8 of 22
8
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 26 September 2012 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2216
Joined  2007-04-26

I agree asanta. I’ve done my best to get him to have a logical discussion about this and it seems like Im just spinning my wheels. We can’t even get past step one. Pass the popcorn and lets see what else is on. This is getting a bit boring.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2012 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 26 September 2012 04:37 PM

I agree asanta. I’ve done my best to get him to have a logical discussion about this and it seems like Im just spinning my wheels. We can’t even get past step one. Pass the popcorn and lets see what else is on. This is getting a bit boring.

You said this in post #103

Read my response and you will see we are saying basically the same thing except that you still havent answered the question “How fast should it have come down even if it didn’t have to crush the supports?”

I had already said this in post #89

It uses 110 masses floating in the air supported by nothing to simulate a top don collapse.  The top 14 masses are dropped on the rest.  If the masses are equal it takes 12 seconds.  Making the data more bottom heavy can increase the time to 14 seconds.  No energy and therefore time is lost breaking supports.

Who is wasting whose time?

And then you want to talk about math.  JEEZ!

And I provided you with a link where the program was discussed on another site.

This site records the date and time of the last change to any post so you can’t say I went back and changed it.

psik

[ Edited: 26 September 2012 08:49 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2012 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4542
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 26 September 2012 09:46 AM

So where is the physical model built by you or anyone else to demonstrate what you claim?

You must support your claim:  a lighter weaker portion of a building cannot crush a stronger heavier and larger portion.

That does not fit my experience. And your card box model is absolutely worthless. I am sure it is not build of CONCRETE, why, you do not even know how much you should use! LOL

As long as you use such BS physical statements that just try to make some emotional argument for physical facts, discussing with you is worthless.

I think I take some popcorn too, and leave the premises. I’ll just watch for new BS physical statements. cool mad

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
GdB - 26 September 2012 11:15 PM
psikeyhackr - 26 September 2012 09:46 AM

So where is the physical model built by you or anyone else to demonstrate what you claim?

You must support your claim:  a lighter weaker portion of a building cannot crush a stronger heavier and larger portion.

That does not fit my experience. And your card box model is absolutely worthless. I am sure it is not build of CONCRETE, why, you do not even know how much you should use! LOL

As long as you use such BS physical statements that just try to make some emotional argument for physical facts, discussing with you is worthless.

I think I take some popcorn too, and leave the premises. I’ll just watch for new BS physical statements. cool mad

*Passing around the popcorn* I guess I won’t need to make another pot! tongue wink

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 26 September 2012 11:15 PM

You must support your claim:  a lighter weaker portion of a building cannot crush a stronger heavier and larger portion.

But you do not have to support your claim that the Empire State Building had more concrete than the WTC.  LOL

GdB - 20 September 2012 02:12 AM

Yes, psikeyhackr, there was MUCH MORE CONCRETE in the Empire State Building than in WTC.

The conservation of momentum and the energy required to crush supports back up what I am saying.  Just because some people can’t figure out the obvious and and just respond with denial means nothing.

No engineering school has built a collapsing model in 11 years.  In fact I have not heard of any even discuss making the attempt.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4542
Joined  2007-08-31

*SMACK* *SMACK*

You some more popcorn, Asanta? Mcgyver?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2216
Joined  2007-04-26

Sorry GdB. This is a multiplex. I moved to the theater down the hall. There’s a three stooges marathon going on. Just as goofy as this show but much more entertaining. Better hurry. The popcorn is going fast. I’ll do my best to save you some but asanta is eating it by the fistful.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

Hello psikeyhackr. Would you mind telling me exactly how you think the towers came to collapse? I haven’t been on these forums for very long, but I’m curious to know exactly what explanation you have for the collapse of the towers. Chronologically the events that led to the collapse, as well as the people responsible. I only ask because so far I have only seen you discuss the physics of the collapse itself. Thank you.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 04:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2216
Joined  2007-04-26

Good luck with that Imaginos. Psik is very good at telling everyone what couldn’t have happened because the physics doesnt work for him, but he is extremely adept at not answering the very question you put to him even though his postings on another forum clearly show he has an opinion on the subject. He seems to be trying to appear as though he is a man without an agenda who only cares about the science but that is just not true.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Imaginos - 30 September 2012 04:02 PM

Hello psikeyhackr. Would you mind telling me exactly how you think the towers came to collapse?

