psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 07:35 AM

macgyver - 04 July 2012 07:18 PM

2) You claim that the CIA was expert enough to prepare this demolition but yet they were so stupid that they didn’t have the forethought to make it look more realistic? If they were going to fake it don;t you think they would have gone to just a little extra effort to make sure it didn’t look like a demolition? I guess all you conspiracy guys are just so much smarter than the CIA and all the experts they have on hand.

I think the people who have ten years invested in something they dont want to admit is wrong are the conspiracy believers.

Let’s see you provide a link to where I said anything about the CIA.

People who think human behavior is more important than physics concentrate on conspiracies and accuse other people of doing that same idiotic nonsense.

psik

OK if it makes a huge difference in the discussion you are free to fill in the blank with what ever covet intelligence agency or other entity you prefer. It never helps the discussion when someone diverts the topic from the important issues to some inconsequential detail.

We can’t discuss the physics here because we don’t have either the facts or the background to do that. Human behavior is everything since you are invoking a conspiracy and that is all about human behavior.

Please, for the love of Thor, make it stop. 

FreeInKy - 05 July 2012 08:05 AM

Please, for the love of Thor, make it stop. 

I have no love for Thor but I agree lol

FreeInKy - 05 July 2012 08:05 AM

Please, for the love of Thor, make it stop. 

You make it stop by admitting that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the crackpot official story of WTC 7. You make it stop by admitting that because CFI supports the wholly unscientific crackpot official story, it is misrepresenting itself as an organization that supports science and critical thinking.

macgyver - 05 July 2012 08:03 AM

We can’t discuss the physics here because we don’t have either the facts or the background to do that. Human behavior is everything since you are invoking a conspiracy and that is all about human behavior.

I am not responsible for your lack of facts or background.

I am not invoking any conspiracy.  I am saying human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics.  If you don’t know that then that is your problem.

It is not my fault if you cannot figure out what the relevant variables must be for a problem this simple even if we do not have the data to plug into those variables.

Ever heard of the conservation of momentum?  Have you ever taken a physics course?

psik

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 08:35 AM

macgyver - 05 July 2012 08:03 AM

We can’t discuss the physics here because we don’t have either the facts or the background to do that. Human behavior is everything since you are invoking a conspiracy and that is all about human behavior.

I am not responsible for your lack of facts or background.

I am not invoking any conspiracy.  I am saying human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics.  If you don’t know that then that is your problem.

It is not my fault if you cannot figure out what the relevant variables must be for a problem this simple even if we do not have the data to plug into those variables.

Ever heard of the conservation of momentum?  Have you ever taken a physics course?

psik

See the thread title? This thread is about the lack of scientific evidence for the official crackpot theory of WTC 7, nothing else. If you don’t like it start your own thread. Kindly stop hijacking this one.

Michael Fullerton - 05 July 2012 08:40 AM

See the thread title? This thread is about the lack of scientific evidence for the official crackpot theory of WTC 7, nothing else. If you don’t like it start your own thread. Kindly stop hijacking this one.

See post #36

How can you discuss scientific evidence without mentioning PHYSICS?

For the roof line to remain straight during the fall supports all across the 300 foot building had to give simultaneously.  How could a fire do that?

It’s called gravitational acceleration and has something to do with TIME.

That was OBVIOUS long ago.  That is why the only thing interesting about WTC7 is that the BBC announced the destruction before it happened saying that it already had occurred. 

psik

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 08:49 AM

Michael Fullerton - 05 July 2012 08:40 AM

See the thread title? This thread is about the lack of scientific evidence for the official crackpot theory of WTC 7, nothing else. If you don’t like it start your own thread. Kindly stop hijacking this one.

See post #36

How can you discuss scientific evidence without mentioning PHYSICS?

For the roof line to remain straight during the fall supports all across the 300 foot building had to give simultaneously.  How could a fire do that?

It’s called gravitational acceleration and has something to do with TIME.

