CuthbertJ - 25 September 2012 10:27 AM

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”.

I didnt claim to be an expert on flying. All i said was that in my inexpert opinion there did not seem to be anything spectacular about the flight path of those planes so an anonymous claim to the contrary seems entirely meaningless to me. Anonymous claims of anything should not even be mentioned in an argument since they taint the conversation with unverifiable innuendo.

Here is a nice bit about the airplane hitting the south tower.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?s=8a59aba8bc0c3d7cefb4806472ab9efe&showtopic=5180

So some say there was a plane switch.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 11:27 AM

So some say there was a plane switch.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

psik

This conspiracy gets more complicated all the time doesn’t it?

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 07:01 AM

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

Psik i looked at your links. I haven’t written computer code in 30 years and am not familiar with this language at all so the links are not very helpful.

Lets just look at this part of your post though. This should be a simple physics problem, the type we all do our first week in high school physics. So why don’t you show the work and we can all follow along.

We need to know what you are using as the distance that the top 14 stories fell before they hit the bottom levels i suppose but since in this example you are not including time or loss of energy require to smash the lower supports and we are treating it as a free fall all we really need to know is the distance you used for the drop from the bottom of the top fourteen floors to the top of the pile that formed. That may be difficult to determine form the films since the top of the pile is not visible so a better measure might be the time and distance it took for the roof of the building to fall form its original height until it came to rest on the top of the pile.

If the numbers dont add up for a free fall then something about our assumptions would have to be off because even a controlled demolition has to rely on gravity to get all the material to the ground unless we are going to now propose that someone bolted rocket engines to the roof when we weren’t looking to force the building to the ground.

macgyver - 25 September 2012 12:08 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 11:27 AM

So some say there was a plane switch.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

psik

This conspiracy gets more complicated all the time doesn’t it?

Any conspiracy is irrelevant to physics.

Aircraft hit the buildings.  But that cannot make the top of the north tower destroy everything below.

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 04:30 PM

macgyver - 25 September 2012 12:08 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 11:27 AM

So some say there was a plane switch.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

psik

This conspiracy gets more complicated all the time doesn’t it?

Any conspiracy is irrelevant to physics.

Aircraft hit the buildings.  But that cannot make the top of the north tower destroy everything below.

psik

Then why did you bring it up instead of addressing the physics problem

macgyver - 25 September 2012 05:52 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 04:30 PM

macgyver - 25 September 2012 12:08 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 11:27 AM

So some say there was a plane switch.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

psik

This conspiracy gets more complicated all the time doesn’t it?

Any conspiracy is irrelevant to physics.

Aircraft hit the buildings.  But that cannot make the top of the north tower destroy everything below.

psik

Then why did you bring it up instead of addressing the physics problem

Because someone asked about pilots on CFI so I provided a link to a website with pilots.  You don’t decide what I choose to add comments about.  But whether or not a total collapse can happen is a rather separate issue from the aircraft.  YOu can’t even figure out that distribution of mass is important in skyscrapers.  What have you built a model to demonstrate anything about the physics of the events.

Writing up a decent response to something complicated takes longer.  I am doing it in a text editor and I have other things to do.

psik

macgyver - 25 September 2012 05:52 PM

Then why did you bring it up instead of addressing the physics problem

You don’t think skyscrapers holding themselves up is a physics problem

The why haven’t you been asking about the distribution of steel for years?  Why would any one with any brains assume that a lighter weaker portion of a building could crush a stronger heavier and larger portion?  And then regard themselves as scientific?

psik

macgyver - 25 September 2012 12:22 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 September 2012 07:01 AM

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

Psik i looked at your links. I haven’t written computer code in 30 years and am not familiar with this language at all so the links are not very helpful.

Lets just look at this part of your post though. This should be a simple physics problem, the type we all do our first week in high school physics. So why don’t you show the work and we can all follow along.

The program is discussed here.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread842366/pg26

It is a simple physics problem.  That is why EVERYONE should have been asking about the distributions of steel and concrete years ago.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2012 06:55 AM

Why would any one with any brains assume that a lighter weaker portion of a building could crush a stronger heavier and larger portion? 

Another physical BS question. Of course that is possible. But I assume that you now will point to some other point, avoiding to clarify what you are really saying here.

Gdb is right. There is absolutely no reason why a small portion of the building couldn’t crush a larger portion especially since the mass of the upper portion becomes greater with every level that is crushed. Look what happens when an avalanche occurs. Small amounts of snow start moving down the mountain and knock loose more snow increasing the mass of moving snow and allowing it to knock lose even bigger sections.

The only question is whether the increasing kinetic energy of the accelerating and accumulating upper mass is enough to overcome the energy lost when it crushes the supports on the next level. If it is then the process can keep going. If not then it will stop.

