5 of 22
5
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
TimB - 22 September 2012 06:35 PM

I wonder why they couldn’t come up with a model that matched the actual video footage.

models are never perfect. They rely on a number of assumptions any one of which can alter the outcome and in most cases your model will have errors in more than one of the assumptions that are made. There may also be factors involved that were not even considered. If nothing else, the fact that the model did not exactly replicate what was seen in the video shold allay any fears that there was an attempt to cover things up otherwise they would have made the model produce the desired results.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 23 September 2012 08:55 AM
TimB - 22 September 2012 06:35 PM

I wonder why they couldn’t come up with a model that matched the actual video footage.

models are never perfect. They rely on a number of assumptions any one of which can alter the outcome and in most cases your model will have errors in more than one of the assumptions that are made. There may also be factors involved that were not even considered. If nothing else, the fact that the model did not exactly replicate what was seen in the video shold allay any fears that there was an attempt to cover things up otherwise they would have made the model produce the desired results.

It is so interesting that engineers can model airplanes with computers and physically so well and we don’t hear about planes falling out of the sky all of the time because of design defects, and yet this 11 year old issue about very large man made objects that don’t move cannot be modeled well.

Like that robot landing on Mars.  They only had one chance to get that right and it came off without a hitch.

But 9/11 is SO HARD!

ROFLMAO

Excuses, excuses

psik

[ Edited: 23 September 2012 01:56 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

Fullerton checked in:  Last Visit @ September 23, 2012 09:12 AM


[888]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
psikeyhackr - 23 September 2012 09:26 AM

It is so interesting that engineers can model airplanes with computers and physically so well and we don’t hear about planes falling out of the sky all of the time because of design defects, and yet this 11 year old issue about very large man made objects that don’t move cannot be modeled well.

Like that robot landing on Mars.  They only had one chance to get that right and it came off without a hitch.

But 9/11 is SO HARD!

ROFLMAO

Excuses, excuses

psik

On the surface an airliner or a space probe may seem more complex than an office building, but simulating the performance of something you plan to build is very different from simulating the destruction of a structure. When you build something, especially when it is done with CAD you know all the parameters to extremely minute tolerances. You are also trying to predict something that is relatively easy to simulate, the flow of air over a wing, the effect of known stresses on a truss etc etc. When you are trying to simulate the destruction of a large structure there are far more unknowns and a much more fluid situation, where did the fire start, what variety of fuels were present, how much of each were there and where were they in relation to critical structures, how hot did it get, how did unknown partitions affect air flow and therefor the temperature and development of hot spots, how did the years affect the strength of the steel and the concrete, were there any unknown weaknesses in the concrete at the time of construction, did the contractors take any shortcuts that may have affected the strength of the concrete, did the collapse of two huge structures in the vicinity cause any seismic activity that may have weakened the structure?

There are a thousand unknowns to which we can only apply rough guesses. Its a very different thing from designing an aircraft or a space probe. Neither is easy but the unknowns in a destructive process can be far more difficult.

I remember not long ago seeing a simulated image of a warhead nose cone.They were trying to predict the deformation that would when it hit a surface. It was not a practical exercise but a practice simulation. They did a pretty good job of simulating the exact places that the metal would fatigue and buckle but they were using one of the most powerful computers in the world at Los Alamos and they had a very simple structure to work with ( A simple shape made of a single alloy where the exact thickness and chemical composition was exactly known). So it is possible to do this sort of simulation but when you scale up the complexity and add in all the unknowns I mentioned above it becomes exponentially more difficult to have confidence in your final product.

Even if you did the ultimate simulation by building the same exact building to scale and set it on fire you may not get the same result because of all the unknown variables. Think about that. If you built ten copies but let different contractors construct them and stocked them all with different furnishings and set them on fire in different places do you really think they would all collapse at the exact same time and in the exact same manner? That is what we are dealing with here. Too many unknown variables to allow a significant level of confidence in any simulation that is done.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

I seem to recall one space flight that ended in disaster due to a failing gasket, which had worked perfectly in a prior flight.  Who’d have thought!

