21 of 91
21
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 301 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:11 PM

“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!

*gasp* Conspiracy theorists lying about the issue? Colour me super shocked here! <——(Sarcasm)

As for the videos he’s linked, VYAZMA, the first one is just a animation of the jet liner impacting the building based upon physics models (which obviously uses a consistent application of math to physics, which I’m sure pisses psikey off LOL). At time index 3:30 is specifically states that the explosion and fire effects were not factored in, so it’s just a visualization model of impact physics.

The second video is just a collection of supposed claims of unanswered questions, variables and initial expertise uncertainty in the scenario, and implies the same argument as the ‘god of gaps’ argument creationists use against evolution. Essentially, any factor or variable which is not explained to 100% satisfaction automatically makes the entire conclusion invalid and the alternate ‘theory’ wins by default, and conveniently doesn’t need to establish itself with the same level of certainty or evidence.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 302 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:11 PM

“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!

Again: I said that the gravity-driven collapse mechanism has never been modelled. Again: I appeal to anyone on this forum to show where this has been done.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 303 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:27 PM

Again: I said that the gravity-driven collapse mechanism has never been modelled. Again: I appeal to anyone on this forum to show where this has been done.

That’s because most people don’t need proof objects fall inside of a gravity field. Infants tend to figure that model out rather quickly.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 304 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 305 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 04:29 PM
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:27 PM

Again: I said that the gravity-driven collapse mechanism has never been modelled. Again: I appeal to anyone on this forum to show where this has been done.

That’s because most people don’t need proof objects fall inside of a gravity field. Infants tend to figure that model out rather quickly.

I find your lack of curiosity disturbing. Your petty insults are no match for the power of reason.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 306 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:34 PM

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

Ask Robert. It’s his idea.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 307 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:35 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:34 PM

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

Ask Robert. It’s his idea.

Well respectfully, I’m asking you please.  You used the phrase.
Please explain what you mean.
It looks like The Purdue study you cited shows that the steel support columns buckled, plus all the steel was weakened by the fire.  So I guess the gravity collapse
mechanism was the weight of the building falling to the ground because the steel couldn’t hold it up any longer?
Does that sound right?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 04:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 308 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:55 PM
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:35 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:34 PM

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

Ask Robert. It’s his idea.

Well respectfully, I’m asking you please.  You used the phrase.
Please explain what you mean.
It looks like The Purdue study you cited shows that the steel support columns buckled, plus all the steel was weakened by the fire.  So I guess the gravity collapse
mechanism was the weight of the building falling to the ground because the steel couldn’t hold it up any longer?
Does that sound right?

I imagine you and Robert could knock together a convincing experiment to prove the principle in a weekend.

Robert Walper - 05 May 2013 07:00 PM

the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 309 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:59 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:55 PM
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:35 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:34 PM

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

Ask Robert. It’s his idea.

Well respectfully, I’m asking you please.  You used the phrase.
Please explain what you mean.
It looks like The Purdue study you cited shows that the steel support columns buckled, plus all the steel was weakened by the fire.  So I guess the gravity collapse
mechanism was the weight of the building falling to the ground because the steel couldn’t hold it up any longer?
Does that sound right?

I imagine you and Robert could knock together a convincing experiment to prove the principle in a weekend.

Robert Walper - 05 May 2013 07:00 PM

the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did.

You’re getting cryptic on me here….are you saying gravity didn’t have anything to do with the towers collapsing?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 310 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 05:03 PM
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:59 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:55 PM
jomper - 08 May 2013 04:35 PM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 04:34 PM

“Gravity driven collapse mechanism”?  First you show me where this term shows up in any engineer or physics terminology. In any trade-book, or study, or test.
Let’s continue Jomper.  First I want you to define what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.
I’m following you here…please define that term.  I’ve never heard it before. I mean at face value it sounds like “weight falling to the ground” but I don’t know.
You tell me. Please excuse my sarcasm too.  Stay with me…let me know what “gravity driven collapse mechanism” is.

Ask Robert. It’s his idea.

Well respectfully, I’m asking you please.  You used the phrase.
Please explain what you mean.
It looks like The Purdue study you cited shows that the steel support columns buckled, plus all the steel was weakened by the fire.  So I guess the gravity collapse
mechanism was the weight of the building falling to the ground because the steel couldn’t hold it up any longer?
Does that sound right?

I imagine you and Robert could knock together a convincing experiment to prove the principle in a weekend.

Robert Walper - 05 May 2013 07:00 PM

the planes didn’t destroy the towers. Gravity did.

