11 of 91
11
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 25 February 2013 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  373
Joined  2012-02-02
jomper - 25 February 2013 02:24 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 24 February 2013 07:10 PM

No, I got that.  None of what you said negates anything I said.  Suppose, for example, they found out that the contractor skimped on a support beam.  Now, given that the ambulance chasing lawyers were calling the survivors of 9/11 and offering their “services” to sue anyone and everyone who might even be remotely connected to 9/11.  Even if that beam made no difference in the collapse of WTC 7, having that information out there, would have caused innumerable lawyers to launch thousands of frivolous lawsuits.  No point in that at all.

Nor does the fact that they used commercial software mean that the software is identical to what you can buy in the store.  All such software has add on modules tailored to the specific needs of the end user.  Its entirely possible that some of the modules they used were classified software.

And again, none of this rules out that the data was collected using equipment which is classified.

As I said, how the information may have been collected is irrelevant to how the software behaves and how well the models NIST represent the evidence (a child could see how inaccurate they are).

Let us consider what you have said in light of lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder’s comment “our job was to come up with the best science” and the fact that classifying computer model data makes a mockery of the scientific method.

Your arguments to explain why NIST would classify its data on public safety grounds include:

1. You imagine that data input into computer simulation software can somehow be reverse engineered to discover classified methods you suppose may have been used to collect the data, eg robots, although there was actually no physical structure for robots to examine

Unless you think that the investigators did not visit the site of the building collapse, then there would, in fact, be a physical structure for them to examine.  They could also examine the debris after it had been collected and transported away from the building site.

2. You imagine that NIST used classified add-ons to the commercially-available software it used to model the collapse, the effect of which could somehow reverse-engineered from raw data to reveal the classified aspect of their function, although you cannot suggest what that might be (and who could?). NIST makes no reference to using additional software in its report—would that be because you imagine it’s so classified it can’t even be referred to?

Generally government folks don’t like to mention things that are classified.  Remember the government denied the existence of Area 51 for decades, even though it was quite obviously there.

3. You imagine that there was a conspiracy between NIST and government officials to cover up bad workmanship when the building was constructed in the 1980s, in order to avoid the legal implications of ignoring building codes at the time, although you apparently do not recognise you are accusing Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, one of the largest and most reputable construction firms in the US and the architects of countless iconic buildings since the 1930s (including the new Freedom Tower) of gross incompetence

No conspiracy needed at all.  Its simply someone acting to prevent a lot of unnecessary headaches for everyone involved.  Nor did I “accuse” anyone of anything.  I merely postulated a scenario.  Nothing more.  If you check, you’ll find that while Skidmore, etc., were in charge of the project, there were a number of subcontractors and suppliers involved.  Any one of them could have decided to cut corners, and on a project as large and complex as the WTC, it would be easy for it to be missed.  Remember, halfway through building the Twin Towers, they had to quit using asbestos because of a change in the law.  I believe that it was the Citibank building in NYC that had plans which specified the girders be welded together, but the contractor chose to use rivets instead.  This posed no danger to the building under normal conditions, but as the architect discovered when a student asked him a simple question, were a hurricane to hit the building edge on, this would cause problems, and the contractor had to go back in and weld the girders because of this.

Do any of these sound reasonable enough to you to outweigh the obvious public interest case in fully understanding how WTC 7 could collapse the way it did—and the betrayal of the scientific method, the only standard worth holding research against? Please address the importance of the scientific method if you choose to reply, and show how the power of your imagination is greater than the standard against which all science must be judged.

Show me where the scientific method proves that there must be some nefarious reason for the NIST not releasing the documents.  Show me a reason why the NIST would conceal data proving that the collapse was caused by something other than the attacks on 9/11.

To prove a case in court, you must establish motive, method, and opportunity.  So far, you’ve done none of that.  All you’ve done is claim that because the NIST hasn’t released certain documents they must be concealing a very different reason for the collapse, other than two jetliners loaded with fuel slamming into two very large buildings which fell, releasing a tremendous amount of energy as they did so.  While you’re at, explain how none of the ambulance chasing lawyers, who have filed numerous suits against anyone and everyone even remotely connected to the WTC, haven’t managed to successfully prove their case in court.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 12:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Coldheart Tucker - 25 February 2013 08:06 PM

Unless you think that the investigators did not visit the site of the building collapse, then there would, in fact, be a physical structure for them to examine.  They could also examine the debris after it had been collected and transported away from the building site.

