91 of 91
91
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 28 February 2014 06:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1351 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:16 PM
jomper - 28 February 2014 06:12 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:01 PM
jomper - 28 February 2014 05:50 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 05:27 PM

What kind of “experimental research” do you propose?

How about we start by spending millions of public dollars on a computer animation that’s supposed to model the collapse but looks nothing like it—and then use the law to stop that computer animation from being checked by expert members of the public or any independent authority.

Job done, wouldn’t you say? No need to discuss it further.

Yes, it’s impossible to discuss a bunch of unsupported paranoid delusional nonsense. Thanks for noticing. Buh-bye.

You certainly needed it pointing out, dear boy.

Graceful exits are not your thing, dear girl.

You’re the one who said “Buh-bye”, m’love. I’m looking for an intelligent argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2014 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1352 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2014-02-27
jomper - 28 February 2014 06:24 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:16 PM
jomper - 28 February 2014 06:12 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:01 PM
jomper - 28 February 2014 05:50 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 05:27 PM

What kind of “experimental research” do you propose?

How about we start by spending millions of public dollars on a computer animation that’s supposed to model the collapse but looks nothing like it—and then use the law to stop that computer animation from being checked by expert members of the public or any independent authority.

Job done, wouldn’t you say? No need to discuss it further.

Yes, it’s impossible to discuss a bunch of unsupported paranoid delusional nonsense. Thanks for noticing. Buh-bye.

You certainly needed it pointing out, dear boy.

Graceful exits are not your thing, dear girl.

You’re the one who said “Buh-bye”, m’love. I’m looking for an intelligent argument.

I thought you were seeking conclusive experimental evidence.
Go get it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2014 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1353 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:26 PM

I thought you were seeking conclusive experimental evidence.

It is indeed the absence of experimental evidence that is at issue.

However, I hope you have seen work posted by psikey here that suggests the collapses should not have progressed to the ground.

What experimental evidence is there to simply demonstrate that a “gravity total collapse effect” can exist in tower structures on days other than 9/11?

Would you expect this phenomenon to have been researched, modelled and explained by now?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2014 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1354 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5963
Joined  2006-12-20
psikeyhackr - 28 February 2014 11:52 AM
StephenLawrence - 28 February 2014 11:41 AM

You have to start with theory and that’s just what you’ve done. You had the theory that it was physically impossible and then did an experiment.

But your experiment was worthless.

It is a THEORY that vertical structures have to hold themselves up?

Is it a THEORY that no engineering school has built a model that can collapse due to the fall of its top 15% in TWELVE YEARS?

So it must be possible because no one has tested it.  LOL

I think you should look up what THEORY means.

psik

Here is an example of a theory: Traveling faster than the speed of light is physically impossible.

Now imagine a claim that something happened that would appear, in your opinion, to violate that.

If it’s just opinion it is not interesting. If there is a consensus amongst experts on physical theory and how to apply it in real cases then it becomes interesting.

A person might believe that no aeroplanes have ever taken off because to do so violates the law of gravity. It’s unlikely that his opinion adds any credibility to the idea and there is no reason to take him seriously. Whilst any conspiracy theory that tries to explain how and why the government are fooling us all into believing that aeroplanes take off would be so highly unlikely as to not be taken seriously for a moment.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2014 08:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1355 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2014-02-27
jomper - 28 February 2014 06:54 PM
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 06:26 PM

I thought you were seeking conclusive experimental evidence.

It is indeed the absence of experimental evidence that is at issue.

However, I hope you have seen work posted by psikey here that suggests the collapses should not have progressed to the ground.

What experimental evidence is there to simply demonstrate that a “gravity total collapse effect” can exist in tower structures on days other than 9/11?

Would you expect this phenomenon to have been researched, modelled and explained by now?

Actually we have TWO data points, lady. Two towers, two airplanes.
Why should this phenomenon be researched, modelled and explained by now? Do you have the $$ to pay a team of scientists to develop a model for this? Just to disprove a bunch of nutters?
Go hire someone then.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2014 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1356 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2014-02-27

I choose to believe
1) my instincts which are informed by my advanced degree in physics.
2) what I saw.
3) what many very distinguished and highly educated scientists agree like these people…
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old physics 10/chapters (old)/chapters2003/appendix-sept.11.htm


I choose not to believe you, milady, some dingus on the internet.

If you need to see 747’s flown into some similar building to be convinced, then you should do something to get that started. Maybe Ed Asner will help you.

Just because it doesn’t make sense to you that the towers fell in the manner they did because airplanes were flown into them doesn’t mean that it did not occur exactly that way. It just means your are too dumb and uneducated to get it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 02:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1357 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 08:17 PM

Actually we have TWO data points, lady. Two towers, two airplanes.
Why should this phenomenon be researched, modelled and explained by now? Do you have the $$ to pay a team of scientists to develop a model for this?

No, it’s three towers, two airplanes. The public paid millions for scientists to develop a “model” of the third tower collapse, but it doesn’t look anything like the event and left out crucial structural elements—and no-one’s allowed to check it: so that’s not to be accepted as genuine science, is it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 02:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1358 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
doubturopath - 28 February 2014 08:24 PM

I choose to believe
1) my instincts which are informed by my advanced degree in physics.

Advanced degree in physics? Hilarious. You don’t understand how many scientific discoveries were made against the prevailing consensus. You don’t know how consensus is established. You can’t even spell consensus half the time.

2) what I saw.

You’ve never seen anything like it before or since, have you?

And that’s the problem. No-one can reproduce the collapse effect you believe in using simplified experiments, and yet you still believe in it—even though every attempt to model it so far suggests your faith in a miraculous-only-on-9/11-total-tower-collapse-gravity-effect is wholly misplaced.

That’s apparently because your degree in physics was so advanced it didn’t include Newton’s Laws.

3) what many very distinguished and highly educated scientists agree like these people…
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old physics 10/chapters (old)/chapters2003/appendix-sept.11.htm

Not a single mention of the conservation of momentum or energy in the first link. From your second link, can an advanced physicist such as yourself explain how the process described here is possible in terms of conservation of momentum and energy?

“The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time.  The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors.  The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled.  The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn.  In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed.”

your are too dumb and uneducated to get it.

You should really get a grasp of spelling and irony before you humiliate yourself further, dear boy.

[ Edited: 02 March 2014 12:35 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1359 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
StephenLawrence - 28 February 2014 07:54 PM

Here is an example of a theory: Traveling faster than the speed of light is physically impossible.

Is that what Einstein said?

Or was it more like, accelerating to the speed of light would require infinite energy.

They are not quite the same thing.

What are TACHYONS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

If what you said is so sure to be true then why would anyone come up with the idea of tachyons? 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1360 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
StephenLawrence - 28 February 2014 07:54 PM

A person might believe that no [aeroplanes] have ever [taken off] because to do so violates the law of [gravity].

However, in reality even small paper models of aeroplanes can fly.

StephenLawrence - 28 February 2014 07:54 PM

A person might believe that no [skyscrapers] have ever [been totally destroyed by the force of a falling upper section of themselves] because to do so violates the law(s) of [conservation of momentum and energy].

In reality even small paper models of towers do not totally collapse.

[ Edited: 02 March 2014 12:35 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
   
91 of 91
91