The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

So the obvious next bit of pseudo-logic is to compare it to my 2+ foot collapse demonstration. But I had control of all of the material there. It was delberately made AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Anyone that doubts it can try it for themselves. I can't prove that with a vdeo. ARE REAL BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE???

Let me show you how incredibly ridiculous this "WEAK AS POSSIBLE" nonsense is.
I'm making a model of a tower, composed of a single molecule of C2H2 (ethyn, acetylene). I made it as WEAK AS POSSIBLE! However, if I drop (in a vacuum in a laboratory) a single Helium atom on it (15.3% of the weight of the acetylene molecule), it doesn't collapse. I could also drop an Argon atom on it (69% of the weight of the tower) and it still won't collapse. There is NO DAMAGE AT ALL! Can you see the silliness of this "WEAK AS POSSIBLE" nonsense yet?

So we are supposed to believe this molecule can hold itself upright against gravity for 3 DAYS.

The model is as weak as possible but it should be obvious from the video that it can support its own weight. I am not saying as weak as possible and still exist. This entire business has something to do with GRAVITY by the way.

Keep coming up with more pointless drivel. Maybe you can come up with something funny. That didn't even qualify as entertainment. TOO DUMB!

psik

[tolman]

If it was possible shouldn't it be EASY to build a self supporting model that can completely collapse?

And if someone did, are you actually claiming you'd believe them?
Or would you (with no sense of irony) just dismiss their model as not being close enough to the original?

When has any engineering school demonstrated a physical model of a top down collapse duplicating what supposedly happened to the north tower.

Why should they bother, if the people who believe in a conspiracy would almost all automatically ignore any results they didn't like, and they'd possibly make themselves a target for all manner of internuts claiming they were part of the Grand Conspiracy?

What conceivable benefit would there be to the school for the time and expense?

[tolman]

One thing he's correct about, though: It is sufficient to prove something false in order to reject it as an explanation, no need to provide an alternative. Problem is, he's misusing this. Nothing he's done or anyone's done refutes the conclusion that natural is sufficient, therefore it remains as the generic explanation, notwithstanding some skirting about the actual mechanism. As such, he has no rational basis for clinging to his belief natural collapse is impossible and bears the burden of providing a superior alternative mechanism. Or giving it a rest.

I think some people accidentally or deliberately confuse proving a particular explanation flawed with writing off an entire class of potential explanations.

If someone is claiming merely that an explanation is flawed, then unless they can actually come up with an explanation to be subjected to scrutiny which is clearly less flawed, depending on the nature of the flaw, the flawed explanation may still be the best current one even if it's not perfect, and the future best explanation may well be a modification of the previous one designed to remove the flaw.

While it's nicer for someone to be entirely right from the start, even in cases where there is sufficient information, sometimes people do make mistakes.
While some people may see someone changing an explanation as a sign of weakness, it's vastly less weak than not coming up with an explanation detailed enough to be subject to analysis.

[tolman]

How many times have I said 15% or less falling on the rest?

They dropped 3 stories through a height of 2 stories. The building looked less than 16 stories tall. So if it was a 15 story building it was 20% falling on 75% allowed to drop through 13% of its height.

The north tower was 14 stories falling on 95 stories through 1 story of empty space SUPPOSEDLY. So 12.7% onto 86% with less than 1% of the height to fall.

What difference does the height below make in a progressive collapse, or the fraction of the total height fallen through?
Surely the issue is how strong the floor at the collapse interface is, whatever is underneath it, assuming that the interface is likely to be the weakest point?

By your logic, if someone took a building of a given precise design, and built another building twice as high, with the top half of the taller building being a precise replica of the entirity of the smaller building, you'd seem to argue that exactly similar failures starting at the exact same floor level measured from the top down on both buildings would progress very differently due to the presence or absence of the 'extra' lower half of the taller building, even if the collapses were progressive and effectively top-down.

In the taller building, by what physical mechanism would the top of the building 'know' about the presence of the bottom half before the collapse even reached there?

[tolman]

Curiously the NCSTAR1 report NEVER specifies a total for the concrete.

Why is that curious? If the people writing the report understood how progressive collapse happens, they may well have felt no need to give specific figures.
Their audience wasn't necessarily conspiracy theorists. CTs should understand that not everything in the world is about them.

