldron, in a kiln with a lid.

When fire burns, we know it has an oxygen supply.  The fire in the Twin Towers did burn for hours, so it had oxygen.  Since the smoke escaped, we know it found its own way to exhaust some of the air, the videos of the Twin Towers show lots of smoke billowing out of the holes that the airplanes made in the walls.  Therefore we’ve got some air flow, we’ve got fire, we know that metal can melt, why couldn’t the metal have softened?  Is there some proof that the fire could not reach a temperature to soften the metal?  If not then why is there any doubt?

See what happens when you heat metal without melting it, then give it a good push?  Now that’s evidence.  Just like modelling clay, it is forged. And when metal is hotter, it flows like water.  [00:51, 04:16, 05:05]

DarronS Posted: 25 September 2011 03:25 PM

Psikey doesn’t even have rumors, MacGyver.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about rumors.  Trying to evaluate the phenomenon of 9/11 on the basis of rumors is idiotic.

jump_in_the_pit Posted: 25 September 2011 06:36 PM

I don’t think that a paper model accurately models a steel and concrete tower, paper crumples without even ripping, the real materials are different.

My paper loops and metal washers weighs a total of 3.5 pounds.  One tower was over 400,000 tons.  Making small models that have a chance of behaving like the real thing in terms of physical phenomenon involves the Square Cube Law.  A physical model of the WTC at 1/100th scale would be 13.6 feet tall.  Still much bigger than my physical model.  But made of the exact same materials as the WTC it would be 100 times as strong in relation to its weight therefore it could not possibly collapse in the same manner due to gravity pulling down its own weight.

With paper loops I could make the supports as weak as possible in relation to the static load they had to support.  Therefore I could test the behavior of cumulative supports under the dynamic load created by what they could hold under static conditions.

So people who can only think in terms of analogy rather than physics and just talk about rumors can hardly have opinions to be taken seriously.

I have communicated with Frank Greening, Gregory Urich, Ryan Mackey and Richard Gage.  I have communicated with 2 people at Purdue involved with their computerized impact simulation but one of them referred me to Professor Sozen who I had also emailed but he does not respond.  The NIST doesn’t say much either.

The conservation of momentum is about mass hitting mass.  So a straight down sequential collapse would involve the masses all of the way down the buildings.  But computing the potential energy of the towers would involve the exact same information.  But I have never even seen the layout of the horizontal beams of the core.  Lon Waters, PhD who has a website on modeling the WTC, and with whom I have also communicated, has detailed information on the core columns but nothing on the horizontal beams in the core.

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

So this thread is more about attacking me than explaining any physics of 9/11 and I simply find it amusing.  Because to me you people are just advertising how much you don’t know about the subject while trying to sarcastically imply that I don’t. 

Theory and speculation are two different things.  Newtonian physics is not even regarded as theory anymore.  So not having accurate distribution of mass data to do the Newtonian Physics and then want to dignify silly speculation with the title of theory is hilarious.

I do find it really disgusting that this crap has dragged on for ten years. 

psik

oops

What I don’t understand in all this is:

It seems that a major point… issue… is claims that the WTC collapsed faster than gravity would allow ...  or something like that,

The implication being that “natural” planned high-rise demolitions fall at a faster than gravity speed.

P.  I don’t get it  how’s that supposed to work???

citizenschallenge.pm - 25 September 2011 11:09 PM

What I don’t understand in all this is:

It seems that a major point… issue… is claims that the WTC collapsed faster than gravity would allow ...  or something like that,

The implication being that “natural” planned high-rise demolitions fall at a faster than gravity speed.

P.  I don’t get it  how’s that supposed to work???

There is no such thing as gravity speed.  There is gravitational acceleration.

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue.  People have had TEN YEARS to sort it out if they were sufficiently interested.  But most people on both sides are just rationalizing their BELIEFS regardless of how dumb.  But why hasn’t any engineering school built a physical model that can completely collapse yet?  And then people are supposed to pay $100,000+ for 4 years of education at these places.

And then we have all of this talk about STEM education. 

psik