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 23 September 2012 04:15 PM

On the surface an airliner or a space probe may seem more complex than an office building, but simulating the performance of something you plan to build is very different from simulating the destruction of a structure. When you build something, especially when it is done with CAD you know all the parameters to extremely minute tolerances. You are also trying to predict something that is relatively easy to simulate, the flow of air over a wing, the effect of known stresses on a truss etc etc. When you are trying to simulate the destruction of a large structure there are far more unknowns and a much more fluid situation, where did the fire start, what variety of fuels were present, how much of each were there and where were they in relation to critical structures, how hot did it get, how did unknown partitions affect air flow and therefor the temperature and development of hot spots, how did the years affect the strength of the steel and the concrete, were there any unknown weaknesses in the concrete at the time of construction, did the contractors take any shortcuts that may have affected the strength of the concrete, did the collapse of two huge structures in the vicinity cause any seismic activity that may have weakened the structure?

I already suggested a thought experiment as a simulation in post #14.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

It eliminates all need to simulate airliner impact and fire damage.  But here, as on other sites where I mention this, I get SILENCE.  Totally eliminating 5 stories is far more damage than airliner impact and fire could do but much easier to simulate.  But it would still require knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level.  But then people insist the information is irrelevant and simulation is SO DIFFICULT.  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
psikeyhackr - 23 September 2012 06:11 PM

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

It eliminates all need to simulate airliner impact and fire damage.  But here, as on other sites where I mention this, I get SILENCE.  Totally eliminating 5 stories is far more damage than airliner impact and fire could do but much easier to simulate.  But it would still require knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level.  But then people insist the information is irrelevant and simulation is SO DIFFICULT.  LOL

psik

Its too difficult because you want to calculate all of this with such precision that you would be able to distinguish the small difference in the time it would take for a building to collapse under the accepted sequence of events vs the time it would take if there were some form of controlled demolition. The same gravitational force applies to the fall in both cases. The difference in the time it would take to collapse comes down to a lot of complex factors that neither of us is qualified to comment on and which i doubt even the experts could do with enough precision to make a conclusion with any degree of confidence at all.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 23 September 2012 04:54 PM

I seem to recall one space flight that ended in disaster due to a failing gasket, which had worked perfectly in a prior flight.  Who’d have thought!

As I recall Feynman was involved in letting the cause be known but in actuality people involved knew why ahead of time.  It was political involvement that caused the flight to be launched when it was TOO COLD.  I don’t see why you would bring that up as an example.

Each one uses two rubber O-ring seals. (This begs the question to be asked - why use rubber when the temperature to burn the rubber is exceeded by more than 1,000 degrees? This was not discussed.)
Leaking gas was already known to occur by at least one Thiokol engineer, Roger Boisjoly (pronounced “boy-shzo-lay.”) His analysis of photos from earlier launches proved that the hot gases went past the primary and secondary O-rings to the outside. Together NASA and Morton Thiokol discussed launching that fateful morning, against Thiokol’s advice. It would turn out later, that NASA launched in spite of Thiokol’s engineers strongly advising not to. We shall see how this came about later.

http://rense.com/general69/chall.htm

Again pretending something is difficult to understand when it is not.

[943]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 23 September 2012 06:22 PM
psikeyhackr - 23 September 2012 06:11 PM

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

It eliminates all need to simulate airliner impact and fire damage.  But here, as on other sites where I mention this, I get SILENCE.  Totally eliminating 5 stories is far more damage than airliner impact and fire could do but much easier to simulate.  But it would still require knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level.  But then people insist the information is irrelevant and simulation is SO DIFFICULT.  LOL

psik

Its too difficult because you want to calculate all of this with such precision that you would be able to distinguish the small difference in the time it would take for a building to collapse under the accepted sequence of events vs the time it would take if there were some form of controlled demolition. The same gravitational force applies to the fall in both cases. The difference in the time it would take to collapse comes down to a lot of complex factors that neither of us is qualified to comment on and which i doubt even the experts could do with enough precision to make a conclusion with any degree of confidence at all.

I have not said anything about a “controlled demolition”.

You operate on the ASSUMPTION that the building could collapse due to the aircraft and fire.  What if the simulation I propose does not come anywhere near collapsing?  Then your argument is worthless.

You are in a loop of circular logic.  The simulation with anything near accurate data is not necessary because you are right therefore the data does not need to be collected to do a decent simulation because the result would be what you say anyway.  But what you say can’t be scientific because you don’t have the data.  You complain about my excess demand for precision but I have mentioned several times that the NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete in the buildings so we have nothing to judge from.

