31 of 91
31
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 21 May 2013 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 451 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 21 May 2013 01:08 PM
psikeyhackr - 21 May 2013 12:58 PM
Robert Walper - 20 May 2013 04:21 PM

Hey psikey, when you did your drop test with paper and washers, explain to everyone why not one single piece of paper or washer fell sideways in your model.

Your model is as ‘weak as possible’, therefore you’re not lying again and there isn’t in fact a rigid pole from top to bottom, right? And this pole isn’t anchored to surrounding structures beside your model, right?

Well it never occurred to me that anyone would be so unintelligent as to not see the obvious.

The dowel does not participate in the collapse.  However it is a factor in the “as weak as possible” construction.  The paper loops and washers cannot be stacked as high as 20 levels without the dowel because they will fall over.  As soon as the structure tilts more weight is put on one side of the lower paper loops which are then crushed on that side and the entire stack falls over.  I tried it multiple times.  The dowel is necessary to keep the weight evenly distributed around the “weak as possible” paper loops.

The WTC was designed to withstand winds of 150 mph.  I don’t think my model could handle that even with the dowel. 

psik

So your ‘weak as possible’ model has a (relatively) massive single piece structure running through it while being anchored to other supporting structures.

In other words, not only does your model fail all the other factors I’ve mentioned, it’s not even a free standing structure to begin with. Hint: the WTC towers are free standing structures, your model is not.

It is beyond belief you design a model with additional supporting structures that you admit are there to prevent it from collapsing for your test, and then claim your model not collapsing as proof a larger free standing structure shouldn’t have either.

This is not relevant to the question of why you—as a subscriber to scientific reason—have been incapable of reproducing the collapses in more than ten years of “research”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 452 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 21 May 2013 04:28 PM
Robert Walper - 21 May 2013 01:08 PM
psikeyhackr - 21 May 2013 12:58 PM
Robert Walper - 20 May 2013 04:21 PM

Hey psikey, when you did your drop test with paper and washers, explain to everyone why not one single piece of paper or washer fell sideways in your model.

Your model is as ‘weak as possible’, therefore you’re not lying again and there isn’t in fact a rigid pole from top to bottom, right? And this pole isn’t anchored to surrounding structures beside your model, right?

Well it never occurred to me that anyone would be so unintelligent as to not see the obvious.

The dowel does not participate in the collapse.  However it is a factor in the “as weak as possible” construction.  The paper loops and washers cannot be stacked as high as 20 levels without the dowel because they will fall over.  As soon as the structure tilts more weight is put on one side of the lower paper loops which are then crushed on that side and the entire stack falls over.  I tried it multiple times.  The dowel is necessary to keep the weight evenly distributed around the “weak as possible” paper loops.

The WTC was designed to withstand winds of 150 mph.  I don’t think my model could handle that even with the dowel. 

psik

So your ‘weak as possible’ model has a (relatively) massive single piece structure running through it while being anchored to other supporting structures.

In other words, not only does your model fail all the other factors I’ve mentioned, it’s not even a free standing structure to begin with. Hint: the WTC towers are free standing structures, your model is not.

It is beyond belief you design a model with additional supporting structures that you admit are there to prevent it from collapsing for your test, and then claim your model not collapsing as proof a larger free standing structure shouldn’t have either.

This is not relevant to the question of why you—as a subscriber to scientific reason—have been incapable of reproducing the collapses in more than ten years of “research”.

So what? I haven’t reproduced the sinking of the Titanic in the last century either; that’s not an argument an iceberg didn’t sink the ship or that I have to prove it. If you question the iceberg scenario, the burden of proof is on the questioner.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 453 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

A tediously false comparison.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 454 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2287
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 21 May 2013 04:56 PM

So what? I haven’t reproduced the sinking of the Titanic in the last century either; that’s not an argument an iceberg didn’t sink the ship or that I have to prove it. If you question the iceberg scenario, the burden of proof is on the questioner.

We don’t have video of the Titanic being sunk by an iceberg 1/2000th its own mass.

In 100 years has anyone claimed anything about it defied any Laws of Physics?

We can’t get enough of this astounding brilliance.  More please.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 455 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 21 May 2013 07:14 PM
Robert Walper - 21 May 2013 04:56 PM

So what? I haven’t reproduced the sinking of the Titanic in the last century either; that’s not an argument an iceberg didn’t sink the ship or that I have to prove it. If you question the iceberg scenario, the burden of proof is on the questioner.

We don’t have video of the Titanic being sunk by an iceberg 1/2000th its own mass.

In 100 years has anyone claimed anything about it defied any Laws of Physics?

We can’t get enough of this astounding brilliance.  More please.

psik

The Titanic was surely sunk by a government conspiracy.  How else could it have happened?

Check this out.


http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy-investigating-the-titanic-conspiracy-theory/124
Lois

[ Edited: 21 May 2013 08:18 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 456 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

The Titanic was surely sunk by a government conspiracy.  How else could it have happened?

Sheer stupidity.

I’ve encountered this nonsense several times. It was championed by a guy named Robin Gardiner, and has long been refuted by historians who actually know what they’re talking about.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 457 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 21 May 2013 09:10 PM

The Titanic was surely sunk by a government conspiracy.  How else could it have happened?

Sheer stupidity.

I’ve encountered this nonsense several times. It was championed by a guy named Robin Gardiner, and has long been refuted by historians who actually know what they’re talking about.