You’re getting cryptic on me here….are you saying gravity didn’t have anything to do with the towers collapsing?

No. Anything else?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 311 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 11:24 AM
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 can talk about scale but in almost 12 years you can’t enquire about the amount of concrete in the towers.  The NIST doesn’t have that information in their 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000.

So you can make inquiries to a private citizen while letting the government leave out whatever it wants.

Yeah, that is CFI behavior.  Skeptics who can’t figure out what to be skeptical about.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 312 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 07 May 2013 11:41 AM

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?

It is not just about collapse.  It is about collapse in less than 30 seconds and weakened to collapse in less than two hours.

But how do you explain anything without accurate data on the subject under discussion?

Where do you have accurate data on the steel distribution that supported the structure?  So how can you explain the collapse time?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 313 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
CuthbertJ - 07 May 2013 11:02 AM

INSIDE JOB GUY: Everyone knows the Bush administration was basically a bunch of war criminals supported by Neocons bent on creating another Pearl Harbor.

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.

I have never heard anyone claim that there was anything about Pearl Harbor that defied the Laws of Physics.

9/11 is more like the Resurrection in that it defies what we know about how science works.

The government is irrelevant.  In fact whoever really did it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

After nearly TWELVE YEARS this is an issue confronting all scientific tradition of Western Culture.  The collapse has nothing to do with biology but all biologists should know what an EXPERIMENT is.  In fact atheists claiming to be proponents of science should comprehend the importance of EXPERIMENTS.

But apparently the majority of atheists are content to BELIEVE that airliners weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY DESTROY skyscrapers weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than two hours without even needing to be told the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers.  What does this say about the curiosity of atheists?  What does this say about their claims of Critical Thinking?

I say it demonstrates that atheists are mere BELIEVERS who do not even understand what questions to ask.  But how can they admit that is the case after more than 11 years?  How can engineering school address this after more than 11 years?  This is a REAL PROBLEM and conspiracies are irrelevant.

If airliners could do it then why not PROVE IT.  But how can the buildings be scaled if we don’t even have accurate data on the distribution of concrete down the tower?  The NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.  So scientists, the media and engineering schools are all involved in this.  And what does it say about Western Culture relative to all others.  What governments would accuse the United States of lying?  But physics is the same all over the planet for all of the skyscrapers.

But it is so curious that I cannot find the steel and concrete distributions for any skyscraper.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 314 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 08 May 2013 06:42 PM
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 11:24 AM
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 can talk about scale but in almost 12 years you can’t enquire about the amount of concrete in the towers.  The NIST doesn’t have that information in their 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000.

So you can make inquiries to a private citizen while letting the government leave out whatever it wants.

Yeah, that is CFI behavior.  Skeptics who can’t figure out what to be skeptical about.

psik

Your first dodge. Quite predictable. I will ask you again. You have asserted that 15%  of the upper height of WTC cannot physically destroy the rest of the structure. This demands you know how stronger the structure is, as determined by load bearing cross section and capacity.

You will provide these figures since you need to have them to make your assertion. Failure to do so is indisputable proof you are lying and ignorant on the issue.

Submit the figures you used to determine that 15% of WTC upper superstructure cannot crush the bottom portion. This is an easy question, I’m simply asking you how strong the tower is. You have to know this, because you asserted the impossibility of it. So you either have those figures or you are lying.

I haven’t even asked you a tough question yet. Defend your assertion or be rightfully called a liar.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 315 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 07 May 2013 08:24 AM

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

Your comments are SO INTELLIGENT.

The whole point of a small model is the ability to test things.  I tested dozens of paper loops to see how many washers were needed surpass their static load capacity and how many washers dropped from what heights would completely flatten a paper loop so as to compute the energy required.  It takes 12 to 15 washers to collapse a single loop under static conditions.  That is why there are 11 single loops at the top of the model.

If the model is constructed on the basis of empirical testing then your calculations are totally unnecessary.  Physics is not math.  The paper loops and washers are not doing calculations.  The model is not scaled.  Your argument is a strawman.

But the model still does not collapse though tested empirically to be as weak as possible.

The Romans built structures which have lasted for centuries without knowing the math.  Their constructions were probably stronger and heavier than necessary in many cases because they could not compute safe minimums.  But my model is not designed to be safe.  It was tested to be as weak as possible relative to the load.  Calculations are irrelevant because it is not even intended to be to scale.  Your excuse for appearing to present an intelligent argument is nonsense.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
21 of 91
21