15 of 91
15
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 21 April 2013 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 03:58 PM

You are the one talking about so scaling you explain it.

Been there, done that. You even helped by pointing out reducing the dimensions of a structure along one axis reduces its mass by a factor of a thousand, even though you haven’t reduced total (all three) dimensions by a thousand yet.

Provide a link to where I claimed the model was scaled.

Except my point all along is that your model is not properly scaled and therefore utterly invalid in making determinations about larger structure collapses. Glad to see you’re finally admitting it!

Your concept of winning is accusing me of saying what I never said and then making a hash of the square cubed law.  It is because of the square cubed law that I did not even try to make a scale model.  I knew it would not work.  If I could make one it would be even less likely to collapse than the model I built which did not collapse anyway.

Yes, a model that is not properly scaled will not behave like an original model upon which it is based. Simply physics dictates you cannot scale the mass properly, and here you are admitting it. So now you have literally admitted you did not make a scale model, didn’t even try and also know it wouldn’t work to boot. So what was the point of your model in the first place then?

It is you people who claim the airliner impact and fire could cause the collapse who have to prove it.  Build a model that can collapse.  I want to see.

psik

We did already, full scale models. They’re called the WTC towers, and we have plenty of footage of them collapsing. Check out YouTube, you’ll find countless video examples of it happening. We don’t make smaller physical models of the WTF for the following reason:

“It is because of the square cubed law that I did not even try to make a scale model.  I knew it would not work.  If I could make one it would be even less likely to collapse than the model I built which did not collapse anyway.”

That’s why we use computer models, because they can simulate a model with the correct properties of scaling while a model in the real physical world cannot unless you build it to actual scale.

However, I’m glad you freely admit that your model is not scaled properly, you didn’t even try to and claimed to know it won’t work because of that. So with you freely and publicly admitting how completely flawed and inaccurate your model is, this should mean we won’t be hearing you appeal to your model anymore as proving anything other than your model itself didn’t collapse. Because as you yourself just finished saying, it’s not scaled properly and the cube root function of mass scaling makes even the most complex and detailed effort for a smaller model invalid. If you disagree with that, then answer my previous question:

Explain how increasing/decreasing a model’s dimensions by three orders of magnitude and it’s mass by nine orders of magnitude is supposed to yield two models with identical properties and behaviors with regards to something like structural collapse?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2013 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 03:58 PM
Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 01:00 PM
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 12:44 PM

I keep saying this is grade school physics and I never claimed to have a degree in mechanical engineering.


It’s actually grade school conspiracy theory. Maybe primary school.

Lois

———

psik

Oh, well in that case, why don’t you use your high school grade understanding of physics and explain how increasing a model’s dimensions by three orders of magnitude and it’s mass by nine orders of magnitude is supposed to yield two models with identical properties and behaviors with regards to something like structural collapse?

You are the one talking about so scaling you explain it.

Provide a link to where I claimed the model was scaled.  Your concept of winning is accusing me of saying what I never said and then making a hash of the square cubed law.  It is because of the square cubed law that I did not even try to make a scale model.  I knew it would not work.  If I could make one it would be even less likely to collapse than the model I built which did not collapse anyway.

It is you people who claim the airliner impact and fire could cause the collapse who have to prove it.  Build a model that can collapse.  I want to see.

psik

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2013 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 21 April 2013 10:04 AM
psikeyhackr - 20 April 2013 03:58 PM

You are the one talking about so scaling you explain it.

Been there, done that. You even helped by pointing out reducing the dimensions of a structure along one axis reduces its mass by a factor of a thousand, even though you haven’t reduced total (all three) dimensions by a thousand yet.

YEAH!  You been there and you done it wrong AGAIN!

ROFLMAO

I don’t know if you believe you can get people to accept obviously stupid crap because you say it or if you actually believe this nonsense.  But anyone can go back and see I did not put these words in your mouth.

Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 10:36 AM

Hence why your model is invalid when trying to compare it to WTC, and what I’ve been repeatedly telling you.

Variable 1: Height     [1/10th]
Variable 2: Width     [1/10th]
Variable 3: Length     [1/10th]
Variable 4: Mass     [1/1000th]    {and volume}

Unless you scale those four basic variables equally, then your model is inaccurate. Simple physics dictates that by definition your model being smaller makes equal variable reduction impossible, unless you start adding massive amounts of mass to compensate for this effect. Clearly you did not, or your model would weigh 450 metric tons if you scaled it down to 1:1000 for volume.