You are evidently unaware that NIST conducted computer simulations because almost all the steel had been removed from the site and destroyed. There really was nothing for your imaginary secret robots to examine.

Generally government folks don’t like to mention things that are classified.  Remember the government denied the existence of Area 51 for decades, even though it was quite obviously there.

Ah, so your imaginary secret plug-in to ANSYS computer modelling software, the effect of which can be somehow reverse-engineered from raw data to reveal the imaginary secret function it has which is too secret to even imagine, really is so secret, you imagine, that NIST would not even mention it in its report.

No conspiracy needed at all.  Its simply someone acting to prevent a lot of unnecessary headaches for everyone involved.

Oh, so it was just one person who was able to convince the entire NIST investigation team that they should abandon their scientific directive to rigorously investigate an unprecedented collapse, in order to cover up imaginary bad workmanship.

Show me where the scientific method proves that there must be some nefarious reason for the NIST not releasing the documents.

If a computer model can’t be independently verified and tested, and if its results can’t be replicated, it can’t be scientific. Nothing can be proved to be nefarious in the fact that the NIST report wasn’t scientific, but as it stands its conclusions can’t be called scientific and presented or accepted as such. Deplorably, they have been.

[ Edited: 26 February 2013 12:52 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 25 February 2013 11:07 AM

The Conservation of Momentum is not speculation.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel could totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have explained it in good detail by now.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel COULD NOT totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have EXPLAINED THAT in good detail by now.

You keep repeating this. The planes did not push TWC over, because they were not heavy enough, they crashed into the building, and crashing means a highly inelastical collision. The energy was absorbed by the structures which were partially demolished by the crash, the momentum was absorbed by the ground on which TWC was standing during the collision itself, which took much less than a second (and not 2 hours). The fire did the rest of the demolition.

That you are repeating this momentum argument, even after I corrected you several times, shows that you are not really interested in fissics at all.

But we all know that. Just for the information of the others…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2289
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 26 February 2013 08:26 AM

You keep repeating this. The planes did not push TWC over, because they were not heavy enough, they crashed into the building, and crashing means a highly inelastical collision. The energy was absorbed by the structures which were partially demolished by the crash, the momentum was absorbed by the ground on which TWC was standing during the collision itself, which took much less than a second (and not 2 hours). The fire did the rest of the demolition.

That you are repeating this momentum argument, even after I corrected you several times, shows that you are not really interested in fissics at all.

But we all know that. Just for the information of the others…

So are you accusing me of saying something I never said?  Show me where I claimed the buildings were pushed over.

I provided a link to a graph of the deflection and oscillation from the NIST.

The Conservation of Momentum still applies.  You corrected what?  If we don’t have correct mass distribution information how do you do the calculations much less correct anything?  How do you explain the steel being heated to the point of weakening if you don’tknow how much steel?  The NIST tested floor sections in furnaces for 2 hours and they did not fail so how did the buildings start coming down in less than one and two hours?

And this site seems to pride itself on being so scientific but does not want data to be scientific with.  The NIST can’t even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers so how are you being scientific about the momentum?

This is a simple problem and Potential Energy, Kinetic Energy, Momentum and the conductivity of steel are things which are not going to change.  So the only absurdity is that this was not resolved in 2002.  So it is the people who did not resolve it who have the problem now.

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

psik

[ Edited: 26 February 2013 09:35 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 26 February 2013 09:24 AM

So are you accusing me of saying something I never said?  Show me where I claimed the buildings were pushed over.

No. I say I repeatedly corrected you that the relatively small momentum of the planes has nothing to do with your assumed impossibility that TWC collapsed. In above posting I only added that the momentum would only be relevant in the question if the TWC towers were pushed down by the planes, which they obviously weren’t.

