5 of 91
5
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 05 July 2012 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 05 July 2012 07:09 PM

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.

My aren’t we ingenious.  Comparing animate and inanimate objects.

Here is a demonstration of static and dynamic forces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

The point is that the paper loops can support the static load and they can be crushed by the dynamic load.

BUT THERE ISN’T JUST ONE!

That means the falling mass is slowed down in the process of crushing one loop, so the next loop has less of a dynamic load.  If that is still too much then the next one has still less.  I tested and computed how much energy was required to crush one loop,  0.118 joules.  The height I raised the 4 washers was enough to flatten 8 loops.  9 loops were damaged but some were not completely flattened.

You have one mass dropping on one person and expect that to explain 90 sequential levels.  BRILLIANT!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2012 08:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4622
Joined  2007-10-05

Let it go, Robert. Psikey’s is a fairly intelligent and sometimes witty guy on other topics, but on this he is completely sunk in conspiracy thinking. Watch his video and you’ll realize how hopeless it is to argue this subject with him.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2012 08:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
DarronS - 05 July 2012 08:16 PM

Let it go, Robert. Psikey’s is a fairly intelligent and sometimes witty guy on other topics, but on this he is completely sunk in conspiracy thinking. Watch his video and you’ll realize how hopeless it is to argue this subject with him.

I realize that now, given his ridiculous claim that dynamic forces would lessen as the building collapses. Apparently he thinks that when a newly crushed floor is added to the above collapsing superstructure, it’s own mass which is forced to accelerate downwards and added to the total sum mass and force, being then imparted to lower levels…just magically doesn’t happen. Even though he outright admits every lower level crushed and added to the above collapsing superstructure is composed of heavier and heavier supporting material, thus increasing the total mass of collapsing superstructure at a rapidly increasing rate. No single level of the building can support the above layers dropping on it (for the most part), and every floor crushed and added to the total mass of collapsing superstructure, via the very design of the building, adds greater and greater mass to the force impacting the next level. Easily ensuring that by the time the effect gets to the lower levels of the building, almost the entire weight of the whole building is dropping onto it.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2012 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 05 July 2012 08:52 PM
DarronS - 05 July 2012 08:16 PM

Let it go, Robert. Psikey’s is a fairly intelligent and sometimes witty guy on other topics, but on this he is completely sunk in conspiracy thinking. Watch his video and you’ll realize how hopeless it is to argue this subject with him.

I realize that now, given his ridiculous claim that dynamic forces would lessen as the building collapses. Apparently he thinks that when a newly crushed floor is added to the above collapsing superstructure, it’s own mass which is forced to accelerate downwards and added to the total sum mass and force, being then imparted to lower levels…just magically doesn’t happen. Even though he outright admits every lower level crushed and added to the above collapsing superstructure is composed of heavier and heavier supporting material, thus increasing the total mass of collapsing superstructure at a rapidly increasing rate. No single level of the building can support the above layers dropping on it (for the most part), and every floor crushed and added to the total mass of collapsing superstructure, via the very design of the building, adds greater and greater mass to the force impacting the next level. Easily ensuring that by the time the effect gets to the lower levels of the building, almost the entire weight of the whole building is dropping onto it.

I said the lower levels had to be stronger and heavier I did not admit they did what you just said.  I was using that as evidence that they could not do what you just said.  What happens when a lighter mass hits a heavier mass?  What happens when a weaker mass hits a stronger mass?

Like you are saying this crushing does not use up any energy of the falling mass and the conservation of momentum has not effect.  Somebody is talking nonsense.  (I am sure some debater will try to make hay with that)  LOL

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can completely collapse even though it gets stronger and heavier all of the way down.

DarronS just has to accuse someone of “conspiracy thinking” to win the debate but he doesn’t have to build a model that can completely collapse either.

psik

[ Edited: 06 July 2012 08:27 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06

9-11 was the work of 19 muslims with box cutters?  HA HA HA HA… tell me another one.  Saddam had WMDs?  HA HA HA HA… tell me another one.  We landed on the moon?  No we didn’t.  Moon rocks are fake.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Occcam’s razor!!!

