Robert Walper - 12 December 2012 11:31 PM

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?

And who suggested building full scale?

And how do you make a good computer model without accurate data on the buildings?  Wouln’t that require knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level?

psik

For those reading and wondering, said computer model would be based upon building schematics and professional engineer input on construction materials. After all, this is exactly how a building gets built in the first place. Construction records would also be taken into account in case of any modifications were implemented to the default design. This must be done legally for safety purposes.

Admittedly these are questions any ten year could understand and answer, but we never know who might be reading. I think it’s helpful to answer such questions, regardless of how stupid or ignorant they appear.

Robert Walper - 13 December 2012 12:03 PM

For those reading and wondering, said computer model would be based upon building schematics and professional engineer input on construction materials. After all, this is exactly how a building gets built in the first place. Construction records would also be taken into account in case of any modifications were implemented to the default design. This must be done legally for safety purposes.

Admittedly these are questions any ten year could understand and answer, but we never know who might be reading. I think it’s helpful to answer such questions, regardless of how stupid or ignorant they appear.

So where is this computer model and who is doing it?

So you can write about some delusion in the sky, so what?

The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and it is 10,000 pages.

The Purdue simulation:

“To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building,” Sozen says. “We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft.”

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

only did the top 20 stories but the NIST report said the south tower moved 12 inches 11 stories below where the plane impacted so how could the Purdue simulation be any good?

psik

Again for our readers, it should be noted that if you’re someone (especially a layperson) who refuses to accept conclusions derived from worldwide expertise using the best tools and knowledge available to determine what happened during an event, you have shot yourself in the foot regarding any conclusions whatsoever.

If you dismiss conclusions by those best qualified to make them with the best structural engineering and physics knowledge we currently have, then it makes no sense to trust any conclusions, opinions or information from any source whatsoever. Allow me to demonstrate the flawed thinking here:

1) Start with the assertion you don’t trust expert opinion or conclusions, regardless of your own expertise or not.
2) Based on #1, there’s zero justification for trusting any conclusion since you just dismissed the best ones offered.
3) If someone disputes the standing expert conclusion and points out they are not an expert, go to #2.
4) If someone disputes the standing expert conclusion and points out they are an expert, go to #1.

See the problem here?

Now it should be noted that our best minds and experts in any particular field are human, falliable and capable of making mistakes. Most of them (if reputable) will concede this issue, hence why we have systems in place like peer review and confirmation studies, etc.

So for the sake of argument, assume you’re a person who thinks they’ve found a flaw in official explanation submitted by experts done over years of analysis and countless years of combined human knowledge and wisdom on the issue. What is the appropriate action to perform?

1) Go online and try to convince a bunch of non experts that the real experts are wrong.
2) Go talk to the actual experts and see if they can address your concerns.

Let’s say you’re a fairly intelligent person and realize option #2 is the only one is going to get anywhere. Let’s say upon attempting #2, the experts don’t reply to you or address your concerns. What do you think is the appropriate conclusion in that instance?

1) The experts fear your superior opinions and conclusions, and remain silent in hopes you’ll go away instead of demonstrating to the world you’re superior to all of humanity’s best combined.
2) You’re a fucking idiot and they’re not interested in wasting their time talking to a non expert whom they’d have to spend a great deal of time educating on the subject, something they had to spend a great deal of time and money on to get for themselves.

Quoting Robert Walper:

2) You’re a fucking idiot and they’re not interested in wasting their time talking to a non expert

  While you may disagree strongly with Psikey, and your points may be valid, try not to use strongly pejorative comments, even if focused indirectly.

Occam

Robert Walper - 13 December 2012 01:21 PM

2) You’re a fucking idiot and they’re not interested in wasting their time talking to a non expert whom they’d have to spend a great deal of time educating on the subject, something they had to spend a great deal of time and money on to get for themselves.

YAWN!

Yes, education is definitely the problem.  Newtonian Physics is only THREE HUNDRED YEARS OLD.  So how can EXPERTS explain getting it WRONG for 11 years?  So the people who can maintain their wilful ignorance are so amusing.

But experiments can’t lie.  This demonstrates the nonsense of the Purdue simulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The NIST even admitted in 3 places that they needed the distribution of weight of the building to analyse the motion due to impact and then they did not do it.  How could the Purdue simulation move due to impact with the bottom 90 stories not simulated for the momentum of the plane to move?  So at this point we have educational institutions apparently choosing not to criticise authority and each other.

So how is STEM education supposed to go on the next few centuries? 

Nice how the terms LAITY and LAYMEN applies in this situation.  Like science has become a religion and the ignorant are not supposed to doubt the scientist-priests.  Atheists that can’t do Newtonian Physics 40 years after the Moon landing.  FUNNY

psik

Here’s a nice visual demonstration of exactly what is wrong with psikeyhackr hilarious youtube videos about his ‘models’ of the WTC towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ydmTjUwVpM

Using his logic, there’s something ‘fishy’ about how a small plastic model of a dump truck survives a 400 foot drop while it’s much larger, much stronger built cousin is pulverized over the same distance.

Why this is the case is something I’ve explained earlier in the thread. For more information for those looking to learn more about science, here’s a starter link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

psikeyhackr’s complete inability to understand these principles is precisely why actual experts will not talk with him. He’s a waste of time and does not understand the physics going on here. It would be like trying to explain calculus to someone who cannot figure out addition.

psikeyhackr’s entire argument is refuted by this single rebuttal: the square-cube law.

Case closed (again).

Robert Walper - 14 December 2012 12:29 AM

Here’s a nice visual demonstration of exactly what is wrong with psikeyhackr hilarious youtube videos about his ‘models’ of the WTC towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ydmTjUwVpM

psikeyhackr’s entire argument is refuted by this single rebuttal: the square-cube law.

Case closed (again).

ROFLMAO

Your brilliance astounds me.

That is why my model uses steel washers for mass and paper for crushability.  I have pointed out the square cube law many times.  I could test the supports for minimum strength relative to the weight.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/137774/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/151773/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/169757/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/169772/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/169825/

Skyscrapers are not built to be as weak as possible relative to their weight.  So how did they come down in less than 30 seconds when just the conservation of momentum makes it 12 seconds?  And how did tons of material get hurled 600 feet away. That does not even involve the square cube law.

You can talk but you have never done a decent job of opening a case.

I have no objection to any engineering school doing a bigger test.

They do stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF8Fy9KAlis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=—I2-V1yJG8

Why couldn’t they do a 130 foot tower with 55 levels and not less than 9 tons of total weight with the same mass distribution as WTC1?  Oh yeah, the engineering schools never talk about the mass distribution of the WTC.

They should have done a bigger test years ago.

Of course if they try it and cannot produce a collapse then they will have a serious problem after 11 years of this nonsense.

[7189]
psik

Here is an info source I just found.  I don’t know what to make of it yet.

www (dot) sharpprintinginc (dot) com/911/

It is too wordy and will take a while to evaluate and spends a lot of effort explaining faulty theories.

http://www.youtube.com/v/ClDtwOR-3wQ

http://www.youtube.com/v/fz5LuUpcCwU

Realistic simulation doing the same thing as physical model?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QkPGuqHLEM

psik