The people who BELIEVE that an airliner and fire could totally destroy the north tower do not have to explain it in terms of accurate data about the buildings but people who do not believe it are supposed to explain things in detail even though they are denied accurate data.

Great SCIENCE from atheists.  LOL

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up.  That means the levels at the bottom must support much more weight than the levels near the top.  So obviously the designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel up the buildings long before they were hit by aircraft.  Gravity has everything to do with skyscrapers and therefore any supposed collapse.

So why do we have a problem with getting that information?

A bowling ball dropped from the top through vacuum would take 9.2 seconds to hit the ground.  Dr. Sunder of the NIST told PBS that the north tower came down in 11 seconds.  That does not include the remains of the core called “The Spire”.  The whole thing came down in 25 seconds.  So how could mass falling from the top destroy supports underneath the impacted mass and accelerate enough to come down in less than 26 seconds.

Chris Mohr talks about material coming down at 100 mph.

In Earth’s gravitational field it takes a mass a little more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph. But that is assuming no air resistance to significantly affect the speed. In that time the mass would travel 324 feet. That would be 27 stories of height of the WTC. Now how much mass, in steel and concrete, would there be in 27 stories of the WTC?  So it all skyscrapers must get heavier toward the bottom.  So how does smaller, lighter and weaker mass accelerate its greater?  Believers do not have to explain that and don’t even want accurate data.

That is what makes 9/11 a scientific joke.

It is so curious that Niel De Grasse Tyson sent an email about his experience on 9/11 but has said NOTHING about it since then.  He neither supports nor denies the Official Story. 

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2001/09/12/the-horror-the-horror

There is so much silence from so many scientists about this.  Curiouser and curiouser.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

He seems to be trying to appear as though he is a man without an agenda who only cares about the science but that is just not true.

Appearing to who? Himself? Because I think most of us can distinguish those who use scientific methods to better our knowledge, as opposed to those who borrow scientific methods to disprove what has already been explained. Basically instead of adding knowledge, they are trying to subtract it, so it fits their own view. I’m Just trying to understand why he is so giddy about this one particular subject. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists I know personally (not saying you are psikey, which is why I asked) share the same kinda of expressive zeal (laughing out loud and stuff) when it doesn’t fit their hilarious demolition theories. I don’t care if you are, I just think you should discuss the validity of your own theory (whatever it is), before you even start trying to break down the rational one we already have that is consistent with other areas of knowledge. =P Is this not an honest approach to understanding??

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

The people who BELIEVE that an airliner and fire could totally destroy the north tower do not have to explain it in terms of accurate data about the buildings but people who do not believe it are supposed to explain things in detail even though they are denied accurate data.

Cmon man, you didn’t even try to answer my question. I didn’t ask about people’s roles or responsibility in providing data.

You are trying to dissect an event that happened so fast and viewed from so far. We use the methods we have to build an understanding that is as close as we can to reality, given the information we have. The only way to have perfectly accurate data would be to reproduce the event in its entirety, having cameras everywhere on each floor to observe the fires spreading, then as the towers collapse to slow down time so we can observe every point of impact as the floors collide to see the how it would affect the distribution of weight shifting or something…

Great SCIENCE from atheists.