The rest of your posting just shows that you do not understand what the momentum did in the WTC plane crashes: it was absorbed by the earth. If not, the towers would have shifted or pushed over. You do not understand physics, or you are giving arguments you do not believe in your self.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2289
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 26 February 2013 10:16 AM
psikeyhackr - 26 February 2013 09:24 AM

So are you accusing me of saying something I never said?  Show me where I claimed the buildings were pushed over.

No. I say I repeatedly corrected you that the relatively small momentum of the planes has nothing to do with your assumed impossibility that TWC collapsed. In above posting I only added that the momentum would only be relevant in the question if the TWC towers were pushed down by the planes, which they obviously weren’t.

The rest of your posting just shows that you do not understand what the momentum did in the WTC plane crashes: it was absorbed by the earth. If not, the towers would have shifted or pushed over. You do not understand physics, or you are giving arguments you do not believe in your self.

If the planes allowed the portion of the building above the impact point to fall then the momentum of the falling mass would still be involved in changing the momentum of the lower portion to make it move downward and completely collapse.  But it would also have to break the supports.  That is what this model is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

It still involves the conservation of momentum.

But the mass of the plane will have something to do with how much damage was caused on impact.  And the amount of steel in the area of impact would relate to how much fire could weaken the structure in the time available.  So you are just glossing over what I have said to give a distorted perspective.

Lois was accusing me of not being scientific and I was using the deflection and its absence from the Purdue simulation as an example.  You are just pulling out part of what I have been saying in all of the time I have been discussing this subject.

psik

[ Edited: 26 February 2013 04:13 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  373
Joined  2012-02-02
jomper - 26 February 2013 12:45 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 25 February 2013 08:06 PM

Unless you think that the investigators did not visit the site of the building collapse, then there would, in fact, be a physical structure for them to examine.  They could also examine the debris after it had been collected and transported away from the building site.

You are evidently unaware that NIST conducted computer simulations because almost all the steel had been removed from the site and destroyed. There really was nothing for your imaginary secret robots to examine.

So, you’re telling me that no inspectors from any agency ever visited the site, and that the first responders were not debriefed as to what happened and that the NIST was prevented from accessing any of this information?  That would be unique in the history of accident investigation.

Generally government folks don’t like to mention things that are classified.  Remember the government denied the existence of Area 51 for decades, even though it was quite obviously there.

Ah, so your imaginary secret plug-in to ANSYS computer modelling software, the effect of which can be somehow reverse-engineered from raw data to reveal the imaginary secret function it has which is too secret to even imagine, really is so secret, you imagine, that NIST would not even mention it in its report.

Again, the government denied the existence of Groom Lake/Area 51 for decades, even though there was ample evidence that it existed and was used as a testing ground for experimental military aircraft.

No conspiracy needed at all.  Its simply someone acting to prevent a lot of unnecessary headaches for everyone involved.

Oh, so it was just one person who was able to convince the entire NIST investigation team that they should abandon their scientific directive to rigorously investigate an unprecedented collapse, in order to cover up imaginary bad workmanship.

I’m sure if such a decision was made, it was done by committee and not one individual.  Nor would changes from the original plans necessarily mean “shoddy workmanship.”

Show me where the scientific method proves that there must be some nefarious reason for the NIST not releasing the documents.

If a computer model can’t be independently verified and tested, and if its results can’t be replicated, it can’t be scientific. Nothing can be proved to be nefarious in the fact that the NIST report wasn’t scientific, but as it stands its conclusions can’t be called scientific and presented or accepted as such. Deplorably, they have been.

So?  Have any of the engineers who worked on the WTC come forward and said that they have doubts about the NIST’s report and methods?  If not, why not?  At least one of the engineers has stated that on 9/11, he started running numbers to try and figure out what was going to happen to the buildings and tried to contact the authorities to let them know that the buildings were going to fall. If none of the surviving engineers have doubts about what happened that day, it undermines the case that there’s anything wrong with the NIST’s conclusions.  If you can’t provide a logical motive for why the NIST would lie about what went wrong, it undermines the idea that we’re being lied to.

