22 of 91
22
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 08 May 2013 08:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 316 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 06:54 PM

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.

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

You accused me of talking about 15% by weight.

Who even knows how many stories at the top would be 15% by weight?  I don’t.  It was 14 storeys that supposedly started the collapse of the north tower.  I don’t know the percentage by weight, but it is less than 15% by height.  I would bet it is less than 10% by weight but I do not know.  That is why I constantly talk about distribution of mass down the building.  Testing the loops with more weight until they collapse determines how strong they are.  I am not computing the cross section of the edge of a piece of paper.  Be my guest if you want.

I think liars need to accuse other people of being liars.  You said a model needed to be 450 tons.  LOL

You can try to make a big deal of scale all you want.

It is up to anyone that cares to go back over your posts. 

[8090]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 317 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 08 May 2013 08:46 PM

You accused me of talking about 15% by weight.

Which I immediately corrected here:

Robert Walper - 24 April 2013 06:32 PM

I didn’t remember the 15% reference figure correctly, I thought you would be concerned with the important variable of mass, not height.

Like the liar you are, you pretend I don’t correct my mistakes.

But on the issue of you now being caught red handed outright lying in this thread:

psikeyhackr - 24 April 2013 11:11 AM

Consider the psychological shock of millions of dummies having to “man up” and admit that it is physically impossible for the top 15% BY HEIGHT of a skyscraper to destroy everything below in a gravitational collapse.

You assert here that it is physically impossible for the top 15% of a skyscraper “by height” to destroy everything below in a gravitational collapse. You lied. Proof is right here:

Who even knows how many stories at the top would be 15% by weight?  I don’t.  It was 14 storeys that supposedly started the collapse of the north tower.  I don’t know the percentage by weight, but it is less than 15% by height.  I would bet it is less than 10% by weight but I do not know.  That is why I constantly talk about distribution of mass down the building.

The only way you could honestly assert that it is physically impossible for a skyscraper to collapse via 15% of it’s upper height crashing down on it is if you know how strong the building is, how much it weighs, what the load bearing capacities are and how much impact energy the lower structure would have to deal with. You have clearly admitted you do not know any this, therefore you are a liar for claiming so.

Testing the loops with more weight until they collapse determines how strong they are.  I am not computing the cross section of the edge of a piece of paper.  Be my guest if you want.

So like the liar you are, you don’t know how strong the WTC towers are but will lie and say it’s impossible for it to collapse via numbers you plucked out of thin air, you don’t know how strong your model is, and now you’re outright admitting you will not do any math to prove your position.

Everyone now has you on written record as a liar and as someone who publicly admits they won’t even try to defend their model with basic math.

I think liars need to accuse other people of being liars.  You said a model needed to be 450 tons.  LOL

Again you are proven a liar. This is in fact what I said:

Robert Walper - 20 April 2013 08:31 AM

Let’s say your model is at 1:1000 scale. The height of the WTC towers is approximately 1,400 feet. So your model should be 1.4 feet high (looks bigger than that your video, but let’s keep it simple).

Take the mass of one of the WTC towers, which is approximately 450,000 metric tons. Apply the same scaling ratio of 1:1000, so your model (to be accurately scaled including mass) should weigh about 450 metric tons.

How much does your model weigh, psikeyhackr? If it’s less than 450 metric tons, your model is useless because you’ve scaled the mass incorrectly.

Explain why you deliberately scaled your model incorrectly, when it should weigh at least several hundred tons if you’re scaling it honestly. That, or demonstrate your model does weigh several hundred tons and we’ll go from there.

I said that if your model was scaled correctly (as in all dimensions scaled equally, including mass), your model would weigh 450 tons (assuming a 1:1000 ratio). This is clearly not the case and I then explained why this is the case to do the simple physics of scaling structures.

You’re a liar and I’ve proven it with your own words. I’ve also proven you don’t have a clue how to crunch the numbers to see what your model actually proves (hint: nothing), and you also have publicly admitted you will not even try.

We’re all waiting now to see what pitiful excuse and response you’re going to come up with next.

And a question to the CFI forums in general: is deliberately lying an accepted practice for discussion here on the forums? If so, this should be an important disclaimer for the forums where it’s clearly established participants are permitted to publicly lie in discussions without hindrance or penalty.

[ Edited: 08 May 2013 09:48 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 318 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

is deliberately lying an accepted practice for discussion here on the forums?

As far as I know, it’s not against the rules, but that doesn’t mean anybody can’t call the offender on it. Beyond that, it’s for the moderators to decide, not me.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 319 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 08 May 2013 09:44 PM
psikeyhackr - 08 May 2013 08:46 PM

You accused me of talking about 15% by weight.

Which I immediately corrected here:

Robert Walper - 24 April 2013 06:32 PM

I didn’t remember the 15% reference figure correctly, I thought you would be concerned with the important variable of mass, not height.

Like the liar you are, you pretend I don’t correct my mistakes.

