What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by ANOK

Again it takes Ke for damage, and every time floors impacted you would lose Ke to deformation, heat, sound etc. The distance the floors dropped, 12'?

Yes.

Would not be enough to increase the Ke to overcome resistance.

Unfounded assertion without maths.

The collpase would have slowed and arrested.

Unfounded assertion without maths.

For the collapse to accelerate and be complete means either the resistance was removed ahead of the collapse, or something increased the Ke

Yes.

It would take an outside force to do that, not gravity.

No. Gravity driven dynamic impacts and overloading is enough.

How do you explain that the 15 floors were collapsing bottom up before the bottom 95 started to move? I have yet to hear an explanation of this.

You can see inside the dust cloud now?

LOL...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Doesn't destroying that structure take energy which slows the falling mass down causing it to have less Kinetic Energy for the next level?

psik

Of course it would.

But it is undeniable that ext columns generally weren't crushed during the collapse progression, for they can be seen falling away in large sheets and generally falling outside the "footprint"

It is also undeniable that the core columns generally weren't crushed either, as evidenced by the "spires" and general lack of buckled column on the ground post collapse. Photos mostly shoe that core columns were broken at their connections. femr and Major Tom have done a lot of that work and have quantified it.

Therefore, both your Python program and your expectations are way out of wack.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
It is also undeniable that the core columns generally weren't crushed either, as evidenced by the "spires" and general lack of buckled column on the ground post collapse. Photos mostly shoe that core columns were broken at their connections. femr and Major Tom have done a lot of that work and have quantified it.

Therefore, both your Python program and your expectations are way out of wack.

The Spires were only a remnant of the core. One looked like there was only one columns left of the top 5 stores of height. That is another curious thing about 9/11. No detailed analysis of the video to determine how much was left of the cores. I have never even seen anyone specify exactly how tall they were.

But there is all sorts of vague bullsh# about significance of the remains of the cores.

My Python is an idealized computer simulation of a thought experiment which we all agree cannot happen in reality. I am only using it to demonstrate a minimum collapse time. So what is the explanation for the north tower coming down so fast relative to my program since the floors would still require energy to break off the core? Each of those connections should have been able to hold about 8 tons of static load.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The Spires were only a remnant of the core. One looked like there was only one columns left of the top 5 stores of height. That is another curious thing about 9/11. No detailed analysis of the video to determine how much was left of the cores. I have never even seen anyone specify exactly how tall they were.

Well then you are misinformed.

Your buddies at Greg urich's forum have done this for you. If only you hadn't been BANNED by spamming your how many tons of steel and concrete on every level insanity you would know this.

That's an independent investigation, btw. Can't get much better than THAT, right?

But there is all sorts of vague bullsh# about significance of the remains of the cores.

Let me spell it out for you again then.

Your Python program is garbage for determining minimum collapse times cuz it assumes that all columns are accelerated by the impacts.

The ext columns are undeniably not accelerated. Which is why you edited out that portion - to mask your shame at including them.

I am only using it to demonstrate a minimum collapse time.

And it's about as useful as that dumb ho who asks "how fast can you say clunkity clunk" as a tool for determing minimum collapse times.

So what is the explanation for the north tower coming down so fast relative to my program since the floors would still require energy to break off the core?

Well at least here you are realizing the true nature of the collapse. And in fact admitting that your python program is useless.

Welcome to reality.

Each of those connections should have been able to hold about 8 tons of static load.

psik

The moving, churning, descending, mass imparted a dynamic load that was greater than 8 tons per connection.

Simple.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The Spires were only a remnant of the core. One looked like there was only one columns left of the top 5 stores of height. That is another curious thing about 9/11. No detailed analysis of the video to determine how much was left of the cores. I have never even seen anyone specify exactly how tall they were.

Well then you are misinformed.

Your buddies at Greg urich's forum have done this for you. If only you hadn't been BANNED by spamming your how many tons of steel and concrete on every level insanity you would know this.