The top lighter portion supposedly fell and destroyed a progressively heavier and stronger portion.

With, of course, the amount of stuff falling becoming progressively heavier and heavier throughout the process?

While accelerating at more than 0.5 G.

So what acceleration would your profound engineering/physics knowledge suggest *was* feasible?

[Kat Dorman]

... depending on the nature of the flaw, the flawed explanation may still be the best current one even if it's not perfect...

True.

So what acceleration would your profound engineering/physics knowledge suggest *was* feasible?

I'm guessing identically zero is the only acceptable figure.

[atrasicarius]

If a 20 ton section of column was 500 feet up and inside the core of the WTC and welded above and below and on all sides with horizontal beams then it COULD NOT FALL. Now SUPPOSEDLY mass came from above and forced it down. But we aren't told how much ENERGY WAS REQUIRED TO BEND ALL OF THAT STEEL but we are supposed to BELIEVE that it could all fall down. So we have all of this semantic debating bullshit based on grossly incomplete data and some people want to imply they are intelligent while ignoring the data which accurate physics would require. We aren't even told the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers by Official Sources. The best source is supposed to be a programmer in Sweden, like that isn't INCREDIBLY STUPID all by itself.

Oh jesus christ, dude...
The towers DID fall. Therefore, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE HAPPENED, their potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. It doesnt matter if they collapsed due to fire or explosives or space lazors or the big bad wolf huffing and puffing. They DID collapse, so their potential energy WAS released.

[Kat Dorman]

TALK IS CHEAP!

That's right, and that's why that's all you're going to get. Like I said, "There would have to be a good reason to do it, though, because life is too short for such trivia otherwise." I see no one else here who needs to be convinced, and who cares about convincing you? That's an impossible job. If I went to the trouble to build an apartment complex and drop the smaller part on the lower, you'd have rejected just as you did the video of the same I offered. YOU may be satisfied with YOUR piddly piece of junk experiment, but I'm quite sure there's nothing I could do which would satisfy you - so NOTHING is what you're going to get.

That is the trouble with talking about things and doing things. When you try to do something you often find there was some detail that wasn't as small as you thought it was. When I went to buy those washers I ASSUMED they were the same size. They are quite consistent in outer and inner diameters but their thickness varied more than I expected.

That is precisely why I can't be bothered. The principles are obvious to anyone with a grasp of high school science, who gives a rat's ass about incidentals except someone who doesn't grasp the basics?

[psikeyhackr]

TALK IS CHEAP!

That's right, and that's why that's all you're going to get.

Of course, that is all you have the wit to dish out.

psik

[Nicko]

I have posted these before, but there's always hope that the truthers will actually look at them this time.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM[/youtube]

[Kat Dorman]

Of course, that is all you have the wit to dish out.

Ha, so says the king of copy and paste.

When you try to do something you often find there was some detail that wasn't as small as you thought it was.

One of the key differences between us is I have the wit to understand the details are not small in this case. I've always said it's trivial to build a model which arrests and difficult to build one which collapses. I've taken great trouble to explain why; you've ignored it.

[Xaihe]

So the obvious next bit of pseudo-logic is to compare it to my 2+ foot collapse demonstration. But I had control of all of the material there. It was delberately made AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Anyone that doubts it can try it for themselves. I can't prove that with a vdeo. ARE REAL BUILDINGS DESIGNED TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE???

Let me show you how incredibly ridiculous this "WEAK AS POSSIBLE" nonsense is.
I'm making a model of a tower, composed of a single molecule of C2H2 (ethyn, acetylene). I made it as WEAK AS POSSIBLE! However, if I drop (in a vacuum in a laboratory) a single Helium atom on it (15.3% of the weight of the acetylene molecule), it doesn't collapse. I could also drop an Argon atom on it (69% of the weight of the tower) and it still won't collapse. There is NO DAMAGE AT ALL! Can you see the silliness of this "WEAK AS POSSIBLE" nonsense yet?

So we are supposed to believe this molecule can hold itself upright against gravity for 3 DAYS.

The model is as weak as possible but it should be obvious from the video that it can support its own weight. I am not saying as weak as possible and still exist. This entire business has something to do with GRAVITY by the way.

Keep coming up with more pointless drivel. Maybe you can come up with something funny. That didn't even qualify as entertainment. TOO DUMB!

psik

Surface absorption. But that's beside the point, which you seem to have ignored completely.

