What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
ON YOUR FLAWED MODEL mass drops on tubes NOT ,inside a tube, after each floor fails MORE mass is added in the WTC collapse!

And none of our engineering schools which charge $100,000+ for FOUR YEARS OF EDUCATION have buit any kind of physical model that can completely collapse. In fact I don't know of any school that has said they would try.

But if we do not know the strength of the 200 connections relative to the weight of the floor assembly then how can anyone build a tube-in-tube model?

Oh yeah, we don't even know the weight of the trusses and floor pans relative to the weight of the 600 ton concrete slab and I had to tell you people how to compute the weight of the slab. I have never seen it specified anywhere.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So let me get this straight. You make a model, knowing full well that it does not model the type of collapse that the towers underwent, and then you claim that it is proof that the towers couldn't have collapsed. You are called out on the fact that it doesn't model it, and so you rant about how no one else has modeled it?

You can't draw an argument from lack of models. The trade center has been modeled plenty of times, but the thing is, people use COMPUTERS now. Computers offer far more accurate models because they are not hindered by the scale rule. If you check youtube, you can find a number of people who have been and continue to model the trade center collapses. Eventually, they'll get the numbers crunched correctly, and you'll be wrong or something.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So let me get this straight. You make a model, knowing full well that it does not model the type of collapse that the towers underwent, and then you claim that it is proof that the towers couldn't have collapsed. You are called out on the fact that it doesn't model it, and so you rant about how no one else has modeled it?

You can't draw an argument from lack of models. The trade center has been modeled plenty of times, but the thing is, people use COMPUTERS now. Computers offer far more accurate models because they are not hindered by the scale rule. If you check youtube, you can find a number of people who have been and continue to model the trade center collapses. Eventually, they'll get the numbers crunched correctly, and you'll be wrong or something.

You are not interested in getting anything straight.

I never claimed my model was PROOF of anything.

We are told the the north tower underwent a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE resulting from a combination of structural damage from airliner impact and fire. Supposedly the portion of the building above the impact fell down and destroyed the INTACT portion of the building below the impact zone.

I built a model demonstrating the physical principles of a gravitational collapse. It is not to scale and it is not a tube-in-tube. I never claimed it was either so it cannot possibly be a PROOF.

BUT!

Without accurate data on the buildings no one can build a model to scale to do the physics. Without knowing the strength of the connections relative to the weight of the floor assembly no one can build an accurate tube-in-tube model.

So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding that information? But I did make my model as weak as possible relative to the static load. And it is cheap so anyone that wants to can try to duplicate my results to see if I am faking the experiment.

So what is your complaint?

Oh yeah, COMPUTER MODELS do calculations in order to pretend to do physics. Real physical models have to actually do physics. But computers have to have correct data to plug into the equations. So why can't the NIST even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers in TEN YEARS? Why don't we have the total weight os ate trusses and floor pans? Why don't the columns in Purdue's computer simulation move when the NIST has empirical data indicating that the south tower deflected 15 inches.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Computers are just another way to lie to people who can't figure out the physics.

But why doesn't EVERYONE expect our engineering schools to at least try to do a better job than I did? Why are people paying $100,000+ for education if the schools can't do something that simple?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I already explained how gravity could be scaled with a centrifuge but that it would be useless because it would increase the static load which would mean stronger supports anyway so the effect would cancel.

IOW, you are aware that your model fails, but are too chicken# to just come out and say it.

We all see this.

People just need to come up with excuses for why they can't build a physical model that will completely collapse to cover up the fact that it is impossible.

LMAO. You're the one using excuses to not admit that modelling the collapse in that way is impossible.

This is the problem as I see it. Your knowledge of physics is too limited to understand that a vertical collapse, that relies on PE as the main energy driver, which by extension is determined by the height between levels, cannot be modelled.

Everyone sees your failure to understand this, and it is amusing to those of us that DO understand it to watch you flail around trying to make a point.

The concept of consensus must deal with the fact that 75% of the population scores below 111 on IQ tests.

ANd we can all clearly see where you would fall.

And then can't explain how it came down in less than 26 seconds.
psik

It's been done. You have seen references to it.

But you are trolling now by not addressing it.

But that's ok, every time you raise an easily refuted issue to the table, you just become an easy target to shoot down in the attempt to educate anyone that is interested in learning.


So.... do you need me to repost my recs for redoing your Python program? Or are you going to ignore it?

