Building Collapses in Rio

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

Not sure I'm going to read that

I am quite sure you won't.

Won't make a bit of difference anyhow, I think I have come to realize that you are simply not capable of making the distinction.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

Open systems are studied all the time. I get the impression you think systems must somehow be made closed before a model is acceptable.

Again.

I will caps this because I am doubting your eyesight.

THERE ARE TWO THINGS NOT ONE.

ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE THE MODEL.

ON THE OTHER YOU HAVE THE THING MODELED.

Oh Christ, that's what I told YOU when you conflated the two - only yesterday. This isn't the first time you've done a 180 and subsequently tried to use my own arguments back at me as if I never said them, and as if that's been your position all along.

Since the words on both sides are still there for all to see, I consider this addressed a priori.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH MODELLING OPEN SYSTEMS.

THE PROBLEM IS WITH USING AN OPEN MODEL TO MODEL THE OPEN SYSTEM.

It would be a problem if anyone were doing it, but I don't see any of that around here. Hello, Darkwing, please meet windmill...

No, Irish. The system is not closed, there is no such thing in reality. But you cannot do science by invoking god when your equations run into trouble.

WTF are you talking about? Number one, the equations HAVEN'T run into any trouble, number two, please show me where god appears in the equations. Very frothy, you are, at this point. So this is what it looks like when you're going down?

YOUR MODEL

not

THE THING YOU ARE MODELING

Yeah, duh. For your edification, here is what I said to you yesterday:

'System' and 'model' are not synonymous in this context. A model may be of an open system or a closed system, and logical closure of the model is an entirely different thing than open or closed systems.

There really is no such thing as a true isolated system, except perhaps the universe as a whole, although many systems fairly well approximate a closed system. When open systems are studied, boundary conditions are defined which account for the matter and energy exchange across the boundaries of the system. This provides logical closure for the model, though the system remains open.

and

NO NO NO! See above. Model and system are not the same. The model models the system, the sytem is modeled by the model.

How utterly tiresome. You repeat my statements back to me in big font as if I were sooooper stoooopid and didn't say the same thing to you yesterday - because YOU were the one harboring the stooooopid confusion.


The rest of your post, incredibly, devolves from there, and I shan't be pissing any time away on it. I'll check the others to see if there's anything worth responding to.

Nope, all crap.

In case you missed this, like you miss so many other things, I consider you a walking litmus test for wrong.

About the only time you ever get anything right is when you take one of the points I make in shooting you down and turn it on me the very next day as if you always held that position, and I'm the one confused on the matter. Like you did above.

It beggars belief. So badly I'll rephrase that to it buggers belief.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Laymen are people who can be convinced that they are stupid by people making things unnecessarily complicated.

Charlatans are people who knowingly hold forth on topics they don't understand, usually by deliberately false simplifications.

Laymen are people who recognize their own lack of knowledge and experience, and either educate themselves on a subject by study, or defer to people with greater knowledge.

And the there are people who may know the subject but make it mysterious and it is impossible to tell is they really do but they try to keep other people confused regardless.

Like not discussing the need for accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers after TEN YEARS when obviously the buildings had to hold themselves up. So what does that say about all of the physicists and structural engineers regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

I don't hear AE911Truth saying much about it.

Like we are supposed to believe laymen can't understand its importance if the experts even try to explain it.

psik

-PLB-, the easiest way I've found to think about bidirectional crush is to view the crush-up portion the same as an isolated crush-up occurring against ground, except in an accelerated reference frame.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch


I see your point, and I guess that you are right. Mixing up reality and Bazants model is a mistake easily made. As Bazant assumes a "rigid" body for the top section, so does he for the lower section of course. Which is, of course, not like reality. (although maybe "rigid" is not the correct term. What I mean to say is that all load is concentrated on the original support system. Not sure what term to use).

Originally posted by Darkwing01
We are trying to find what is in THE GAP of HISTORICAL (i.e. non-controlled) data.

Shouldn't you be focusing on the ENORMOUS BLACK HOLE of missing data that supports controlled demolition?

Your argument is like that of a creationist. Aaah you are missing a link there, so my god story must be true.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Your argument is like that of a creationist. Aaah you are missing a link there, so my god story must be true.

Wierd. That is a very insightful statement. This is a continual theme from the truth movement.

There is less effort to construct a tenable theory of controlled demolition (or whatever) and more of an effort to throw out one question after another after another casting doubt on the 'fires and impacts' theories of the collapse.