That was OBVIOUS long ago.  That is why the only thing interesting about WTC7 is that the BBC announced the destruction before it happened saying that it already had occurred. 

psik

Well if you have some evidence from physics that supports the official crackpot theory of WTC 7 post it. Otherwise stay the hell away. Your posts here amount to nothing but red herrings that are derailing the original topic.

Michael Fullerton - 05 July 2012 09:30 AM

Well if you have some evidence from physics that supports the official crackpot theory of WTC 7 post it. Otherwise stay the hell away. Your posts here amount to nothing but red herrings that are derailing the original topic.

So if no one posts that means the official story is…..

psik

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 08:01 AM

Robert Walper - 05 July 2012 07:53 AM

Do you think there is something physically impossible or implausible about WTC 7 collapsing due to extensive and prolonged fire damage?

see post #36.

Having read it, I see an Appeal to Personal Incredulity (“beyond my comprehension”), an Appeal to Authority (“guy said 11 seconds”) and an ignorance of static and dynamic load forces (floors slamming into lower floors).

None of the above is remotely challenging to the conclusion fire inflicted structural damage brought down the building.

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 08:35 AM

macgyver - 05 July 2012 08:03 AM

We can’t discuss the physics here because we don’t have either the facts or the background to do that. Human behavior is everything since you are invoking a conspiracy and that is all about human behavior.

I am not responsible for your lack of facts or background.

I am not invoking any conspiracy.  I am saying human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics.  If you don’t know that then that is your problem.

It is not my fault if you cannot figure out what the relevant variables must be for a problem this simple even if we do not have the data to plug into those variables.

Ever heard of the conservation of momentum?  Have you ever taken a physics course?

psik

I’ve taken a year of college physics and did quite well thank you but that in no way makes me nor you an expert on building collapses. Calculating the rate at which the building would be expected to drop is not as simple as calculating the rate at which a ball would drop after it was released from the same height. This is simple physics only if you want a rough approximation of what would happen. If you want to start splitting hairs over the difference between a collapse caused by a plane crash and one caused by a controlled demolition triggered soon after a plane crash you need a lot more than simple physics and even then it would be difficult. There are many more variables.

What was the weight of the portion of the building that was no longer supported? how did it impact the level below? Did it pancake or was there an angle of impact other than zero degrees? What was the strength of the steel used and the concrete? What effect did all the years have on those materials? What affect did fire have on them? When the concrete and steel shattered and the combined mass fell did it behave as a single mass or as a fluid or some combination of both and how did that affect the force exerted on the lower levels? What was the effect of the downward rush of air on the whole process?

Also, how long did it really take for the building to collapse? There was a huge cloud of debris that towered up and obscured the lower third or so of the building. How are you defining the beginning and the end of the event when the end is so nebulous?

This is not something that anyone can answer with any degree of certainty unless they have a lot of experience and access to some world class supercomputing. As such I am happy to trust a world full of engineers and architects who seem to have accepted what happened as we saw it rather than worry about the theories of a bunch of arm chair experts who have neither the education nor the data to prove them wrong.

As I said before, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist since the weight of the evidence rests with the standard theory. That’s how it always works in science. Its up to the rebel to prove the consensus wrong. But you have to couch your arguments to the people who can intelligently debate them. That’s the pro’s not us. My guess is you won’t do that though because you don’t have the courage or conviction of your beliefs. You would rather just argue with a bunch of people who are ignorant in this area hoping we can’t expose the flaws in your arguments as they would.

If you were serious in your convictions, you would go to a forum with failure analysis experts and argue with them. For a person obviously NOT expert in failure analysis to try to bait others with no claim to expertise in failure analysis is just plain dumb and worse…cowardly.

