16 of 91
16
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 22 April 2013 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 226 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 12:38 PM

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

psik

Yes, and you picked paper because its compressive strength is a properly scaled for your model relative to the compressive strength of structural steel, taking into account the orders of magnitudes difference in loading bearing capacity do to simple physics of scaling.

Whoops! Silly me, I forgot you keep insisting you didn’t scale your model at all, and when I said your model isn’t scaled properly you demanded I prove you claimed it was! ROFLMFAO!!! LOL

You heard it here folks! Psik outright admits his model is not scaled correctly, admits that mass and load bearing strength do not scale linearly with dimensions which radical alters the model’s behavior in mass and load bearing behavior. He proves this with math and then cries “but I made it out of paper and didn’t concern myself with scaling issues!”

At this point my sides are hurting from laughter. Please psik, I want you to tell us more about your model, I can’t stop laughing over here. LMAO LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 227 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14

Robert,  I commend your fortitude but you’re not going to get anywhere with this.
Have you seen Psikey’s posts on crop circles?
Good luck….keep up the fight!
Perhaps you’ve noticed that when you argue with Psikey the central point of the discussion begins to fade in direct proportion to the emergence of tertiary technical details that aren’t central to the discussion?
For example when I pressed Psikey for his reasoning behind crop circles after I mentioned that these geometric patterns could easily be produced on scale, at site with simple mechanical survey stations(let alone with small hand held GPS!!), he tried to refute this.
It is obvious that Psikey is “dazzled” by “larger than life” human created phenomena.  This dazzling completely blinds him to the logical reasons behind such events.
Note he will not offer up his own explanations for either the Twin Towers collapse or the crop circles.
This is his lame attempt at trying to appear scientific and impartial.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 228 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 12:55 PM
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 12:38 PM

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

psik

Yes, and you picked paper because its compressive strength is a properly scaled for your model relative to the compressive strength of structural steel, taking into account the orders of magnitudes difference in loading bearing capacity do to simple physics of scaling.

Whoops! Silly me, I forgot you keep insisting you didn’t scale your model at all, and when I said your model isn’t scaled properly you demanded I prove you claimed it was! ROFLMFAO!!! LOL

You heard it here folks! Psik outright admits his model is not scaled correctly, admits that mass and load bearing strength do not scale linearly with dimensions which radical alters the model’s behavior in mass and load bearing behavior. He proves this with math and then cries “but I made it out of paper and didn’t concern myself with scaling issues!”

At this point my sides are hurting from laughter. Please psik, I want you to tell us more about your model, I can’t stop laughing over here. LMAO LOL

Yes, and you picked paper because its compressive strength is a properly scaled for your model relative to the compressive strength of structural steel,

I have said nothing of the kind.  I have not done anything to research the compressive strength of steel.

I said the paper loops were tested to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the weight they had to support. 

Skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible.  So if my model won’t collapse and it is not scaled what do you think your making a big deal about scaling is proving?  You seem to be concentrating on competing with me instead of getting people to understand any solution to the problem.

Like you accomplished something by proving what I admitted in the first place.

But I see you say nothing about the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings for all of your talk about scaling.

Build a model that can collapse and use that to explain how the towers could collapse.  That would accomplish something.  My point is to demonstrate why they could not collapse from the top.  That is the point of the paper being as weak as possible.  And I did two drops and half the structure still did not collapse.

psik

[ Edited: 22 April 2013 03:19 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 229 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 22 April 2013 01:16 PM

Robert,  I commend your fortitude but you’re not going to get anywhere with this.

Oh but I disagree. You are completely correct I’m not going to get anywhere with psikeyhackr, but it’s not for his benefit that I make the argument. It is for the benefit of those reading who are undecided and want to know how physics works for comparing things like large and small structures. In this case why psikeyhackr’s YouTube model is a hilarious joke.

And for those reading, here’s a summary of how the discussion went.

-if you want a model to behave similar to another model, you need to scale variables equally. Physics dictates this is either extremely impractical or impossible (this is why experts use computer models and not paper and washers! LMAO!). I proved this by telling psikeyhackr his model (if it was at a ratio of 1:1000) would weigh 450 tons if all variables were scaled equally. He then hilariously pretends that my argument is his model ‘should’ weigh 450 metric tons rather than my point being his model does not weigh 450 metric tons and this proves mass did not scale equally with dimensions.

-mass does not scale equally with dimension changes, mass changes by the cube root of the factor by which you are changing the dimensions of a structure. I got psikeyhackr to prove this with math and he tries to laugh as if he’s disproving my position.

