Psik you didn’t answer my question. The word hypothesis is not a derisive term. I am asking you to present your best guess as to what happened or barring that perhaps you could break down your complaints of the physics to one simple aspect that we could discuss here. I’m not sure what the deflection of the building has to do with anything since no one is saying the planes knocked the building over. Since you are comfortable with physics present a simple physics problem that demonstrates how the standard hypothesis violates the laws of physics. That should be something we can debate without getting too much into opinion. As you correctly imply, physics is not partisan. If we can isolate one component of this problem that is fairly simple and doesnt require too many assumptions then maybe we can find something we can agree on where the physics is indisputable.

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

Are there any professional jet airline pilots on CFI? Just one of the many things I’ve heard that really make me doubt the official story, is that the kind of maneuvers flown on 911 would have been extremely difficult for experienced pilots. But almost impossible for amateurs with only a couple years training on nothing more than simulators.

macgyver - 24 September 2012 07:57 AM

Psik you didn’t answer my question. The word hypothesis is not a derisive term. I am asking you to present your best guess as to what happened or barring that perhaps you could break down your complaints of the physics to one simple aspect that we could discuss here. I’m not sure what the deflection of the building has to do with anything since no one is saying the planes knocked the building over. Since you are comfortable with physics present a simple physics problem that demonstrates how the standard hypothesis violates the laws of physics. That should be something we can debate without getting too much into opinion. As you correctly imply, physics is not partisan. If we can isolate one component of this problem that is fairly simple and doesnt require too many assumptions then maybe we can find something we can agree on where the physics is indisputable.

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

What is it that you call the “standard hypothesis”?

I already said:

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.

So if you don’t like the idea of eliminating a negative there is nothing I can do about that.

[1082]
psik

psikeyhackr - 24 September 2012 11:12 AM

What is it that you call the “standard hypothesis”?

I already said:

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.

So if you don’t like the idea of eliminating a negative there is nothing I can do about that.

[1082]
psik

The standard hypothesis is to paraphrase you.. “airliners weighing less than 170 tons and containing 34 tons of jet fuel start (ed) fires in buildings more than 2,000 times their own mass and cause(d) their total destruction in less than two hours.”

You have not proven this is impossible, so I don’t see how you have eliminated a negative.

Can we get back on topic? This discussion is supposed to be about CFI’s involvement in scientific fraud. No one has dealt with any of the issues mentioned in my article. First, Occam’s razor is an arbiter of equally strong explanations. That is, it can be only used to decide between two explanations that equally support the evidence. The official hypothesis is as weak a hypothesis as you can get in science, one that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Therefore Occams razor cannot be used against the much stronger controlled demolition hypothesis. The controlled demolition hypothesis is stronger because it actually has scientific evidence to support it.

Second, as clearly explained in the article, there are two requirements for computer models that NIST’s WTC 7 model does not meet. The claim that a missing eight story period of free fall, a longer fall time and massive deformations in the NIST WTC 7 model are inconsequential anomalies is evidence of the extreme paucity of scientific understanding of some of the participants here. And what of the verification? The WTC 7 model has not been independently verified. Either missing requirement is sufficient to rule the model an unreplicated experiment and therefore not evidence. As such, there is no scientific evidence at all for the official myth as to how all three towers came down on 9/11. This is an incredibly simple point. Those who cannot understand it are severely science-impaired and should not therefore be posting here. You can’t be so science-impaired and still be a skeptic. You can only misrepresent yourself as one. You can only be a fraud.

CuthbertJ - 24 September 2012 10:29 AM

Are there any professional jet airline pilots on CFI? Just one of the many things I’ve heard that really make me doubt the official story, is that the kind of maneuvers flown on 911 would have been extremely difficult for experienced pilots. But almost impossible for amateurs with only a couple years training on nothing more than simulators.