So the people who believe the official story don’t want to entertain the possibility that the official story might be wrong.  If it is complete nonsense they don’t want to know.

psik

[ Edited: 23 September 2012 08:55 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 23 September 2012 06:23 PM
Write4U - 23 September 2012 04:54 PM

I seem to recall one space flight that ended in disaster due to a failing gasket, which had worked perfectly in a prior flight.  Who’d have thought!

As I recall Feynman was involved in letting the cause be known but in actuality people involved knew why ahead of time.  It was political involvement that caused the flight to be launched when it was TOO COLD.  I don’t see why you would bring that up as an example.

Each one uses two rubber O-ring seals. (This begs the question to be asked - why use rubber when the temperature to burn the rubber is exceeded by more than 1,000 degrees? This was not discussed.)
Leaking gas was already known to occur by at least one Thiokol engineer, Roger Boisjoly (pronounced “boy-shzo-lay.”) His analysis of photos from earlier launches proved that the hot gases went past the primary and secondary O-rings to the outside. Together NASA and Morton Thiokol discussed launching that fateful morning, against Thiokol’s advice. It would turn out later, that NASA launched in spite of Thiokol’s engineers strongly advising not to. We shall see how this came about later.

http://rense.com/general69/chall.htm

Again pretending something is difficult to understand when it is not.

[943]
psik

I made no claims, just a vague memory. Thanks for clarifying.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 10:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4573
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 22 September 2012 10:21 AM

The conservation of momentum does not just apply to the plane hitting the building.

Then why do you keep repeating the mass of the planes and their fuel? Don’t you think they are enough to explain serious damage to the local bearing structures of the building?
And what is your problem with the tilting? That could be expected with the asymmetrical damage done to the buildings, don’t you think? It is all bazyc fissyks.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26

psik perhaps its my error. Its been a long time since I’ve seen you post your actual hypothesis. I see you making comments that the physics doesn’t add up and other comments that information or data is not being made available. Maybe you could reframe your complaint here. I am not asking you to list all the problems you may have with the standard explanation of what happened, just outline your primary issue in a paragraph or less so we are all talking about the same thing.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 21 September 2012 05:36 PM

I think that skeptics who rule out looking at any evidence that doesn’t fit with the simplest explanation, aren’t being very good skeptics.  But we must remain wary of conspiracy theories as they are most often, just bunk. (I posted a link above to Shermer’s 10 tips on detecting when to reject conspiracy theories.)

Occam’s razor doesn’t mean that we come up with the simplest explanation, and then stop all subsequent analysis that may threaten that explanation. 

As you say, “Two planes clearly hit the world trade center. Thousands of witnesses saw it including many of my friends and family members. That part is indisputable. The buildings were caught in a raging inferno. Again lots of witnesses, indisputable. After a significant period of time the buildings collapsed and the collapse began at the spot where the planes hit and the buildings burned. Again an indisputable fact that is well documented. The obvious and simplest conclusion is that the buildings collapsed because they were hit by too large heavily fueled airliners.”

It was a remarkable event.  The two towers crumbled into dust before our eyes. Two big planes with lots of fuel were clearly involved.  Even though, they crumbled to dust in a manner, right before our eyes, in a manner similar to controlled demolitions, controlled demolition would require a broader conspiracy than that of 19 middle easterners.  So we should probably rule out the broader conspiracy idea, as a working hypothesis.

Skeptics often seem to be people who think they are really smart but are not smart enough to figure out what to be skeptical about.

What is a “raging inferno”?

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

That is what I would call a raging inferno.  I did not collapse.

What is “heavily fueled”?

10,000 gallons was @ of capacity and in the case of the south tower a lot of it exploded outside of the building and it does not look like that explosion did any damage to the tower.  An air fuel explosion does not do much to structural steel.

But how did the top of the south tower tilt 22 degrees when the plane impact 54 minutes earlier only caused a deflection of 15 inches?  How did almost 280 columns get sheared?  When does anyone ask that much less try to answer it?