Volume is a single variable but it is the result of multiplying three variables.  But the model would have be 1/10th scale to get 1/1000th the volume.

A 1/10th scale model would be 136 feet tall.

You obviously can’t do the math.

psik

[ Edited: 21 April 2013 02:38 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2013 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Maaan. Robert, you have been owned.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2013 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 21 April 2013 01:06 PM
Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 10:36 AM

Hence why your model is invalid when trying to compare it to WTC, and what I’ve been repeatedly telling you.

Variable 1: Height     [1/10th]
Variable 2: Width     [1/10th]
Variable 3: Length     [1/10th]
Variable 4: Mass     [1/1000th]    {and volume}

Unless you scale those four basic variables equally, then your model is inaccurate. Simple physics dictates that by definition your model being smaller makes equal variable reduction impossible, unless you start adding massive amounts of mass to compensate for this effect. Clearly you did not, or your model would weigh 450 metric tons if you scaled it down to 1:1000 for volume.

Volume is a single variable but it is the result of multiplying three variables.  But the model would have be 1/10th scale to get 1/1000th the volume.

A 1/10th scale model would be 136 feet tall.

You obviously can’t do the math.

psik

Nice to see you bald faced lying, psik. You’ve quoted an edited version of my post and threw in numbers that violate the very argument I made. All four of those variables modifiers need to be equal to make any argument that a model’s behavior would be unaffected by size changes. You have again demonstrated that I’m correct by showing mass/volume does not scale linearly with dimensions. Ergo, even a perfect replicate model of identical design and mass density per volumetric unit does not yield a proportionally comparable change of dimensions relative to mass. Not to mention you’ve just finished publicly admitting your model is not scaled correctly in the first place, thus admitting it’s useless.

So again, answer the question: explain why you expect anyone to take your model seriously when you yourself are proving that dimensions and mass do not scale equally and thus different size models will behave very differently?

You going to try actually answering the question now, or ignore it again because it blows your position out of the water?

Let me put it as simply as possible:

Model A:
Height: 1 Meter
Width: 1 Meter
Length: 1 Meter
Mass: 1 kilogram

Model B (scaled up by 100:1 ratio with completely equivalent volume/mass density)
Height: 100 Meters
Width: 100 Meters
Length: 100 Meters
Mass: 1,000,000 kilograms

Explain why anyone but those ignorant of simple physics would assume both models will act identically to forces when all dimensions have been scaled by a factor of 100 but the resulting total mass is a million times greater.

Are going to sit there and seriously try to claim that a mass change of that magnitude will not result in massively different set of properties and behavior of the model? This is precisely why your model is a joke. Not only is it not scaled correctly which you yourself admit, even if it was scaled correctly (in dimensions), the mass difference creates an entirely different set of behaviors and properties.

That is why your paper and washer model can stand just fine at its current scale, but if you magically increased its size by a factor of a thousand, it would collapse under its own weight under the force of gravity alone.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2013 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 21 April 2013 02:46 PM

Maaan. Robert, you have been owned.

So psik admits his model is not scaled correctly. He crunches the numbers himself and proves that mass does not scale proportional with mass, making his model invalid even if he had scaled it’s dimensions perfectly.

And I’m losing the argument? LOL LMAO!

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 21 April 2013 05:29 PM
jomper - 21 April 2013 02:46 PM

Maaan. Robert, you have been owned.

So psik admits his model is not scaled correctly. He crunches the numbers himself and proves that mass does not scale proportional with mass, making his model invalid even if he had scaled it’s dimensions perfectly.

And I’m losing the argument? LOL LMAO!

You are saying that mass should scale in a manner that is IMPOSSIBLE!

If all of the linear dimensions are 1/1000th then the volume will be 1/1,000,000,000th.  The mass will have the same ratio if the densities are the same.  But under those conditions a model gets stronger in relation to its weight so the chance of collapse decreases.  That is why I did not even try to build a model for years.  My model is not a scale model and I never claimed it was.

My model is deliberately as weak as possible but still does not collapse.  Your argument is idiotic.

It is the people defending the official story who need to make a model that can collapse.  A truly accurately scaled model cannot possibly collapse because it would be to strong.  I can only assume your argument is designed to appeal to the really stupid.

And what were the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  How can an accurate scale model be built without that data?  So everyone making a big deal of SCALE models should be demanding that info.

psik

[ Edited: 22 April 2013 08:40 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 07:50 AM

You are saying that mass should scale in a manner that is IMPOSSIBLE!