/facepalm

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Imaginos - 30 September 2012 07:43 PM

I’m Just trying to understand why he is so giddy about this one particular subject. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists I know personally (not saying you are psikey, which is why I asked) share the same kinda of expressive zeal (laughing out loud and stuff) when it doesn’t fit their hilarious demolition theories. I don’t care if you are, I just think you should discuss the validity of your own theory (whatever it is), before you even start trying to break down the rational one we already have that is consistent with other areas of knowledge. =P Is this not an honest approach to understanding??

There are things far more important than 9/11 that are peculiar about this society but they also involve physics.

Cars wear out and therefore depreciate.  But do you ever hear economists talk about how much any country loses on the depreciation of automobiles every year?  There were 200,000,000 cars in the United States in 1995.  At $1,500 in depreciation per car that comes to $300,000,000,000 per year.  The Laws of Physics do not change style every year so why do we keep redesigning cars every year?  Our economists constantly talk about GDP but you can only find NDP in economics books.  NDP takes the depreciation of capital goods into account but that of consumer goods disappears into space.

So my complaint is experts ignoring science when they want to and 9/11 is just the most obviously stupid example of that.

That is one of the problems with 9/11.  People are more concerned about psychology than physics.  But the thing about physics is that psychology is totally irrelevant.  It is all of the people who get the physics wrong who have the psychological problem.  I have an experiment that conforms to the way I think physics works.  So why can’t people who say the towers should have collapse make an experiment do what they say?  physics does not care about psychology.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Imaginos - 30 September 2012 08:08 PM

The people who BELIEVE that an airliner and fire could totally destroy the north tower do not have to explain it in terms of accurate data about the buildings but people who do not believe it are supposed to explain things in detail even though they are denied accurate data.

Cmon man, you didn’t even try to answer my question. I didn’t ask about people’s roles or responsibility in providing data.

You are trying to dissect an event that happened so fast and viewed from so far. We use the methods we have to build an understanding that is as close as we can to reality, given the information we have. The only way to have perfectly accurate data would be to reproduce the event in its entirety, having cameras everywhere on each floor to observe the fires spreading, then as the towers collapse to slow down time so we can observe every point of impact as the floors collide to see the how it would affect the distribution of weight shifting or something…

Great SCIENCE from atheists.

/facepalm

He IS our resident 9/11 truther. Don’t worry, he doesn’t answer anyone elses questions either. He just runs off on tangents and conspiracies.  zipper He is quite sensible about anything else though.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2012 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Imaginos - 30 September 2012 08:08 PM

The people who BELIEVE that an airliner and fire could totally destroy the north tower do not have to explain it in terms of accurate data about the buildings but people who do not believe it are supposed to explain things in detail even though they are denied accurate data.

Cmon man, you didn’t even try to answer my question. I didn’t ask about people’s roles or responsibility in providing data.

You are trying to dissect an event that happened so fast and viewed from so far. We use the methods we have to build an understanding that is as close as we can to reality, given the information we have. The only way to have perfectly accurate data would be to reproduce the event in its entirety, having cameras everywhere on each floor to observe the fires spreading, then as the towers collapse to slow down time so we can observe every point of impact as the floors collide to see the how it would affect the distribution of weight shifting or something…

Great SCIENCE from atheists.

/facepalm

The entire point is that it happened so fast.

It is called the conservation of momentum.  If a mass hits a stationary mass of the same size then the conservation of momentum will cut the velocity in half.  The building had to get stronger and heavier toward the bottom.  So the whole idea of the collapse is actually ridiculous.  So it is people who do not understand the physics who say it could happen.

But it has been 11 years.  So how many people want to believe they have been that stupid for 11 years?  But that gets into psychology NOT PHYSICS.  What is there to prevent any engineering school from scaling up my model and testing it?  NOTHING!  So some people are refusing to do the science regarding 9/11.

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

The distribution of mass affects the conservation of momentum so what explanation can people claiming to be scientific have for not expecting and making public accurate data.  This is a case of people claiming to be intelligent and knowledgeable refusing to be scientific.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 22
8