-strength of a model (load bearing of the structure) also does not scale equally with dimension changes, strength changes by the square root of the factor by which you are changing the dimensions of the structure.

Observe:

Model A
Height: 1 meter
Width: 1 meter
Length: 1 meter
Mass: 1 kilogram(s)
Strength (load bearing): 1 unit(s) of force

All variables are equal. Now scale that structure up by a factor of a 1000 assuming completely equal unit of mass per volume:

Model B
Height: 1000 meter
Width: 1000 meter
Length: 1000 meter
Mass: 1,000,000,000 kilograms
Strength (load bearing): 1,000,000 unit(s) of force

Notice how mass and strength of the model changed far differently than the dimensions? Mass of the structure increased by a factor of a billion, and strength of the structure increased by a factor of a million. There’s a big uh oh there too; mass is increasing far faster than the strength of the model. So while the strength of the model increased by a million, the mass increased by a billion. That’s a thousand fold difference from Model A going to Model B when comparing the strength to the mass. In other words, by making Model A into Model B, we made the structure a thousand times weaker. If you reverse the process and are shrinking the structure, the math is the same. You make the structure a thousand times stronger (relative to its mass) than the larger one. This is why your small paper airplane can hit the ground from very high and sustain very little damage (look ma, I made it out of paper! ...wait, that sounds familiar?), but a much larger full scale airplane made of vastly stronger metals gets turned into a debris field falling from height ratio of identical factors.

Very simple physics that takes into account the extremely important aspect of scale when comparing structures of different size.

And what was psikeyhackr’s response to the serious issue of scaling?

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

Bawhahaha! He outright admits his model isn’t scaled, admits all variables do not scale equally, and on top of that his model is not designed anything at all like the WTC structures. So according to psikeyhackr, when you want to make a model of something, we can ignore design, mass, strength and dimension changes! Why not just make a model of jello and start modeling the WTC with that! LOL

He then goes on to say this:

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

(just like my paper airplane ma!)

To which I reply:

Yes, and you picked paper because its compressive strength is a properly scaled for your model relative to the compressive strength of structural steel, taking into account the orders of magnitudes difference in loading bearing capacity do to simple physics of scaling.

Whoops! Silly me, I forgot you keep insisting you didn’t scale your model at all, and when I said your model isn’t scaled properly you demanded I prove you claimed it was!

To which he replies with the last two following statements:

I have not done anything to research the compressive strength of steel

...

My point is to demonstrate why they could not collapse from the top.

OMFG! LMFAO!! LOL

Can you imagine anyone honestly making the following claim:

Person A: “My point is to demonstrate the water could not have boiled away on the stove.”
Person B: “Did you look into the boiling point of water?”
Person A: “I have not done anything to research the boiling point of water.”

Seriously folks, you cannot make this kind of shit up! Keep it up, psikeyhackr, you are now my favorite running joke on the forums. LOL

I’ve quite conclusively proven my point at this juncture. Please psikeyhackr, post some more arguments about your model. There’s no shame in making people laugh, and you’re a gold mine for them! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 230 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 05:48 PM

Observe:

Model A
Height: 1 meter
Width: 1 meter
Length: 1 meter
Mass: 1 kilogram(s)
Strength (load bearing): 1 unit(s) of force

All variables are equal. Now scale that structure up by a factor of a 1000 assuming completely equal unit of mass per volume:

Model B
Height: 1000 meter
Width: 1000 meter
Length: 1000 meter
Mass: 1,000,000,000 kilograms
Strength (load bearing): 1,000,000 unit(s) of force

Notice how mass and strength of the model changed far differently than the dimensions? Mass of the structure increased by a factor of a billion, and strength of the structure increased by a factor of a million. There’s a big uh oh there too; mass is increasing far faster than the strength of the model. So while the strength of the model increased by a million, the mass increased by a billion. That’s a thousand fold difference from Model A going to Model B when comparing the strength to the mass. In other words, by making Model A into Model B, we made the structure a thousand times weaker. If you reverse the process and are shrinking the structure, the math is the same.

My that sounds so brilliant.

The WTC was only 417 meters.  But there had to be more steel at the bottom than at the top because the bottom had to support so much more weight than the top.

Now you blithely talk about something 1000 meters and say nothing about how it would have to be designed to support that weight.  A kilogram per cubic meter is not that dense.  But I bet you cannot make something 1,000 meters tall and have a uniform density throughout that height.  So that math cannot apply so simply to the real would for a structure one kilometer tall.

