39 of 91
39
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 26 May 2013 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 571 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 26 May 2013 04:35 PM

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

psik

Level, floor, same thing. I’m not talking about only the area walked on. I’ll say ‘level’ from now on, if you’re going to cry about it.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 572 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

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

Yes, your irrational behavior is stopping me from ignoring this thread. It’s fascinating!

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 573 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02

Anyone know where jomper went? Its been a few days now. He totally kicked my ass on how to conduct proper debate, and after he publicly embarassed me by demonstrating how to debate properly, he promptly disappears after he wins round one on a discussion of 9/11. What gives? wink

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 574 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 28 May 2013 11:29 AM

Anyone know where jomper went? Its been a few days now. He totally kicked my ass on how to conduct proper debate, and after he publicly embarassed me by demonstrating how to debate properly, he promptly disappears after he wins round one on a discussion of 9/11. What gives? wink

Meh

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 575 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 28 May 2013 12:46 PM
Robert Walper - 28 May 2013 11:29 AM

Anyone know where jomper went? Its been a few days now. He totally kicked my ass on how to conduct proper debate, and after he publicly embarassed me by demonstrating how to debate properly, he promptly disappears after he wins round one on a discussion of 9/11. What gives? wink

Meh

Well, I’m here if you change your mind, jomper. For now I accept the official expert conclusion, since I can’t find a thing wrong with it. But I’m always open minded to new evidence and arguments showing how it is wrong. smile

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2013 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 576 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2281
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 03:12 PM
psikeyhackr - 12 May 2013 02:48 PM

Where did I say that?

I have said there is controversy about whether or not there was a concrete box around the core and how high up it went.

Which is a lie. There is no such controversy, the WTC towers had no concrete core. Only four inch thick concrete floor slabs support by a steel deck and steel bar trusses.

Accuse me of saying what I did not say and then call me a liar.

Great strategy!

psik

You’ve been caught outright lying again, claiming that the distribution of concrete throughout the towers is unknown.

So explain the origin of the 425,000 cubic yards of concrete number.  I didn’t make it up.

World Trade Center Stats

  200,000 tons of steel
  425,000 cubic yards of concrete

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html#ixzz2T7T5gF3B

The 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

But I notice you have not claimed to have read the 10,000 pages.

You also haven’t pointed out anything incorrect about what I said about “center of mass”.  So come up with more silly “liar” accusations.

psikeyhackr - 12 May 2013 07:25 AM
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM
jomper - 12 May 2013 12:32 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:44 PM

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

Whereas it is apparently not incumbent on you to demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers actually occurs in the real world in any way, shape or form—except on 9/11, of course…

Correct. I did not create, contribute to or validate the official conclusion. I merely reviewed it and found it extensive, thorough and sound.

So tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

They said there were “roughly 200,000 tons of steel” in three places in the report.  That agrees with data from before 9/11.  But that data also says there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.

Are you claiming to have read the entire 10,000 pages?  I have admitted many times that I have not.  But I burned it to DVD 6 years ago and have searched it hundreds of times.  You can search it for “center of mass” and “center of gravity” and there is never any mention of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.  When they use “center of mass” they are talking about the aircraft.  When they say “center of gravity” they are talking about the components they simulated in a computer.  But there were 2800 perimeter wall panels on each tower from the 9th floor to the top and we do not have the weights and quantity of each variation of panel.

But you found it “EXTENSIVE, THOROUGH and SOUND”.

ROFLMAO

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/179857/

[12,625]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 577 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 26 May 2013 04:07 PM
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


You wrote: “Yeah, that is the 9/11 problem.  All of the people who could be dazzeled can’t deal with obvious physics.”


No, it’s people like you who can’t deal with reality and common sense.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 578 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
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.

Sorry, I should have checked who was writing. I have a habit of shooting from the hip sometimes.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 579 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 31 May 2013 05:56 AM
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.

Sorry, I should have checked who was writing. I have a habit of shooting from the hip sometimes.

Lois

And also, it would seem, indulging in ad hominems instead of addressing the points of psikey’s argument. But your confusion has at least shown how pointless Robert’s mockery was.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 580 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2281
Joined  2007-07-05
Lois - 31 May 2013 05:51 AM

You wrote: “Yeah, that is the 9/11 problem.  All of the people who could be dazzeled can’t deal with obvious physics.”

No, it’s people like you who can’t deal with reality and common sense.

Lois

Thanks for quoting an entire post that you cannot come up with an intelligent response to.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 581 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 31 May 2013 08:20 AM

Thanks for quoting an entire post that you cannot come up with an intelligent response to.

psik

His single line reply dwarfs all your posts is this thread combined on the intelligence scale.

Any time table on your 3D printing model construction, psikey?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 582 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2281
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 31 May 2013 08:32 AM

His single line reply dwarfs all your posts is this thread combined on the intelligence scale.

That’s true.

Any time table on your 3D printing model construction, psikey?

Ever consider reading?  I never said I was going to do it.  I don’t doubt the result would be any different from my washers and paper loops.  I merely suggested that someone with more resources than me might do it, on multiple websites.  Like some of our engineering schools.  They should have the 3D printers and plenty of students for the project.

But with your concern about scale they would still have to get accurate mass distribution data on the north tower to SCALE the model correctly.

But if it won’t collapse they will look pretty stupid after 12 years.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2013 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 583 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  443
Joined  2012-07-02

So you’re still convinced that if a smaller model doesn’t collapse, a larger one of identical design and identical mass distribution shouldn’t either? LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2013 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 584 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 31 May 2013 06:51 AM
Lois - 31 May 2013 05:56 AM
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.

Sorry, I should have checked who was writing. I have a habit of shooting from the hip sometimes.

Lois

And also, it would seem, indulging in ad hominems instead of addressing the points of psikey’s argument. But your confusion has at least shown how pointless Robert’s mockery was.

Do you mean ad hominems like the above?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2013 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 585 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
psikeyhackr - 31 May 2013 08:20 AM
Lois - 31 May 2013 05:51 AM

You wrote: “Yeah, that is the 9/11 problem.  All of the people who could be dazzeled can’t deal with obvious physics.”

No, it’s people like you who can’t deal with reality and common sense.

Lois

Thanks for quoting an entire post that you cannot come up with an intelligent response to.

psik

L i have no idea what you are talking about and you don’t either.

Profile
 
 
   
39 of 91
39