Given that the Bush Administration was unable to keep secret things like Abu Ghraib, I find it hard to believe that they’d be able to keep secret a cover up about the collapse of WTC 7 not being caused by something other than what the NIST report says.  If you know where to look (and clearly you don’t, or you wouldn’t be here), you’d know that you can piece together information about any classified program you want by using publicly available sources.  You doubt that there’s classified software modules for the programs that the NIST used?  Poke around on the forums dedicated to that software, and you’ll find people talking about them.  You want to know about the classified capabilities of US military hardware?  Talk to the Russians, they publish that information (in English) all the time.  Or do like the folks at one of the model aircraft companies did, and crawl through government documents so you can piece together what the F-117 looks like before the government even admitted they had them.

Finally, ask yourself these simple questions:  If the government was really trying to hide something, why would they admit that they had classified documents on the subject at all?  Why not simply deny the existence of any other documents, or produce plausible looking documents to release instead of the real ones?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2013 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 26 February 2013 10:54 AM

If the planes allowed the portion of the building above the impact point to fall then the momentum of the falling mass would still be involved in changing the momentum of the lower portion to make it move downward and completely collapse.  But it would also have to break the supports. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

It still involves the conservation of momentum.

Not in the way you suggested in your posting 149.

psikeyhackr - 26 February 2013 10:54 AM

But the mass of the plane will have something to do with how much damage was caused on impact.  And the amount of steel in the area of impact would relate to how much fire could weaken the structure in the time available.

Of course. A lot of damage was done, but it is not connected to the mass of the towers in the simple way you suggest, so that you can just say that it is unexplainable how the planes can destroy building that are more than 2000 times heavier than the planes. Using the same argumentation you should say that it is impossible to bring down a building with a bomb that is much lighter than the building itself.

The energy for the demolition of TWC came from three sources:

1. The damage done by the crashing of the planes (which is caused by the kinetic energy of the planes, not their momentum)
2. The heat of the fire of the fuel
3. The heat of the fire of all the stuff ignited by the burning fuel.

I have no problem with the explanation that the steel bearings got weak and the storeys broke down. I would be astonished that once this process started, the storeys below would withhold the falling down of the upper storeys.

psikeyhackr - 26 February 2013 10:54 AM

You are just pulling out part of what I have been saying in all of the time I have been discussing this subject.

Yes, I am picking out the part I know something about, namely elementary mechanics, and I see that your representation of it is wrong and misleading.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2289
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 26 February 2013 11:36 PM

Not in the way you suggested in your posting 149.

You are choosing to interpret any ambiguity in a way that serves your talking point.

Of course. A lot of damage was done, but it is not connected to the mass of the towers in the simple way you suggest, so that you can just say that it is unexplainable how the planes can destroy building that are more than 2000 times heavier than the planes. Using the same argumentation you should say that it is impossible to bring down a building with a bomb that is much lighter than the building itself.

Funny you should say that since a bomb failed to bring the building down in, was it 1993?

Of course a sufficiently powerful bomb could have done it.  But the momentum of the plane was mass times velocity and the kinetic energy was half of mass times velocity squared.  The energy of a bomb is not necessarily proportional to mass since there are many types of explosives.  A tactical nuke could be kilotons of explosive power.  But the plane was aluminum and had to fly while the building was steel and concrete.  Where is the slightest shred of hard evidence of what damage was done to the steel of core?

Wouldn’t deflecting the building on impact consume energy?  So how could the energy doing damage be computed without knowing how much energy was consumed moving the building?  Isn’t that “elementary”?

Yes, I am picking out the part I know something about, namely elementary mechanics, and I see that your representation of it is wrong and misleading.

But how do we do elementary mechanics if we don’t know the quantity of steel and concrete on every level?

Wouldn’t that eliminate ambiguity?  So where have you said we need the information?

In fact, where is your video of a model that can collapse completely?  Wouldn’t that be “elementary”?

psik

[ Edited: 27 February 2013 10:11 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 09:35 AM

But how do we do elementary mechanics if we don’t know the quantity of steel and concrete on every level?

That was not my point. Your comment on the towers having ‘2000+’ times the mass of the planes, so their is a need to explain how they could bring the towers down, considering the momentum, is just wrong. You intentionally try to mislead people with wrong use of elementary mechanics.