He also correctly points out that you continually change the subject to avoid answering questions. You have said time and again that the building fell too fast and yet when i ask you to do the free fall calculation here or at least give us the parameters that you used so we can calculate it ourselves you refuse to respond to that request.

GdB - 26 September 2012 07:40 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2012 06:55 AM

Why would any one with any brains assume that a lighter weaker portion of a building could crush a stronger heavier and larger portion? 

Another physical BS question. Of course that is possible. But I assume that you now will point to some other point, avoiding to clarify what you are really saying here.

So where is the physical model built by you or anyone else to demonstrate what you claim?

It is so much easier to talk BS than to build it.

You were the person telling us that the Empire State Building had more concrete than the WTC.  Have you found a link to back up your mouth or is everyone supposed to believe it because YOU said it?

macgyver - 26 September 2012 08:16 AM

Gdb is right. There is absolutely no reason why a small portion of the building couldn’t crush a larger portion especially since the mass of the upper portion becomes greater with every level that is crushed.

The mass becomes greater but the kinetic energy decreases.  People like you need to ignore the Conservation of Momentum and ignore the energy required to destroy the supports.

Where is your physical model that can do what you say?

Here is mine:

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

Yeah the mass increases as more washers start moving.  But what happens to the velocity?  And what happens to the Kinetic Energy?  Kinetic Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.  If the mass doubles and the velocity is cut in half the momentum remains the same.  The Kinetic Energy is cut in half.  Energy is required to destroy the supports.  The fact that the north tower comes down so fast is proof that something else was involved.

The only question is whether the increasing kinetic energy of the accelerating and accumulating upper mass is enough to overcome the energy lost when it crushes the supports on the next level. If it is then the process can keep going. If not then it will stop.

Apparently physics is just something you make up and does what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

psik

It never ceases to amaze me how good you are at NOT answering questions. Still waiting for you to provide your work or at least the parameters for the free fall.

Your Statement- Yeah the mass increases as more washers start moving.  But what happens to the velocity?  And what happens to the Kinetic Energy?  Kinetic Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.  If the mass doubles and the velocity is cut in half the momentum remains the same.  The Kinetic Energy is cut in half.  Energy is required to destroy the supports.  The fact that the north tower comes down so fast is proof that something else was involved.

My Statement - The only question is whether the increasing kinetic energy of the accelerating and accumulating upper mass is enough to overcome the energy lost when it crushes the supports on the next level. If it is then the process can keep going. If not then it will stop.

Read my response and you will see we are saying basically the same thing except that you still havent answered the question “How fast should it have come down even if it didn’t have to crush the supports?” I’ve asked you three times now and can’t seem to get an answer. If you need help with the formula let me know and I will provide it for you. You have to start with that information before you can do anything. If the numbers add up to exactly the amount of time it took in real life for the tower to fall then we have to figure out why, but you won’t even provide that simple calculation so we can’t begin to have a discussion.

one error you made in your thought process which you need to correct. You are only considering the kinetic energy of the upper levels here and forgetting that every level below adds its potential energy when it becomes part of the falling mass. That energy is then converted to kinetic energy as soon as the supports are broken.

macgyver - 26 September 2012 10:01 AM

My Statement - The only question is whether the increasing kinetic energy of the accelerating and accumulating upper mass is enough to overcome the energy lost when it crushes the supports on the next level. If it is then the process can keep going. If not then it will stop.

one error you made in your thought process which you need to correct. You are only considering the kinetic energy of the upper levels here and forgetting that every level below adds its potential energy when it becomes part of the falling mass. That energy is then converted to kinetic energy as soon as the supports are broken.

Potential energy is mass times gravity times height.

Now if you do not know how much mass was at what heights then how can you compute the potential energy?  And yet you demand mathematics.

So you can assume that no energy is required to break the supports though you can talk about supports being broken?  How do you expect mathematics to be done for that?.

Magical Physics from your fantasy universe. 

I provided you with a computer program and data and Python interpreters are free to download so anybody with a computer and network access should be able to get a Python interpreter to run my code even if they don’t understand it.

But those masses at various levels must be supported and for the mass to come down due to force from above then kinetic energy from the falling mass must destroy the supports so it SLOWS DOWN.  It loses more kinetic energy from reduced velocity than it gains from increased mass.  You are trying to order me to believe something because you choose to ignore what contradicts what you have decided to believe.

So build a physical model that can completely collapse.  If reality works the way you say then it should not be a problem.  What is stopping you?

[1471]
psik

*Pulls up the Baracalounger and makes a LARGE pot of popcorn knowing it’s going to be a loooong night…..*
Let the games begin…    (Good luck getting anything other than more obfuscation from Psikey )