13 of 91
13
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 23 March 2013 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 181 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
asanta - 22 March 2013 04:47 PM
jomper - 22 March 2013 12:33 AM

As I said, there’s nothing in this thread that comes close to addressing its subject. You insist that the question has been adequately and repeatedly answered elsewhere in this forum, yet you’re apparently unable to find a single example. That in itself is a cause for skepticism.

There are endless threads about 9/11 conspiracies on the forum, most of them started by or taken over by Psikey.

You mean surrendered by people who can talk as though they regard themselves as knowledgeable of science but can’t actually demonstrate they understand it but accuse me of saying what I never said.

Like GdB accusing me of blaming everything on the Conservation of Momentum but when I ask him about the 10,000 gallons of fuel in my remark that HE QUOTED, he goes away.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/176832/

psik

[ Edited: 23 March 2013 03:21 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 02:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 182 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

It amuses me that asanta joined this discussion to effectively say nothing apart from saying that he/she doesn’t have anything to contribute to the discussion.

Anybody got anything that actually addresses the subject in concrete terms?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2013 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 183 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 23 March 2013 09:41 AM

Like GdB accusing me of blaming everything on the Conservation of Momentum but when I ask him about the 10,000 gallons of fuel in my remark that HE QUOTED, he goes away.

I blamed you for using the momentum argument in the wrong way, suggesting that the momentum of the planes was too small to destroy the WTC towers. And I reacted because classical mechanics is something I know a few things about. On the other side, I do not know much about the static of steel, and how this is changed by heat, so I do not discuss that with you. However, I trust the results of the experts, who explain it in ways that make sense to me, more than somebody who builds conclusions based on cardboard models, and who doesn’t have any meaningful or possible alternative theory about what happened, and keeps discussing with people that mostly are laymen on building engineering.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2013 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 184 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 24 March 2013 11:50 PM
psikeyhackr - 23 March 2013 09:41 AM

Like GdB accusing me of blaming everything on the Conservation of Momentum but when I ask him about the 10,000 gallons of fuel in my remark that HE QUOTED, he goes away.

I blamed you for using the momentum argument in the wrong way, suggesting that the momentum of the planes was too small to destroy the WTC towers. And I reacted because classical mechanics is something I know a few things about. On the other side, I do not know much about the static of steel, and how this is changed by heat, so I do not discuss that with you. However, I trust the results of the experts, who explain it in ways that make sense to me, more than somebody who builds conclusions based on cardboard models, and who doesn’t have any meaningful or possible alternative theory about what happened, and keeps discussing with people that mostly are laymen on building engineering.

Tell us where these experts informed you about the amount of steel on each level of the building even if only in the vicinity of the impacts.

The amount and distribution of the mass in concrete and steel had to affect what happened which is easy to demonstrate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Which of my models uses cardboard?  I haven’t noticed.  And I built them.

And what engineering school has built bigger and heavier models of more substantial materials.  Can’t they afford to and haven’t they had the time?

But if you know so much about momentum like you claim then you should know the importance of mass distribution.  So why don’t you expect to be told the distributions of steel and concrete or have you just chosen who to trust for whatever reason and simply claim to be knowledgeable?

As far as I have seen I am the only person to point out that the south tower deflected 15 inches at the level of impact due to the plane.  So what is your evidence for knowing so much about momentum?

psik

[ Edited: 25 March 2013 08:28 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2013 08:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 185 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

I blamed you for using the momentum argument in the wrong way, suggesting that the momentum of the planes was too small to destroy the WTC towers. And I reacted because classical mechanics is something I know a few things about. On the other side, I do not know much about the static of steel, and how this is changed by heat, so I do not discuss that with you.

[ Edited: 25 March 2013 08:36 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2013 09:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 186 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 25 March 2013 08:33 AM

I blamed you for using the momentum argument in the wrong way, suggesting that the momentum of the planes was too small to destroy the WTC towers. And I reacted because classical mechanics is something I know a few things about. On the other side, I do not know much about the static of steel, and how this is changed by heat, so I do not discuss that with you.