Further Coldheart Tucker made an excellent point:

Coldheart Tucker - 26 February 2013 05:05 PM

So?  Have any of the engineers who worked on the WTC come forward and said that they have doubts about the NIST’s report and methods?  If not, why not?  At least one of the engineers has stated that on 9/11, he started running numbers to try and figure out what was going to happen to the buildings and tried to contact the authorities to let them know that the buildings were going to fall. If none of the surviving engineers have doubts about what happened that day, it undermines the case that there’s anything wrong with the NIST’s conclusions.  If you can’t provide a logical motive for why the NIST would lie about what went wrong, it undermines the idea that we’re being lied to.

psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 09:35 AM

In fact, where is your video of a model that can collapse completely?  Wouldn’t that be “elementary”?

Your carton box videos are a joke.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2289
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 27 February 2013 10:32 AM
psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 09:35 AM

But how do we do elementary mechanics if we don’t know the quantity of steel and concrete on every level?

That was not my point. Your comment on the towers having ‘2000+’ times the mass of the planes, so their is a need to explain how they could bring the towers down, considering the momentum, is just wrong. You intentionally try to mislead people with wrong use of elementary mechanics.

It sounds like you are accusing me of conspiracy to confuse but that would require more people.  If it is elementary physics that is so easy to understand why don’t you just explain it.

Further Coldheart Tucker made an excellent point:

Coldheart Tucker - 26 February 2013 05:05 PM

So?  Have any of the engineers who worked on the WTC come forward and said that they have doubts about the NIST’s report and methods?  If not, why not?  At least one of the engineers has stated that on 9/11, he started running numbers to try and figure out what was going to happen to the buildings and tried to contact the authorities to let them know that the buildings were going to fall. If none of the surviving engineers have doubts about what happened that day, it undermines the case that there’s anything wrong with the NIST’s conclusions.  If you can’t provide a logical motive for why the NIST would lie about what went wrong, it undermines the idea that we’re being lied to.

How ConVenIent!  So why can’t this supposed ENGINEER provide this data now and explain it now?

What no one points out but me is that the south tower deflected 15 inches at the level where the plane impacted.  The NIST report says the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor, as high as the camera detected.  But the plane impacted at the 81st floor.  So 15 inches is computed from extrapolation based on a linear assumption.  But the towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.  So if the top could sway 36 inches then by interpolation the 81st floor could move 26 inches under worst case condition.  But the plane only moved it 15 inches.  So it only pushed the building to 60% of worst case.

So why don’t we have this engineer’s supposed calculations publicly available by now rather than just have hear say information?

psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 09:35 AM

In fact, where is your video of a model that can collapse completely?  Wouldn’t that be “elementary”?

Your carton box videos are a joke.

YAWN

It’s called an experiment.  So why hasn’t any engineering school done bigger and better experiments by now?

They do things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF8Fy9KAlis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_Q6Q-3o7M

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

If they can afford to do that then they can do collapse tests on large models of the towers.  But I have never heard of any school claiming they would try.  But they would look ridiculous if they said they would do it after all of this time and even worse if the model would not collapse.  But since they do such large experiments what excuse can they have for not having done any for the WTC by now?  They are now in the position of needing this left shoved under the rug because they should have explained in very good detail what actually happened no matter what the truth is.  Either they should have explained how the top of the north tower could destroy the rest or why it could not.

psik

[ Edited: 27 February 2013 06:15 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Coldheart—this forum is part of an organisation that describes itself as being dedicated to “science, reason, freedom of inquiry” among other things, right?

I am saying that the NIST WTC 7 computer simulations are bad science. There are several arguments I could advance to justify that statement, for example: the simulations do not accurately represent the evidence. However, the argument I have offered the CFI forum is that the sims are bad science because they are not testable, verifiable or falsifiable. This is such a basic violation of the scientific method it seemed a good place to start.

A response like

So?  Have any of the engineers who worked on the WTC come forward and said that they have doubts about the NIST’s report and methods?  If not, why not?

...is irrelevant to the question of why the computers sims are untestable bad science. You constantly confuse this question with the idea that lies are being covered up, but that has no bearing on the science.

Statements like

If none of the surviving engineers have doubts about what happened that day, it undermines the case that there’s anything wrong with the NIST’s conclusions.