One quick comment about the physics here. If you calculate the time it would take an object to drop from the top of the WTC to the top of the debris pile ( assuming the debris pile was at most 200 feet tall) you get the following formula.

d = vt + (1/2)a t squared

d = (1368-200)

v = 0

a = 9.8 m/s/s

so we get

(1368-200) = 0 + (1/2) 9.8 t squared

t = 15.4 seconds

Therefor the absolute minimum amount of time it would take for the top of the building to reach the top of the pile is 15.4 seconds no matter how it was destroyed. That brings us to only one conclusion. The gentleman who said it happened in 11 seconds was simply wrong or misspoke or was misquoted. It does not however do anything to suggest that the buildings collapsed in any way other than the way it appeared to. A planned demolition could not have made it happen any quicker than a pure free fall and a free fall covering that distance can not happen in less time then 15.4 seconds.

So once again, given the choice between accepting the expert opinion or your flawed logic I will go with the experts.

macgyver - 05 July 2012 02:41 PM

I’ve taken a year of college physics and did quite well thank you but that in no way makes me nor you an expert on building collapses. Calculating the rate at which the building would be expected to drop is not as simple as calculating the rate at which a ball would drop after it was released from the same height.

What was the weight of the portion of the building that was no longer supported? how did it impact the level below? Did it pancake or was there an angle of impact other than zero degrees? What was the strength of the steel used and the concrete? What effect did all the years have on those materials?

We are talking about skyscrapers.  So that means as you come down the building more and more weight has to be supported.  So to increase the strength they put in more steel.  So whatever the weight of the top 15 stories of the north tower was didn’t the 15 stories below that have to be heavier?

And didn’t the 15 stories below that have to be heavier still.

And the 15 stories below that….

So shouldn’t all of the people who claim to understand physics want to know the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  Doesn’t a skyscraper have to withstand the sheer force of the wind without tipping over.  Wouldn’t that tend to demand a lot of weight toward the bottom? 

Now people doing a normal demolition get to study the plans of the building and figure out where to put charges and how strong they have to be and what time they need to go off.  Even if people flying airliners into buildings have that information the only control they have is where to hit the building. 

Are you saying that distribution of mass will not affect the collapse?  So even if the plane did it shouldn’t we have that information?

And then there is the 22 degree tilt of the top of the south tower.  The core supported 53% of the building’s weight.  Shouldn’t the center of mass of that tilted portion matter in the analysis?  Oh yeah, you just asked about how the falling portion impacted the stationary portion.

So where have you seen that center of mass discussed in 10 years?  Plenty of people take physics courses and pass.  That does not mean they give a damn about physics.  So where was the center of mass?  Oh yeah, that brings us back to the distributions of steel and concrete.

How do you analyse the physics without the data?  So why believe anything without data?

This thread is about scientific evidence right?

psik

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 06:41 PM

What was the weight of the portion of the building that was no longer supported? how did it impact the level below? Did it pancake or was there an angle of impact other than zero degrees? What was the strength of the steel used and the concrete? What effect did all the years have on those materials?

We are talking about skyscrapers.  So that means as you come down the building more and more weight has to be supported.  So to increase the strength they put in more steel.  So whatever the weight of the top 15 stories of the north tower was didn’t the 15 stories below that have to be heavier?

And didn’t the 15 stories below that have to be heavier still.

And the 15 stories below that….

An excellent example of zero understanding of static and dynamic load bearing under the force of gravity.

Example: benchpress your best weigh at the gym you can reasonably do and hold. Not only can you hold that weight up, you can compensate and adapt to shifts in the position and distribution of that weight. Now take that same weight and raise it one floor above your chest and then drop it, while you try to stop it. It’s not going to matter what ‘angle’ the barbell happens to be at, the end result changes little. That end result being arms snapped like toothpicks and your chest lethally crushed. That despite your earlier demostration of the strength to hold that weight in place and even compensate for limited dynamic shifts in such weight. Kind of like what engineers plan and account for when building large structures like the WTC.

The difference of course is the towers in question are easily dealing with multiple floors of potential free fall (or close to that effect), fire weakened steel support structures not benefiting from their maximum load bearing capacity, which was never designed to support the upper floors pancaking down on them, and mass in the range of tens of thousand of tons which is amplified by the accelerating force of them falling.