What does that mean “I’ve heard that…”.  That phrase is a close relative to the “people say”. Its virtually meaningless since it is devoid of a source and unverifiable. I saw the second plane hit live on TV and have seen the videos. No one was doing loop the loops or barrel rolls. Except for a last minute adjustment in the planes trajectory they flew more or less a straight line path into the buildings. Modern day airline simulators do a pretty good job of duplicating everything except the g-forces. I’m no pilot but to the untrained eye there does not seem to be anything difficult about what they did in those planes. You would need a lot more than an anonymous “They” to make me think otherwise.

Michael Fullerton - 24 September 2012 02:12 PM

Can we get back on topic? This discussion is supposed to be about CFI’s involvement in scientific fraud.

Well if the people in the CFI are not smart enough to figure it out then, to them, it is not scientific fraud.

psik

macgyver - 24 September 2012 07:57 AM

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

Good luck!

Michael Fullerton - 24 September 2012 02:12 PM

Can we get back on topic? This discussion is supposed to be about CFI’s involvement in scientific fraud. No one has dealt with any of the issues mentioned in my article. First, Occam’s razor is an arbiter of equally strong explanations. That is, it can be only used to decide between two explanations that equally support the evidence. The official hypothesis is as weak a hypothesis as you can get in science, one that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Therefore Occams razor cannot be used against the much stronger controlled demolition hypothesis. The controlled demolition hypothesis is stronger because it actually has scientific evidence to support it.

Second, as clearly explained in the article, there are two requirements for computer models that NIST’s WTC 7 model does not meet. The claim that a missing eight story period of free fall, a longer fall time and massive deformations in the NIST WTC 7 model are inconsequential anomalies is evidence of the extreme paucity of scientific understanding of some of the participants here. And what of the verification? The WTC 7 model has not been independently verified. Either missing requirement is sufficient to rule the model an unreplicated experiment and therefore not evidence. As such, there is no scientific evidence at all for the official myth as to how all three towers came down on 9/11. This is an incredibly simple point. Those who cannot understand it are severely science-impaired and should not therefore be posting here. You can’t be so science-impaired and still be a skeptic. You can only misrepresent yourself as one. You can only be a fraud.

I just finished reading your article. For someone who claims to be a rational thinker who is steeped in the scientific principles your article is noticeably devoid of any science at all. You present nothing but undocumented suspicions.

You claim the model uses incorrect assumptions but you provide no links or documentation to back that up. What were the assumptions? What evidence do you have that the real parameters were different than those used in the model? Show us the documentation and make specific points that can be challenged.

You claim the buildings fell too fast. Use some physics and tell us why, but more importantly explain why it would fall any faster in a controlled demolition. How would you calculate the fall rate for each situation and what is your margin of error in each case and how did you calculate it?

If you cant do any of that then your entire argument is just a lot of hot air.

asanta - 24 September 2012 04:31 PM

macgyver - 24 September 2012 07:57 AM

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

Good luck!

You’re probably right. I gave him the chance to show us a simple application of physics here and he sidestepped so its not looking good.

macgyver - 24 September 2012 06:12 PM

asanta - 24 September 2012 04:31 PM

macgyver - 24 September 2012 07:57 AM

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

Good luck!

You’re probably right. I gave him the chance to show us a simple application of physics here and he sidestepped so its not looking good.

What do you call side stepping?

psik

psikeyhackr - 24 September 2012 07:15 AM

It is so interesting that someone who comes to a Center for Inquiry site objects to inquiry so much. 
<snip>
So why don’t you provide a link to support that statement?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

You know why? Because I am not interested. On TV I’ve seen two planes crashing into two towers. I’ve seen the buildings collapse, starting exactly from the places of impact. Much later I learned a little about how the towers were constructed. That’s it. It all fits to my my physical intuitions. I do not need to know more.

On the other side there is a yelling and for attention calling posting member of the CFI forum, who thinks that some table models of towers prove something, but who has no alternative theory that fits the facts as I have seen them. And why he hasn’t is obvious: any alternative theory must suppose such impossibly realisable actions of a conspiracy that, if true, would have been leaked out; and it would also need some very funny cooperation between Arab frustrated young men who hated America and the FBI/CIA/NSA or whatever.

