23 of 91
23
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 10 May 2013 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 331 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 04:20 PM
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 computer simulations of galaxies, collisions and behavior. Or are you going to tell me those don’t simulate gravity? LOL

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

And what computer model are you talking about?

I would ask the forum: is my point at post 329 not clear? Why should I make it again when faced with this nonsense?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 332 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4497
Joined  2008-08-14

Jomper, have you changed your mind yet?  Perhaps you could expound on why the towers collapsed if it wasn’t gravity?
After all your refutation of the evidence which supports structural weakening followed by collapse due to gravity(Do I really have to type the “due to gravity” part out?)
begs the question…“What then?”  Why did they fall?  Or don’t you wan’t to make an ass of yourself giving us your theory?
Don’t worry..Psikey doesn’t either! So your in good company.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 333 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 09:46 AM

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

So you have gone from strength units to force units divided by length units times width units.

Well since you have gotten so precise and specific then you must be correct.

/* Sarcasm Alert, for the totally dense */

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 334 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 10 May 2013 07:22 PM

Jomper, have you changed your mind yet?  Perhaps you could expound on why the towers collapsed if it wasn’t gravity?
After all your refutation of the evidence which supports structural weakening followed by collapse due to gravity(Do I really have to type the “due to gravity” part out?)
begs the question…“What then?”  Why did they fall?  Or don’t you wan’t to make an ass of yourself giving us your theory?
Don’t worry..Psikey doesn’t either! So your in good company.

Gravity had to have something to do with it.  Even if it was a CD it would not fall down if not for gravity.

You are asking a question that calls for somewhat of a truism as an answer.

The problem is the vagueness of the word collapse.  Could the portion of the north tower above the impact zone fall and sequentially destroy the intact portion below making it all come down in less than 30 seconds?  Now that is a more specific question.  One would think that with accurate data on the building both physical and computer models could be built to answer the question without ambiguity.  So curious that neither has been done in 11 years.

And one would think that “scientific” atheists would be in favor of that.

[8575]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 335 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 10 May 2013 08:47 PM

Could the portion of the north tower above the impact zone fall and sequentially destroy the intact portion below making it all come down in less than 30 seconds?

Yes, it could. We have abundant video evidence right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 01:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 336 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 10 May 2013 07:22 PM

Jomper, have you changed your mind yet?  Perhaps you could expound on why the towers collapsed if it wasn’t gravity?
After all your refutation of the evidence which supports structural weakening followed by collapse due to gravity(Do I really have to type the “due to gravity” part out?)
begs the question…“What then?”  Why did they fall?  Or don’t you wan’t to make an ass of yourself giving us your theory?
Don’t worry..Psikey doesn’t either! So your in good company.

Please quote back the part of post 329 that you think suggests gravity wasn’t involved. Also, please learn the correct application of the phrase “begging the question”. It doesn’t mean “raises the question”, it describes a logical fallacy that assumes the terms of the argument that are under question, which Robert does constantly - for example in post 335 above, the logic of which is “the reason the towers collapsed is that they collapsed”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 08:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 337 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 01:05 AM

Please quote back the part of post 329 that you think suggests gravity wasn’t involved. Also, please learn the correct application of the phrase “begging the question”. It doesn’t mean “raises the question”, it describes a logical fallacy that assumes the terms of the argument that are under question, which Robert does constantly - for example in post 335 above, the logic of which is “the reason the towers collapsed is that they collapsed”.

False. The question was if the upper part of the WTC could’ve collapsed the lower part. The answer is yes, since we saw exactly that and there is nothing physically improbable or questionable about it.

And nice dodge of VYAZMA’s question. If you refuse to answer simple and direct questions, why should anyone bother with you, aside from making fun of you?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 338 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 08:14 AM
jomper - 11 May 2013 01:05 AM

Please quote back the part of post 329 that you think suggests gravity wasn’t involved. Also, please learn the correct application of the phrase “begging the question”. It doesn’t mean “raises the question”, it describes a logical fallacy that assumes the terms of the argument that are under question, which Robert does constantly - for example in post 335 above, the logic of which is “the reason the towers collapsed is that they collapsed”.

False. The question was if the upper part of the WTC could’ve collapsed the lower part. The answer is yes, since we saw exactly that and there is nothing physically improbable or questionable about it.

