20 of 91
20
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 08 May 2013 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 286 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
jomper - 07 May 2013 11:36 PM

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

The Center for Inquiry does not believe in inquiry.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 287 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  763
Joined  2012-04-25
Robert Walper - 07 May 2013 11:31 AM
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.

You’re missing my point. I’m wondering why these posters are continually arguing over simple physics in the first place. What do they hope to achieve by doing this? Put another way, no matter what the outcome, the damage has been done, and no amount of “proof” for or against these debaters positions will matter one bit. So…why all the argument and why all the giving in to exactly the kind of division that was hoped for by whomever carried out the act.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 288 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 07 May 2013 11:36 PM
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.

No I will take your word for it.  If no serious attempt has been made to model the collapse in more than a decade…then I agree with you that the model can’t be done.  I’m taking your word for all of this.  I don’t know about any past attempts nor any other models or theories. 
I guess they haven’t attempted any more tests or models because it’s not necessary. Or the unknown variables are too much to get a reliable test. Who knows?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 289 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 09:59 AM
jomper - 07 May 2013 11:36 PM
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.

No I will take your word for it.  If no serious attempt has been made to model the collapse in more than a decade…then I agree with you that the model can’t be done.  I’m taking your word for all of this.  I don’t know about any past attempts nor any other models or theories. 
I guess they haven’t attempted any more tests or models because it’s not necessary. Or the unknown variables are too much to get a reliable test. Who knows?

For the record, I haven’t collected or even tried to collect stamps for over three decades. I’ve made no serious attempt to do so. Does this sound like a persuasive argument that collecting stamps is too complicated or cannot be done?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 290 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

R.Walper-For the record, I haven’t collected or even tried to collect stamps for over three decades. I’ve made no serious attempt to do so. Does this sound like a persuasive argument that collecting stamps is too complicated or cannot be done?

I don’t know.  Jomper said no tests have been done in 10 years.  And they never had any conclusive results with earlier tests.  I’ll believe him at face value.
I wouldn’t waste my time doing tests either. Or trying to perfect tests.  It’s obvious why the buildings collapsed. I’m sure that is the position of the people involved.
Who would be involved anyways?  The old owners of the building?  Future architects?  Who really has a vested interest in doing those tests?  It’s gotta be expensive testing!! What do you get for your money?  The obvious results!!!

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 291 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 10:21 AM

R.Walper-For the record, I haven’t collected or even tried to collect stamps for over three decades. I’ve made no serious attempt to do so. Does this sound like a persuasive argument that collecting stamps is too complicated or cannot be done?

I don’t know.  Jomper said no tests have been done in 10 years.  And they never had any conclusive results with earlier tests.  I’ll believe him at face value.

Have you read the actual NIST report? Any suggestion their investigation wasn’t thorough or conclusive is simply a lie.

I wouldn’t waste my time doing tests either. Or trying to perfect tests.  It’s obvious why the buildings collapsed. I’m sure that is the position of the people involved.
Who would be involved anyways?  The old owners of the building?  Future architects?  Who really has a vested interest in doing those tests?  It’s gotta be expensive testing!! What do you get for your money?  The obvious results!!!

You actually touched on the point I was aiming for here. The NIST investigation took years, with hundreds of experts and larges amounts of financial resources applied to it.

Suggesting that effort needs to be re done to appease a few crackpots with delusions of grandeur is absurd. Don’t forget we’re talking about individuals who don’t understand simple physics, think their intellect is superior to the sum of world experts and will even argue that if math undermines their position, it’s time to question math. wink

While the government may incompetent often,  at least they’re not so incompetent that they’ll waste tax payer funds making new studies and investigations everytime some uneducated moron with paper and washers thinks they have a superior understanding of physics. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 292 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

R.Walper-Have you read the actual NIST report? Any suggestion their investigation wasn’t thorough or conclusive is simply a lie.

I skimmed it…maybe read about 5-10% of it.  Just the meat and potatoes. It seemed pretty professional and conclusive to me. I certainly didn’t read it it to
scrutinize for authenticity or validity.

R.Walper-You actually touched on the point I was aiming for here. The NIST investigation took years, with hundreds of experts and larges amounts of financial resources applied to it.

Suggesting that effort needs to be re done to appease a few crackpots with delusions of grandeur is absurd.

Right! Couldn’t agree more.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 293 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 08 May 2013 07:37 AM

The Center for Inquiry does not believe in inquiry.

psik

I most certainly do, although you keep ignoring mine. But I’ll inquire again: what is the size of the cross section load bearing area of your model relative to the full dimensions of your model? What is the maximum load bearing capacity, and how do those figures compare to the WTC ones?

You obviously have these figures on hand, that’s why you so easily assert 15% of the building’s upper portion (as measured by height rather than mass LOL) cannot collapse the entire structure. You can only make that assertion if you have the above figures, so I await you providing them to back up your claim.

We can even ignore your model for a moment and right now you just provide us with the figures for the WTC load bearing cross section footprint relative to its full dimensions along with what the maximum load bearing capacity of the structural steel is. The figures for peak performance to; we’ll worry about compromised load capacity, steel deformation, destroyed fireproof coatings and fire damage later.

This should be very easy for you to do. You claimed the building could not collapse, therefore you have the figures to back that up. If you claim that water shouldn’t have boiled away, I expect you to at least know the boiling point of water.

We’re waiting, psikey.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 294 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 10:21 AM

R.Walper-For the record, I haven’t collected or even tried to collect stamps for over three decades. I’ve made no serious attempt to do so. Does this sound like a persuasive argument that collecting stamps is too complicated or cannot be done?

