41 of 91
41
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 17 September 2013 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 601 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Lausten - 17 September 2013 11:08 AM
CuthbertJ - 17 September 2013 09:52 AM

The maneuvers they performed with jetliners, with only minimal simulator training would be impossible. They’d be difficult by fully trained pilots, yet alone these supposed flyers.

That is patently absurd. The easiest thing to do with a plane is keep it in the air. Turning it and dropping down to hit the towers is not that much harder. Landing without crashing, now that’s a challenge. They had many hours in small aircraft and time in jet simulators.

It is so nice that some people actually investigate these things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

rather than have opinions based on no data.

Just two perfect turns in the last 12 seconds.  Very machine like.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2013 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 602 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1286
Joined  2009-10-21
psikeyhackr - 17 September 2013 05:58 PM

It is so nice that some people actually investigate these things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

rather than have opinions based on no data.

Just two perfect turns in the last 12 seconds.  Very machine like.

psik

Does this video ever address anything about the difficulty of flying a jet? Or does it just keep showing dots and lines and numbers?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2013 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 603 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

Psike I am holding a handful of straws here if you’re running low and you need a few more to grasp at.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2013 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 604 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
macgyver - 18 September 2013 09:48 AM

Psike I am holding a handful of straws here if you’re running low and you need a few more to grasp at.

I have some extras, too, should you run short.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2013 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 605 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  753
Joined  2012-04-25
psikeyhackr - 17 September 2013 05:58 PM
Lausten - 17 September 2013 11:08 AM
CuthbertJ - 17 September 2013 09:52 AM

The maneuvers they performed with jetliners, with only minimal simulator training would be impossible. They’d be difficult by fully trained pilots, yet alone these supposed flyers.

That is patently absurd. The easiest thing to do with a plane is keep it in the air. Turning it and dropping down to hit the towers is not that much harder. Landing without crashing, now that’s a challenge. They had many hours in small aircraft and time in jet simulators.

It is so nice that some people actually investigate these things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

rather than have opinions based on no data.

Just two perfect turns in the last 12 seconds.  Very machine like.

psik

Ya that was a pretty silly video. The fact of the matter is, as attested to by professional jetliner pilots, that kind of precision flying of a jetliner, NOT a piper cub, is extremely difficult.  Here’s another video from a seasoned airline pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMJUJO794f8

I can hear all the truth deniers already…he was paid, he stands to get money, etc. Whatever, at this point you either trust the governments explanation (you know, that government that has installed dictators, wires taps but denies it, and on and on) or you’re skeptical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2013 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 606 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1286
Joined  2009-10-21
CuthbertJ - 18 September 2013 06:01 PM

The fact of the matter is, as attested to by professional jetliner pilots, that kind of precision flying of a jetliner, NOT a piper cub, is extremely difficult.  Here’s another video from a seasoned airline pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMJUJO794f8

I can hear all the truth deniers already…he was paid, he stands to get money, etc. Whatever, at this point you either trust the governments explanation (you know, that government that has installed dictators, wires taps but denies it, and on and on) or you’re skeptical.

You’re kidding right. It doesn’t take a half an hour to say, that is a difficult turn. I’m not listening to that. Really, I don’t get the problem here. Everyone who is at the very beginning of learning to fly has to turn a plane, line it up with a runway and descend. To hit the side of a tall building, you don’t have to be precise about your altitude. You have a few hundred feet to play with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2013 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 607 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers’ small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers’ response to A&E

(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: “Impossible to place explosives”
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - “Fuel in elevators shafts” theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: “Explosions not recorded by tv cameras”
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers’ explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete
0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

[16524]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 12:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 608 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 16 September 2013 11:05 AM
jomper - 03 June 2013 11:04 PM
Lois - 01 June 2013 10:11 AM
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.

Of course, this is ad hominem as well, Lois. The fact you cannot understand psikey’s points does not ipso facto mean his points are false.

It may, however, mean that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But you can’t demonstrate that, which is the point psikey was making—so it’s ad hominem, Lois.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 01:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 609 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 15 September 2013 10:52 PM
psikeyhackr - 12 September 2013 06:57 AM

Well we have reached the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 Affair.

And it’s been eight years since we’ve had a solid and scientifically sound explanation for everything that happened. Such is the power of science and empirical investigation. smile

Clearly untrue: demonstrated, for example, by NIST saying there were shear studs on WTC 7’s girders and beams in its interim report in 2004—but asserting that there were no shear studs installed on the girders in 2008, in order to support its hypothesis that girder failure occurred.

One might also ask what value there is to empirical investigation if there is no forensic application, given that NIST examined precisely zero physical evidence from the building while indulging in computer-based speculation that no-one can check.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 610 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05

A 3D model of WTC1 could be built like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INPLp5h0EEQ

It could be built one or more levels at a time so the complete stack would be 13 ft 9 inches.  Some printers have a precision of less than 1/1000th of an inch so hollow box columns could be made with walls of varying thickness. 

