88 of 91
88
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 25 February 2014 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1306 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  759
Joined  2012-04-25
psikeyhackr - 23 February 2014 03:02 PM
CuthbertJ - 23 February 2014 02:06 PM
psikeyhackr - 21 February 2014 08:59 PM
CuthbertJ - 21 February 2014 11:11 AM

JUST ANSWER THIS: Do you believe that if you personally used physics to completely prove your point about the twin towers beyond a shadow of a doubt to every physicist on earth, including FuzzyLogic and others in this thread… Do you believe THEN the entire 911 controversy would go away and could be considered solved?

All that matters is the physics with complete and accurate data.

...

psik

So is that a yes? All that matters in the entire range of things having to do with 911 is the falling of the Twin Towers? Pentagon doesn’t matter. Flight 93 doesn’t matter. WTC 7 doesn’t matter, Bin Laden family’s special treatment doesn’t matter, none of it. It all ALL boils down to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Correct? If you prove that was because of the planes and not something planted in the buildings then the entire 911 controversy goes away, Bush and Cheney become innocent bystanders like the rest of us? Is that what you’re saying?  Just answer the darn question, Yes or No.

Are you saying that physics was different at the Pentagon or WTC7?

I do not care about any special treatment of the Bin Laden family.  Can that change anything about physics?

There was a recent study suggesting that 1/4th of Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth.  Nothing can make the 9/11 controversy completely go away for everyone.  But I can find hundreds of books that have existed for decades saying the Earth rotates as it orbits the Sun.  So the problem is that most scientists should be willing to publicly state their position on the physics of 9/11 and most of them should be in agreement.  But I can’t find trustworthy data on the steel and concrete distributions in the twin towers or any other skyscrapers so I don’t see how most scientists can agree on anything about the collapse of the towers.

As far as I can tell most of them are saying NOTHING.

So the issue is why have most spent 12 years not even asking for the obvious information.

psik

Amazing. Answer this, because maybe I’m missing something: Do you think 911, the entire 911, not just the Twin Towers event, was an inside job either directly perpetrated by the US government or allowed to happen with full knowledge of the US government (i.e. the execs - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice). Either 1) Yes 2) No or 3) You don’t know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1307 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
CuthbertJ - 25 February 2014 11:04 AM

Amazing. Answer this, because maybe I’m missing something: Do you think 911, the entire 911, not just the Twin Towers event, was an inside job either directly perpetrated by the US government or allowed to happen with full knowledge of the US government (i.e. the execs - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice). Either 1) Yes 2) No or 3) You don’t know.

How many times do I have to explain that I do not give a damn about an Inside Job or the government?

It is a PHYSICS PROBLEM

The Twin Towers are the most interesting part of the PHYSICS PROBLEM.

In order for the Official Story to true then the top of the north tower must be able to fall straight down and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds.  If that is not physically possible then everything comes apart like a piece of knitting unravelling.

My suspicion is that it is physically impossible so it needs to be PROVEN that it is possible.

I don’t care whether there was a conspiracy involving the government or not.  Nationalism and patriotism are irrelevant to physics.  This is not any pro or anti government debate to me.

Have you noticed this forum is Science and Technology?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1308 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 11:14 AM

It is a PHYSICS PROBLEM

The Twin Towers are the most interesting part of the PHYSICS PROBLEM.

In order for the Official Story to true then the top of the north tower must be able to fall straight down and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds.  If that is not physically possible then everything comes apart like a piece of knitting unravelling.

My suspicion is that it is physically impossible so it needs to be PROVEN that it is possible.

I don’t care whether there was a conspiracy involving the government or not.  Nationalism and patriotism are irrelevant to physics.  This is not any pro or anti government debate to me.

Way to turn scientific method on its head.

The way it actually works is you need evidence for your suspicion(you’re not even to the point of a rough hypothesis yet) which can then be tested to see if it’s consistent with another less probable method of collapse for the buildings.

We have the obvious failure process in the gaping rents torn in the sides of the buildings, plus all the internal damage that would have been done as tons of high velocity material shot into the buildings interiors, followed by fires so intense that many people jumped to their deaths dozens of floors above the original crash sites.

The fact that the buildings failed at the sites where the planes crashed also argues strongly for that as the most likely(almost certainly) cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers.

So the onus is on you to provide something much more substantial that marginally thought out suspicions which offer nothing testable.

[ Edited: 25 February 2014 01:46 PM by Fuzzy Logic ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1309 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 25 February 2014 01:44 PM

Way to turn scientific method on its head.

