38 of 91
38
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 24 May 2013 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 556 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

Oh, and sorry to everyone if I’m dragging this thread too much off topic.

I claim that building WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, which caused structural supports to weaken, deform and then initiated a chain reaction failure that brought the whole building down at once.

I make this claim and the claim stands until disproven.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 557 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

Sorry, just one more point here and then I’ll stop chain posting.

Psikey, sorry I ignored your last few arguments, I’m sure you saw how I was getting embarassingly schooled by jomper on the proper way to debate.

In response to you concerns about insufficient data about the WTC towers and collapse event, I submit that the WTC towers have been examined in very possible way, every single scenario and possibility has been explored in extreme detail. This has been documented in thousands of articles and thousands of professionl and non professional videos across the internet.

I make this claim and it stands until disproven.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 558 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

This is not about the government pulling off anything.

Wrong, Psiky….that’s exactly what it’s all about. When it was Bush in office, it was a left wing conspiracy theory with the premise that Bush The Lesser set it up and used it as an excuse to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussien.

When Bush The Lesser was replaced by Obama the Chicago Politirikster, it mutated into a right wing conspiracy theory.

Either one still gives these people and the government credit for more intelligence and foresight then either has or ever will have, and you still can’t get past the temporal anachronism problem, but I’ll give you a hint: The World Trade Center was built in the 1970’s, when all thuis supposed sabotage and installing hidden explosive packs would HAVE to be accomplished. The World Political scene was VERY different from the one which existed in 2001. The conditions which these supposed “grand conspirators” were aiming to deal with just plain didn’t exist.

Until you come to acknowledge these core facts, we really have nothing further to discuss.

(Of course, if you actually understood those core facts, you wouldn’t be wasting any time on a stupid conspiracy theory.)

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 06:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 559 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

And jomper, I am very confused. Why are you asking other people to provide my evidence? That is not their job and they have zero obligation to submit my evidence or defend my arguments.

I tried to insist that any claims must be proven and justified, but you told me that your assertions stand and you will not retract or prove your claims until they are disproven.

At first I insisted this is absolutely absurd, but you persisted until I finally admitted you are right. Your assertions will stand until you are proven wrong. I accept this argument now and now I make assertions until they are proven wrong as well.You can take pride in having given me one of the most powerful tools in rational debate I have ever seen, and I want our discussion to move forward. This is what I mean when I say I am playing by your rules. Rule #1: Assertions stand until proven wrong.

That’s how you put it, but I don’t want to be a total copycat of you, regardless of how much I admire you at this point. That’s why I say “I make this claim and it stands until disproven”. Different words, but it means exactly the same thing you said and I fully agree with you, because you have won this argument and I publicly admit you defeated my position.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 560 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 24 May 2013 04:50 PM

This is not about the government pulling off anything.

Wrong, Psiky….that’s exactly what it’s all about. When it was Bush in office, it was a left wing conspiracy theory with the premise that Bush The Lesser set it up and used it as an excuse to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussien.

That may be what it is about TO YOU!

Human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics.

There are skyscrapers all over the planet.  They must hold themselves up against gravity.  That means designers must determine how to distribute the steel to support the weight of the concrete and everything else against gravity and resist the wind.  The CN Tower in Toronto is an interesting example.  Since it is not a building it does not have empty space to keep its mass distribution from being seen.  And since it gets narrower toward the top it would not have as severe a wind problem as the WTC.  So if airliners could bring the towers down then people all over the world should be able to understand how on the basis of accurate data about the buildings.  But if something else had to have done it then that should be known world wide also because physics is the same all over the planet.  It is an educational problem regardless of the politics.

But after 12 years the issue is not even who was responsible.  The issue is: why haven’t physicists and structural engineers solved it?  If airliners could do it then it should be explain in detail with accurate data.  Why hasn’t the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower even been discussed?  Why haven’t they pointed out that the NCSTAR1 report left out the total amount of concrete?  Why haven’t they noticed the contradictions between Purdue and the NIST on impact analysis?

No, this says things about education and our society that are far bigger than the government.  The inability to teach grade school physics so even children can see how ridiculous 9/11 is.  But since the physics can never change, 9/11 can never go away.  It is like atheism.  Reality cannot care and will not conform to what people BELIEVE.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 561 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 24 May 2013 07:11 PM

The issue is: why haven’t physicists and structural engineers solved it?

They did solve it and published the results in a separate report. It’s available for download directly through Google.

If airliners could do it then it should be explain in detail with accurate data.

See above. The separate report was extremely thorough and covered all possible variables, including concrete distribution and countless others.

Why hasn’t the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower even been discussed?

There is an entire section dedicated to discussing exactly this issue. It’s about ten pages long and has multiple references.

Why haven’t they pointed out that the NCSTAR1 report left out the total amount of concrete?

Because it had already been addressed in the separate report I’m talking about, and quite extensively.

Why haven’t they noticed the contradictions between Purdue and the NIST on impact analysis?