But it is true, and you prove my point. You say the way the collapse happened is not questionable simply because it happened. This is begging the question of exactly how gravity caused it to happen. I have been saying that the way you claim it happened is impossible partly because the phenomenon you say was the cause of the collapses cannot be experimentally demonstrated, and indeed no-one has attempted to do so in the years since 9/11, have they? You claim the mechanic of the collapse is common sense? Very well: the principle should be easy for you demonstrate, and you would be the first to do so; again, however, I predict you will say the project would be pointless and stupid.

And nice dodge of VYAZMA’s question. If you refuse to answer simple and direct questions, why should anyone bother with you, aside from making fun of you?

VYAZMA was merely following you in tiresomely misrepresenting my point, which is why I directed both of you back to the post where I originally made it—but you can grant yourself the small satisfaction of at least getting me to state it again in this post.

I expect ad hominems from witless fools on forums such as this, so go right ahead if you really think you’re funny.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 339 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4497
Joined  2008-08-14

So no one’s willing to discuss their alternate theories? 
I hear vague claims of buildings falling faster than gravity can pull them….sounds like some people think that explosives were planted in the building to
help the jet airliners collapse the buildings.
It was a nice job of dodging my question Jomper.  Sorry I misused the term “begs the question”.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 340 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 11 May 2013 11:08 AM

So no one’s willing to discuss their alternate theories? 
I hear vague claims of buildings falling faster than gravity can pull them….sounds like some people think that explosives were planted in the building to
help the jet airliners collapse the buildings.
It was a nice job of dodging my question Jomper.  Sorry I misused the term “begs the question”.

We’re now at the point where, while trying to discredit the expert conclusions of the WTC collapse without proposing any alternative explanation,  individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 341 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4497
Joined  2008-08-14
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 11:13 AM
VYAZMA - 11 May 2013 11:08 AM

So no one’s willing to discuss their alternate theories? 
I hear vague claims of buildings falling faster than gravity can pull them….sounds like some people think that explosives were planted in the building to
help the jet airliners collapse the buildings.
It was a nice job of dodging my question Jomper.  Sorry I misused the term “begs the question”.

We’re now at the point where, while trying to discredit the expert conclusions of the WTC collapse without proposing any alternative explanation,  individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

Yeah, I know…it’s funny though Jomper is far more articulate.  He doesn’t write in lunatic sweeps and bounce all over the place.
Yet it’s still easy to see the inner flakiness.
Obviously ANYBODY who isn’t just skeptical about evidence or theories, but who will spend page after page boldly refuting and painstakingly trying to dismantle the facts or evidence has an alternate theory.
What does it mean when they are not willing to share that theory?  What is that called?
I think it’s called:“My head got touched on 9/11”

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 342 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 11:13 AM

individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

So predictable, Robert. Every time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 343 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 11:28 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 11:13 AM

individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

So predictable, Robert. Every time.

Look everyone! No argument, no clarification of his position, and no proposing alternative explanations.

You going to do either of those things , jomper, or you just gonna whine how predictable I am again? Guess what? Even if I am predictable, that is not an argument for anything. So now you’re just wasting time and not making any argument whatsoever. That certainly goes to show what you have for one.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 344 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4497
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 11 May 2013 11:28 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 11:13 AM

individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

So predictable, Robert. Every time.

The only thing that is predictable is you refuting the facts and not offering up an alternate theory.
That’s it!
R. Walper and I are the only ones stubborn enough to keep arguing with you.  No else is here in this thread…..you know why?
Yeah, think about it…

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 345 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02
VYAZMA - 11 May 2013 11:40 AM
jomper - 11 May 2013 11:28 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 11:13 AM

individuals like jomper are now pretending the effects of gravity are a ‘mystery’ and ‘need to be modeled’.

So predictable, Robert. Every time.

The only thing that is predictable is you refuting the facts and not offering up an alternate theory.
That’s it!
R. Walper and I are the only ones stubborn enough to keep arguing with you.  No else is here in this thread…..you know why?
Yeah, think about it…

I should point out, VYAZMA, jomper hasn’t refuted any facts. If I’m incorrect on this, please point it out.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
23 of 91
23