...are also irrelevant to the question of why the computers sims are untestable bad science. It is an appeal to (the absence of objections from) authority, but it has no bearing on the science.

And the statement

If you can’t provide a logical motive for why the NIST would lie about what went wrong, it undermines the idea that we’re being lied to.

...is irrelevant to the question and implies that logical motive has a bearing on whether science should be testable.

Coldheart Tucker - 26 February 2013 05:05 PM

So, you’re telling me that no inspectors from any agency ever visited the site, and that the first responders were not debriefed as to what happened and that the NIST was prevented from accessing any of this information?  That would be unique in the history of accident investigation.

No, I’m not telling you that. I’m telling you that your idea there were military nano-bots crawling through the wreckage on 9/11 collecting data for NIST isn’t reasonable. And I’m telling you it’s irrelevant to the question of why the sims are untestable bad science.

But then you suggest the sims were deliberately made untestable

by committee and not one individual

to cover something up! That’s relevant to the question at least, but it’s a conspiracy theory. It doesn’t change the fact that the computer models are untestable bad science, and you can only speculate what the motive might be. Maybe it had something to do with military nano-bots and Area 51, eh?

Finally, you say something concrete. A positive statement to support your position; something that can be backed up.

You doubt that there’s classified software modules for the programs that the NIST used?

Yes, I do. I think they’re a figment of your imagination. I doubt you could describe their effect or why they should make the NIST simulations untestable and secret instead of scientifically verifiable. However it seems you have done your research and can prove me wrong because

on the forums dedicated to that software

there are

people talking about them

.
So all you have to do now is post a couple of links.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2013 12:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 05:14 PM

It sounds like you are accusing me of conspiracy to confuse but that would require more people.

LOL But there are many more truthers! But that does not matter: your suggestion about the momentum of the planes is just wrong. Full stop.

psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 05:14 PM

If it is elementary physics that is so easy to understand why don’t you just explain it.

I explained it clearly already: the momentum was absorbed by the earth, and did not bring the towers down.

For the rest, yes, the official story makes much more sense than your repeating tendentious presentation of why it all could not have happened this way. No alternative explanation makes more sense than the simple explanation that the two planes brought the towers down by weakening the structure by the crash and the following fires.

Psi, you are avoiding it continuously, but without an alternative theory how it could have happened, and why, you are standing empty handed. Denying that we were on the moon is easier than denying the true facts about 9/11.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2013 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2289
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 28 February 2013 12:13 AM
psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 05:14 PM

It sounds like you are accusing me of conspiracy to confuse but that would require more people.

LOL But there are many more truthers! But that does not matter: your suggestion about the momentum of the planes is just wrong. Full stop.

psikeyhackr - 27 February 2013 05:14 PM

If it is elementary physics that is so easy to understand why don’t you just explain it.

I explained it clearly already: the momentum was absorbed by the earth, and did not bring the towers down.

And who are these so called “Truthers” who have said anything about needing accurate data on the steel and concrete on every level of the towers?

I never said the momentum of the planes brought the towers down.  I said it deflected the towers horizontally and affected the amount of damage that was done to the towers.  So you win by accusing me of saying what I didn’t say.  Very impressive.

Supposedly it was the top portion falling as a result of damage and fire. 

So where is a physical model or a computer model with complete and accurate data that accounts for this collapse?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2013 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 28 February 2013 08:37 AM

I never said the momentum of the planes brought the towers down.  I said it deflected the towers horizontally and affected the amount of damage that was done to the towers.  So you win by accusing me of saying what I didn’t say.  Very impressive.

This is what you wrote:

psikeyhackr - 25 February 2013 11:07 AM

The Conservation of Momentum is not speculation.

You are insisting that I speculate and then accuse me of it.  I am just talking about the physics.  You are not dealing with the science of the problem.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel could totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have explained it in good detail by now.

If airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 10,000 gallons of fuel COULD NOT totally destroy buildings 2,000+ times their own mass in less than 2 hours then the physics profession should have EXPLAINED THAT in good detail by now.

You suggest that conservation of momentum has something to do with the possible explanation. It hasn’t at all.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 91
11