29 of 91
29
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 15 May 2013 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 421 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 15 May 2013 02:45 PM
Robert Walper - 15 May 2013 10:50 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 10:38 AM
GdB - 15 May 2013 07:49 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

Why don’t you try to provide a link to where I have discussed demolition on this site and justify your comment?

psik

Ah, so your entire argument of how it is ‘physically impossible’ for the towers to have collapsed under their own weight after extensive structural damage which is confirmed by our best experts isn’t an argument for another cause? Tell us, psikey, do you think the WTC towers are still standing? If not, what do you propose actually did collapse the towers the day two large, fully fueled aircraft slammed into them at high speed and exploded?

You don’t sit there and claim someone shot in the head with a bullet wasn’t the cause of death when you don’t submit an alternative explaination that fits all the facts. All the evidence in the world of other people surviving gunshots to the head does not prove your case.

Your argument literally stands or falls on its own merits, not on those of the alternatives.

Exactly, and we’re waiting for psikey to make such an argument, not continue trying to undermine the current explanation with hilariously ineffective attempts.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 422 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
jomper - 15 May 2013 02:45 PM

Your argument literally stands or falls on its own merits, not on those of the alternatives.

He can say there were 4 inch slabs throughout the building but then the well known fact that there were also 5 inch slabs is irrelevant because he says so.

His apologizing for saying 15% by weight is irrelevant because what matters is that he thought it long enough to write it.  How do you figure out how much height at the top was 15% by weight?  I haven’t the vaguest idea.  So what does it say about him that he even thought it?  Ane then I’m supposed to have a model weighing 450 tons?  ROFLMAO

I put off reading his posts and then sometimes don’t respond because they can be just too ridiculous.  But then he must be right.

Some people say there were particle beams.  Some people say nukes.  More say conventional demolitions, but lots of it, makes more sense, but then you are supposed to argue about how it got installed.

I DON’T GIVE A DAMN!

If airliners could bring the buildings down then it should have been explained in good detail long ago with accurate data on the towers.  But I have never even seen a flat layout of the horizontal beams in the core.  Were they the same on every level?  They did not have to be because the elevator shafts were different lengths.  How much thicker did they get down the towers?  Never seen that discussed either.

So how airliners could do it does not have to be explained in detail but any other explanations must be.  Absurd!

All explanations require detailed data on the towers.  Everyone should agree to that.  So what was the total amount of concrete in the towers?  It was 200,000 tons for the steel.  Even the NIST has agreed to that.  So what is the story with the concrete?  Account for that 425,000 cubic yards.  Why do we have that number from before 9/11?

Curious how fast RW came back on my last two posts.

[9918]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 423 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:25 PM

He can say there were 4 inch slabs throughout the building but then the well known fact that there were also 5 inch slabs is irrelevant because he says so.

Liar (again). I never said the inner core five inch slabs was irrelevant, I said your clarification on that detail doesn’t refute my position there is four inches of concrete slab as flooring.

Me: “The floor is this thick throughout the structure.
Psikey: “It’s actually thicker in this area, although I’ve been professing no one knew these kinds of details previously.”
Me: “That doesn’t actually make my assertion incorrect, but it does show you’ve been lying.”

And furthermore the important factor was if said concrete was in any way contributing to structural strength of the building, which it wasn’t.

That particular piece of information you submitted didn’t refute a thing I said, but it did clearly demonstrate you knowingly lied about the distribution of the concrete throughout the towers as being ‘unknown’.

His apologizing for saying 15% by weight is irrelevant because what matters is that he thought it long enough to write it.  How do you figure out how much height at the top was 15% by weight?  I haven’t the vaguest idea.  So what does it say about him that he even thought it?

I incorrectly assumed you were talking about 15% of the mass of the entire building, since mass of a particular portion will determine impact forces, not dimensions with undefined mass.

I grossly overestimated your intelligence and knowledge of the issue, and therefore assumed you were proposing at least one competent piece of physics.

Ane then I’m supposed to have a model weighing 450 tons?  ROFLMAO

Only if your model was scaled to at a 1:1000 ratio and you scaled the mass by the same ratio. Which I then pointed out doesn’t happen in reality and demonstrated so with simple math. Which you then cried about and then tried claiming math applied to physics isn’t really all that important all the time.

If airliners could bring the buildings down then it should have been explained in good detail long ago with accurate data on the towers.

It has been, hence sources like the NIST report. The NIST report, which according to you specifies the actual the amount of concrete in the towers. Which you claim the distribution of is top secret information kept secret from anyone unwilling to Google it for five seconds. Which then someone can point out to you was distributed as concrete flooring and the foundation of the structure. Which you then add additional detailed to the inch precision information on, despite you just claiming such information was hidden/suppressed/unavailable in the first place. You’re a liar and there’s no possible way you can deny it.

But I have never even seen a flat layout of the horizontal beams in the core.  Were they the same on every level?  They did not have to be because the elevator shafts were different lengths.