You’d better put your energy in something else psikeyhackr, it is a waist of your high intelligence. 

psikeyhackr - 24 September 2012 08:53 PM

macgyver - 24 September 2012 06:12 PM

asanta - 24 September 2012 04:31 PM

macgyver - 24 September 2012 07:57 AM

Play the role of the instructor here and lay out the problem for us. Maybe you will win some converts if you can do it clearly.

Good luck!

You’re probably right. I gave him the chance to show us a simple application of physics here and he sidestepped so its not looking good.

What do you call side stepping?

psik

What i mean is you have taken a stand that the standard hypothesis ( or standard conspiracy theory if you prefer) does not make sense according to simple physics. I asked you to provide a simple physics problem that applies here to demonstrate your claim. Let us all do the math with you. Show your work. You and I both agree that physics doesn’t lie as long as we can al agree on the starting parameters.

You sidestepped the question and focused on other issues.

macgyver - 25 September 2012 03:57 AM

What i mean is you have taken a stand that the standard hypothesis ( or standard conspiracy theory if you prefer) does not make sense according to simple physics. I asked you to provide a simple physics problem that applies here to demonstrate your claim. Let us all do the math with you. Show your work. You and I both agree that physics doesn’t lie as long as we can al agree on the starting parameters.

You sidestepped the question and focused on other issues.

Do you think physics is mathematics?  How do you do the mathematics without the data to plug into the equations?  How many times have I told you the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

I have demonstrated that the mass and distribution of mass affects the behavior of the structure.

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

Then I demonstrate that the static supports require energy to be crushed and that the falling mass loses velocity providing that energy and comes to a halt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physical models run on PHYSICS.  It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop.  The top 11 loops are single the next 17 are doubles and the bottom 5 are triples.  We do not have any data on the amount of energy required to collapse each LEVEL of the WTC.  But all of you BELIEVERS who talk trash about mathematics so you can pretend to be intelligent don’t demand that the NIST supply that kind of information but then you talk trash about mathematics for proof that what you believe is nonsense.

Here is a Python program for collapse time without supports using nothing but the conservation of momentum.  But it does not have accurate data on mass distribution because we do not have it.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306&sid=79faa4cc0793672abc4b8d4ef1576a5c#64306

It uses 110 masses floating in the air supported by nothing to simulate a top don collapse.  The top 14 masses are dropped on the rest.  If the masses are equal it takes 12 seconds.  Making the data more bottom heavy can increase the time to 14 seconds.  No energy and therefore time is lost breaking supports.  The north tower coming down in less than 26 seconds with the lower 90 stories intact is complete nonsense.

Of course BELIEVERS don’t have to do math to justify their beliefs so they don’t need data in the first place.

[1232]
psik

macgyver - 24 September 2012 02:19 PM

CuthbertJ - 24 September 2012 10:29 AM

Are there any professional jet airline pilots on CFI? Just one of the many things I’ve heard that really make me doubt the official story, is that the kind of maneuvers flown on 911 would have been extremely difficult for experienced pilots. But almost impossible for amateurs with only a couple years training on nothing more than simulators.

What does that mean “I’ve heard that…”.  That phrase is a close relative to the “people say”. Its virtually meaningless since it is devoid of a source and unverifiable. I saw the second plane hit live on TV and have seen the videos. No one was doing loop the loops or barrel rolls. Except for a last minute adjustment in the planes trajectory they flew more or less a straight line path into the buildings. Modern day airline simulators do a pretty good job of duplicating everything except the g-forces. I’m no pilot but to the untrained eye there does not seem to be anything difficult about what they did in those planes. You would need a lot more than an anonymous “They” to make me think otherwise.

You say you’re not a pilot then make a bunch of statements about flying.  You also avoided my question and your analysis of it is pretty lame. “I’ve heard..” means exactly that. I heard something, don’t want to trust it, so I’m seeking input from an expert, like a pilot on CFI. Totally makes sense.  At least I don’t claim to know about flying and therefore seek experts. You on the other hand simply wave your hands ignorantly spouting off about “loops and barrel rolls” and “modern day simulators”.