Those contradictions were addressed in said separate report, and it was explained how those contradictions were in fact only minor oversights that additional data tied together perfectly.

I make these claims and they stand until disproven.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 562 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

That may be what it is about TO YOU!

No, it’s not. It’s been about the faction and party line toers OUT of power trying to sling mud on the ones IN power, and when the outs became the ins, the people who got the boot took it over from there.

That’s all it’s EVER been about.

Period.

No laws of physics have been violated, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

Guess I’m done with you. Try the tinfoil beanie crap with somebody else. I’m not buying the nonsense you’re selling.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 563 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 03:00 PM

Oh, and sorry to everyone if I’m dragging this thread too much off topic.

I claim that building WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, which caused structural supports to weaken, deform and then initiated a chain reaction failure that brought the whole building down at once.

I make this claim and the claim stands until disproven.

You haven’t proven your claim so no disproof is possible. None is necessary, either.  The burden of proof is still on you.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 08:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 564 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
Lois - 24 May 2013 08:45 PM
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 03:00 PM

Oh, and sorry to everyone if I’m dragging this thread too much off topic.

I claim that building WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, which caused structural supports to weaken, deform and then initiated a chain reaction failure that brought the whole building down at once.

I make this claim and the claim stands until disproven.

You haven’t proven your claim so no disproof is possible. None is necessary, either.  The burden of proof is still on you.

Lois

My claim you quoted was made as a form of pure mockery. I do not actually hold that position.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 565 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 24 May 2013 07:58 PM

No laws of physics have been violated, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

Guess I’m done with you. Try the tinfoil beanie crap with somebody else. I’m not buying the nonsense you’re selling.

The point is that the Laws of Physics cannot be violated.

If the results cannot be explained in terms of the known inputs then almost certainly there had to be inputs we do not know about.  But correct science cannot be done without adequate data on the object under study.  So the experts should have been demanding that data long ago.  Like not mentioning the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

roto3.gif

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 566 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Psikey, I was through being dazzled by these videos after 2-3 years.  Let it go Psikey..let it go!

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 09:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 567 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 08:48 PM
Lois - 24 May 2013 08:45 PM
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 03:00 PM

Oh, and sorry to everyone if I’m dragging this thread too much off topic.

I claim that building WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, which caused structural supports to weaken, deform and then initiated a chain reaction failure that brought the whole building down at once.

I make this claim and the claim stands until disproven.

You haven’t proven your claim so no disproof is possible. None is necessary, either.  The burden of proof is still on you.

Lois

My claim you quoted was made as a form of pure mockery. I do not actually hold that position.

Thanks. Glad to hear it.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 568 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 25 May 2013 09:25 AM

Psikey, I was through being dazzled by these videos after 2-3 years.  Let it go Psikey..let it go!

Yeah, that is the 9/11 problem.  All of the people who could be dazzeled can’t deal with obvious physics.  Try applying a little obvious rationality to the physics of skyscrapers.  I concluded airliners could not have done that in two weeks.

Suppose we had a skyscraper 100 storeys tall, each level 1,000 tons and 10 feet in height. Obviously the bottom level would have to be strong enough to support the weight of 99,000 tons. The second level would have to support 98,000 tons. But the 10th level from the top would only have to support 9,000 tons and the top level just supports the roof, for which I did not specify a weight.  But how could every level be the same weight?  Making them stronger would require more steel which would make them heavier.  If the bottom storeys could hold that much weight then wouldn’t the upper storeys be unnecessarily strong if they were just as heavy?

But this 9/11 business has gone on for nearly 12 years. Where have these engineers discussed the distributions of steel and concrete on every level of the towers? Where is that data? Couldn’t the NIST fit it into 10,000 pages? What does the mass distribution have to do with psychology? The effect of the mass distribution can be demonstrated in physical experiments.

No 9/11 can’t go away until most people can figure out how mass distribution MUST matter in skyscrapers.  Look at some pictures of the CN Tower in Toronto.

People who could ever be dazzled by videos should just ignore this thread.  Is something stopping you from doing that?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 569 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

For those wondering, psikey just asked how each floor could weigh the same amount of mass.

That is a ridiculously easy question to answer: the only concern would be ensuring the load bearing capacity of each floor can support the static weight force of what is above it. How heavy the floor itself is has little bearing on the issue so long as you know it can support its own weight along with what is above. If every floor is designed identically, this merely means the higher up you go, the greater the load bearing strength is relative to what it must support.

[ Edited: 26 May 2013 04:21 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 570 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 26 May 2013 04:16 PM

For those wondering, psikey just asked how each floor could weigh the same amount of mass.

That is a ridiculously easy question to answer: the only concern would be ensuring the load bearing capacity of each floor can support the static weight force of what is above it. How heavy the floor itself is has little bearing on the issue so long as you know it can support its own weight along with what is above. If every floor is designed identically, this merely means the higher up you go, the greater the load bearing strength is relative to what it must support.

Search the page.  You are the only one to use the word “fl__r”.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
38 of 91
38