None of which is relevant to vertical supports not being strong enough to withstand upper portions of the building’s mass slamming down onto them. You do not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads of standing structures, nor understand how to calculate cross sectional footprints and load bearing capacities of structures, including of models you yourself built.

You are frightened of math and you know it demolishes your arguments, hence why you have publicly admitted you will not do the math and instead try to play down the importance of applying math to physics. You’re also a proven liar on multiple occasions and make claims for missing data you don’t bother to prove is actually missing in the first place.

How much thicker did they get down the towers?  Never seen that discussed either.

Prove they got thicker and prove they needed to.

So how airliners could do it does not have to be explained in detail but any other explanations must be.  Absurd!

Except it has been explained and quite thoroughly. Your objections stem from making claims certain pieces of data are unknown, which you’re then proven to be knowingly lying about. Furthermore you make up information you claim is missing, without proving that information even exists in the first place, such as how horizontal beams got ‘thicker’ down the towers.

Your position boils down to ignorance, lying and making shit up.

All explanations require detailed data on the towers.  Everyone should agree to that.  So what was the total amount of concrete in the towers?  It was 200,000 tons for the steel.  Even the NIST has agreed to that.  So what is the story with the concrete?  Account for that 425,000 cubic yards.

So you ask what the total amount of concrete in the towers is, and then you answer your own question with the answer of 425,000 cubic yards three short sentences later. Unbelievable. If you’re unable to track information you yourself type out over the space of three sentences, it is little wonder why this is all so confusing to you.

That amount of concrete is accounted for via the concrete slab flooring of the towers and their base foundations. Any other stupid questions?

Why do we have that number from before 9/11?

Because engineers, design schematics and simple math tend to produce that information before we even build a structure, you poor ignorant simpleton.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 01:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 424 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 15 May 2013 02:48 PM
jomper - 15 May 2013 02:45 PM
Robert Walper - 15 May 2013 10:50 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 10:38 AM
GdB - 15 May 2013 07:49 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

Why don’t you try to provide a link to where I have discussed demolition on this site and justify your comment?

psik

Ah, so your entire argument of how it is ‘physically impossible’ for the towers to have collapsed under their own weight after extensive structural damage which is confirmed by our best experts isn’t an argument for another cause? Tell us, psikey, do you think the WTC towers are still standing? If not, what do you propose actually did collapse the towers the day two large, fully fueled aircraft slammed into them at high speed and exploded?

You don’t sit there and claim someone shot in the head with a bullet wasn’t the cause of death when you don’t submit an alternative explaination that fits all the facts. All the evidence in the world of other people surviving gunshots to the head does not prove your case.

Your argument literally stands or falls on its own merits, not on those of the alternatives.

Exactly, and we’re waiting for psikey to make such an argument, not continue trying to undermine the current explanation with hilariously ineffective attempts.

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 425 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Enlighten me, jomper, explain what my argument and position actually is.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 426 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:17 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Enlighten me, jomper, explain what my argument and position actually is.

If you’ve forgotten, you can read back your own posts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 427 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 16 May 2013 09:19 AM
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:17 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Enlighten me, jomper, explain what my argument and position actually is.

If you’ve forgotten, you can read back your own posts.

Ah, so when I ask you what my argument and position is, you avoid the question altogether and pretend I don’t know what it is. Hint: I know exactly what my argument and position is, I simply want to compare that to what you think it is.

This is an excellent indicator of how trustworthy your assessment of its merits are. Be sure to get back to me when you’re willing to actually tell me what you think my argument is, because I cannot read your mind

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 428 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:24 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 09:19 AM
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:17 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Enlighten me, jomper, explain what my argument and position actually is.

If you’ve forgotten, you can read back your own posts.

Ah, so when I ask you what my argument and position is, you avoid the question altogether and pretend I don’t know what it is. Hint: I know exactly what my argument and position is, I simply want to compare that to what you think it is.

This is an excellent indicator of how trustworthy your assessment of its merits are. Be sure to get back to me when you’re willing to actually tell me what you think my argument is, because I cannot read your mind

I’ve discussed it with you for pages. Once you wheeled out the argumentum ad metum fallacy to explain why the NIST computer model must not be independently verified, I lost faith in your contributions to the discussion. That’s why I said goodbye to you earlier and that’s why I’m not going to engage with you again now. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to pop up to point out the obvious: for example, your argument (what I called the “gravity-driven mechanic” earlier) does not become more persuasive or accurate if you shift focus to what you think I think, or the alternative arguments you demand other people supply.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 429 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 16 May 2013 09:35 AM
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:24 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 09:19 AM
Robert Walper - 16 May 2013 09:17 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

Enlighten me, jomper, explain what my argument and position actually is.

If you’ve forgotten, you can read back your own posts.

Ah, so when I ask you what my argument and position is, you avoid the question altogether and pretend I don’t know what it is. Hint: I know exactly what my argument and position is, I simply want to compare that to what you think it is.