That's an independent investigation, btw. Can't get much better than THAT, right?

I love the way people say stuff is somewhere and then don't provide a link.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I love the way people say stuff is somewhere and then don't provide a link.

psik

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Thread title : psikeyhackr's proverbial red herring

Did you want that link? the one about your inane question about tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Or this one?

In it, they discuss core remnat motion and its fall. there are links that have the core column number, height, and even probable identification.

They also debunk the idea that the core columns disappeared by turning into into "dust". I believe I've seen you use this before?

Dumb statement if so. Wouldn't you agree now that you're informed?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I love the way people say stuff is somewhere and then don't provide a link.

psik

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Thread title : psikeyhackr's proverbial red herring

Did you want that link? the one about your inane question about tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Or this one?

In it, they discuss core remnat motion and its fall. there are links that have the core column number, height, and even probable identification.

They also debunk the idea that the core columns disappeared by turning into into "dust". I believe I've seen you use this before?

Dumb statement if so. Wouldn't you agree now that you're informed?

What I said was:

No detailed analysis of the video to determine how much was left of the cores. I have never even seen anyone specify exactly how tall they were.

That link you posted says 60 to 70 stories. That is a variation of 120 feet. Do you call that exact?

Your calling my steel and concrete question inane does not make it so. Every level had to be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above. So the designers had to know how much that weight would be plus the live load to determine how strong the steel had to be on every LEVEL and then that steel had to be supported from below.

If you check the Wiki on the Empire State Building it says that it was designed from the top down.

I find it hilarious that people try to ridicule my question since in should be obvious to grade school kids. But then experts need to account for not solving a grade school physics problem in TEN YEARS. So all you can come up with is trying to ridicule me.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I find it hilarious that people try to ridicule my question since in should be obvious to grade school kids. But then experts need to account for not solving a grade school physics problem in TEN YEARS. So all you can come up with is trying to ridicule me.

Our ridicule is not you but your beliefs.
You answered your own main question is a few posts up. You stated that each connection should be able to hold 8 tons static. Well each connection was subjected to far more than 8 tons. Most people don't need a computer model to see that.

Let me ask you a simple question:
If 1 floor suddenly vanished do you believe that the lower floors would arrest the fall (10 feet) of the upper 15 floors?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

That link you posted says 60 to 70 stories. That is a variation of 120 feet. Do you call that exact?

Ahh, so now you admit that there ARE core columns present, nullifying the usefulness of your Python program debacle.

If you choose to further educate yourself, there are more links there that discuss the height more.

Your choice to remain ill informed or not.

Your calling my steel and concrete question inane does not make it so.

There is a general consensus on every forum that I've seen you visit that your questioning is indeed inane. I believe that you've been banned from more than this one for your spamming, correct?

I'll go with the consensus on this.

Also, would you PLEASE address my comments about the usefulness of your Python garbage?

Do you agree that you need to redo it to reflect reality?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I find it hilarious that people try to ridicule my question since in should be obvious to grade school kids. But then experts need to account for not solving a grade school physics problem in TEN YEARS. So all you can come up with is trying to ridicule me.

Our ridicule is not you but your beliefs.
You answered your own main question is a few posts up. You stated that each connection should be able to hold 8 tons static. Well each connection was subjected to far more than 8 tons. Most people don't need a computer model to see that.

Let me ask you a simple question:
If 1 floor suddenly vanished do you believe that the lower floors would arrest the fall (10 feet) of the upper 15 floors?

I already gave you the calculations of collapse time for 5IVE LEVELS vanishing.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 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 traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier then the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast the the north tower collapse in 11 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

That eight tons was just for a connection of the floor outside of the core. But the core of the upper falling portion had to come down on the core of the lower stationary portion and those connections would have nothing to do with that.

So the issue is still how could the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds. How cold it accelerate while crushing so much material and breaking so many connections.

And how could a competent analysis be done without accurate info on the steel distribution?

psik

Originally posted by Flatcoat
Don't forget "Truthers are all scammers out to rob you blind..."

