6 of 91
6
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 07 July 2012 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 07 July 2012 09:05 AM

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?

I think it’s a much more serious issue when you start lying after I just finished giving you evidence you accepted that WTC 7 had multiple fires uncontrolled fires in it for a prolonged period of time, and the obvious conclusion is fire brought it down.

I already asked you why you think fire wouldn’t be sufficient to bring down the building, since you apparently reject the conclusion based upon evidence you continue to lie and say no one is presenting.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 05 July 2012 05:30 PM

One quick comment about the physics here. If you calculate the time it would take an object to drop from the top of the WTC to the top of the debris pile ( assuming the debris pile was at most 200 feet tall) you get the following formula.

d = vt + (1/2)a t squared

d = (1368-200)

v = 0

a = 9.8 m/s/s

so we get

(1368-200) = 0 + (1/2) 9.8 t squared

t = 15.4 seconds

Therefor the absolute minimum amount of time it would take for the top of the building to reach the top of the pile is 15.4 seconds no matter how it was destroyed. That brings us to only one conclusion. The gentleman who said it happened in 11 seconds was simply wrong or misspoke or was misquoted. It does not however do anything to suggest that the buildings collapsed in any way other than the way it appeared to. A planned demolition could not have made it happen any quicker than a pure free fall and a free fall covering that distance can not happen in less time then 15.4 seconds.

So once again, given the choice between accepting the expert opinion or your flawed logic I will go with the experts.

ROFLMAO

Are you one of those experts that caused that probe to Mars to crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

It is common knowledge among WTC watchers that the free fall time from 1360 feet is 9.2 seconds.  This is the first I have read that post.  You are using feet for the height of the building and meters for gravitational acceleration.  Either you should use 32.16 feet/sec^2 for acceleration or 419 meters for the height of the building.  Because of the mismatch your fall time is waayyy off.

It just goes to show that mathematics is not physics.

Did you pass that college physics course?

psik

[ Edited: 07 July 2012 10:33 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 07 July 2012 07:30 PM

I think it’s a much more serious issue when you start lying after I just finished giving you evidence you accepted that WTC 7 had multiple fires uncontrolled fires in it for a prolonged period of time, and the obvious conclusion is fire brought it down.

I already asked you why you think fire wouldn’t be sufficient to bring down the building, since you apparently reject the conclusion based upon evidence you continue to lie and say no one is presenting.

Of course that hotel in China of similar size which did not collapse due to fire is totally irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghy0SQa6zLk

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html

psik

[ Edited: 07 July 2012 08:12 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 07:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2012 07:40 PM

Of course that hotel in China of similar size which did not collapse dur to fire is totally irrelevant.

That’s correct. What’s your point?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 07 July 2012 07:53 PM
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2012 07:40 PM

Of course that hotel in China of similar size which did not collapse dur to fire is totally irrelevant.

That’s correct. What’s your point?

It was a sarcasm detection test.

FAIL!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2012 10:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2012 10:30 PM
Robert Walper - 07 July 2012 07:53 PM
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2012 07:40 PM

Of course that hotel in China of similar size which did not collapse dur to fire is totally irrelevant.

That’s correct. What’s your point?

It was a sarcasm detection test.

FAIL!

psik

I’m aware you’re being sarcastic. I was merely pointing out your sarcasm was actually pointing a correct thing. That thing being the concept of ‘irrelevance’.

Apparently you’re subscribing to the notion that similiar events must have identical results. A position of stupidity that is truly impressive, I’ll grant you that.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2012 07:34 PM

ROFLMAO

Are you one of those experts that caused that probe to Mars to crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

It is common knowledge among WTC watchers that the free fall time from 1360 feet is 9.2 seconds.  This is the first I have read that post.  You are using feet for the height of the building and meters for gravitational acceleration.  Either you should use 32.16 feet/sec^2 for acceleration or 419 meters for the height of the building.  Because of the mismatch your fall time is waayyy off.