You can argue forever about what you say I “SUGGESTED”.

I do not recall anyone ever saying that the momentum of the planes destroyed the towers.  Plenty of people say it was the fires and not the plane impact.

You seem to be arguing against what only you are accusing me of having said.

What does this thought experiment have to do with the momentum of the plane?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/162116/

That is similar to what my collapse model is demonstrating.  But it does relate to the Conservation of Momentum.

psik

[ Edited: 25 March 2013 09:07 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2013 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 187 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2012-10-27
CuthbertJ - 02 July 2012 11:16 AM
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:42 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

I just finished pointing out that uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 for the better part of a day brought it down. This is consistent with the proven observation ‘fires destroy things, including structures’ and the observation of multiple uncontrolled fires taking place in WTC 7.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.


The current explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of a day, causing critical support structure failure and bringing the building down.

This requires no greater understanding than ‘fires destroy things, including large structures’.

See my post right before yours.  I should stay away but your comment about no greater understanding than “fire destroys things…” is just so silly.  Therefore even buildings designed to resist long term fires are destroyed simply because “fire destroys things”?  Or (non-911 related example) ceramics designed to withstand 1000F will be destroyed by 500F fire because “fire destroys things”.  I mean that’s almost caveman logic. Fire bad, do bad things!  I don’t agree or disagree with Fullerton, but geez your logic is goofy.

Actually, it’s no more goofy than your logic.  You claim it was “something else” that caused the buildings to fall but neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence about what that “something else” was.  All we have heard are unsupported speculations and conspiracy theories. Until someone can come up with empirical evidence that “something else” caused the buildings to fall, what that “something else” was, and how it happened, with hard evidence, we have nothing to go on but the information that CFI and others depended upon for it’s position.  Come up with some real evidence and not more empty speculation and intelligent people will listen to what you have to say.  Until then you and other conspiracy theorists will continue to be seen as kooks who have wild ideas and ridiculous speculations and baseless explanations with no evidence whatsoever.


......

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2013 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 188 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 25 March 2013 02:21 PM

Actually, it’s no more goofy than your logic.  You claim it was “something else” that caused the buildings to fall but neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence about what that “something else” was.

Since 9/11 we have had Alice in Wonderland LOGIC.

No engineering school has insisted on accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers or tried to demonstrate experimentally that the top 15% of a skyscraper could destroy the rest even if it fell.

So if people choose to BELIEVE IT then it does not have to be proven.

Great Science FOR 40+ YEARS after the Moon landing.

But after 11 years if it is PROVEN that the top 15% of a skyscraper could not possibly destroy the rest due to the very nature of what materials must do to support that much weight then a lot of people who deem themselves as intelligent and scientific would look really stupid.  Why haven’t they even demanded the data for 11 years?  The NIST report does not even specify the total for the concrete.  What kind of science and LOGIC is that?

[4718]
psik

[ Edited: 27 March 2013 07:56 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 March 2013 11:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 189 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
Lois - 25 March 2013 02:21 PM

Actually, it’s no more goofy than your logic.  You claim it was “something else” that caused the buildings to fall but neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence about what that “something else” was.  All we have heard are unsupported speculations and conspiracy theories. Until someone can come up with empirical evidence that “something else” caused the buildings to fall, what that “something else” was, and how it happened, with hard evidence, we have nothing to go on but the information that CFI and others depended upon for it’s position.  Come up with some real evidence and not more empty speculation and intelligent people will listen to what you have to say.  Until then you and other conspiracy theorists will continue to be seen as kooks who have wild ideas and ridiculous speculations and baseless explanations with no evidence whatsoever.

The mass of the WTC was more than enough to collapse both buildings. psikeyhackr fails the basic understanding of how mass scales with size, hence his laughable Youtube videos of model buildings.

As an analogy, try throwing a small paper airplane off of a high point in such a way that it is crashing into the ground (not landing gently). You’ll immediately notice the paper plane will survive quite well, with only minor deformation.