Are you going to thank me for supplying a link to that engineering news article that ckearly states the exact opposite of what you were claiming regarding how wind loads were resisted by the towers? Or are you trying to ignore that refutation in a failed attempt to retain credibility?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But if we do not know the strength of the 200 connections

We do. it's in the NIST report.

relative to the weight of the floor assembly then how can anyone build a tube-in-tube model?

We know this too.

Oh yeah, we don't even know the weight of the trusses and floor pans relative to the weight of the 600 ton concrete slab

yes we do.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Computers are just another way to lie to people who can't figure out the physics.

psik

Yep.

This describes your Python program perfectly.

Fortunately, the only person you have fooled, and made a fool of, is yourself.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Computers are just another way to lie to people who can't figure out the physics.

psik

Yep.

This describes your Python program perfectly.

Fortunately, the only person you have fooled, and made a fool of, is yourself.

The why did exponent duplicate the concept and come up with pretty much the same number? 12 seconds.

The nice thing about it is that it is so simple only complete idiots cannot understand it and duplicate it. But the the Conservation of Momentum is too difficult for some people. What, no explanation for why the columns did not move in the Purdue simulation?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The why did exponent duplicate the concept and come up with pretty much the same number? 12 seconds.

Because your code was so bad I reimplemented it. It doesn't provide any evidence towards your 26 second claim, or the myriad of bizarre claims you make.

The nice thing about it is that it is so simple only complete idiots cannot understand it and duplicate it. But the the Conservation of Momentum is too difficult for some people. What, no explanation for why the columns did not move in the Purdue simulation?

Perhaps the camera was fixed to them?

]reply to post by psikeyhackr

Oh yeah, COMPUTER MODELS do calculations in order to pretend to do physics. Real physical models have to actually do physics. But computers have to have correct data to plug into the equations. So why can't the NIST even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers in TEN YEARS? Why don't we have the total weight os ate trusses and floor pans? Why don't the columns in Purdue's computer simulation move when the NIST has empirical data indicating that the south tower deflected 15 inches.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Computers are just another way to lie to people who can't figure out the physics.

Pretend Physics. Really? How do you think anything is built and tested. With computers. I am pretty sure they did not use washers and fishing line to make sure the Burj Khalifa would stand. Did they build one and then destroy it?You claims are starting to now sound extremely ignorant and self confessing you cannot do it yourself just makes it worse.

How much concrete was used on each floor again. How would this help in your calculations? If you knew the exact weight do you think you could then prove it should not collapse? You have approximates that a lay person, with a simple physics background should understand.

If you have 100's of tons of weight, 70 stories in the air, and you remove what was put in place to support it, it will eventually fail. There is noformula needed nor thermite, just some common sense.

Originally posted by esdad71
]reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Oh yeah, COMPUTER MODELS do calculations in order to pretend to do physics. Real physical models have to actually do physics. But computers have to have correct data to plug into the equations. So why can't the NIST even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers in TEN YEARS? Why don't we have the total weight os ate trusses and floor pans? Why don't the columns in Purdue's computer simulation move when the NIST has empirical data indicating that the south tower deflected 15 inches.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Computers are just another way to lie to people who can't figure out the physics.

Pretend Physics. Really? How do you think anything is built and tested. With computers. I am pretty sure they did not use washers and fishing line to make sure the Burj Khalifa would stand. Did they build one and then destroy it?You claims are starting to now sound extremely ignorant and self confessing you cannot do it yourself just makes it worse.

Hey dude the Empire State Building is 81 years old. What kind of electronic computer do you think was used to design that? The ENIAC was not running until 1945. The airplanes used in World War II were designed without electronic computers. The atomic bomb was designed without electronic computers.

The conservation of momentum won't matter in the Burj Khalifa unless there is a collapse. We are talking about a supposed collapse. That means moving mass hits stationary mass. Now how does a computer analyze that without correct data on the masses?

But all of a sudden when everyone is supposed to believe that an airliner less than 200 tons and 34 tons of fuel and less than two hours of fire can totally destroy buildings 2000 times the mass of the planes, physical models which cannot avoid doing REAL PHYSICS do not matter any more.

And official sources who can't even tell is the weight of steel in each floor assembly expect us to believe their computer models.

You have to put data into computer models!

psik

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The why did exponent duplicate the concept and come up with pretty much the same number? 12 seconds.

Because your code was so bad I reimplemented it. It doesn't provide any evidence towards your 26 second claim, or the myriad of bizarre claims you make.

