StephenLawrence - 02 October 2012 11:12 PM

Says you and your model. 

Your evidence for 3) is very weak.

Physical models can’t talk.

So where is the physical model where the top 15% by height and 15% or less by weight can destroy all of the supports below?

So you can talk.  I’m impressed.

The 9/11 decade is great for scientific consensus.  Everybody agrees to throw experimentation out the window. 

psik

psikeyhackr - 03 October 2012 07:38 AM

StephenLawrence - 02 October 2012 11:12 PM

Says you and your model. 

Your evidence for 3) is very weak.

Physical models can’t talk.

Because your model doesn’t replicate what happened does not mean it’s impossible to replicate what happened.

So where is the physical model where the top 15% by height and 15% or less by weight can destroy all of the supports below?

If it’s true there is no such model that does not mean such a model is impossible.

Your argument, as it stands, is sophistry and it’s easy to point out why.

Why don’t you accept that?

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 03 October 2012 08:11 AM

psikeyhackr - 03 October 2012 07:38 AM

StephenLawrence - 02 October 2012 11:12 PM

Says you and your model. 

Your evidence for 3) is very weak.

Physical models can’t talk.

Because your model doesn’t replicate what happened does not mean it’s impossible to replicate what happened.

So where is the physical model where the top 15% by height and 15% or less by weight can destroy all of the supports below?

If it’s true there is no such model that does not mean such a model is impossible.

Your argument, as it stands, is sophistry and it’s easy to point out why.

Why don’t you accept that?

Stephen

I agree that because I THINK it is impossible does not constitute proof that it is impossible. 

But all someone has to do is make such a model which exh9ibits that behavior to demonstrate that it is possible.  To date I have not run across an engineering school even discussing trying to build one.

I have presented a computer model computing collapse time based on the conservation of momentum and a physical model that does not collapse.  What has anyone presented here besides the CLAIM that the Empire State Building had more concrete?

psik

psikeyhackr - 03 October 2012 10:33 AM

I agree that because I THINK it is impossible does not constitute proof that it is impossible.

That is true.

But all someone has to do is make such a model which exh9ibits that behavior to demonstrate that it is possible.

I agree, although the word “all” is misleading. I suspect it is very difficult.

And the problem is, again, the fact that nobody has, doesn’t give you much more reason to believe it is physically impossible. There are lots of things nobody has done which are not physically impossible.

  To date I have not run across an engineering school even discussing trying to build one.

Again, there could be many explanations for that. That it is physically impossible hardly seems to be one of them at all.

I have presented a computer model computing collapse time based on the conservation of momentum and a physical model that does not collapse.  What has anyone presented here besides the CLAIM that the Empire State Building had more concrete?

I’ve only questioned your reasons for believing as you do. The reasons are weak as I’ve said. Dunno what others have done.

Fact is the reasons for your belief are weak and we are dealing with an extraordinary claim.

That’s enough to doubt that you are right.

Stephen

psikeyhackr - 03 October 2012 10:33 AM

I agree that because I THINK it is impossible does not constitute proof that it is impossible. 

But all someone has to do is make such a model which exh9ibits that behavior to demonstrate that it is possible.  To date I have not run across an engineering school even discussing trying to build one.

I have presented a computer model computing collapse time based on the conservation of momentum and a physical model that does not collapse.  What has anyone presented here besides the CLAIM that the Empire State Building had more concrete?

psik

So raise a few billion dollars to have the building replicated with all of its interior decor and people, buy a plane, fill it with people and pay someone to fly into the buildings. Obviously, the only way to ‘be sure’. Good luck with that.

asanta - 03 October 2012 01:59 PM

psikeyhackr - 03 October 2012 10:33 AM

I agree that because I THINK it is impossible does not constitute proof that it is impossible. 

But all someone has to do is make such a model which exh9ibits that behavior to demonstrate that it is possible.  To date I have not run across an engineering school even discussing trying to build one.

I have presented a computer model computing collapse time based on the conservation of momentum and a physical model that does not collapse.  What has anyone presented here besides the CLAIM that the Empire State Building had more concrete?

psik

So raise a few billion dollars to have the building replicated with all of its interior decor and people, buy a plane, fill it with people and pay someone to fly into the buildings. Obviously, the only way to ‘be sure’. Good luck with that.

That wouldn’t do it. It depends what the probability of it happening was.

Perhaps doing that 50 times would be enough.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 03 October 2012 10:54 PM

That wouldn’t do it. It depends what the probability of it happening was.

Perhaps doing that 50 times would be enough.