WRONG. I said that if you scale all the model variables equally, they should all be at a ratio of 1:1000, including mass. They are not, as I’ve repeatedly said and you keep ‘proving’ this as if that somehow conflicts with my position. Mass does not scale linearly with dimensions and this is proven with simple math that you now (apparently) understand. Finally!

If all of the linear dimensions are 1/1000th then the volume will be 1/1,000,000,000th.  The mass will have the same ratio if the densities are the same.  But under those conditions a model gets stronger in relation to its weight so the chance of collapse decreases.

WRONG. A model does not get stronger relative to its mass, but it does get stronger relative to its dimensions. You have just failed basic physics, psiks.

I demand you explain how much stronger a model a gets as you scale it up using your ‘high school grade’ physics. I know how it does, hence why I know you are now lying and quite ready to prove it.

Submit your understanding of how the strength of a model equals or surpasses mass scaling and I will then prove to everyone how you are wrong.

That is why I did not even try to build a model for years.  My model is not a scale model and I never claimed it was.

Ergo your model is invalid and you have stated so. Furthermore you’ve proven that scaling it up will change it mass relative to it’s dimensions that demands entirely different kinds of behavior.

You are destroying your own argument and proving why your model is invalid, even if it was scaled in dimensions properly which you admit you didn’t do.

My model is deliberately as weak as possible but still does not collapse.  Your argument is idiotic.

You’re the idiotic one here. You’re asserting your model did not collapse while above you just finished agreeing that if you scale it up, its mass will increase vastly more than its dimensions and therefore the model will behave differently at different scales. If you increased your model dimension by 1000:1, it’s size (measured by dimensions) increases by a thousand, but its mass increases by a billion. You have just finished proving this.

It is the people defending the official story who need to make a model that can collapse.  A truly accurately scaled model cannot possibly collapse because it would be to strong.  I can only assume your argument is designed to appeal to the really stupid.

psik

THE STRENGTH OF A MODEL DOES NOT INCREASE AT THE SAME RATE AS ITS MASS DOES. We just finished having a discussion about how mass does not scale equally with dimension changes to a model, psik. You’ve now defended my position with math where I assert mass does not scale linearly with dimensions.

Awesome! Now onto the strength of a model and how that is calculated with dimension changes.

You will now submit your understanding of the strength increases of a model relative to its mass as all dimensions are scaled up equally. Here’s a hint, psik. Your comment here:

The mass will have the same ratio if the densities are the same.  But under those conditions a model gets stronger in relation to its weight so the chance of collapse decreases

You are now a laughing stock amongst engineers and I’m more than happy to prove why.

I can’t wait for your ‘explanation’ at this point, so I can completely destroy it with simple math. Perhaps I’ll get lucky twice and get you to do the math for me that proves how wrong you are. Your move, Mr ‘high school physics’.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 09:00 AM
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 07:50 AM

You are saying that mass should scale in a manner that is IMPOSSIBLE!

WRONG. I said that if you scale all the model variables equally, they should all be at a ratio of 1:1000, including mass.

And that is what is IMPOSSIBLE!

You are saying the 1/1000 scale model should be 1,000,000 times as dense as the full size structure.

ROFLMAO

[6092]
psik

[ Edited: 22 April 2013 09:13 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 09:07 AM
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 09:00 AM

WRONG. I said that if you scale all the model variables equally, they should all be at a ratio of 1:1000, including mass.

And that is what is IMPOSSIBLE!

You are saying the 1/1000 scale model should be 1,000,000 times as dense as the full size structure.

ROFLMAO

[6092]
psik

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.. I said that if your model was scaled 1:1000 for all variables, its mass would be 450 tons (using the WTC mass figures). I stated this fact to illustrate that mass does not scale equally with dimensions and that is why such a model will not weight 450 tons because that would demand massive density increases. You finishd proving this with math which proves my position!

And no dodging my question, psik. I again demand you prove mathematically how a structure’s strength equals or surpasses its mass increase as you scale all dimensions equally. You made ths claim and I demand you prove it with the same determination (and math) that you proved mass does not scale equally. Neither does strength, and you will now submit your understanding of strength scaling of a model so everyone can see how wrong you are.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 09:27 AM
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 09:07 AM
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 09:00 AM

WRONG. I said that if you scale all the model variables equally, they should all be at a ratio of 1:1000, including mass.

And that is what is IMPOSSIBLE!

You are saying the 1/1000 scale model should be 1,000,000 times as dense as the full size structure.