Haven’t I been talking about the distribution of mass down the building all along?  Haven’t you been talking about SCALE.

You came up with that lighter than air example of a cubic kilometer.  But in a gravitational field which we are talking about the density is going to change over that height.  So if accurate SCALE IS MAINTAINED the density of the one meter model would have to change.  Maybe you can confuse people dumber than you are.

Even thinking of the top 15% by mass would be dumb by you own emphasis on scaling.

You just got caught and had to back out.  But you continued with your scaling BS.  Now you are trying to maintain it with cross sectional area when the strength of the paper could be tested empirically.  That is the advantage of a small model. 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 320 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

Now psikey’s only response is to completely ignore my entire post and pretend scaling with assorted mass distribution is different from scaling equal mass distribution.

I already proved how that is completely irrelevant here in post #267.

He’s also lying by claiming his model was tested for weakness. Someone could just as easily throw a paper airplane into the ground and claim it’s a good physical model for full scale aircraft because it’s made of paper and ‘as weak as possible’ and thus tested for weakness; there’s no need to worry about the physics of scaling or determining what the cross sectional strength and mass effects are. As another poster pointed out, this is why we crash test full scale cars and not hot wheels. LOL

He refuses to do the math to demonstrate how ‘weak’ his model is relative to the WTC. On top of that, he doesn’t know how strong the WTC towers are, but lies anyway and claims it’s physically impossible for them to collapse via 15% of it’s upper height crashing down on it.

We now have psikey on written record as incompetent, a liar and refusing to back up his assertions with simple math. A prime example of why experts ignore people like him and have zero interest in ‘proving’ anything to him. He doesn’t understand anything that can be proven, refuses to do simple math, publicly admits he will not do any math or prove anything about his model, makes clear and obvious lies about WTC and now he’s just recycling his previous arguments that have already been dealt with.

Concession accepted, psikey. Let’s see what new lies you reply with now, since you’re no longer making any arguments. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 321 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 09 May 2013 08:56 AM

Now psikey’s only response is to completely ignore my entire post and pretend scaling with assorted mass distribution is different from scaling equal mass distribution.

When you are talking about scaling a structure over 400 meters tall that must support its own weight then bringing up scaling with equal mass distribution

IS A LIE!

[8250]
psik

[ Edited: 09 May 2013 09:27 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 322 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 09 May 2013 09:25 AM
Robert Walper - 09 May 2013 08:56 AM

Now psikey’s only response is to completely ignore my entire post and pretend scaling with assorted mass distribution is different from scaling equal mass distribution.

When you are talking about scaling a structure over 400 meters tall that must support its own weight then bringing up scaling with equal mass distribution

IS A LIE!

[8250]
psik

So you’re illiterate now, too. I just linked to post #267 where I demostrated scaling a model with different mass distributions makes no difference. Of course, you’re obviously semi literate, so you’re just lying again.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 323 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 09 May 2013 10:06 AM
psikeyhackr - 09 May 2013 09:25 AM
Robert Walper - 09 May 2013 08:56 AM

Now psikey’s only response is to completely ignore my entire post and pretend scaling with assorted mass distribution is different from scaling equal mass distribution.

When you are talking about scaling a structure over 400 meters tall that must support its own weight then bringing up scaling with equal mass distribution

IS A LIE!

[8250]
psik

So you’re illiterate now, too. I just linked to post #267 where I demostrated scaling a model with different mass distributions makes no difference. Of course, you’re obviously semi literate, so you’re just lying again.

Your units carnival where you just make up bullshit out of nowhere and do some grade school mathematics with units?

But since you are not dealing with any real material you can CLAIM anything you want.

I built a REAL PHYSICAL OBJECT which had to hold itself up against REAL GRAVITY.  I don’t have any crap called STRENGTH UNITS.  What physics book did you get that from?

The only way you could honestly assert that it is physically impossible for a skyscraper to collapse via 15% of it’s upper height crashing down on it is if you know how strong the building is, how much it weighs, what the load bearing capacities are and how much impact energy the lower structure would have to deal with. You have clearly admitted you do not know any this, therefore you are a liar for claiming so.

We KNOW that any skyscraper must get progressively stronger toward the bottom.  That means more steel and more weight.  But a skyscraper is not built to be as weak as possible like my model.  It will have a safety factor.  So the falling mass must accelerate the stationary mass and break the supports more than strong enough to hold that mass.  So dummies have to rationalize why they can’t figure out what was obviously impossible.  So they have not been demanding accurate data for 11 years.

Oh yeah, my physics model is not to scale and I never claimed it was.
[8354]
psik

[ Edited: 10 May 2013 09:31 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 324 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 10 May 2013 07:01 AM

Your units carnival where you just make up bullshit out of nowhere and do some grade school mathematics with units?

But since you are not dealing with any real material you can CLAIM anything you want.

“You equations can be applied to any material of any size and any mass, this is confusing!!” <—- this is what psikey is saying, folks.