Part of the point of my model is that the supports get stronger toward the bottom.

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 231 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 22 April 2013 01:16 PM

For example when I pressed Psikey for his reasoning behind crop circles after I mentioned that these geometric patterns could easily be produced on scale, at site with simple mechanical survey stations(let alone with small hand held GPS!!), he tried to refute this.

And where did you explain how this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFj69OCWwl39nCXELdd1pRMUXr1SnDbZntwCDiWaZT31XmLiLMEQ

was done in one night without lights?

I never said how it was done.  I just pointed out that consumer GPSs are not accurate enough.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2013 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 232 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02

I asked for it! It’s my fault!!!

Please psikeyhackr, post some more arguments about your model. There’s no shame in making people laugh, and you’re a gold mine for them!

OMFG! Ask and you shall receive!!!! LOL

psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:26 PM

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

He actually typed this out! ROFL!! I can’t stop laughing, someone help me!! LOL

I have to quote it again!!

psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:26 PM

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

Assuming math must apply to physics is just dumb people, he just said so! This entire time he was using math and laughingly claiming I can’t do simple math…is dumb! ROFLMFAO!!!! LOL

What’s your preferred method of applying physics, psikeyhackr? Rolling dice? Pick a card? Pick a number between one and a hundred (just don’t use math on it!)? ROFLMFAO!! LOL

psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:26 PM

My that sounds so brilliant.

The WTC was only 417 meters.  But there had to be more steel at the bottom than at the top because the bottom had to support so much more weight than the top.

Now you blithely talk about something 1000 meters and say nothing about how it would have to be designed to support that weight.  A kilogram per cubic meter is not that dense.  But I bet you cannot make something 1,000 meters tall and have a uniform density throughout that height.  So that math cannot apply so simply to the real would for a structure one kilometer tall.

Part of the point of my model is that the supports get stronger toward the bottom.

Playing with math and assuming it must apply to physics is dumb.

psik

Bawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Tell you what, psikeyhackr! Using my previous equations, change meters to millimeters, kilograms to grams and then see what happens!

OMFG, don’t disappoint and post some more! This is awesome and hilarious! I gotta save this thread and your posts, no one will believe me if I don’t and try to tell them what you’re saying!! ROFLMFAO!!!! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 233 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 22 April 2013 06:44 PM
VYAZMA - 22 April 2013 01:16 PM

For example when I pressed Psikey for his reasoning behind crop circles after I mentioned that these geometric patterns could easily be produced on scale, at site with simple mechanical survey stations(let alone with small hand held GPS!!), he tried to refute this.

And where did you explain how this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFj69OCWwl39nCXELdd1pRMUXr1SnDbZntwCDiWaZT31XmLiLMEQ

was done in one night without lights?

I never said how it was done.  I just pointed out that consumer GPSs are not accurate enough.

psik

Psikeyhackr,  That’s part of my whole point.  How do you know that was done in one night?  How do you know that picture is even real?
Maybe it was done in 2 nights or 3.  Or maybe it was done in 5 hours by 50 people?  You don’t know.  If you take for granted the caption or written article that went along with that foto, then your just taking another leap of faith.
How do you know it wasn’t done in the daytime!!??(not that it couldn’t have easily been done in the moonlight!)
And yes there are consumer GPS devices accurate enough to make that design. Of course like I said simple surveying equipment from the 15th century onwards could easily have made that design to scale.
So, don’t go off on the GPS arguument…it is irrelevant.
Notice in your post right here. You say: “I never said how it was done.”
But right before that you say it was done without lights in one night! That’s saying… “how it was done”! So do you know how it was done or not?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 234 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 22 April 2013 05:48 PM

Observe:

Model A
Height: 1 meter
Width: 1 meter
Length: 1 meter
Mass: 1 kilogram(s)
Strength (load bearing): 1 unit(s) of force

All variables are equal. Now scale that structure up by a factor of a 1000 assuming completely equal unit of mass per volume:

Model B
Height: 1000 meter
Width: 1000 meter
Length: 1000 meter
Mass: 1,000,000,000 kilograms
Strength (load bearing): 1,000,000 unit(s) of force

A kilogram per cubic meter is less than the density of air at room temperature.  LOL

What do you claim to be scaling?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 235 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 07:27 AM

Psikeyhackr,  That’s part of my whole point.  How do you know that was done in one night?  How do you know that picture is even real?

There are a lot of different pictures from a lot of different angles and distances.

If they are not done in one night then why don’t we have lots of pictures with partial crop circles?