2nd

In my travels I have vascilated between accusing OSers and truthers alike of being agents, but frankly I wouldn't know an agent if I met one. I think most of we truth-suckers, er seekers, are easily distracted by ego. Many of the big-names I have met online, some on the phone, but for the most part all are just as imperfect and stupid as the rest of us.

Both the OS story and most of the Truther stories are full of caa-caa, and as long as we're researching caa-caa we're not in any danger of learning the truth. It stands to reason that the people who don't want the truth revealed are behind both camps, so it shouldn't take much digging to discover what hypotheses are most rejected by both sides, and start researching there.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

That link you posted says 60 to 70 stories. That is a variation of 120 feet. Do you call that exact?

Ahh, so now you admit that there ARE core columns present, nullifying the usefulness of your Python program debacle.

My Python program demonstrates the minimum collapse time without columns having to be bent ar being broken loose from. My program demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that plane impacts and fires could make the buildings come down in the observed time. Other factors had to be involved.

9/11 is a blight on the Physics Profession for not addressing the issue in ten years.

psik

ok here is a frame from a mythbuster....IS the car severing the steel....?

now this is traveling at guess....500mph

the steel goes through the engine block too....

I am limiting my remarks here to see the answers....



Video here....www.youtube.com...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I find it impressive how even though you've been criticised by a bunch of different people. Even though I've laid out exactly why your model is rubbish in every way. You ignore all of it without hesitation.

Dear Psikey. Please seek professional help.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I find it impressive how even though you've been criticised by a bunch of different people. Even though I've laid out exactly why your model is rubbish in every way. You ignore all of it without hesitation.

Dear Psikey. Please seek professional help.

Which model are you talking about, the Python thought experiment model or the physical model with the paper loops?

I have already said the 9/11 has become a psychological issue. It is so simple it should have been resolved in 2002. So everyone who does not buy the stupid official story must have psychological problems because they cannot build a physical model which does what they claim.

Everyone is supposed to be a NORMAL MORON who believes idiotic trash because AUTHORITY says so. 43 years after the Moon landing psychologists can't do grade school Newtonian Physics. So this reflects on our entire STEM education program. Physicists not demanding accurate data on a couple of skyscrapers for almost 11 years. Scientific American publishing an article back in 2001 which manages to not even mention the Conservation of Momentum.

Solving this would mean a lot of people have to admit they are either stupid of liars but not solving this means keeping millions of people ignorant.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I find it impressive how even though you've been criticised by a bunch of different people. Even though I've laid out exactly why your model is rubbish in every way. You ignore all of it without hesitation.

Dear Psikey. Please seek professional help.

I would settle for Psikey seeing a few actual classes in physics.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I would settle for Psikey seeing a few actual classes in physics.

You already showed me one Dave.

You had a bowling ball bust a balloon and asked me about the mass. You did not specify whether or not that included the mass of the air in the balloon.

This is what the 9/11 issue turns on now, psychology versus physics. What people know about physics and whether or not they can figure it out correctly may have some bearing on psychology. But physics itself is incapable of giving a damn about psychology or anybody's ego.

So if some people are stupid or just lying about the physics they need to bring psychology to bear.

This can bring up the Asch Conformity Experiments.

en.wikipedia.org...

But Newtonian Physics experiments are not affected by psychology so the results must be explained away. Millions of people need to be kept confused about Newtonian Physics. It is pretty incredible that it has lasted TEN YEARS. But exponent can just keep claiming to have explained things. But people can duplicate my PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT for themselves. No psychology involved.

www.youtube.com...

Exponent is of course free to video and explain an experiment that does a complete collapse. Maybe he can do it with a balloon.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


You already showed me one Dave.

You had a bowling ball bust a balloon and asked me about the mass. You did not specify whether or not that included the mass of the air in the balloon.