This is an excellent indicator of how trustworthy your assessment of its merits are. Be sure to get back to me when you’re willing to actually tell me what you think my argument is, because I cannot read your mind

I’ve discussed it with you for pages. Once you wheeled out the argumentum ad metum fallacy to explain why the NIST computer model must not be independently verified, I lost faith in your contributions to the discussion. That’s why I said goodbye to you earlier and that’s why I’m not going to engage with you again now. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to pop up to point out the obvious: for example, your argument (what I called the “gravity-driven mechanic” earlier) does not become more persuasive or accurate if you shift focus to what you think I think, or the alternative arguments you demand other people supply.

In other words, you don’t know what my argument and position is. Glad you clarified that.

My only position and arguments have been to demonstrate obvious and fundamental flaws with psikey’s claims and youtube model.

With you I merely pointed out I accept the NIST report on the WTC subject, but remain open minded on the subject and thus asked you for evidence and an argument. Which you responded to by leaving the discussion.

So anything else you’d like to add?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2013 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 430 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

His argument has merits?

LOL

The volume depends on three factors simultaneously.  Mass will be a function of volume and material.  His talking about 1/1000th scale and 1/1000th the mass is TOTAL NONSENSE.  For a while he was funny, now I am tired of responding to him.  I presume he never knew about the 5 inch slabs but there is no way to know that for certain.  But I am not going off on useless speculation about alternatives which can’t be proven even if correct.  It would just be an excuse for him to talk more BS.

But 9/11 does create a peculiar circumstance for atheists.  If they portray themselves as intelligent, rational and scientific then 9/11 should be solvable by methods they espouse.  How can they object to wanting accurate data about the components under study?  Wouldn’t that be part of the scientific method?  But instead it looks like the majority of atheists are going along with the 9/11 religion.  Do not question the official conclusion and claim that it is scientific.

LOL  LOL

[10,089]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 12:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 431 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 16 May 2013 10:15 AM
jomper - 16 May 2013 01:45 AM

No, it seems psikey is concerned with the merits of your argument, and that’s all. I don’t think you can actually grasp that, which is why you keep telling everyone you’re waiting for something else.

His argument has merits?

LOL

The volume depends on three factors simultaneously.  Mass will be a function of volume and material.  His talking about 1/1000th scale and 1/1000th the mass is TOTAL NONSENSE.  For a while he was funny, now I am tired of responding to him.  I presume he never knew about the 5 inch slabs but there is no way to know that for certain.  But I am not going off on useless speculation about alternatives which can’t be proven even if correct.  It would just be an excuse for him to talk more BS.

But 9/11 does create a peculiar circumstance for atheists.  If they portray themselves as intelligent, rational and scientific then 9/11 should be solvable by methods they espouse.  How can they object to wanting accurate data about the components under study?  Wouldn’t that be part of the scientific method?  But instead it looks like the majority of atheists are going along with the 9/11 religion.  Do not question the official conclusion and claim that it is scientific.

LOL  LOL

[10,089]
psik

Of course we question the official conclusion and we’re open to facts that would contradict it. But, unlike CTs, we expect real science to show that the conclusions are suspect.  We don’t accept flimsy theories that nobody in his right mind would put forth.  That’s the difference between atheists and people like you.  You are hoist by your own petard. 

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 432 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 18 May 2013 12:00 AM

we expect real science to show that the conclusions are suspect

Real science demands that conclusions can be reproduced, at least in principle: this is not the case with the 9/11 science you are defending.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2013 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 433 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 18 May 2013 11:28 AM
Lois - 18 May 2013 12:00 AM

we expect real science to show that the conclusions are suspect

Real science demands that conclusions can be reproduced, at least in principle: this is not the case with the 9/11 science you are defending.

So when are you planning to invest tens of millions of dollars, years and enlist hundreds of experts to repeat the 9/11 investigation?

You don’t get to appeal to ignorance and personal incredulity as an argument. If there is fault with the official explanation, submit your evidence and arguments.

If you continue to submit a position without logic, evidence and reason, we can dismiss it on those exact same grounds.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 434 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

The “collapse mechanism” cannot be reproduced in principle on a smaller scale or in accurate computer models. That is one reason why the explanation for the collapses can only be called fake science.

There is no halfway house with the scientific method.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

[ Edited: 19 May 2013 01:11 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2013 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 435 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 18 May 2013 12:00 AM

Of course we question the official conclusion and we’re open to facts that would contradict it. But, unlike CTs, we expect real science to show that the conclusions are suspect. We don’t accept flimsy theories that nobody in his right mind would put forth.  That’s the difference between atheists and people like you.  You are hoist by your own petard. 

Lois

Are you admitting that you don’t expect scientists to PROVE their conclusions?

You accept without proof but require what you regard as PROOF to doubt, but do not actually have to understand it for yourself?

You have turned science into a religion with a priesthood of scientists and regard that as logical.

Ever heard of the Conservation of Momentum?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
29 of 91
29