[Kat Dorman]

So build it and SHOW US!!!

Build what?

I'd like to know what I'm doing, before I set about doing it. You see, I suspect whatever I build will be rejected unless I have some agreement in advance as to what's acceptable and not, therefore time is wasted. As I said before... back when you first refused to disclose the details of your challenge.

I'm not a mind-reader so you have to speak up. Otherwise I must assume the reason you try to be coy about what's acceptable is to always leave an escape route open. That's a tactic borne of fear and uncertainty of position. You're afraid to work out details in a gentlemanly fashion. Are you afraid someone's going to trick you? Why, when no one else is possessed of wit approaching yours?

If you have legitimate reason to reject a model, it can be rejected. I'm not trying to trick you, I'm quite amenable to reasonable objections. The apartment building was more than 15%, and you have stated that before. OK, rejected for good reason. I'm pretty clear on 15% or less of mass. There is a lot more I'm not clear on. If you have legitimate reason to reject a model, you ought to be able to answer yes/no when asked in advance if it's an objection.

----


One question at a time. If you can't or won't answer, the jig is up for your challenge because you won't even say what the challenge is. People who take a challenge without knowing what it is are fools.

A physical model of Bazant's theory, or a physical model of the towers? Not the same things. Yours is a model of Bazant's theory. Can I do the same?

[psikeyhackr]

So build it and SHOW US!!!

Build what?

I'd like to know what I'm doing, before I set about doing it. You see, I suspect whatever I build will be rejected unless I have some agreement in advance as to what's acceptable and not, therefore time is wasted. As I said before... back when you first refused to disclose the details of your challenge.

My model is not a PROOF and I never claimed it was.

Build a model that can support its own weight throughout its height under STATIC LOAD. Drop the top 15% or less of the model onto the rest from not more than double the height of the model.

For your model to be successful at lending credence to your position then 90% or more of the structure should be destroyed by the drop. But components must actually sustain DAMAGE. Not some house of cards nonsense. A minimum of 11 levels of similar structure. My model is 3.5 pounds not counting the dowel which does not participate in the collapse so maybe a 1 pound minimum. I think that is the weight of about 4 decks of cards. But the smaller you make it the more the square cube law works against you. That is why I originally thought a reasonable model could not be made or would cost a lot and why I emphasize that my paper loops are as weak as I can make them and still support the STATIC LOAD.

I do not expect conclusive PROOF from any model and mine is not that. It is not a tube-in-tube structure like the WTC. I do not insist that you try to make one.

The point is if you make your levels any stronger than absolutely necessary then you reduce your chances of succeeding.

psik

[Kat Dorman]

Wow. I'm processing this. Thank you for your response!

[psikeyhackr]

When you try to do something you often find there was some detail that wasn't as small as you thought it was.

One of the key differences between us is I have the wit to understand the details are not small in this case. I've always said it's trivial to build a model which arrests and difficult to build one which collapses. I've taken great trouble to explain why; you've ignored it.

So why do you think two skyscrapers could collapse and not demand to know the distributions of steel in them?

Not know how much steel was on the levels where fire supposedly weakened it enough to fail in less the one and two hours.

psik

[Kat Dorman]

There's a difference between not knowing exactly and not knowing anything.

[ConnyRaSk]

I cannot resist. I must post this.
Here's a quote from Professor Richard Feynman; "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s[/youtube]

[uke2se]

I cannot resist. I must post this.
Here's a quote from Professor Richard Feynman; "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

Nice quote. What if the experiment is bogus, which is the case here?

[Weaver]

Curiously the NCSTAR1 report NEVER specifies a total for the concrete.

Why is that curious? If the people writing the report understood how progressive collapse happens, they may well have felt no need to give specific figures.
Their audience wasn't necessarily conspiracy theorists. CTs should understand that not everything in the world is about them.

I think there's an element of Douglass Adams' Puddle at work here ...

The CTs focus on irrelevancies and "missing" unimportant data points because they cannot argue with the overall reality - they have to determine these points to argue about because they cannot refute what really happened. Therefore it's not that the report wasn't written for the CTs, it's that the CTs existence was likely going to arise anyhow and they would, by definition, focus on areas not massively detailed in the report to "justify" their denial.