StephenLawrence - 01 October 2012 07:32 AM

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

So all you can come up with is sophistry BS?  Applying debating techniques to Newtonian physics is so hilarious.

So why is Ryan Mackey talking all of this stuff about modeling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

It is just so curious that Mackey talks about modeling but then does not build one.  A real model has to do real physics.  It will not be affected by Mackey’s incorrect math.  He uses the conservation of momentum equation but says nothing about how supports which must move or be destroyed will affect that equation.  The mass cannot attain that velocity.

psik

macgyver - 01 October 2012 07:29 AM

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.

And I have said many times that the NIST does not even provide the total amount of concrete in the towers in their 10,000 page report.  I have never claimed to have the correct data.

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.

Every theory must explain the facts.  How can you know what the facts are if you don’t have the data?  Once the nose of the aircraft was within a foot of the building it is a physics problem for which the initial conditions need to be known.  If we don’t know the distributions of steel and concrete are not known then we do not know the initial conditions.  The NIST report admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight and stiffness of the building. 

You just insist that I come up with a theory without sufficient data and I regard that as stupid.

psik

Imaginos - 01 October 2012 12:03 PM

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.

LOL

So you can play the JREF MANTRA.

Static and Dynamic, Static and Dynamic.

My model demonstrates Static and Dynamic.

The paper loops can support the static load of the washers.  I left it standing for three days.  But ENERGY is required to crush supports strong enough to hold that load.  The only source of energy is the kinetic enrgy of the falling mass which is what provides the Dynamic Load.  So it SLOWS DOWN, losing kinetic energy even though the mass is increasing which also slows it down due to the conservation of momentum, which is what I have been saying all along.  It is people who believe in MAGICAL PHYSICS who think the whole thing could collapse in less than triple free fall time.

You will talk all of that “static” stuff but then you don’t admit that the lower portion of every skyscraper must be designed to support a greater static load than the upper portion.  But if you don’t know the distributions of steel and concrete then how can you know how much greater it has to be?

If I am wrong then why can’t you build a physical model that can collapse completely?

But then you haven’t even tried.  The magical physics in your head explains everything.

psik

macgyver - 01 October 2012 07:26 AM

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.

You said “towers”.  How was I supposed to know you meant WTC 7.  How often have I discussed WTC 7?

If anything you point out something peculiar about this entire business.

Why is there a model for WTC 7 there aren’t models of the supposed collapses of WTC 1 & 2?

psik

psikeyhackr - 01 October 2012 03:36 PM

StephenLawrence - 01 October 2012 07:32 AM

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

So all you can come up with is sophistry BS?  Applying debating techniques to Newtonian physics is so hilarious.

 

Psik,

What I have done is looked at the premises that your belief is based on and questioned them. That is the way forward, if they stand up to scrutiny that is evidence in your favour and if they don’t it is evidence against.

The premises that seem most suspect to me are:

1) It isn’t possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.

2) It isn’t provable with correct data.

3) The law of conservation of momentum makes it physically impossible.

These do all need backing up. This is not sophistry BS, it is the case.

Stephen

GdB - 01 October 2012 12:24 AM

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.

*hands over bowl, goes to pop a bigger pot!*

macgyver - 27 September 2012 09:49 AM

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.

Popcorn; one of the 4 major food groups!! I’ll join you down the hall, the Three stooges sounds more entertaining, especially if they have Curly!

asanta - 01 October 2012 10:31 PM

Popcorn; one of the 4 major food groups!! I’ll join you down the hall, the Three stooges sounds more entertaining, especially if they have Curly!

asanta - 01 October 2012 10:31 PM

macgyver - 27 September 2012 09:49 AM

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.

Popcorn; one of the 4 major food groups!! I’ll join you down the hall, the Three stooges sounds more entertaining, especially if they have Curly!

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

BTW: Have you tried Zebra Mix? It’s this caramel, chocolate popcorn we found at Costco. It’s so difficult to eat only a little. 