I don’t know.  Jomper said no tests have been done in 10 years.  And they never had any conclusive results with earlier tests.  I’ll believe him at face value.
I wouldn’t waste my time doing tests either. Or trying to perfect tests.  It’s obvious why the buildings collapsed. I’m sure that is the position of the people involved.
Who would be involved anyways?  The old owners of the building?  Future architects?  Who really has a vested interest in doing those tests?  It’s gotta be expensive testing!! What do you get for your money?  The obvious results!!!

That’s right, and the obvious results would be more disagreement, more dissension, more tiresome debate and not one iota of lessening of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories will go on forever, no matter what is done. We might as well cut our losses.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 295 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 10:06 AM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 09:59 AM
jomper - 07 May 2013 11:36 PM
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.

No I will take your word for it.  If no serious attempt has been made to model the collapse in more than a decade…then I agree with you that the model can’t be done.  I’m taking your word for all of this.  I don’t know about any past attempts nor any other models or theories. 
I guess they haven’t attempted any more tests or models because it’s not necessary. Or the unknown variables are too much to get a reliable test. Who knows?

For the record, I haven’t collected or even tried to collect stamps for over three decades. I’ve made no serious attempt to do so. Does this sound like a persuasive argument that collecting stamps is too complicated or cannot be done?

Well, you’re nothing if not predictable, Robert. I’ll give you that.

VYAZMA: the most extensive modelling I’ve seen was done by Purdue. Like all the other modelling I’ve seen, though, they didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses.

Incidentally, I didn’t say no tests have been done in ten years. I said there has been no serious attempt to model the gravity-driven mechanic of the collapses in that time. I would love to be proven wrong in this so I don’t want to be misrepresented.

[ Edited: 08 May 2013 01:28 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 296 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Jomper-...the most extensive modelling I’ve seen was done by Purdue. Like all the other modelling I’ve seen, though, they didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses.

Incidentally, I didn’t say no tests have been done in ten years. I said there has been no serious attempt to model the gravity-driven mechanic of the collapses in that time. I would love to be proven wrong in this so I don’t want to be misrepresented.

Two things Jomper:
1. Really?  They really didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses?  The most dramatic, phenomena ridden event of the whole time-line, and they didn’t concern themselves with the collapses? I know nothing of the Purdue Study, but I find this claim of yours hard to believe.
Can you tell me what the focus of their study was? What did their study show?
2.I’m trying hard to follow along with your train of thought here.  Obviously you must understand the blatant counterpoint in our exploration of these studies.
A counterpoint which leads me to believe that you have an alternate take or theory on why the towers collapsed…
Can we agree on this?  If we can’t agree on this, then I must ask you what the impetus of your severe critique on the supposed absence of data or studies?
In otherwords it very much appears that you are suggesting that there are pieces of information that are being covered up, mishandled, or were negligently not covered. Yes, No?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 297 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 02:52 PM

Two things Jomper:
1. Really?  They really didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses?  The most dramatic, phenomena ridden event of the whole time-line, and they didn’t concern themselves with the collapses? I know nothing of the Purdue Study, but I find this claim of yours hard to believe.
Can you tell me what the focus of their study was? What did their study show?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

2.I’m trying hard to follow along with your train of thought here.  Obviously you must understand the blatant counterpoint in our exploration of these studies.
A counterpoint which leads me to believe that you have an alternate take or theory on why the towers collapsed…
Can we agree on this?  If we can’t agree on this, then I must ask you what the impetus of your severe critique on the supposed absence of data or studies?

There is no counterpoint to the observation that the mechanism of the collapses cannot be modelled. I appeal to anyone on this forum to show that this mechanism of collapse has been seriously modelled in either actual or virtual representation.

In otherwords it very much appears that you are suggesting that there are pieces of information that are being covered up, mishandled, or were negligently not covered. Yes, No?

Are you surprised that the gravity-driven mechanism of the collapses could become the subject of doubt in the years that pass after 9/11, if it cannot be convincingly reproduced in any physical or virtual experiments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 298 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I don’t follow links.  Unless it is to a musical performance or some other inert cultural distraction.
You-Tube?  Come-on dude. Friggin’ You-Tube?
I followed a link once…it was to Psikey’s video of his model.  That was the last time I ever followed a link.
Except for GdB’s cool link to the “rock paper scissors” game and various members musical tastes. Maybe an occasional optical illusion picture.
Or some telescope stuff.
But any links that lead to some B.S. that supposedly supports someone’s opinions are out of the question!
I wanna hear you rationalize things.  I want to see your reason and logic.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 299 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 03:41 PM

I don’t follow links.  Unless it is to a musical performance or some other inert cultural distraction.
You-Tube?  Come-on dude. Friggin’ You-Tube?
I followed a link once…it was to Psikey’s video of his model.  That was the last time I ever followed a link.
Except for GdB’s cool link to the “rock paper scissors” game and various members musical tastes. Maybe an occasional optical illusion picture.
Or some telescope stuff.
But any links that lead to some B.S. that supposedly supports someone’s opinions are out of the question!
I wanna hear you rationalize things.  I want to see your reason and logic.

You asked for information about the Purdue study; the first link was to the Purdue RCAC presentation, which you can cast aspersions on at your discretion. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 300 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

“The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,” Sozen says. “Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact.”

This is from the Purdue University website.
It says that evaluation showed that the fire weakened the structural steel enough that collapse was imminent even if NONE of the core columns were cut at the time of impact!
See! It says on their website that they did the study! They did study the collapse. Just like I assumed they did.  Just like you said they didn’t!

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
20 of 91
20