According psikeyhackr, this is proof that something else is going on with full sized airplane crashes since they are made with much stronger materials and are completely destroyed when a model airplane made of fragile paper can survive a scaled drop with minor damage.

This about sums up the expertise of 9/11 conspiracy claims.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2013 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 190 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 31 March 2013 11:52 PM

The mass of the WTC was more than enough to collapse both buildings. psikeyhackr fails the basic understanding of how mass scales with size, hence his laughable Youtube videos of model buildings.

As an analogy, try throwing a small paper airplane off of a high point in such a way that it is crashing into the ground (not landing gently). You’ll immediately notice the paper plane will survive quite well, with only minor deformation.

According psikeyhackr, this is proof that something else is going on with full sized airplane crashes since they are made with much stronger materials and are completely destroyed when a model airplane made of fragile paper can survive a scaled drop with minor damage.

This about sums up the expertise of 9/11 conspiracy claims.

It is called the square cube law.  I have mentioned it numerous times.  Just use the search function.

You are providing a silly analogy that does not even apply to the situation as evidence that I am stupid.

The paper airplane would have too much air resistance in relation to its weight.

My model would work the same way in a vacuum provided the vacuum does not damage the paper.

youtube   watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

The washers provide the mass and the paper is the crushable supports.  That model does not have anything to do with the airplane impact.  If what you say is correct then why don’t you build a physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?  Has anyone done that in 11 years?  And I don’t say anything about any conspiracies because I do not give a damn.  I presume it is the denialists who can’t cope with the possibility of a conspiracy other than the Arabs.  The problem with the Arabs only conspiracy is contradicting the Laws of Physics.  You can’t even find the total mass of the concrete in the NIST report but you CLAIM there was enough mass.  Logic based on ignorance?

[5110]
psik

[ Edited: 12 April 2013 07:18 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 191 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 01 April 2013 01:02 PM

It is called the square cube law.  I have mentioned it numerous times.  Just use the search function.

And yet you demonstrate zero understanding of it.

You are providing a silly analogy that does not even apply to the situation as evidence that I am stupid.

The paper airplane would have too much air resistance in relation to its weight.

My model would work the same way in a vacuum provided the vacuum does not damage the paper.

youtube   watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

The washers provide the mass and the paper is the crushable supports.

Let’s say your model is at 1:1000 scale. The height of the WTC towers is approximately 1,400 feet. So your model should be 1.4 feet high (looks bigger than that your video, but let’s keep it simple).

Take the mass of one of the WTC towers, which is approximately 450,000 metric tons. Apply the same scaling ratio of 1:1000, so your model (to be accurately scaled including mass) should weigh about 450 metric tons.

How much does your model weigh, psikeyhackr? If it’s less than 450 metric tons, your model is useless because you’ve scaled the mass incorrectly.

Explain why you deliberately scaled your model incorrectly, when it should weigh at least several hundred tons if you’re scaling it honestly. That, or demonstrate your model does weigh several hundred tons and we’ll go from there.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 192 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 08:31 AM

Take the mass of one of the WTC towers, which is approximately 450,000 metric tons. Apply the same scaling ratio of 1:1000, so your model (to be accurately scaled including mass) should weigh about 450 metric tons.

Thank you very much.  You have just demonstrated mathematically that you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

We are talking about a THREE DIMENSIONAL object.  So your example would mean that the height was 1/1000th scale, that the length was 1/1000th scale and that the width was 1/1000th scale.

But you came up with a weight number as though you only scaled ONE DIMENSION.

You would have to divide by 1000, THREE TIMES.  That is why it is called the Square CUBE Law.  The change in strength is proportional to the cross sectional area which has two dimensions and thus squared, while the change in mass is determined by THREE DIMENSIONS and thus cubed.  This is why it is DIFFICULT TO MAKE A SMALL COLLAPSING, the weight decreases faster than the strength.  That is why I use paper supports and tested them to be as weak as possible relative to their static load.