Take care,

Derek

It would be nice to corral all 9/11 ‘conversations’ to one thread…. far easier to ignore that way. Hundreds of pages and not one new claim, and no new ‘information’.

StephenLawrence - 01 October 2012 10:11 PM

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?

Psik,

What I have done is looked at the premises that your belief is based on and questioned them. That is the way forward, if they stand up to scrutiny that is evidence in your favour and if they don’t it is evidence against.

The premises that seem most suspect to me are:

1) It isn’t possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.

2) It isn’t provable with correct data.

3) The law of conservation of momentum makes it physically impossible.

These do all need backing up. This is not sophistry BS, it is the case.

Stephen

Proofs exist in mathematics and logic.  Physics is more complicated.

I already provided a computer program using the conservation of momentum alone to show the minimum collapse time.  It is not my fault if you are not smart enough to run it.  But it is the conservation of momentum combined with the energy required to break the static supports from above that makes it impossible.

It is not my fault if you misinterpret what I say and then call it a premise as though that is intelligent.  But if it is possible to build a collapsing model then why don’t you do it?  Why hasn’t any engineering school even talked about doing it in 11 years? 

The tilt/rotation of the top of the south tower is an entirely separate issue that so conveniently gets consistently disappeared.

Logic and mathematics are intellectual exercises that get turned into pseudo-intellectual crap in the hands of sophists.  People who can BELIEVE the Official Story do not have to prove it is true but people who think it is nonsense have to prove it is nonsense.  Then the OTC believers start talking about mathematics but excuse not having the data to make use of that mathematics.  Like a 10,0000 page report from the NIST that does not specify the total for the concrete in the towers though it does it for the steel.  Then someone claims the Empire State Building had more concrete but won’t even back that up with a link. 

psik

asanta - 02 October 2012 12:23 PM

It would be nice to corral all 9/11 ‘conversations’ to one thread…. far easier to ignore that way. Hundreds of pages and not one new claim, and no new ‘information’.

It’s 300 years old Newtonian physics.  The Empire State Building is 81 years old.  It’s 43 years after the Moon landing.  What is NWE about skyscrapers.  Most people just don’t know enough about old ideas to demand the relevant data.

This should have been resolved within 6 months of 9/11 and 7th and 8th graders should have been able to figure out what information was necessary to resolve the problem.

But instead America is full of people like this who think they are intelligent and educated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wk4qG2mIg

psik

GdB - 01 October 2012 11:18 PM

asanta - 01 October 2012 10:31 PM

Popcorn; one of the 4 major food groups!! I’ll join you down the hall, the Three stooges sounds more entertaining, especially if they have Curly!

Make sure you all share. 

Mriana - 02 October 2012 06:21 PM

GdB - 01 October 2012 11:18 PM

asanta - 01 October 2012 10:31 PM

Popcorn; one of the 4 major food groups!! I’ll join you down the hall, the Three stooges sounds more entertaining, especially if they have Curly!

Make sure you all share. 

Always! 

psikeyhackr - 02 October 2012 05:56 PM

Proofs exist in mathematics and logic.  Physics is more complicated.

But it is the conservation of momentum combined with the energy required to break the static supports from above that makes it impossible.

Says you and your model. 

Your evidence for 3) is very weak.

But if it is possible to build a collapsing model then why don’t you do it?

I can think of a number of reasons. 1) Too expensive 2) Lack of need or motivation 3) Too enormous a task, perhaps they would need to actually fly planes into buildings. 4) Don’t know how. 5) It’s deemed wrong to wast money time and energy on disproving conspiracy theories because the conspiracy theorists would never believe it and because it would need to be done for every conspiracy theory tht comes along.

All of these seem more plausible than it is impossible.

You’ve just jumped to the conclusion that because nobody has done it, it can’t be done in principle.

So your evidence for 1) is very weak, it can’t be done because it hasn’t been done just won’t cut ice at all.

Logic and mathematics are intellectual exercises that get turned into pseudo-intellectual crap in the hands of sophists.

What we are discussing is your reasons to believe as you do. Your reasons are very weak and you are being the sophist by not accepting that.