Lois - 08 November 2012 11:03 AM

My previous post seems to have not come out the way I intended and got lost in the middle of the post I was responding to. Eeven though I deliberately wrote my comments at the very end of the quoted material, somehow they wound up in the middle of it.

Here’s what I wrote:

  Neither you nor anyone else has shown evidence of some other scenario regarding the WTC.  All you do is criticize the computer models and generally accepted explanations.  You offer no rational alternative explanation.  Those who try to offer absolutely no evidence for their speculations.  There may be some flaws in the computer models or accepted explanations but they have scientific probability on their side.  Deniers have not a scintilla of evidence on theirs. You find flaws in the computer models buy fail to realize that your own scenarios are not just flawed but irrational on their face.  You don’t even have a rational explanation as to what you think actually happened if the computer models are wrong.  All anyone has to offer are unlikely or downright impossible scenarios.  You’d be better off writing science fiction and calling it that upfront.  Maybe you could actually get it published and have it read. 

I read it.  And at the time I got the impression you were addressing Michael Fullerton.  At the time I had not said much about computer models.  Am I to assume you are now addressing me?

Fullerton did not discuss modeling in any detail.  He seems to have an averaion to physics.  Has he been banned?

psik

Occam. - 08 November 2012 10:18 AM

Robert, you can argue against them, but while a number of us disagree with Psikeyhackr’s views, he does have the right to state them without being insulted.  You may want to read the Forum Rules, and as DarronS pointed out, particularly 3e and 3f.  Continued insults are considered banning offenses.

Occam

Fair enough Occam, I’ll drop the discussion on my end since I can see no benefit other than mockery. Apologies for rule violations on my part.

Robert Walper - 08 November 2012 12:30 PM

Fair enough Occam, I’ll drop the discussion on my end since I can see no benefit other than mockery. Apologies for rule violations on my part.

LOL And who do you think is mocked by talking about paper airplanes?

psik

Lois - 08 November 2012 11:03 AM

  Neither you nor anyone else has shown evidence of some other scenario regarding the WTC.

This presents the problem of eliminating a negative.

You are saying that you will believe airliners did it until someone provides evidence satisfactory to YOU that something else did it.

Lack of alternative evidence is not proof that airliners were capable of doing it.  But if airliners could not do it then something else must have even if we do not know what it was.

That is why I compared this problem to climate modelling.  Most people on this site talk as though they have accepted AGW and imply that people who do not are stupid.  But if airliners could destroy the towers then it should not be nearly as difficult to model as climate.

But these retro-climate simulations used to test the models require accurate data to compare against.  So why don’t these same people want accurate data on the twin towers?

It looks to me like people do not want data on what they have already decided they do not want to accept.  That does not change the fact that 400,000+ ton buildings had to hold themselves up and withstand the wind.  So the buildings should be possible to accurately model and far easier than climate.  Fullerton’s point is that the model does not match what we see in the videos for WTC7.  But official sources have not even provided collapse models for WTC1 and 2.  The Purdue north tower impact model only simulated the top 20 stories so it is totally irrelevant regarding collapse and does not show horizontal movement of the core columns even though the NIST has empirical data on horizontal movement due to the south tower impact.

But in 11 years we do not even have discussion of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower which had to be around 100,000 tons, if not more.  When has any man made mass so large ever been in such an unstable position, so high up, before or since?  It is not worthy of the attention of physicists but we are supposed to believe an airliner less then 200 tons caused it even though the building stopped shaking 4 minutes after the plane impact.

[5972]
psik

psikeyhackr - 08 November 2012 03:27 PM

Robert Walper - 08 November 2012 12:30 PM

Fair enough Occam, I’ll drop the discussion on my end since I can see no benefit other than mockery. Apologies for rule violations on my part.

LOL And who do you think is mocked by talking about paper airplanes?

psik

Hey, at least he was civil and reasonable in his response.

Occam

Occam. - 08 November 2012 07:20 PM

Hey, at least he was civil and reasonable in his response.

Occam

Paper airplanes are reasonable in talking about a building collapse?

A single paper loop, less than 5% of one sheet of paper, could hold 11 washers in my model under static conditions.  That is more than one pound.  Could a paper airplane, made from a full sheet of paper, fly with that much weight?

psik

Geez, Psikey, get your head out of your ____.  It’s obvious to see that I was talking about his response to MY post.  I know you are a one trick pony as far as 9/11 goes, but try to see things that happen to be outside that area as such.  Not everything in the world has to do with your 9/11 views.

Occam

delete

psikeyhackr - 08 November 2012 11:07 AM

Lois - 08 November 2012 11:03 AM

My previous post seems to have not come out the way I intended and got lost in the middle of the post I was responding to. Eeven though I deliberately wrote my comments at the very end of the quoted material, somehow they wound up in the middle of it.

Here’s what I wrote:

  Neither you nor anyone else has shown evidence of some other scenario regarding the WTC.  All you do is criticize the computer models and generally accepted explanations.  You offer no rational alternative explanation.  Those who try to offer absolutely no evidence for their speculations.  There may be some flaws in the computer models or accepted explanations but they have scientific probability on their side.  Deniers have not a scintilla of evidence on theirs. You find flaws in the computer models buy fail to realize that your own scenarios are not just flawed but irrational on their face.  You don’t even have a rational explanation as to what you think actually happened if the computer models are wrong.  All anyone has to offer are unlikely or downright impossible scenarios.  You’d be better off writing science fiction and calling it that upfront.  Maybe you could actually get it published and have it read. 

I read it.  And at the time I got the impression you were addressing Michael Fullerton.  At the time I had not said much about computer models.  Am I to assume you are now addressing me?

Fullerton did not discuss modeling in any detail.  He seems to have an averaion to physics.  Has he been banned?

psik

I was responding to Fullerton—I think.  Someone mentioned computer modelling.  i’ll check and get back to you. 

......

#304 is my answer.  Don’t know if you have read it.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/171244/

psik

Of course this would have to be regarded as an area of physics.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_160.htm

Two years to get an English translation.  Jeez!

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/275823.html

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1507772296&targetid=profile

[6741]
psik

For the chosen parameters, which the authors believe could be probable, the fall of
the building would stop after falling cca 80 m.

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FALL OF A HIGH BUILDING

Ivan N mec 1, Martina Jurá ová 2, I. Šev ík 3, P. Frantík4, Z. Vlk5

Abstract: The differential equation of collapse of a high building is derived taking into account many influences.
Computer simulation of the collapse of the WTC building is presented using two independent programs for some
variations of parameters. The results of both, differential equation and computer simulation, are compared.

http://www.reformy.cz/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Nemec_I_2.pdf

[6942]
psik

For those interested, here’s a funny piece. Even al-Qaeda ridicules 9/11 conspiracy theories:

http://news.discovery.com/human/911-terrorists-debunk-911-111003.html

And here’s another article showing how 9/11 conspiracy theorists lie and misrepresent evidence to suit their preconceived views:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

Robert Walper - 12 December 2012 01:30 PM

For those interested, here’s a funny piece. Even al-Qaeda ridicules 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Al Qaeda fans are as idiotic 9/11 religionists.

The words “physics” and “energy” only appear in the URL for Steven Johns of the second article.

But still in 11 years no engineering school can build a self supporting physical model where the top 15% can crush the loer portion doing the support.

[7033]
psik

For shits and giggles, would anyone like to take an educated guess as to why we would use computer models for the twin towers collapse analysis as opposed to building real full scale ones only to destroy them?