If my code was so BAD then why didn't you get an answer significantly different from mine?

Where is this fantastic code by the way?

psik

Originally posted by exponent

The nice thing about it is that it is so simple only complete idiots cannot understand it and duplicate it. But the the Conservation of Momentum is too difficult for some people. What, no explanation for why the columns did not move in the Purdue simulation?

Perhaps the camera was fixed to them?

Nice excuse. But that would be visible relative to the motion of the plane.

It would also be very peculiar for the simulator to be programmable to do that.

psik

I really can't be bothered reading all the tedious arguments about whether steel can melt and if explosives brought down the WTC and WTC7. It is all irrelevant.

Why?

Simply because - if explosives had been used and planted by agents of the US government then surely this would be accounted for and blamed on Al Qaeda by the conspirators as part of the cover up just as the hijacked airliners were.

If 9/11 really was a massive cover up, and inside job, then surely any explosives would be blamed on terrorists. In fact if there were explosives then there would also be no need for hijacking the jet airliners.....

But I am open to an alternative explanation.

Originally posted by mirageman
Simply because - if explosives had been used and planted by agents of the US government then surely this would be accounted for and blamed on Al Qaeda by the conspirators as part of the cover up just as the hijacked airliners were.

They didn't even search for evidence of explosives.

Can you explain how sagging trusses could put a pulling force on the massive 4" thick box columns?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by mirageman
Simply because - if explosives had been used and planted by agents of the US government then surely this would be accounted for and blamed on Al Qaeda by the conspirators as part of the cover up just as the hijacked airliners were.

They didn't even search for evidence of explosives.

Can you explain how sagging trusses could put a pulling force on the massive 4" thick box columns?

NYPD did actually had dogs search for ballistics at fresh kills landfill. But as far as I know dogs wouldn't pick up thermate.

I'm convinced that something was used to bring the buildings down.

Originally posted by ANOK


Can you explain how sagging trusses could put a pulling force on the massive 1/4" thick box columns?

FTFY

Originally posted by ANOK

the massive 4" thick box columns?

Where in your delusion addled mind did you get the idea that the steel making up any of ext box columns were 4" thick at the level that the pull in was seen?

Crap...

Curse you Waypastvne......

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But all of a sudden when everyone is supposed to believe that an airliner less than 200 tons and 34 tons of fuel and less than two hours of fire can totally destroy buildings 2000 times the mass of the planes, physical models which cannot avoid doing REAL PHYSICS do not matter any more.

psik

Nope.

Uneducated idiots believe that this is a legit question, but the eductaed realize this is a strawman.

Oh, and trolls might ask it.

But thetruth is, that the plane impacts and fires actually destroyed very liottle.

The impacts destroyed some ext and core columns.

the fires heated steel to the point that loads were shifted, etc. The fires didn't physically destroy anything structural.

gravity is responsible for the physical destruction.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But all of a sudden when everyone is supposed to believe that an airliner less than 200 tons and 34 tons of fuel and less than two hours of fire can totally destroy buildings 2000 times the mass of the planes, physical models which cannot avoid doing REAL PHYSICS do not matter any more.

psik

Nope.

Uneducated idiots believe that this is a legit question, but the eductaed realize this is a strawman.

Oh, and trolls might ask it.

But thetruth is, that the plane impacts and fires actually destroyed very liottle.

The impacts destroyed some ext and core columns.

the fires heated steel to the point that loads were shifted, etc. The fires didn't physically destroy anything structural.

gravity is responsible for the physical destruction.

Sure, CLAIM things while not being able to specify the quantity of steel in the vicinity to be able to explain how that much steel had to be heated enough in less than two hours.

CLAIM to be educated while exhibiting obvious ignorance. And Urich admitted that he was interpolating. And where is the horizontal steel in the core specified?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Sure, CLAIM things while not being able to specify the quantity of steel in the vicinity to be able to explain how that much steel had to be heated enough in less than two hours.

CLAIM to be educated while exhibiting obvious ignorance. And Urich admitted that he was interpolating. And where is the horizontal steel in the core specified?

psik

Your folly is on display for all to see. you asked how can a plane destroy the towers, are given a rebuttal that destroys your statement, and then instead of replying on topic, you change the subject.

this is called running away cuz you know that your question had no purpose other than to troll.

But as I said, you are an easy target to destroy. So keep on posting. i will reply every time to expose just how ridiculous truthers are.