The way it actually works is you need evidence for your suspicion(you’re not even to the point of a rough hypothesis yet) which can then be tested to see if it’s consistent with another less probable method of collapse for the buildings.

So the onus is on you to provide something much more substantial that marginally thought out suspicions which offer nothing testable.

And you are saying that accurate data does not even have to be provided on the distribution of mass in the north tower but everyone is supposed to BELIEVE.

So science is a religion based on whoever you regard as acceptable priests.

No experiments need to be conducted to demonstrate the reasonableness of the hypotheses that the top 15%, by height, or less of a skyscraper can fall and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds and it does not even have to be explained in relation to the Conservation of Momentum.

So why did the NIST test floor sections in a furnace but then not repeat the test without fire proofing.  However everyone is supposed to believe floors failed because fire proofing was blown off.  That is great science.

I do think 9/11 is a bigger issue because of the misinterpretation of science than because of the conspiracy crap.  It shows how much most of the citizenry fails to think scientifically and many of whom regard themselves as scientific atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1310 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6108
Joined  2006-12-20
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 11:14 AM

My suspicion is that it is physically impossible so it needs to be PROVEN that it is possible.


psik

This is the error this whole business is based on. It doesn’t matter what your suspicion is. What matters is whether it is likely to be physically impossible or not. It’s all a question of how that should be decided.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1311 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 02:04 PM

And you are saying that accurate data does not even have to be provided on the distribution of mass in the north tower but everyone is supposed to BELIEVE.

So science is a religion based on whoever you regard as acceptable priests.

No experiments need to be conducted to demonstrate the reasonableness of the hypotheses that the top 15%, by height, or less of a skyscraper can fall and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds and it does not even have to be explained in relation to the Conservation of Momentum.

So why did the NIST test floor sections in a furnace but then not repeat the test without fire proofing.  However everyone is supposed to believe floors failed because fire proofing was blown off.  That is great science.

I do think 9/11 is a bigger issue because of the misinterpretation of science than because of the conspiracy crap.  It shows how much most of the citizenry fails to think scientifically and many of whom regard themselves as scientific atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

psik

I’ve already posted the obvious failure process repeatedly, there’s no need to rehash this.

When you start posting actual data that supports your suspicions, then you’ll be entering a scientific debate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 03:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1312 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  759
Joined  2012-04-25
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 11:14 AM
CuthbertJ - 25 February 2014 11:04 AM

Amazing. Answer this, because maybe I’m missing something: Do you think 911, the entire 911, not just the Twin Towers event, was an inside job either directly perpetrated by the US government or allowed to happen with full knowledge of the US government (i.e. the execs - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice). Either 1) Yes 2) No or 3) You don’t know.

How many times do I have to explain that I do not give a damn about an Inside Job or the government?

It is a PHYSICS PROBLEM

The Twin Towers are the most interesting part of the PHYSICS PROBLEM.

In order for the Official Story to true then the top of the north tower must be able to fall straight down and destroy the rest in less than 26 seconds.  If that is not physically possible then everything comes apart like a piece of knitting unravelling.

My suspicion is that it is physically impossible so it needs to be PROVEN that it is possible.

I don’t care whether there was a conspiracy involving the government or not.  Nationalism and patriotism are irrelevant to physics.  This is not any pro or anti government debate to me.

Have you noticed this forum is Science and Technology?

psik

Obviously you DO give a damn. Would you argue this much about some trivial non-conspiracy, non-911, related physics problem? I doubt it. My overall point which IS relevant to this thread is that all of you are barking up the wrong tree. It does not matter one bit, as in it’s a total waste of time, to argue about the physics of the collapse of the Twin Towers. They are NOT the focal point which you seem to think. And moreover, by focusing on them AS IF it all boils down to them, you are being duped. It’s like a con man trying to rip you off. He keeps you distracted with trivial card tricks or something while his assistant steals your wallet. But I guess if that’s your thing, have at it.  I’ll check back in in a few months with more popcorn to enjoy the show.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1313 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
StephenLawrence - 25 February 2014 02:17 PM
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 11:14 AM

My suspicion is that it is physically impossible so it needs to be PROVEN that it is possible.

psik

This is the error this whole business is based on. It doesn’t matter what your suspicion is. What matters is whether it is likely to be physically impossible or not. It’s all a question of how that should be decided.

I was under the impression that it was known as EXPERIMENTS and it is not like I am the only person to say so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_teNwvqVY

And it is not like it is the first time I have posted that video.  Why don’t people who believe in collapse want good experiments done to settle the issue?  Why not even want accurate distribution of mass data.

I think it is a psychological issue for people who consider government to be more important than physics.

