19 of 91
19
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 05 May 2013 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 271 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 04 May 2013 09:07 AM

Arguments standing on the basis of their merits assumes those doing the evaluations have the brains to comprehend the merits.

Quite true, but you’re the exception and not the rule, so everyone else here is understanding just fine.

Here is some scale for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iNQd3Dr9f4

So a guy makes a short video with a scaled model of the WTC and a scale airplane model on a stick, and what does he do? Just asserts that a two hundred ton plane cannot destroy a half million ton building. No actual math, demonstration or argument other than his arbitrary hand waving assertion.

What is amusing though is he’s technically correct: the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did. The planes just compromised the structural strength necessary to resist gravity.

Furthermore, I’ve repeatedly told you that even a perfectly scaled building built exactly like the WTC design would still utterly fail as a physics model because of how scaling of size affects strength of a model.

Does that scale model actually contain 110 floors?  It might.  Do those floors have trusses?  Extremely doubtful.
But it could be made of painted wood, which is likely, or it could be aluminum.  Maybe less likely but entirely possible.  But that could change the weight considerably even with the exact same scale.  The material matters A LOT.

Only in terms of total mass and load bearing capacity. Material is irrelevant with regards to scaling an object and how this affects its strength to mass ratios.

But that model is just about looks it is not for doing physics experiments which may destroy it. 

That model in all likelihood could withstand me hitting it with my hand or foot, while sustaining only minor damage and not collapsing. However, if my hand were scaled up to the same relative size to a full scale structure and impacted it at the same relative velocity, the building would be obliterated.

This is due to the fact of how much more massive such a hand would be at that scale and the impact energy would be orders of magnitude greater against a building with strength orders of magnitude weaker relative to its mass.

One of those concepts you’re obviously oblivious to.

The towers were 6 1/2 times as tall as they were wide.  My collapse model is 12 times as tall as it is wide.  It is not to scale.  My impact model is 16 times as tall as it is wide.  One has 33 levels and the other 21.  They are not to scale.  They were never intended to be, I never claimed them to be, so all of your talk about SCALE is just idiotic blather that has little to do my models.

I’ve said your model is not scaled correctly, and even if its dimensions were scaled properly, the model would still be useless for any physics test. This is because your model is so much smaller, and therefore vastly stronger. Ergo its failure to collapse is not surprising and proves nothing about full scale structures.

Repeatedly admitting your model isn’t scaled correctly does not help your position, all you’re doing is confirming one of the major problems of your model I’ve pointed out.

But material has everything to do with scale if physics experiments are actually being done and not just playing pseudo-intellectual games with mathematics.

Wrong. The type of material and strength of a material has zero bearing on the fact your model gets weaker as it gets larger. Material type only determines total mass and load bearing capacity, which do not scale equally. As proven with basic mathematics you do not understand and try to dismiss as ‘games’.

A cubic kilometer of balsa wood scales perfectly with a meter of balsa wood if they are floating in intergalactic space a few hundred thousand light years from any galaxy.  Gravity has no effect.  The compressive strength of the material would be irrelevant.  But on the surface of a planet with a 5 G gravitational field there would be a problem.  Could a cubic meter of balsa wood support the weight of 4,995 cubic meters of balsa wood?  Not too likely.  It would be a problem on the Earth’s surface supporting the weight of 999 cubic meters.

That is what the square cube law is all about and why the material matters when scaling down a large object to make a physical model to DEMONSTRATE PHYSCIS and not trying to make a scale model that merely LOOKS LIKE the original object.  That is why I have paper instead of steel and anyone can duplicate it and test their own paper to make it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the weight that has to be supported.  Of course that is still not to scale because skyscrapers are not designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.  That is why it is relevant that my model still does not collapse even though the dropped weight is lifted nearly the height of the entire model.  The top of the WTC did not fall nearly as much in proportion to my weak model which still did not come close to complete collapse.

And the ratio of the load bearing capacity of structural steel and your paper supports is what again? Oh wait, you answered this already:

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

And we already know that the strength of any structure will plummet as you scale a structure bigger, never mind the actual load bearing capacity of any particular material.

Get back to us when you actually compare the load bearing capacity of your paper supports relative to their cross section footprint, compare that to the load bearing capacity of the structural steel and their cross section footprint and then compare the ratio of strength between both models. Until you do so, any claims on your part on which model is weaker is simply lies and laziness. Your inability to understand how scaling affects this unavoidable engineering issue is both amazing and sad.

So anyone with a functioning brain can figure out the obvious but I am sure you will come up with some response.  Maybe I will take a week to read it.  We will see.  But I can already find a famous response.

“Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”

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

I am sure you will find some way to accuse me of “whining” about your brilliance again.  Ego games are so much more intelligent than physics where the strength and weight of real materials affect the results.  But “scaling” with just math is so impressive.

[7386]
psik

You fail simple reading comprehension as well. At no point have I touted my brilliance or intelligence, only your stupidity, although I’d freely confess you make anyone look brilliant in comparison.

You have to remember only one of us thinks their intellect and understanding of physics surpasses the sum of the world’s best engineers and physicists, and that person isn’t me.

And as usual, you have demonstrated a complete inability to refute the simple fact that your model is smaller than a full scale structure, and thus would be vastly stronger no matter what is it made of. This is the case whether both are built of the same material and designed identically, or built of different materials and designed completely differently. In the latter case, you’d have to do a comparison of load bearing capacity of both material types and cross section sizes, then compare those ratios. You obviously didn’t, since you seemingly proudly admit you do not have such data on hand and didn’t even bother trying to acquire it.

[ Edited: 05 May 2013 07:07 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2013 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 272 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 05 May 2013 07:00 PM

So a guy makes a short video with a scaled model of the WTC and a scale airplane model on a stick, and what does he do? Just asserts that a two hundred ton plane cannot destroy a half million ton building. No actual math, demonstration or argument other than his arbitrary hand waving assertion.

What is amusing though is he’s technically correct: the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did. The planes just compromised the structural strength necessary to resist gravity.

Is there a video using a scaled model of the WTC to demonstrate how the action of gravity destroyed the buildings anywhere?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2013 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 273 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 06 May 2013 05:28 PM

Is there a video using a scaled model of the WTC to demonstrate how the action of gravity destroyed the buildings anywhere?

That would be pointless. If you made a perfect replica of the WTC towers at a smaller scale, the model will behave very differently. The primary issue being it would be stronger as mass and load bearing capacity do not scale at the same rate as eachother or with dimensions of the structure. That is why massive buildings like skyscrapers are built out of steel and concrete supports, while smaller structures can be build out of things like wood, and a tiny structure can be built out of very weak materials (like paper and washers). The smaller your structure, the weaker the material you can use to build it without fear of it losing strengh. Because all structures start to rapidly get stronger as you shrink them.

This is why actual engineering and physics experts use computer models and don’t build hilariously ridiculous models out of paper and washers.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 274 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 06 May 2013 05:50 PM

actual engineering and physics experts use computer models and don’t build hilariously ridiculous models out of paper and washers.

Is there a video of a computer model of the WTC made by actual engineering and physics experts that demonstates how the action of gravity destroyed the buildings anywhere?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 275 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
jomper - 07 May 2013 02:02 AM
Robert Walper - 06 May 2013 05:50 PM

actual engineering and physics experts use computer models and don’t build hilariously ridiculous models out of paper and washers.

Is there a video of a computer model of the WTC made by actual engineering and physics experts that demonstates how the action of gravity destroyed the buildings anywhere?

That is one of the things that is so funny but really fascinating about this 9/11 decade.

Before 2001 Sandia Labs had a computer simulation of a kilometer wide asteroid crashing into the Earth at 25000 mph.  And they discussed the amount of computing power involved. 

http://www.sandia.gov/media/comethit.htm

But how much better have computers gotten since 2001?  But we don’t have a decent collapse simulation of something that would weigh less than 1/100th of that asteroid and not involve motion of more than 300 mph.  Just remove 5 levels of the north tower 91 thru 95 and run the simulation.  But it would require accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the building.  But when has Richard Gage or Steven Jones discussed such things?  It is like the EXPERTS don’t want everyone to really understand the problem.  They just want people to BELIEVE one side or the other.

So we have had a decades long idiotic propaganda war.

But the paper loop model must be strong enough to support the weight under static conditions.  But it isn’t to scale, and was never intended to be, because it is as weak as possible it cannot be proportional to a skyscraper which is not designed to be a collapse test.  It is only to demonstrate the physics.  But our engineering schools could build bigger and better collapse tests if they wanted to.  So why does a paper structure made as weak as possible not collapse in two drops and yet a steel structure supposedly stronger than necessary supposedly did, but then the excuse for this is improper scale.

ROFLMAO

This entire 9/11 business depends on people not thinking and some individuals seem to be deliberately causing confusion.

[7578]
psik

[ Edited: 07 May 2013 08:12 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 276 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 07 May 2013 02:02 AM
Robert Walper - 06 May 2013 05:50 PM

actual engineering and physics experts use computer models and don’t build hilariously ridiculous models out of paper and washers.

