I am sorry but I must persist with my initial question for the sake of consistency. Would you mind telling me exactly how you think the towers came to collapse? Chronologically the events that led to the collapse, as well as the people responsable.

I am not asking about how your own investigation of the reports have shown them to be erroneous.

If the plane’s initial damage + the fire’s weakening the structure did not lead to it’s collapse, what did? Simple question no?

asanta - 30 September 2012 08:24 PM

He IS our resident 9/11 truther.

Yeah. It is a nice exemplar. It’s good that he is fed so now and then.  Some popcorn, Asanta?

Imaginos, when you get tired, sit back and get some popcorn too. We have enough here.

Imaginos - 30 September 2012 10:33 PM

I am sorry but I must persist with my initial question for the sake of consistency. Would you mind telling me exactly how you think the towers came to collapse? Chronologically the events that led to the collapse, as well as the people responsable.

I am not asking about how your own investigation of the reports have shown them to be erroneous.

If the plane’s initial damage + the fire’s weakening the structure did not lead to it’s collapse, what did? Simple question no?

LOL, I told you he wouldnt answer.

Imaginos - 30 September 2012 10:33 PM

I am sorry but I must persist with my initial question for the sake of consistency. Would you mind telling me exactly how you think the towers came to collapse? Chronologically the events that led to the collapse, as well as the people responsable.

I am not asking about how your own investigation of the reports have shown them to be erroneous.

If the plane’s initial damage + the fire’s weakening the structure did not lead to it’s collapse, what did? Simple question no?

What Psik is saying is he doesn’t need another theory, he just needs to know that it’s physically impossible for the buildings to have collapsed that way, to know it must have happened some other way.

So the question is how does he know?

Stephen

One other thing. Psik is very fond of complaining about that the government has not released the assumptions and values they used to create their model of the towers collapse but you will notice that even though I have asked him several times he has yet to come forward with the details he used for his calculations. He is happy now to tell us how long it should have taken an object to free fall the distance that towers fell but he doesn’t tell us what value he used for the distance or how that value was determined ( did he use the absolute height of the towers form the roof to the ground? Did he use the distance from the roof to the top of the debris pile and if so how did he determine that distance?).

And Stephen psik is wrong that he doesn’t need another theory. There has to be some logical explanation of what happened. Either you come up with a theory that does a better job of explaining the facts or you need to reexamine your analysis to see if you made a mistake. There are so many assumptions that need to be made when we model this that it is more than likely the answer lies there.

Psik’s argument basically comes down to “the building fell too fast for it to have happened the way they said so the only explanation is that someone blew out the supports in an orchestrated way after the planes hit and this made the building fall faster”. He will deny that is his theory but he is full of it if he does.

The problem with his theory is that you need some way to calculate the time it would take the building to fall using his theory and the time it would take to fall using the accepted theory and then see if the margin of error in both calculations is small enough to allow you to separate the two.

Neither psik nor ay of us here has the technical know how to do that but he is unwilling to accept that conclusion.

macgyver - 01 October 2012 06:32 AM

And Stephen psik is wrong that he doesn’t need another theory. There has to be some logical explanation of what happened.

Rather there has to be a physically possible explanation. My point is his case is built on his claim he knows it didn’t happen the way it seems because he knows that is physically impossible.

So that is the claim that should be challenged. Presumably he doesn’t know it was physically impossible at all.

The other day I decided to watch a clip of the towers collapsing and it is quite clear what had happened: the collapse is triggered by the destruction of the section of the building where the planes hit. I have actually never watched these clips focusing on this detail before, and I must say that now that I am aware that the evidence of what had happened exists, anybody who claims the towers didn’t collapse due to this very reason is either ignorant (as they have never seen the video) or mildly retarded. I presume psik has seen the video…

macgyver - 01 October 2012 06:32 AM

One other thing. Psik is very fond of complaining about that the government has not released the assumptions and values they used to create their model of the towers collapse but you will notice that even though I have asked him several times he has yet to come forward with the details he used for his calculations.

Would you please provide a link to the GOVERNMENT MODEL of the twin tower collapse that you are talking about.  They have a model for WTC7 but I have not seen one for either of the towers.

psik

StephenLawrence - 01 October 2012 06:39 AM

macgyver - 01 October 2012 06:32 AM

And Stephen psik is wrong that he doesn’t need another theory. There has to be some logical explanation of what happened.

Rather there has to be a physically possible explanation. My point is his case is built on his claim he knows it didn’t happen the way it seems because he knows that is physically impossible.

So that is the claim that should be challenged. Presumably he doesn’t know it was physically impossible at all.

If it was physically possible then it should be PROVABLE with CORRECT DATA.  It should also be possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.  An accurate computer model cannot possibly be made without correct data.

So why should anyone object to having correct data?  Of course people who cannot understand the conservation of momentum would not care about the data one way or the other.

psik

psikeyhackr - 01 October 2012 07:11 AM

macgyver - 01 October 2012 06:32 AM

One other thing. Psik is very fond of complaining about that the government has not released the assumptions and values they used to create their model of the towers collapse but you will notice that even though I have asked him several times he has yet to come forward with the details he used for his calculations.

Would you please provide a link to the GOVERNMENT MODEL of the twin tower collapse that you are talking about.  They have a model for WTC7 but I have not seen one for either of the towers.

psik

I meant WTC7 but you can choose to quibble over that error rather than respond the actual point since that is your mode of operation.

psikeyhackr - 01 October 2012 07:17 AM

So why should anyone object to having correct data?  psik

We dont object. Thats why I have asked you to give us yours more times than I care to count.

psikeyhackr - 01 October 2012 07:17 AM

If it was physically possible then it should be PROVABLE with CORRECT DATA.

I’d question 1) is this true?

2) What evidence is there that it isn’t provable with correct data?

It should also be possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.

Again I’d question 1) is this true?

2) What evidence is there that it isn’t possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon?

Of course people who cannot understand the conservation of momentum would not care about the data one way or the other.

And this is your other piece of evidence that it is physically impossible, is that right?

So what evidence is there that this law makes the collapse due to the planes crashing into the buildings and the fire physically impossible?

Stephen

I’m still convinced it was all a plot by the nefarious Moleman.

LOL, I told you he wouldnt answer.

Eh I just didn’t feel like derailing by his attempt to change the subject :( I’ve seen it happen and figured a little persistence would pay off. It’s easier on a keyboard to avoid it I suppose. By experience, in person it’s quite different. Oh well. I think psikey doesn’t understand the difference between static load and dynamic load, as well as under-estimating the force of a dynamic load. This is clear when he says:

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up.  That means the levels at the bottom must support much more weight than the levels near the top.

I thought you were all about the physics man. How can you not even know what a dynamic load is? Based on this logic, it’s as if when you were watching the top part of the building collapse, you were expecting it to suddenly stop! I can understand you might think that if the plane hit right under the top floor, only having one floor’s worth falling. But come on man… Ridiculous.

Eh well, I will take the advice you all gave me into consideration…. *Walks away from the room grumbling, searching for popcorn*

lol @ Dead Monky AND at your pic btw. Love Katamari

Edit: How do you guys get your different smiley faces to be animated? O.O

Imaginos, our program has a very limited number of primative smilies, and we haven’t been able to get the list updated.  You are stuck with them, however, a few members got their own library from other sources and add them to their posts. Some of them are animated.  Good luck.

Occam