Because after TWELVE YEARS if the experiments indicate that collapse was EXTREMELY UNLIKELY (I don’t know if it can truly be proven IMPOSSIBLE) then a lot of scientists and engineers have a problem for not demanding certain data.  It is not like skyscrapers are scarce.

[31490]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 February 2014 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1314 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2014 03:32 PM

I was under the impression that it was known as EXPERIMENTS and it is not like I am the only person to say so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_teNwvqVY

The Twin Towers weren’t solid blocks they were buildings who’s support structures had stress loading limitations far below that of solid objects. As the upper portion of each tower fell it caused a local loading at each floor that far exceeded the structural limits proceeding to the ground.

The buildings were designed to hold the entire structure upright in a mostly static state with some horizontal loading. Not take the impact of thousands of tons of material in a vertical plane.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 12:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1315 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 25 February 2014 01:44 PM

Way to turn scientific method on its head

What makes you think the scientific method was meaningfully applied by NIST in the production of the WTC7 conclusions? Are you under the illusion that those conclusions are testable or the computer data NIST used is available for peer review? I’m afraid this is not the case.

You consistently demand others meet standards you fail to address yourself. This is why your argument is so poor and your position is hypocritical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1316 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 25 February 2014 04:43 PM

The Twin Towers weren’t solid blocks they were buildings who’s support structures had stress loading limitations far below that of solid objects. As the upper portion of each tower fell it caused a local loading at each floor that far exceeded the structural limits proceeding to the ground.

The buildings were designed to hold the entire structure upright in a mostly static state with some horizontal loading. Not take the impact of thousands of tons of material in a vertical plane.

My paper loop model is not a solid block.

It is so curious that in 12 years our expensive engineering schools can’t produce models far better than mine that either can or cannot collapse.  Like “intellectual authority” does not have to Prove it is Intellectual AUTHORITY.

[31551]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1317 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 26 February 2014 12:27 AM
Fuzzy Logic - 25 February 2014 01:44 PM

Way to turn scientific method on its head

What makes you think the scientific method was meaningfully applied by NIST in the production of the WTC7 conclusions? Are you under the illusion that those conclusions are testable or the computer data NIST used is available for peer review? I’m afraid this is not the case.

You consistently demand others meet standards you fail to address yourself. This is why your argument is so poor and your position is hypocritical.

You must have been reading someone else’s posts, I haven’t been basing my views on NIST simulations or conclusions.

In the case of the Twin Towers we have the obvious physical damage and failure at the site of impact to give a very strong indication of the most likely cause of the collapse and with WTC 7 there’s the evidence from fire fighters and reporters of the extensive damage from the high speed debris that hit the south face of the building- up to 1/3 the length of the building and 25% the depth, plus the fact that emergency responders reported signs of imminent failure with WTC 7 such as bulging in the side of the building and sounds of creaking one hour before the building fell. It’s also when the area was evacuated.

On your part you take a video of the building that shows the mostly intact portion and present the collapse as occurring to a mostly undamaged building and then demand some rigorous proof that explosives weren’t used. You also seem to be confusing suspicions with “scientific” evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1318 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 26 February 2014 08:15 AM
Fuzzy Logic - 25 February 2014 04:43 PM

The Twin Towers weren’t solid blocks they were buildings who’s support structures had stress loading limitations far below that of solid objects. As the upper portion of each tower fell it caused a local loading at each floor that far exceeded the structural limits proceeding to the ground.

The buildings were designed to hold the entire structure upright in a mostly static state with some horizontal loading. Not take the impact of thousands of tons of material in a vertical plane.

My paper loop model is not a solid block.

It is so curious that in 12 years our expensive engineering schools can’t produce models far better than mine that either can or cannot collapse.  Like “intellectual authority” does not have to Prove it is Intellectual AUTHORITY.

[31551]
psik

What does any of that have to do with the real world?

Buildings are designed as a compromise between strength and cost, you could design a building that was nearly invulnerable, which you somehow seem to think the Twin Towers were, but the cost would be huge and there would be little usable space inside. Skyscrapers simply aren’t designed to deal with massive force in the vertical plane much beyond the need to hold the building up, there’s no need for it in almost all cases.

It’s obvious that for whatever reason you simply aren’t open to reason on this issue and I’m not willing to pretend this is a rational debate any longer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1319 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

You gotta be freaking kidding me. 88 pages of this!?

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1320 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
PLaClair - 26 February 2014 05:13 PM

You gotta be freaking kidding me. 88 pages of this!?

 

Different strokes for different folks.  (Despite popular opinion, I actually admire Psikeyhacker’s staying power.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
88 of 91
88