Is there a video of a computer model of the WTC made by actual engineering and physics experts that demonstates how the action of gravity destroyed the buildings anywhere?

1) We don’t need any such model since we have two real physical models on countless videos collapsing just fine.
2) Why would a computer model be more convincing than the two towers that actually collapsed due to real world physics?
3) Simple math and understanding of physics demonstrates how two large damaged structures can be brought down by gravity.

Truthers demanding a computer simulation is hilarious, given they dismiss the real world collapse and expect anyone to believe they’ll change their minds when a programmable computer simulation shows the same thing? Tell us another one! LOL

psikeyhackr - 07 May 2013 07:33 AM

That is one of the things that is so funny but really fascinating about this 9/11 decade.

Before 2001 Sandia Labs had a computer simulation of a kilometer wide asteroid crashing into the Earth at 25000 mph.  And they discussed the amount of computing power involved. 

http://www.sandia.gov/media/comethit.htm

And how many one kilometer sized asteroids do we have on video with actual physics impacting Earth?

But how much better have computers gotten since 2001?  But we don’t have a decent collapse simulation of something that would weigh less than 1/100th of that asteroid and not involve motion of more than 300 mph.  Just remove 5 levels of the north tower 91 thru 95 and run the simulation.  But it would require accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the building.  But when has Richard Gage or Steven Jones discussed such things?  It is like the EXPERTS don’t want everyone to really understand the problem.  They just want people to BELIEVE one side or the other.

No belief is necessary, just an understanding of physics you do not possess.

So we have had a decades long idiotic propaganda war.

Which you’re partaking in quite impressively.

But the paper loop model must be strong enough to support the weight under static conditions.  But it isn’t to scale, and was never intended to be, because it is as weak as possible it cannot be proportional to a skyscraper which is not designed to be a collapse test.  It is only to demonstrate the physics.  But our engineering schools could build bigger and better collapse tests if they wanted to.  So why does a paper structure made as weak as possible not collapse in two drops and yet a steel structure supposedly stronger than necessary supposedly did, but then the excuse for this is improper scale.

ROFLMAO

This entire 9/11 business depends on people not thinking and some individuals seem to be deliberately causing confusion.

[7578]
psik

What’s the ratio of the cross section and load bearing capacity of your paper loops and real world structural steel again? ROFLMAO LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 277 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 07 May 2013 08:24 AM

1) We don’t need any such model since we have two real physical models on countless videos collapsing just fine

So to clarify your logic: the reason we don’t need a model to understand how the buildings collapsed is that they collapsed. Do you know what question-begging is? This is an excellent example.

In short, you seem to be saying nobody has successfully modelled the gravity-driven collapse of the towers in more than a decade, but you don’t see the need for anyone to bother.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 278 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  715
Joined  2012-04-25

This thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where the two sides that are fighting have been at it so long they don’t even know why they’re fighting. SO…why ARE you guys at it so long and furiously? I’m assuming one of you believes it was an inside job, and the other believes it wasn’t. 

INSIDE JOB GUY: Everyone knows the Bush administration was basically a bunch of war criminals supported by Neocons bent on creating another Pearl Harbor. Most people believe it was an inside job, or if not, at least committed with full knowledge of it’s impending occurence by the Bush administration. What do you hope to gain?

NOT INSIDE JOB GUY: Do you really trust the US government that much? I’ll bet if 911 never happened, you’d be one of the skeptics of most government action, which is supposed to be an outstanding American trait. Why are you fighting so hard to defend a government that has proven time and time again that it’s capable of cohorting with the enemy? Nixon did it, Reagan did it, I’m sure Bush Sr made a business out of it. And in general Dems and Repubs alike have propped up dictators around the world for decades. Why so much utter non-skeptical belief in that same government?

I think the real problem is that 911 caused such deep divisions amongst us chattle, allowing the government to systematically remove freedoms, all while waving the flag and thumping the bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 279 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 07 May 2013 09:15 AM
Robert Walper - 07 May 2013 08:24 AM

1) We don’t need any such model since we have two real physical models on countless videos collapsing just fine

So to clarify your logic: the reason we don’t need a model to understand how the buildings collapsed is that they collapsed. Do you know what question-begging is? This is an excellent example.

Wrong. My point is that the towers collapsing is a model and making another one is rather redundant. This is not me saying no additional model has been created or any such model would be useless. Although psikey’s model is useless as I’ve explained why repeatedly.