This usually takes the form of "anomalies" or unexplained elements of the events, which can be anything that a particular CT can't understand. Then when this is explained, there are further efforts to speculate about possible scenarios that could leave the "anomaly" as unexplained by the impacts and fires theories.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Darkwing01
We are trying to find what is in THE GAP of HISTORICAL (i.e. non-controlled) data.

Shouldn't you be focusing on the ENORMOUS BLACK HOLE of missing data that supports controlled demolition?

Your argument is like that of a creationist. Aaah you are missing a link there, so my god story must be true.

This is called 'God Of The Gaps' in the evolution-creationist debate. (Well, of course, there is no debate, but you catch my drift)

I see that Anok, as usual, ignores any explanation that conflicts with his distorted understanding of physics, and Darkwing left the building, as usual, after being confronted with the utter nonsense he is sprouting. These patterns never change. We will see Anok demanding an explanation in a couple of weeks/days, mumbling something about 3rd law and momentum. And we will see Darkwing coming with his quasi scientific drivel, with absolutely no content, only displaying his utter ignorance on the subject.

When you want some amusement, you can be sure they will be there

Originally posted by -PLB-
I see that Anok, as usual, ignores any explanation that conflicts with his distorted understanding of physics.

Oh shut the hell up, just because I don't post within 5 minutes like you it doesn't mean I ignoring anything, unlike you I have a life outside of this forum.

I still haven't seen an explanation from any of you how dynamic loading can change the laws of motion, or how columns can be pulled in, but connections don't break. You waffle on about anything but you continually fail to address equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum.

All you can do is talk about Bazant and try to justify his hypotheses but you're not addressing the holes in his paper, you just pretend they don't matter.

reply to post by ANOK


But still you manage to post 25 minutes after I made that post . It's a bit freaky that (at least think) you know something about my life outside this forum. That means you are either stalking me, or you are fantasizing about it. Either way, its freaky.

Originally posted by ANOK
I still haven't seen an explanation from any of you how dynamic loading can change the laws of motion...

Actually, you have seen numerous explanations of how dynamic loading is expressed correctly using the laws of motion. Here's another which goes into more than sufficient detail, using real physics and engineering:

Introduction to Impact Loading

Maybe you'll believe it coming from someone else, maybe not. But you can't in good conscience claim you've never seen explanations.

Aside: the link above rigorously covers some of my recent remarks concerning sudden loading.

Aside #2: the link is labeled S164, I would presume this denotes a freshman structural engineering class.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch


"newton's third and compare masses" in

3

2

1....

As if to make a liar out of you....

Well, whatever works. Let me try it and see if I can secure the next week.

In

3

2

1

...

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
In case you missed this, like you miss so many other things, I consider you a walking litmus test for wrong.

About the only time you ever get anything right is when you take one of the points I make in shooting you down and turn it on me the very next day as if you always held that position, and I'm the one confused on the matter. Like you did above.

It beggars belief. So badly I'll rephrase that to it buggers belief.

Another funny thing Darkwing does in this category is to come all kind of nonsense that makes absolutely no sense, and then the next day act as if you were coming with that nonsense, with the addition how silly it is. Ironically, he is effectively debunking himself in those occasions. To me, this is the most interesting part of the truth movement. Its just amazing how those minds function (or malfunction).

In the meanwhile there is of course complete silence from Anok, because he has absolutely nothing to show for when it comes to giving a substantial reply to all the detailed physics explanations you came with. Of course the actual reason that he doesn't come with any meaningful reply is because he is just too busy having a life outside this forum, unlike us .

reply to post by -PLB-

Of course the actual reason that he doesn't come with any meaningful reply is because he is just too busy having a life outside this forum, unlike us .

Well, in fairness, the CTers don't have the advantage of living on a climate controlled secure facility under lake mead, free T1 connections, and deepweb search tools. Not to mention the army of time travelling 'experts' who go back in time and alter texbooks, newspaper articles and small events to favor the official story. In the final event, they also don't have access to the 'air looms' that we use to neutralize the most effective opposition.

Two weeks after the collapse of the office buildings in Rio de Janeiro, another office building collapsed in Brazil, this time in Sao Paulo.

Some people think it's VERY strange and suspicious.

Check this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I like James Randi a lot, he is a really good Skeptic, except when it comes to the government.