ROFLMAO

[6092]
psik

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.. I said that if your model was scaled 1:1000 for all variables, its mass would be 450 tons (using the WTC mass figures). I stated this fact to illustrate that mass does not scale equally with dimensions and that is why such a model will not weight 450 tons because that would demand massive density increases. You finishd proving this with math which proves my position!

Is it humanly possible to actually be that stupid and still type coherently.

You have three variable, height, length and width.  The starting mass is 450,000 metric tons.

Scale one linear variable like height and the mass goes down to 450 metric tons.

Scale a second linear variable like length and the mass goes down to 0.450 metric tons.

Scale the third linear variable like width and the mass goes down to 0.000450 metric tons.

That is what I said originally.  That is why density would have to go up by a factor of 1,000,000 to be 450 tons.

This is beginning to get too stupid to even be funny.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02

You are now delibrately dodging my question psik. I will ask it again and I expect you to defend your claim here:

“If all of the linear dimensions are 1/1000th then the volume will be 1/1,000,000,000th.  The mass will have the same ratio if the densities are the same.  But under those conditions a model gets stronger in relation to its weight so the chance of collapse decreases.”

I again demand you prove mathematically how a structure’s strength equals or surpasses its mass increase as you scale all dimensions equally. You made this claim and I demand you prove it with the same determination (and math) that you proved mass does not scale equally. Neither does strength, and you will now submit your understanding of strength scaling of a model so everyone can see how wrong you are.

Do not waste time by appealing to mass dimensions ratios at this point. I’ve demostrated and you agree mass does not scale equally with dimension increases. Now answer the strength question which you made a claim for that is mathemtically invalid.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 10:30 AM

I again demand you prove mathematically how a structure’s strength equals or surpasses its mass increase as you scale all dimensions equally. You made this claim and I demand you prove it with the same determination (and math) that you proved mass does not scale equally.

The mass does not increase.  It decreases as you make the model smaller.

If the material is the same then the strength is related to the cross section which is two dimensional and therefore proportional to the square.  But mass is three dimensional and therefore proportional to the cube.

When you scale up a structure gets weaker in relation to its size so skyscrapers must be designed to handle that height.  So if the skyscraper is scaled down the model gets stronger in relation to its weight.

Your asking me to do a mathematical proof just demonstrates you do not understand the square cube law.  You are asking me to prove what you claim to understand but demonstrate that you do not.

My model is held up by paper and that is not what held up the WTC therefore it cannot possibly be a SCALE MODEL.

psik

[ Edited: 22 April 2013 12:33 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 11:52 AM
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 10:30 AM

I again demand you prove mathematically how a structure’s strength equals or surpasses its mass increase as you scale all dimensions equally. You made this claim and I demand you prove it with the same determination (and math) that you proved mass does not scale equally.

The mass does not increase.  It decreases as you make the model smaller.

If the material is the same then the strength is related to the cross section which is two dimensional and therefore proportional to the square.  But mass is three dimensional and therefore proportional to the cube.

When you scale up a structure gets weaker in relation to its size so skyscrapers must be designed to handle that height.  So if the skyscraper is scaled down the model gets stronger in relation to its weight.

Your asking me to do a mathematical proof just demonstrates you do not understand the square cube law.  You are asking me to prove what you claim to understand but demonstrate that you do not.

My model is held up by paper and that is not what held up the WTC therefore it cannot possibly a SCALE MODEL.

psik

Bingo! As you shrink a model, it becomes stonger relative to its mass! Congradulations psik, now you know why you model is invalid. It is not scaled correctly by your own admission, it’s not designd the same, and even if your model was designed exactly the same in dimensions and building materials (but scaled down equally across all three dimensions)  the scaling of mass and strength of the load bearing cross section would be completely wrong.

You have handily demostrated yourself that your model is invalid. Which is what I said from the very beginning. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 12:03 PM

My model is held up by paper and that is not what held up the WTC therefore it cannot possibly a SCALE MODEL.

psik

Bingo! As you shrink a model, it becomes stonger relative to its mass! Congradulations psik, now you know why you model is invalid. It is not scaled correctly by your own admission, it’s not designd the same, and even if your model was designed exactly the same in dimensions and building materials (but scaled down equally across all three dimensions)  the scaling of mass and strength of the load bearing cross section would be completely wrong.

You have handily demostrated yourself that your model is invalid. Which is what I said from the very beginning. LOL

The supports are made of PAPER.  This has been known all along.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 91
15