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.