This site is obviously funded by the CIA.

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06

In the case of 9-11, the ONLY explanation is a conspiracy theory.  Either it was a U.S. government conspiracy, or a Muslim conspiracy.  Your opinion is a conspiracy theory either way.

[ Edited: 06 July 2012 09:28 AM by sanchezal28 ]
 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 09:06 AM

In the case of 9-11, the ONLY explanation is a conspiracy theory.  Either it was a U.S. government conspiracy, or a Muslim conspiracy.  Your opinion is a conspiracy theory either way.

I se. When you dont have an intelligent point to make just argue over semantics. Nice work

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06
macgyver - 06 July 2012 09:52 AM
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 09:06 AM

In the case of 9-11, the ONLY explanation is a conspiracy theory.  Either it was a U.S. government conspiracy, or a Muslim conspiracy.  Your opinion is a conspiracy theory either way.

I se [sic.] When you dont have an intelligent point to make just argue over semantics. Nice work

Obviously, it was an intelligent point that went way over your head.  Calling something a “conspiracy theory” is a cheap shot, in and of itself, when you have nothing intelligent to say.  It makes something sound like bullshit, by the mere connotation.  It’s the use of semantics without logic.  9-11 was the result of a conspiracy.  In other words, it was all plotted out and planned by somebody.  You can’t stage a 9-11 without an enormous amount of planning.  Semantics simply refers to the fact that certain words and phrases have meaning.  That the government covered up it’s involvement in 9-11, is a theory.  However, the fact of the matter is that the government was much more capable of pulling off 9-11 than 19 Muslims with box cutters, and had the motivation.  A 5 year old could tell you that.  And why were no aircraft engines found?  Duh?

conspiracy [kənˈspɪrəsɪ]
n pl -cies
1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret

[ Edited: 06 July 2012 10:18 AM by sanchezal28 ]
 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 06 July 2012 09:52 AM
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 09:06 AM

In the case of 9-11, the ONLY explanation is a conspiracy theory.  Either it was a U.S. government conspiracy, or a Muslim conspiracy.  Your opinion is a conspiracy theory either way.

I se. When you dont have an intelligent point to make just argue over semantics. Nice work

I am afraid he is right about that. 

It is just a matter of a conspiracy that someone likes versus a conspiracy that they don’t like.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2012 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 10:12 AM
macgyver - 06 July 2012 09:52 AM
sanchezal28 - 06 July 2012 09:06 AM

In the case of 9-11, the ONLY explanation is a conspiracy theory.  Either it was a U.S. government conspiracy, or a Muslim conspiracy.  Your opinion is a conspiracy theory either way.

I se [sic.] When you dont have an intelligent point to make just argue over semantics. Nice work

Obviously, it was an intelligent point that went way over your head.  Calling something a “conspiracy theory” is a cheap shot, in and of itself, when you have nothing intelligent to say.  It makes something sound like bullshit, by the mere connotation.  It’s the use of semantics without logic.  9-11 was the result of a conspiracy.  In other words, it was all plotted out and planned by somebody.  You can’t stage a 9-11 without an enormous amount of planning.  Semantics simply refers to the fact that certain words and phrases have meaning.  That the government covered up it’s involvement in 9-11, is a theory.  However, the fact of the matter is that the government was much more capable of pulling off 9-11 than 19 Muslims with box cutters, and had the motivation.  A 5 year old could tell you that.  And why were no aircraft engines found?  Duh?

conspiracy [kənˈspɪrəsɪ]
n pl -cies
1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret

The point is that there is a big difference between a conspiracy perpetrated by a group of well known terrorists and one proposed by a bunch of ill informed arm chair experts who think they know something that everyone else has missed. These are two different ways to use the same word, so implying that they are essentially the same IS arguing over semantics. We all know what we are talking about and the connotation that the armchair conspiracy theorists are bit off the deep end is definitely meant to connote that their claim is BS because that is all they ever present as evidence. Yes we are talking about a conspiracy created by known terrorists, not the kind of quack conspiracy theory put together by a bunch of guys with tin foil hats.