Actually, no, I didn't ask you what the mass was. I ask you if you didn't know the mass of the balloon (and the air in the balloon, if you prefer) does it mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to destroy the balloon? You've gone out of your way in avoiding answering the question the same way Paris Hilton avoids having to prove she can read, and it's obvious why- you've been claiming that without knowing the mass of the floors it was impossible for the floors to collapse, which even someone with an about-zero background in physics like me can see is ridiculous. It doesn't mean the collapse was impossible. It simply means there are details about the collapse which we don't know.

This is what the 9/11 issue turns on now, psychology versus physics. What people know about physics and whether or not they can figure it out correctly may have some bearing on psychology. But physics itself is incapable of giving a damn about psychology or anybody's ego.

Now here, we are in agreement. To me as well as the rest of the world, when we see the buildings collapsed, it was becuase the impact and the subsequent fires led to some unknown event which caused the collapse. Algebraically, this can be defined as-

[impact] + [fires] + [unknown event] = [collapse]

With unknown event including loss of stability of the steel, critical supports being compromosed, chain reaction of structural failure, and other reasonable possibilities. So, the equations-

[impact] + [fires] + [loss of stability of the steel] = [collapse]
[impact] + [fires] + [critical supports being compromosed] = [collapse]
[impact] + [fires] + [chain reaction of structural failure] = [collapse]

..are all valid explanations, with the lack of a definitive answer being our inability to determine which equation is correct becuase we can't difinitively know what the unknown event is. The conspiracy theorists who by definition operate under the laws of paranoia, think the unknown event is "sinister secret agents", so to them tne equation is-

[impact] + [fires] + [sinister secret agents] = [collapse]

As you say, the only way to logically explain this is your "psychology is trying to trump physics" observation.

But Newtonian Physics experiments are not affected by psychology so the results must be explained away. Millions of people need to be kept confused about Newtonian Physics. It is pretty incredible that it has lasted TEN YEARS. But exponent can just keep claiming to have explained things. But people can duplicate my PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT for themselves. No psychology involved.

The problem is that your experiments are a poor analogy in simulating how the towers were designed, and plus, you're measuring things that don't apply to how the towers collapsed to begin with. Therefore, you're defining unexplained event as "weird sh*t that doesn't prove anything". The equation therefore becomes-

[impact] + [fires] + [weird sh*t that doesn't prove anything] = [collapse]

...which means there isn't a problem with the improbability of the equation equalling "collapse. The problem is with trying to put "weird sh*t that doesn't prove anything" into the equation. Get it now, or are you going to take the advice you've been given and takle a few physics classes?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


You already showed me one Dave.

You had a bowling ball bust a balloon and asked me about the mass. You did not specify whether or not that included the mass of the air in the balloon.

Actually, no, I didn't ask you what the mass was. I ask you if you didn't know the mass of the balloon (and the air in the balloon, if you prefer) does it mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to destroy the balloon? You've gone out of your way in avoiding answering the question the same way Paris Hilton avoids having to prove she can read, and it's obvious why- you've been claiming that without knowing the mass of the floors it was impossible for the floors to collapse, which even someone with an about-zero background in physics like me can see is ridiculous. It doesn't mean the collapse was impossible. It simply means there are details about the collapse which we don't know.

Apparently you have the same reading problem as Paris Hilton.

I don't say FLOORS, I make a point of saying LEVELS.

The FLOORS outside the core were mostly the same weight although we are not told what it was. It was the weight of the columns in the core and on the perimeter which had to increase down the building in order to increase the strength to hold greater weight toward the bottom of the structures.

Since the balloon was not deliberately designed to support the weight of the bowling ball your question was absurd no matter how you expressed it.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

My Python program demonstrates the minimum collapse time

No it doesn't.

It assumes a set of conditions that did not in fact happen.

Therefore, it is garbage.

without columns having to be bent ar being broken loose from.

Yes.

It also assumes that, for example, the ext columns were accelerated during an impact that in fact did not happen.

Therefore, it is garbage.

My program demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that plane impacts and fires could make the buildings come down in the observed time.

No it doesn't.

It is GIGO.