It just goes to show that mathematics is not physics.

Did you pass that college physics course?

psik

Sorry, my bad. Luckily I didn’t have a multi million dollar mission riding on that. Regardless, this still adds no support to any argument for a controlled demolition.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 08 July 2012 05:20 AM

Sorry, my bad. Luckily I didn’t have a multi million dollar mission riding on that. Regardless, this still adds no support to any argument for a controlled demolition.

Where did I say anything about controlled demolition?

Who brought up the CIA?

You are arguing with some Truther Stereotype Projection that you have in your head but can’t even get you mathematical facts straight.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Imaginos - 07 July 2012 03:18 PM

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.

How ironic. Debunking means to show the falseness of a claim. I have shown that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the official WTC 7 explanation which CFI and most of its members regard as fact. If there is no evidence to support a claim as fact then that claim of factualness is false. I have debunked this claim yet they refuse to acknowledge this. They desperately cling to a crackpot myth just like cult members do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 07 July 2012 07:30 PM
Michael Fullerton - 07 July 2012 09:05 AM

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?

I think it’s a much more serious issue when you start lying after I just finished giving you evidence you accepted that WTC 7 had multiple fires uncontrolled fires in it for a prolonged period of time, and the obvious conclusion is fire brought it down.

I already asked you why you think fire wouldn’t be sufficient to bring down the building, since you apparently reject the conclusion based upon evidence you continue to lie and say no one is presenting.

You simply stated the fact that WTC 7 was on fire which nobody denies. Your wholly unsubstantiated claim is that these fires brought down the building. You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim therefore your ridiculous claim is not in any way shape or form evidence. You are fraudulently misrepresenting delusion as fact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 08:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 07 July 2012 10:41 PM

I’m aware you’re being sarcastic. I was merely pointing out your sarcasm was actually pointing a correct thing. That thing being the concept of ‘irrelevance’.

Apparently you’re subscribing to the notion that similiar events must have identical results. A position of stupidity that is truly impressive, I’ll grant you that.

Rarely in physics do you get “identical results” with complex events.  But the hotel in China was similar in size to WTC7 and the fire was obviously BIGGER and it also burned LONGER but then the building came nowhere near collapsing.  So really all you can do is dismiss it as “irrelevant”.

Great debating technique.  I win because I say so.  VERY SCIENTIFIC!

Isn’t there something in science about repeatability?

An important aspect of scientific experimentation is repeatability.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/1-scimethod.htm

Obviously we are not going to get too many people to set fire to multi-million dollar buildings as an experiment so the Chinese fire was not a controlled experiment.  But the two incidents are similar enough considering the peculiarity of the extreme response of WTC7 which has never before occurred in the history of skyscraper fires.  WTC1 and 2 are a special case of nearly identical buildings being hit by airliners.  Your response is typical of believers in the 9/11 religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

I know, those three buildings were destroyed by Higgs Bosons!  That should interest physicists.  ROFL

psik

[ Edited: 08 July 2012 08:44 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 08 July 2012 08:30 AM

You simply stated the fact that WTC 7 was on fire which nobody denies. Your wholly unsubstantiated claim is that these fires brought down the building. You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim therefore your ridiculous claim is not in any way shape or form evidence. You are fraudulently misrepresenting delusion as fact.

Again, by all means, explain why fire would not be sufficient to bring down the building in question. Why are you avoiding that question?

Here’s the official explanation as found in Wikipedia:

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[9] This followed NIST’s August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[36] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[9]

Seems quite conclusive to me.

psikeyhackr - 08 July 2012 08:36 AM

Rarely in physics do you get “identical results” with complex events.

Two buildings collapsing due to fire damage would be easily defined as ‘identical results’.

But the hotel in China was similar in size to WTC7 and the fire was obviously BIGGER and it also burned LONGER but then the building came nowhere near collapsing.  So really all you can do is dismiss it as “irrelevant”.