In short, you seem to be saying nobody has successfully modelled the gravity-driven collapse of the towers in more than a decade, but you don’t see the need for anyone to bother.

Lie. I never said no model has been created nor claimed such a model would be useless.

But you are correct that I see little need to create a model to demostrate that a damaged structure will yield to the forces of gravity.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 280 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4447
Joined  2008-08-14

R. Walper-But you are correct that I see little need to create a model to demonstrate that a damaged structure will yield to the forces of gravity.

LOL  LOL  Get out while you still can Robert!
That’s a great simple reply there. What else do you have to tell these, these..people.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 281 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
CuthbertJ - 07 May 2013 11:02 AM

This thread reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where the two sides that are fighting have been at it so long they don’t even know why they’re fighting. SO…why ARE you guys at it so long and furiously? I’m assuming one of you believes it was an inside job, and the other believes it wasn’t. 

INSIDE JOB GUY: Everyone knows the Bush administration was basically a bunch of war criminals supported by Neocons bent on creating another Pearl Harbor. Most people believe it was an inside job, or if not, at least committed with full knowledge of it’s impending occurence by the Bush administration. What do you hope to gain?

NOT INSIDE JOB GUY: Do you really trust the US government that much? I’ll bet if 911 never happened, you’d be one of the skeptics of most government action, which is supposed to be an outstanding American trait. Why are you fighting so hard to defend a government that has proven time and time again that it’s capable of cohorting with the enemy? Nixon did it, Reagan did it, I’m sure Bush Sr made a business out of it. And in general Dems and Repubs alike have propped up dictators around the world for decades. Why so much utter non-skeptical belief in that same government?

I think the real problem is that 911 caused such deep divisions amongst us chattle, allowing the government to systematically remove freedoms, all while waving the flag and thumping the bible.

You’re creating a false dilemma fallacy argument. You’re asserting either you trust the government and the expert conclusions, or you distrust the government and therefore dispute the expert conclusions. The trust or lack thereof towards government has nothing to do with simple physics.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 282 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 07 May 2013 11:26 AM

R. Walper-But you are correct that I see little need to create a model to demonstrate that a damaged structure will yield to the forces of gravity.

LOL  LOL  Get out while you still can Robert!
That’s a great simple reply there. What else do you have to tell these, these..people.

Exactly how the structure responded to gravity is the question. If you have no curiosity about this, you have no useful comment to make and no genuine interest in physics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 283 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  452
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 07 May 2013 11:26 AM

R. Walper-But you are correct that I see little need to create a model to demonstrate that a damaged structure will yield to the forces of gravity.

LOL  LOL  Get out while you still can Robert!
That’s a great simple reply there. What else do you have to tell these, these..people.

In fairness, I should’ve said ‘sufficiently damaged structure’. :p

However, as I’ve said before, the argument isn’t to convince individuals like psikey, it’s for the benefit of those reading who aren’t afraid of math and applying it to physics.

I’ll let you make your own jokes at the expense of those claiming how useful a computer model is on one hand, and on the other claiming consistently applying math to physics is ‘just dumb’. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 284 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4447
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 07 May 2013 11:36 AM
VYAZMA - 07 May 2013 11:26 AM

R. Walper-But you are correct that I see little need to create a model to demonstrate that a damaged structure will yield to the forces of gravity.

LOL  LOL  Get out while you still can Robert!
That’s a great simple reply there. What else do you have to tell these, these..people.

Exactly how the structure responded to gravity is the question. If you have no curiosity about this, you have no useful comment to make and no genuine interest in physics.

Until you momos stop dancing around what we know as facts…why would I even bother?
Did you see planes crash into the buildings?
Did you see the buildings fall shortly afterwards?
Answer these questions.
If you dance around them, then I won’t discuss anything.
My reason for this is that I want to get to your reasons on why the towers collapsed.  I’m sick of having to defend why I think the towers collapsed.
I would like to start ripping apart your reasons why the towers collapsed.
Are you going to dance around like Mr. Bojangles…or are you gonna start talking?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2013 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 285 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 07 May 2013 11:41 AM

Did you see planes crash into the buildings?
Did you see the buildings fall shortly afterwards?

Yes. Do you think the gravity-driven mechanic of the collapses could be modelled? If so, why hasn’t it been done? I am not going to speculate on alternative theories about the collapses, so don’t ask me to do so. However, since there has been no serious attempt to model the mechanism of the collapses in more than a decade, I am prepared to suggest it can’t be done.

And I predict you will respond as if that suggestion is ridiculous and the project would be pointless and stupid.

Profile
 
 
   
19 of 91
19