Stephen

Then lets get started. And while we’re at it, lets crash 50 asteroids into the earth to prove the KT extinctions.

StephenLawrence - 03 October 2012 10:46 AM

I’ve only questioned your reasons for believing as you do.

The reasons are weak as I’ve said. Dunno what others have done.

Fact is the reasons for your belief are weak and we are dealing with an extraordinary claim.

That’s enough to doubt that you are right.

Stephen

Your saying that the reasons are weak is less significant than the claim that the Empire State Building had more concrete than the WTC.  You have not provided any data or explanation about anything.

The issues are mass impacting mass and we know the mass of every skyscraper must support its own weight for its entire height.  The NIST has not even tried to provide a models of the collapses of the twin towers but they did for WTC 7 even though it does not match observations.  What sense does that make?  So you can talk your weak nonsense all you want.  I just find it amusing.

psik

psikeyhackr - 04 October 2012 09:38 PM

StephenLawrence - 03 October 2012 10:46 AM

I’ve only questioned your reasons for believing as you do.

The reasons are weak as I’ve said. Dunno what others have done.

Fact is the reasons for your belief are weak and we are dealing with an extraordinary claim.

That’s enough to doubt that you are right.

Stephen

Your saying that the reasons are weak is less significant than the claim that the Empire State Building had more concrete than the WTC.  You have not provided any data or explanation about anything.

The issues are mass impacting mass and we know the mass of every skyscraper must support its own weight for its entire height.  The NIST has not even tried to provide a models of the collapses of the twin towers but they did for WTC 7 even though it does not match observations.  What sense does that make?  So you can talk your weak nonsense all you want.  I just find it amusing.

psik

Psik,

Your reason to believe that the official version is wrong is that you believe it is physically impossible. I’ve examined your reasons to believe that it is physically impossible and they amount to fallacious reasoning/ sophistry.

You can check back and see why.

Stephen

psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 08:12 AM

It is SO silly to wonder why skyscrapers with bigger and longer lasting fires never came near collapsing.

Can you give some examples?

PS.  I recall seeing news reels of the Empire State Building fire, caused by prop engine bomber that crashed into (at much slower speed) and it don’t come close to the fires at WTC.

citizenschallenge.pm - 05 October 2012 08:56 PM

psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 08:12 AM

It is SO silly to wonder why skyscrapers with bigger and longer lasting fires never came near collapsing.

Can you give some examples?

PS.  I recall seeing news reels of the Empire State Building fire, caused by prop engine bomber that crashed into (at much slower speed) and it don’t come close to the fires at WTC.

Do a Google search on “skyscraper fires”.

http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-fires-t28654.html

psik

psikeyhackr - 06 October 2012 06:55 AM

citizenschallenge.pm - 05 October 2012 08:56 PM

psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 08:12 AM

It is SO silly to wonder why skyscrapers with bigger and longer lasting fires never came near collapsing.

Can you give some examples?

PS.  I recall seeing news reels of the Empire State Building fire, caused by prop engine bomber that crashed into (at much slower speed) and it don’t come close to the fires at WTC.

Do a Google search on “skyscraper fires”.

http://letsrollforums.com/world-trade-center-fires-t28654.html

psik

Did you even read those articles in the link??? How can you even compare such little fires to the ones on 9/11. Were these fires also aided by the amount of damage caused a boeing crashing into them? No.

At least link something other than accidental fires that had no effect on the structure, or a bunch of fires ignited by a disgruntled 19 year old employee.

Imaginos - 06 October 2012 03:22 PM

Did you even read those articles in the link??? How can you even compare such little fires to the ones on 9/11. Were these fires also aided by the amount of damage caused a boeing crashing into them? No.

At least link something other than accidental fires that had no effect on the structure, or a bunch of fires ignited by a disgruntled 19 year old employee.

No I didn’t read the articles in the link.

Considering the date range they did not mention the bomb in 1993.

Did you notice that I had search “Google skyscraper fires” before that?

How about this one:

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

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

Skyscrapers have been around for almost 100 years but the only 3 that have ever completely collapsed for any reason all occurred on a single day in one small area and yet people need to be spoon fed information to find that odd.

psik

... and then there’s this regurgitate nonsense on the Science board  

psikeyhackr - 06 October 2012 05:25 PM

How about this one:

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

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

Skyscrapers have been around for almost 100 years but the only 3 that have ever completely collapsed for any reason all occurred on a single day in one small area and yet people need to be spoon fed information to find that odd.

psik

sorry your examples are all pretty underwhelming - and miss what happened to those WTC towers on 9/11.