Just listen to yourself. Here we have a situation where thousands of people saw the planes hit the buildings live and in person ( including some members of my own family who were in the buildings but got out) and millions saw it on TV. You would have to be on drugs to believe that it didnt happen. So either you are denying that planes hit the buildings or you accept that they did and you now want us to believe what? that the planes flew into the buildings without engines or that someone secreted them away for some nefarious reason after they crashed to the ground? I’m sorry but all you folks offer is a lot of ridiculous assertions and no proof of anything.

[ Edited: 06 July 2012 01:45 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-06

“Just listen to yourself. Here we have a situation where thousands of people saw the planes hit the buildings live and in person ( including some members of my own family who were in the buildings but got out) and millions saw it on TV.”

Well, thousands of people say they’ve seen ghosts and UFOs, too, but it doesn’t mean I believe them.  I’m denying any planes hit WTC7, yet it collapsed in a free fall.  That was a demolition, plain and simple.

 Signature 

Oh, mother, don’t be so Sentimental. Things explode every day. - Monty Python

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
sanchezal28 - 07 July 2012 07:28 AM

“Just listen to yourself. Here we have a situation where thousands of people saw the planes hit the buildings live and in person ( including some members of my own family who were in the buildings but got out) and millions saw it on TV.”

Well, thousands of people say they’ve seen ghosts and UFOs, too, but it doesn’t mean I believe them.  I’m denying any planes hit WTC7, yet it collapsed in a free fall.  That was a demolition, plain and simple.

Thousands of eye witnesses from all walks of life with the same account, multiple videos from multiple vantage points from many different types of sources ( media and people on the street) all confirming that a plane hit the building and that doesnt meet your standard for evidence? OK there is clearly no framework for an intelligent discussion with you because the only facts you will accept are the ones that fit your personal view. We’re done here.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01

Er…we need to get back on topic here and it’s an extremely serious one. CFI supports the official WTC 7 explanation as a fact despite it not having a single piece of supporting scientific evidence. Claiming complete bunk as fact is completely unscientific and betrays severe uncritical thinking. Because CFI claims they support science and critical thinking but clearly don’t, in this case at least, they seem to be guilty of misrepresentation. Any lawyers here? Does this meet the legal definition of fraud and is it actionable?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Michael Fullerton - 07 July 2012 09:05 AM

CFI supports the official WTC 7 explanation as a fact despite it not having a single piece of supporting scientific evidence. Claiming complete bunk as fact is completely unscientific and betrays severe uncritical thinking. Because CFI claims they support science and critical thinking but clearly don’t, in this case at least, they seem to be guilty of misrepresentation. Any lawyers here? Does this meet the legal definition of fraud and is it actionable?

  ROFLMAO

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/29719/

psik

[ Edited: 07 July 2012 11:07 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 03:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

It amazes me how deep conspiracy theorists let themselves be led once any of their claims have been debunked. Only the claims that are undeniably false, even to them, are the ones they move away from (example, first it was explosives, then they changed it to “silent” thermite devices. Both claims debunked, as well as irrational considering the implication of the thousands of people supposedly covering it up). It seems most of their tactics rely on building cases on things that are very hard to falsify, at the time. They still can’t seem to realize that science is progressive and will catch up and prove them wrong, as it does time after time. All they have left to rely on in the end, is how any event in question was planned by government or whatever agency is best suited to them for that situation.

It’s like the last resort to avoid an inevitable collapse of their movie-like world view. Because nothing can be easier, and more intellectually dishonest, than saying people are “bought and paid for”.

It’s a losing situation for them, and a win win situation for us. Not only are they making us show them how wrong they are time after time, but they are also giving us more fuel in order to advance actual scientific knowledge, in other words, clarifying our understanding of how things actually work in reality.

Now excuse me, I’m late for work at the CIA….erm I mean…. the….other building next to it…

[ Edited: 07 July 2012 03:25 PM by Imaginos ]
 Signature 

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 91
5