Poor psikey, changing units to ‘meters’, ‘inches’, ‘yards’ or whatever is simply beyond his comprehension.

I built a REAL PHYSICAL OBJECT which had to hold itself up against REAL GRAVITY.  I don’t have any crap called STRENGTH UNITS.  What physics book did you get that from?

Yeah, it’s a shame that in post #267 I didn’t actually define what ‘strength units’ was. Imagine if only I had the forethought to do so, like so:

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

Or here:

The total model is 3 units high, 1 unit wide and 1 unit long (3x1x1) with a load bearing surface area of 1 unit(s) which I’m calling strength

Huh, my bad, I actually did define what I meant by strength units.
I mean dear me, this is so confusing! I define exactly what I mean by strength, which is load bearing surface area, and you don’t understand.

Poor psikey, you actually don’t have basic reading skills, do you? I only defined what I meant by strength at least three times in post #267, and you apparently couldn’t figure it out. Do you wear reading glasses by chance? Do I need to increase the size of the text of my posts so you can actually read them?

Oh yeah, my physics model is not to scale and I never claimed it was.
[8354]
psik

Everyone knows that already. That is why your model is invalid and a joke, although sadly you do not understand that.

Why don’t you go crash some paper airplanes into the ground and then make a video about how full scale aircraft cannot crumple and be destroyed (be sure say physically impossible) because it’s made of much stronger metals? Don’t forget to keep repeating how the paper airplane is made of a single sheet of paper and therefore its been ‘tested to be as weak as possible’. And don’t worry about silly notions like load bearing cross sections and mass scaling issues, or even that your paper airplane doesn’t look like the full scale one. That involves simple math and we know you don’t like using simple math, refuse to use it, and will even claim that consistently applying math to physics is ‘just dumb’. LOL

And I have another project for you too, psikey! Build some paper cars using toothpicks for axles, washers for wheels and paper for the rest. Then approach car manufacturers with your new ‘real world physics models’ and tell them you can save them millions by testing your models instead of the full scale thing. There’s no difference, they’re made of paper and therefore already ‘tested to be as weak as possible’, while the real expensive cars are made of industrial strength metals and plastics. You’ll be famous and maybe you can start teaching physics, especially to all those morons with actual degrees and training in subject who laugh at your model! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 325 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 09:34 AM

Huh, my bad, I actually did define what I meant by strength units.
I mean dear me, this is so confusing! I define exactly what I mean by strength, which is load bearing surface area, and you don’t understand.

Poor psikey, you actually don’t have basic reading skills, do you? I only defined what I meant by strength at least three times in post #267, and you apparently couldn’t figure it out.

So there is a definition for “unicorn” also.  That does not mean they exist.

So you made up a bunch of BS and called it all units.  Make a video of it and do a collapse test.  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 326 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

According to psikey, load bearing surface area is as make believe as unicorns now. LOL

Really, what do you say to something like that? LMAO! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 327 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 09:46 AM

According to psikey, load bearing surface area is as make believe as unicorns now.

Unicorns are as real as your chances of physically modelling the gravity effect you say so obviously destroyed the towers, even though you claim to have all the experts in the world on your side.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 328 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 10 May 2013 03:56 PM

Unicorns are as real as your chances of physically modelling the gravity effect you say so obviously destroyed the towers, even though you claim to have all the experts in the world on your side.

I’d have to build another planet Earth of equal mass to physically model the gravity effect. I’m going to assume you’re joking and not actually this stupid. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 329 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 03:59 PM
jomper - 10 May 2013 03:56 PM

Unicorns are as real as your chances of physically modelling the gravity effect you say so obviously destroyed the towers, even though you claim to have all the experts in the world on your side.

I’d have to build another planet Earth of equal mass to physically model the gravity effect. I’m going to assume you’re joking and not actually this stupid. LOL

You wouldn’t be able to model the principle in a computer environment either: at least, not if it was done with scientific transparency and the data was available for independent verification.

That would, of course, make it entirely unlike the computer model of WTC 7.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 330 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 10 May 2013 04:07 PM

You wouldn’t be able to model the principle in a computer environment either: at least, not if it was done with scientific transparency and the data was available for independent verification.

Just to make sure we have you on record here clearly and correctly, jumper, you’re seriously suggesting we cannot model gravity in computer simulations?

If so, I’d very much like you to explain the countless videos on YouTube and government sites of NASA supercomputers making simulations of galaxies, collisions and behavior. Or are you going to tell me those don’t simulate gravity? LOL

Maybe you could explain to this fellow here, who’s been programming gravity simulations since 1977, that we cannot model the principle in a computer environment. He even has download links for the software and detailed mathematics explaining how it works. Not quite sure how much more ‘transparency and independent verification’ you need here. LOL

That would, of course, make it entirely unlike the computer model of WTC 7.

And what computer model are you talking about?

[ Edited: 10 May 2013 04:25 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
22 of 91
22