Why should a broader conspiracy be RULED OUT?  The primary issue is not conspiracies though.  The primary issue is PHYSICS.  If airliners, fire, and the Potential Energy of the towers cannot explain the observed phenomenon and a BROADER CONSPIRACY is the only explanation then that is too damn bad.  PHYSICS does not give a damn about PEOPLE.

psik

[ Edited: 24 September 2012 07:37 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 23 September 2012 10:42 PM
psikeyhackr - 22 September 2012 10:21 AM

The conservation of momentum does not just apply to the plane hitting the building.

Then why do you keep repeating the mass of the planes and their fuel? Don’t you think they are enough to explain serious damage to the local bearing structures of the building?

Have you ever heard of science?  Have you ever heard of curiosity?  Even if I believed airliners could destroy the towers I would want to know how it happened.  I find it somewhat amazing that so many people claiming to be physicists are not all over this like white on rice.

What does “serious damage” mean?  I don’t regard that as scientifically meaningful.  And what do you mean by “local”.  The BBC graphic simulation indicated that the fuselage missed the core of the south tower.  The left wing should have been ripped to shreds by the perimeter columns so there may have been very little impact damage to the core.  So “local” could just mean perimeter columns on one side of the tower were taken out.  Since the core is said to be three times as strong as it needed to be and the perimeter was stronger than that, then what damage occured should have mattered very little.

It is so interesting that someone who comes to a Center for Inquiry site objects to inquiry so much.  LOL

 

And what is your problem with the tilting? That could be expected with the asymmetrical damage done to the buildings, don’t you think? It is all bazyc fissyks.

So where was the “center of mass”?  What was the moment of inertia?  Many sources say it did not just tilt.  It rotated.  How could that be physically possible.

It is called science.  Maybe you should try passing a course in it.

It is as though you have a problem with anyone trying to understand anything.  But since you won’t actually check the amount of concrete in the Empire State Building relative to the WTC but will mouth off about it anyway I guess you expect such utter incompetence.

You said:

Yes, psikeyhackr, there was MUCH MORE CONCRETE in the Empire State Building than in WTC.

So why don’t you provide a link to support that statement?  Inquiring minds want to know.  LOL

psik

[ Edited: 24 September 2012 07:46 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 24 September 2012 06:24 AM

psik perhaps its my error. Its been a long time since I’ve seen you post your actual hypothesis. I see you making comments that the physics doesn’t add up and other comments that information or data is not being made available. Maybe you could reframe your complaint here. I am not asking you to list all the problems you may have with the standard explanation of what happened, just outline your primary issue in a paragraph or less so we are all talking about the same thing.

I am not impressed by the word “hypothesis”.

What people don’t seem to get is that I don’t care who did it or why.  Human beings cannot change the Laws of Physics.

Islamofascists can’t change them.

The CIA can’t change them.

The Mossad can’t change them.

9/11 is not about people, not even those who died.  It is about whether or not airliners weighing less than 170 tons and containing 34 tons of jet fuel can start fires in buildings more than 2,000 times their own mass and cause their total destruction in less than two hours.

In order for the Official Conspiracy Theory to be true then the above must be possible.  If it is not possible then OTHER FACTORS most likely involving OTHER PERSONS must have been involved in the destruction.  But the primary issue is not the OTHER PERSONS it is the PHYSICS.

In my rarely humble opinion so many people want to avoid accepting the idea of a wider conspiracy they would rather throw Physics into the Garbage.  Sorry, the Laws of Physics do not work that way.

The Physics comes FIRST.

So the physics of skyscrapers must be dealt with.  That means they must hold themselves up against gravity and therefore every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the weight of all of the LEVELS above plus the LIVE LOAD plus whatever safety factor is in the building.  Also a skyscraper must withstand the wind.  I noticed that no one commented when I pointed out that the plane impacting the south tower only deflected the building less than 60% of its maximum designed deflection due to the wind at the level of impact but in the years I have discussed this I have never seen anyone but me talk about that 15 inch deflection.  So to me it looks like most physicists who should be competent to analyse this are avoiding the subject.  But I am not interested in going into speculation about why.  This is about physics not psycho-political bullsh!t.

9/11 is a global political and educational issue.  This physics should be stuff that grade school kids understand.  9/11 should have been resolved in months.  But it is still going on after 11 years so it is really curious that people at a so called Center for Inquiry don’t even ask about the total amount of concrete in the towers and yet portray themselves as SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE.

[1034]
psik

[ Edited: 24 September 2012 07:57 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 22
5