I am not trying to explain them.  I am merely saying that the claimed explanations are inadequate.

psik

[ Edited: 23 April 2013 07:35 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 236 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 23 April 2013 07:32 AM
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 07:27 AM

Psikeyhackr,  That’s part of my whole point.  How do you know that was done in one night?  How do you know that picture is even real?

There are a lot of different pictures from a lot of different angles.

If they are not done in one night then why don’t we have lots of pictures with partial crop circles?

I am not trying to explain them.  I am merely saying that the claimed explanations are inadequate.

psik

The same reason we don’t have unfinished paintings hanging in museums.  The same reason there are no family portrait fotos when half the family is off camera 4 feet away.
How do you know there are not foto’s of half-finished crop circles?  I’ll bet there are.  There just not popular.
Maybe we’ve seen pictures of half finished crop geometric designs.  But assumed they were finished. 
You put the horse before the cart too often. 
What are the claimed explanations?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 237 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2274
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 07:52 AM

The same reason we don’t have unfinished paintings hanging in museums.  The same reason there are no family portrait fotos when half the family is off camera 4 feet away.

There are no mysteries or controversies about your examples.

There would have to be a “Conspiracy” to not take and show photographs of partial crop circles when they would have to be exposed for everyone to see.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 238 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 23 April 2013 07:28 AM

A kilogram per cubic meter is less than the density of air at room temperature.  LOL

What do you claim to be scaling?
psik

I did not claim to be scaling anything specific. I simply chose straight forward metric units for ease of understanding, you can input any real world material density and strength you desire and the math is identical. That is why I didn’t specify an actual unit of force, since I wasn’t actually specifying any actual material.

Quick psik, tell us all again how playing with math and applying it to physics is dumb. Better yet, tell us how playing with numbers and applying it to physics is dumb. ROFLMFAO!! LOL

Keep showing everyone here how you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and now can only pathetically try to attack the issue with hilarious bullshit like math applying to physics or trying to pretend my equations must have been scaling something specific to be valid.

If you have a problem with my chosen units of measure, change them! Pick whatever density per cubic unit of volume you desire, the math does not change. You can call every variable I specified as simple ‘unit’ and the math does not change.

Wait! Sorry, psik! I forgot, you think applying math to physics is dumb! Bawhahahahahahahah!!!! ROFLMFAO!! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 239 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 23 April 2013 08:15 AM
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 07:52 AM

The same reason we don’t have unfinished paintings hanging in museums.  The same reason there are no family portrait fotos when half the family is off camera 4 feet away.

There are no mysteries or controversies about your examples.

There would have to be a “Conspiracy” to not take and show photographs of partial crop circles when they would have to be exposed for everyone to see.

psik

With my examples…the “conspiracies” only need be invented. In fact there are a few unfinished paintings hanging in museums!  And I’m sure conspiracy surrounds the reasoning for at least a couple of the works.  There’s conspiracy behind Mona Lisa’s smile.
Why would there have to be a conspiracy if people didn’t take fotos of the unfinished work? And I don’t get the second part of that phrase…“when they would have to be exposed for everyone to see.”
What does that mean?
For example if I made crop circles and I wanted to play up the idea of “mysterious phenomena”...I certainly wouldn’t release the fotos of half finished circles.
So…yes.  Me and the people who made the circles would be conspirators. We would be conspiring to dupe people into thinking the circles were made by ETs perhaps.
Your assuming that people are flying around taking aerial photos constantly searching for people making circles.
The whole idea of magic for example is the magician makes sure his “work” is done carefully to convey an action that is presumed. When actually another action took place. 
That’s why I said you put the cart before the horse.  You are falling for all of the obvious mis-directions.  It is so obvious in the criteria you set up to test the viability of a thing.
In otherwords, I too can say “I don’t know how the circles were made.”  But I don’t set-up criteria for testing based on hearsay.  And I don’t assume that the things were made in a short period of time in the dark. Even though they certainly could have been done that way by people. Conspirators, if you will, who are playing up to peoples inherent fascination with the unknown.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2013 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 240 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 23 April 2013 08:49 AM

*snip*

It’s not my intention to play backseat moderator, Vyazma, but I’d point out crop circles is not at all related to this thread topic.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d wager you could easily crush psik in a debate on the issue, but aside from being off topic, that subject would be a typical excuse from someone like psik as to why they no longer have time to address the actual topic or issue they are currently getting spanked on. wink

We are talking about someone who claims applying math to physics is dumb, after all. wink LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
16 of 91
16