Correct, because you fail to present sufficient evidence they are similar enough to warrant suspicion. The size and time frame of a fire is not as important as the amount of heat it is generating and where in the building it is doing so, particularily with regards to steel structures. Quality and type of structural steel matters, how much fuel and what kind is available for the fire, where the fires are taking place, what kinds of fire resistance systems are in place (coatings), etc. There are many factors to consider, and you assessment is a simplistic “Two buildings of roughly same size caught fire, one collapsed the other didn’t, very suspicious!”

Again, an impressive demostration of incredible ignorance and stupidity.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 08 July 2012 10:39 AM
Michael Fullerton - 08 July 2012 08:30 AM

You simply stated the fact that WTC 7 was on fire which nobody denies. Your wholly unsubstantiated claim is that these fires brought down the building. You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim therefore your ridiculous claim is not in any way shape or form evidence. You are fraudulently misrepresenting delusion as fact.

Again, by all means, explain why fire would not be sufficient to bring down the building in question. Why are you avoiding that question?

Here’s the official explanation as found in Wikipedia:

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[9] This followed NIST’s August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[36] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[9]

Seems quite conclusive to me.

Conclusive? You believe a failed and fraudulent computer model that doesn’t replicate the actual event it is supposed to model (which is the whole point of a model) is conclusive? The WTC 7 building model takes much longer to fall, has no eight story period of free fall and shows massive deformations not seen in the actual WTC 7 fall. Computer models are only valid experiments when they replicate the thing they are modelling.

You believe a model which cannot be independently verified for errors because NIST refuses to release the data it is based on constitutes conclusive evidence? That explains a lot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 08 July 2012 11:18 AM

Conclusive? You believe a failed and fraudulent computer model that doesn’t replicate the actual event it is supposed to model (which is the whole point of a model) is conclusive? The WTC 7 building model takes much longer to fall, has no eight story period of free fall and shows massive deformations not seen in the actual WTC 7 fall. Computer models are only valid experiments when they replicate the thing they are modelling.

You believe a model which cannot be independently verified for errors because NIST refuses to release the data it is based on constitutes conclusive evidence? That explains a lot.

So the model is ‘failed’ and ‘fraudulent’ according to you, and then you turn right around and admit you don’t have access to the model they used because they didn’t give it out for independent verification. So you’re lying.

Cute. Well, when you have access to the model and actually determine its failings and fraudulent nature, let me know. Until then, you’re simply asserting in a vacuum.

If you’re so insistant on how important this is, construct your own model, see what happens and then submit it for peer review to the appropiate experts.

Interestingly enough, I need only Google for mere seconds to find detailed reports from NIST on the WTC 7 collapse analysis. Like so:

NIST Final Report on WTC 7 Collapse
Direct PDF Link

Funny how easily this information is available to anyone with five minutes access to Google and an actual interest in finding it is.

You sir are a liar, incompetent, ignorant and deluded. And you have the audacity to whine that you cannot find a scientist to debate you? Little hint: there’s reasons for that, I just listed them for you.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2012 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 08 July 2012 10:39 AM

Two buildings collapsing due to fire damage would be easily defined as ‘identical results’.

Only by the totally unscientific and semantially challenged.

Correct, because you fail to present sufficient evidence they are similar enough to warrant suspicion. The size and time frame of a fire is not as important as the amount of heat it is generating and where in the building it is doing so, particularily with regards to steel structures.

ROFL

Three steel skyscrapers “collapse” on the same day due to FIRE though that has never happened before or since but it is not “suspicious”.  WTC7 did not “collapse” like 1 and 2 though of course, it was not hit by an airliner.  Though 1 and 2 came down in less than two hours the building that was hit second came down first and the top tilted at 22 degrees though there has been great lack of interest in the center of gravity of that tilted portion.  Also very scientific.

It was those Higgs Bosons with box cutters.

psik

[ Edited: 08 July 2012 03:00 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 91
6