Your example should have a weight of 0.00045 metric tons.  My model is 3.5 pounds and I have never tried to convert to metric tons.  But since my supports are paper instead of steel your analogy is faulty anyway.

Please return as often as possible and present more simplistically ridiculous arguments which show you do not have a clue.

And yet you demonstrate zero understanding of it.

ROFLMAO

[5679]
psik

[ Edited: 20 April 2013 09:19 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 193 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

Psikey, just wading here to ask a couple of questions as the physics is way out of my league, but after viewing your video two items caught my interest: first I’m a model builder and I wonder why you don’t build a more complete replica of the towers using a medium that would better replicate the concete and steel structures (there’s plenty of material available including plastic sheeting and plaster with dowls to represent the beams or light aluminum found in any hobby store and model aircraft to replicate the planes loaded with fuel. Of course this is a pricey experiment but might be more accurate and secondly, as to your reference to the post office building at Hiroshima withstanding the atomic blast, the bombardier used this as a ground zero target so the bomb was intentionally airbursted over it at around two thousand feet. The shock wave burst out over the post office for a mile and a half to destroy the business district, so the blast hit it from above and not to the side. Although the structure sustained major damage it would have been completely flattened an probably swept away if hit by a perpindicular shock wave. A great deal of the steel was melted by the intense heat anyway and caused the collapse of part of the building, but notice the dome frame is still intact even now. I have an interesitng anecdote about that building if you’re interested. I’m really asking for clarification only.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 194 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 09:14 AM

Thank you very much.  You have just demonstrated mathematically that you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

We are talking about a THREE DIMENSIONAL object.  So your example would mean that the height was 1/100th scale, that the length was 1/100th scale and that the width was 1/100th scale.

False on all accounts. I said the scale was 1:1000. Therefore all three dimensions are scaled to 1/1000 of actual size. You do not multiply them for scaling and you confused 100 with 1000 to boot.

Height: 1/1000
Width: 1/1000
Length: 1/1000
Mass 1/1000

But you came up with a weight number as though you only scaled ONE DIMENSION.

False. Mass would be equally scaled employing the same way as above. All three dimensions are scaled to 1/1000 of full size. Mass should also be scaled down 1/1000 its size as mass is a single dimension, not three. Not to be confused as being distributed amongst three dimensions.

You would have to divide by 1000, THREE TIMES.  That is why it is called the Square CUBE Law.  The change in strength is proportional to the cross sectional area which has two dimensions and thus squared, while the change in mass is determined by THREE DIMENSIONS and thus cubed.  This is why it is DIFFICULT TO MAKE A SMALL COLLAPSING, the weight decreases faster than the strength.  That is why I use paper supports and tested them to be as weak as possible relative to their static load.

Your example should have a weight of 0.00045 metric tons.  My model is 3.5 pounds and I have never tried to convert to metric tons.  But since my supports are paper instead of steel your analogy is faulty anyway.

Please return as often as possible and present more simplistically ridiculous arguments which show you do not have a clue.

In other words, your model clearly doesn’t weigh 450 metric tons and therefore your model in invalid.

If you want to make a three dimensional object 1/1000 of it’s original size, you reduce three dimensions by a factor of 1000. If you want to make an object a thousand times less massive than the original, you divide the mass by a thousand.

This might clue you in on why actual experts use computer models instead of paper and washers.

ROFLMAO

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2013 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 195 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 09:35 AM
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 09:14 AM

Thank you very much.  You have just demonstrated mathematically that you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

We are talking about a THREE DIMENSIONAL object.  So your example would mean that the height was 1/100th scale, that the length was 1/100th scale and that the width was 1/100th scale.

False on all accounts. I said the scale was 1:1000. Therefore all three dimensions are scaled to 1/1000 of actual size. You do not multiply them for scaling and you confused 100 with 1000 to boot.

Height: 1/1000
Width: 1/1000
Length: 1/1000
Mass 1/1000

How is that possible?

If you have a huge solid block of concrete and reduce one dimension to 1/1000th isn’t that going to reduce the mass to 1/1000th the original value?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
13 of 91
13