But columns could be tested for strength to be as weak as possible relative the the weight and the structure could be weighted to have the same distribution as the WTC.  IF WE EVER GOT THE DATA.  It could then be tested for complete collapse and the 3D diagrams could be sent all over the world and the tests repeated by anyone with the equipment to produce the components.

So if it won’t collapse even if designed to be as weak as possible then what was the story on 9/11?

But that would present a problem for all of the people who have said collapse was possible for 12 years.

Experimentation is so unscientific.

[16,733]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 611 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02

psikey still doesn’t understand the concept that even if you created a small model of WTC as an absolutely perfect replica (dimensions, mass, material makeup, etc), it wouldn’t behave the same way, because mass and dimensions do not scale at the same rate.

Poor psikey. :(

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2013 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 612 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05

Some time ago I wrote Python program that computes the collapse time of 109 masses floating above one another 12 feet apart by dropping the top 14 onto the rest to be slowed down only by the Conservation of Momentum.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306&sid=cd78e73921865f92c496e07c8428df10#64306

This could only happen in a computer with masses held up by “magic”.

In the real world physical supports would be required to hold the masses 12 feet apart.

But destroying supports from above would require energy. But that would mean taking kinetic energy from the falling mass. That would slow it down. That would means INCREASING THE COLLAPSE TIME.

So suppose we subtracted energy from the falling mass 1% at a time per collision and recompute the collapse time. Increase the percentage again and again and see how high would the percentage have to get until the collapse time was greater than the actual event? But if the percentage was still ridiculously low then how could it be explained?

0% = 12.88 sec
1% = 13.56 sec
2% = 14.22 sec
3% = 14.85 sec
4% = 15.47 sec
5% = 16.09 sec
6% = 16.69 sec
7% = 17.28 sec
8% = 17.85 sec
9% = 18.43 sec
10% = 18.97 sec
11% = 19.49 sec
12% = 20.04 sec
13% = 20.55 sec
14% = 21.08 sec
15% = 21.58 sec
16% = 22.06 sec
17% = 22.57 sec
18% = 23.07 sec
19% = 23.55 sec
20% = 24.03 sec
21% = 24.51 sec
22% = 24.97 sec

23% = 25.46 sec
24% = 25.94 sec

25% = 26.39 sec
50% = 37.71 sec
75% = 50.82 sec
88% = 60.47 sec
90% = 62.42 sec
95% = 68.71 sec

Since the momentum only collapse time was about the same as the collapse time of the main mass of the north tower that should have made it obvious to everyone that something bizarre had to have occurred. 0% energy lost breaking/crushing supports gives 12.88 seconds. That is with masses held up by “magic”. But a 1% loss of energy raises the collapse time to 13.56 seconds. Then another percent gives 14.22 seconds. At 22% the time is 24.97 seconds. But 25 seconds is the time including what it took for “The Spire” to come down. That was just the damaged remains of the core. But this means all of the building supports had to absorb less than 22% of the Kinetic Energy, which had to come from the Potential Energy of the building. 75% would double the total collapse time.

That program reduces the kinetic energy right after each collision. Would computing it before the collision matter significantly.

Curious how our experts can’t get this Potential Energy data reasonably correct in 12 years.

So how did breaking the supports take so little energy? Not that this is an actual calculation of the energy it would take to break them. Only the percentage required to slow things down and not get out of range of the time of what was recorded. So how could what was recorded happen?

psik

[ Edited: 06 October 2013 10:07 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2013 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 613 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  458
Joined  2012-07-02

Poor psikey doesn’t understand how falling masses are gaining their kinetic energy from their potential energy under the force of gravity. This is why things accelerate towards a mass when you put them within a gravity field.

He seems to think a falling object only loses energy when its falling and encountering resisting forces. Apparently this is why skydivers eventually float to stop when jumping out of airplanes, because they’re encountering an enormous amount of resistant force (air pressure) the entire way down. In fact that resistance increases significantly as you drop down into the denser atmosphere further and further down.

Psikey doesn’t seem to understand the slightest thing about physics, he just failed to understand how simple gravity works. Typical 9/11 truther! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2013 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 614 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

It seems pretty obvious after 41 pages that the answer to the OP from the forum here is “no”.

I note that the NIST report is debunked in its own terms, even though it was plainly pseudoscience from the start, because the omission of stiffener plates from its analysis invalidates the column 79 progressive collapse hypothesis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2013 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 615 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
jomper - 05 November 2013 12:02 PM

It seems pretty obvious after 41 pages that the answer to the OP from the forum here is “no”.

I note that the NIST report is debunked in its own terms, even though it was plainly pseudoscience from the start, because the omission of stiffener plates from its analysis invalidates the column 79 progressive collapse hypothesis.

Can I consider my witnessing 2 planes crashing into the buildings on TV as evidence?
If I can consider that as evidence then I support the Official Facts.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
41 of 91
41