Yes, but your position involves accepting the word of experts. You might want to consult with psikey and jumper on how foolish that behavior is. wink

Perhaps for psikey’s next trick, he can crash a tin foil boat into a large piece of ice in his bath tub, thus proving that his tin foil boat (which is of course as weak as possible while ships are built as strong as possible) doesn’t sink do to iceberg damage. He can even point out how his tin foil boat doesn’t have water tight compartments and then he demonstrates smashing a piece of ice and metal together and shows with simple physics that ice always loses to steel.

Hell, I’m half convinced already! LMAO LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 458 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 21 May 2013 07:14 PM

We don’t have video of the Titanic being sunk by an iceberg 1/2000th its own mass.

In 100 years has anyone claimed anything about it defied any Laws of Physics?

We can’t get enough of this astounding brilliance.  More please.

psik

Still waiting on you to explain how your model is ‘as weak as possible’ when you have admitted you have a solid support structure running through the center of it anchored to other structures to prevent it from collapsing, and your model isn’t even a free standing structure. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 459 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Yes, but your position involves accepting the word of experts.

Actually, I don’t need to even go that far. I’m a retired sailor. The crime in question is called barratry, and all you need is the constructive total loss of the vessel. This is easy enough to arrange in port and all you need is an enterprising young lad with a few cans of petrol and a match to pull it off.

Hardly any witnesses, and nothing to tie it to the ships owners.

No switch needed.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 460 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 21 May 2013 09:10 PM

The Titanic was surely sunk by a government conspiracy.  How else could it have happened?

Sheer stupidity.

I’ve encountered this nonsense several times. It was championed by a guy named Robin Gardiner, and has long been refuted by historians who actually know what they’re talking about.

The reason the WTC towers fell has also been explained by scientists who know what they’re talking about, but it has apparently had no effect on 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in. 

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 461 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 21 May 2013 09:41 PM
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 21 May 2013 09:10 PM

The Titanic was surely sunk by a government conspiracy.  How else could it have happened?

Sheer stupidity.

I’ve encountered this nonsense several times. It was championed by a guy named Robin Gardiner, and has long been refuted by historians who actually know what they’re talking about.

Yes, but your position involves accepting the word of experts. You might want to consult with psikey and jomper on how foolish that behavior is. wink

Perhaps for psikey’s next trick, he can crash a tin foil boat into a large piece of ice in his bath tub, thus proving that his tin foil boat (which is of course as weak as possible while ships are built as strong as possible) doesn’t sink do to iceberg damage. He can even point out how his tin foil boat doesn’t have water tight compartments and then he demonstrates smashing a piece of ice and metal together and shows with simple physics that ice always loses to steel.

Hell, I’m half convinced already! LMAO LOL

An appeal to authority and a straw man, if an amusing one, do nothing to address the fact that you have no experimental evidence to show that your miraculous 9/11 collapse science exists on any day other than 9/11. And you never will. A child could sink a toy boat in a bath, but you and all your experts wouldn’t be able to show how the collapses occurred using Lego—even if you played with it for another ten years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 12:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 462 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 21 May 2013 11:53 PM

Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in.

If you spent the next 100 years conducting experiments and modelling structures you would still not be able to show that the 9/11 collapse effect you worship is a reality.

[ Edited: 22 May 2013 03:04 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 463 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 12:05 AM

An appeal to authority and a straw man, if an amusing one, do nothing to address the fact that you have no experimental evidence to show that your miraculous 9/11 collapse science exists on any day other than 9/11. And you never will. A child could sink a toy boat in a bath, but you and all your experts wouldn’t be able to show how the collapses occurred using Lego—even if you played with it for another ten years.

jomper - 22 May 2013 12:39 AM
Lois - 21 May 2013 11:53 PM

Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in.

If you spent the next 100 years conducting experiments and modelling structures you would still not be able to show that the 9/11 collapse effect you worship is a reality.

This is you literally admitting there is no evidence or experiment that would ever convince you. And you wonder why no one is bothering. LOL

[ Edited: 22 May 2013 03:14 AM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 464 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:11 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 12:39 AM
Lois - 21 May 2013 11:53 PM

Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in.

If you spent the next 100 years conducting experiments and modelling structures you would still not be able to show that the 9/11 collapse effect you worship is a reality.

This is you literally admitting there is no evidence or experiment that would ever convince you. And you wonder why no one is bothering. LOL

No, I am saying you have literally no experimental evidence to support your collapse hypothesis, and you never will. And you wonder why some people think the science you believe in is fake.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 465 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 03:18 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:11 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 12:39 AM
Lois - 21 May 2013 11:53 PM

Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in.

If you spent the next 100 years conducting experiments and modelling structures you would still not be able to show that the 9/11 collapse effect you worship is a reality.

This is you literally admitting there is no evidence or experiment that would ever convince you. And you wonder why no one is bothering. LOL

No, I am saying you have literally no experimental evidence to support your collapse hypothesis, and you never will. And you wonder why some people think the science you believe in is fake.

We know jomper, you just finished saying there is no model, no evidence and no expert in ten or a hundred years that would ever convince you of the official 9/11 conclusions.

That’s the difference between you and me. I’ll still examine a counter claim ten plus years later by some online idiot named psikey and point out the flaws of his actual argument and ‘evidence’. While you sit there and proudly claim you’ll never be convinced in ten or a hundred years, regardless of what model or evidence is submitted because you claim there is no such evidence and there never will be.

You couldn’t have more clearly stated your non sceptical close mindedness, and I for one appreciate at least that much honesty confirming to the rest of us there is no point in even trying.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
31 of 91
31