The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Kat Dorman]

In fact, that video is amazing in that he vocalizes just about all the reasons his paper loop model is a failure, but doesn't seem to realize it.

Example quote: "20 washers dropped from 1 inch breaks the toothpick one-third of the time; a drop from 2 inches broke the toothpick 100% of the time. So it turned out that my mass would not stop because the spacing between the toothpicks allowed the falling mass to gain too much energy."
(Emphasis mine)

So what does he do? Fix the experiment to ensure arrest. He knows 2" spacing will collapse to completion, so he arbitrarily chops it in half.

psikeyhackr is on record as saying the potential energy of the towers was zero. It has been explained to him that change in potential energy is what matters, because this is what goes into kinetic energy. The loss is not counted until the mass has already moved down, so there's no borrowing against anything. It seems psikeyhackr actually understands though he pretends otherwise - as evidenced by the phrase "spacing between the toothpicks allowed the falling mass to gain too much energy." Gain too much energy from WHERE psikeyhackr, if it wasn't PE? The aethers? Hahahaha!!!

His phraseology reveals his experimental bias: "allowed the falling mass to gain too much energy." TOO MUCH energy for what? Getting the rigged result of arrest you were after? Answer is.... YES! SO YOU RIGGED IT TO ARREST.

[Kat Dorman]

Oh, but the fucking paper loops couldn't be made any taller without making the crush energy correspondingly greater. I know all your objections by heart, because they're so pedantic and infantile and because they're repeated endlessly.

That's why paper loops are a bad choice unless you want to rig your experiment for arrest. Looks like you made the right choice for a fraudulent and deceptive presentation of a rigged experiment.

[psikeyhackr]

Just in case there's too much to follow and you're tempted to resort to a stupid LOL, here's a summary of outstanding questions you won't (or can't) answer:

- Had your own model collapsed completely, you'd have disqualified it for being the wrong ratio. Right?
- Had your own model collapsed completely, you'd have disqualified it for being too short. Right?
- Do you remember the ridicule you heaped on me for saying the same thing about load and capacities you just did?
- Those buildings were stronger (higher capacity) than your paper loops because they were NOT built as weak as possible. You said so yourself. Response?
- Why is your model off the scale in the other direction, psikeyhackr? Could it be because your intention was to build a model which arrests?

No A.D.D. excuses. Inevitable evasion will be noted.

He actually makes a couple of those exact excuses in this video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc[/youtube]
3:05 he calls a complete collapse a "failure". Not that the models really showed anything useful in the first place.

ROFLMAO

He shows my old video with the toothpicks in the dowel that doesn't use a cumulative structure.

Even I don't pay attention to that anymore. LOL

psik

[Kat Dorman]

He shows my old video with the toothpicks in the dowel that doesn't use a cumulative structure.

Even I don't pay attention to that anymore. LOL

"Oh, THAT old thing!"

Why the hell don't you take down the video of the fraudulent, rigged experiment then? Do you stand by it or not?

[Kat Dorman]

For the record, I predicted this bullshit response on the previous page:

Oh, now we'll hear about how these supports were equal strength where the supports in the tower had to be stronger going down. Duh!

So transparent. So predictable.

[psikeyhackr]

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/psike ... -t462.html

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=a9 ... 3&st=11400

psik

[Kat Dorman]

Yeah? You know what's taller than the stories in your dick-high model?

This is:

[Nicko]

Just in the futile hope that this might actually get through to psikey...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrEDo9ChSdQ[/youtube]

[psikeyhackr]

Argument by smilies. I believe this is what psikeyhackr thinks should be taught in engineering schools.

Which engineering school built a model that collapsed completely?



After TEN YEARS which engineering school will be able to say that the distribution of steel was important to the analysis? Because if they can't wouldn't that mean that the distribution of steel is not important to skyscrapers holding themselves up?

Sorry, the engineering schools have put themselves into a double bind.

9/11/11 will be the day that physics died. [or just the physics profession]

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1500.html

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Well, to hell with your model then. Paper loops and washers DO NOT look like a steel frame building. Your model does NOT have the variation in distribution of strength & mass of a skyscraper more than 1000 feet tall. Your model is disqualified by your own stated criteria.

Therefore, EVERY time you ask for a physical model to prove my assertions, I will ask you for the same since you haven't made any.

His response?

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.

So now you know what nitpicking bullshit he's going to use to disqualify your offering of AN ACTUAL BUILDING COLLAPSE, but somehow his dick-high paper loop model is NOT disqualified.

It is really funny how you want to be SO SCIENTIFIC with you computer generated graphs and everything but then have a problem with comparing these short building, less than 20 stories tall, with the way mass would have to be distributed in a building 1300 feet tall.

Then you want to try to ridicule a DICK HIGH model.

But that model can be DUPLICATED by anyone. Everybody can watch those videos but no one can tell for sure how many stories they have or how much was left afterwards so what does that say about your scientific consistency with the graphs you make a big deal about? Anyone duplicating my model can try changing the distribution of paper loops. In fact if they use paper that is a different thickness they should get different results. But the whole point is to have the structure AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE and that is not how buildings are designed.

But my model still did not completely collapse and you need to come up with excuses for why you can't build one THAT DOES and yet insist that you are correct anyway even though we do not have trustworthy data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.

Oh yeah, did any of your videos have tons of steel "skittering" 600 feet from the demolition?

[/quote]No one is stupid enough to waste time on a model when even a BUILDING COLLAPSE is disqualified.[/quote]

ROFL Building collapses where you can't accurately tell the number of stories or see what was left.

You can't tell from my video if I have wooden donuts behind my paper loops. But I told everyone how to duplicate the model so anyone, anywhere can test it for themselves. No one can do that for you building videos.

So where is your model that can collapse so anyone can duplicate it. Do you doubt that I will try?

You can believe I give a damn about your argument by ridicule all you want. But simply regard it as an obvious sign of intellectual bankruptcy which is deserving of ridicule. Anyone that didn't figure out the the distribution of mass was important within a few weeks of 9/11 had questionable comprehension of physics. Even Noam Chomsky.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

No one can PROVE I am wrong in saying it until they build a model the completely collapses due to 15% of its top height and 15% or less of its weight being dropped on the rest.

That's your criteria. Fuck your criteria. You've already lost this argument long ago.

One thing I know for sure from just looking at it, though, is it's a lot more than crotch high!

A model gives the experimenter control and repeatability.

Which is precisely what allowed me to reproduce your paper loop construction and do measurements to estimate load displacement and energy dissipation. Which, in turn, confirmed my opinion that your model arrests because the loops dissipate too much energy in crushing to qualify for a progressive collapse.

...and nowhere near the height of the WTC are meaningless.

You really need to stop harping on HEIGHT, you with your dick-high model. If you could make supports that were higher, yet only dissipated as much energy as what you have, you could achieve collapse.

The distribution of strength has to change with the height. So those approximately 20 story building would be similar to the top 20 stories of the WTC.

I'd compliment you for getting something right, but perhaps you recall when I tried to explain that very same thing and offered a simple graphic depicting stress as color to illustrate it:



Do you remember the ridicule you heaped on me? I guess it's brilliant when you say it and stupid when I say it. Now that's scientific!

The mass distribution in the 20 stories would not be similar to that of the entire height of the WTC.

Of course, but you've yet to supply a reason why that matters for collapse. If you ever do, please apply that to your dick high model that doesn't even have the mass of one angle bracket in the towers.

My model is built AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. That is NOT how real buildings are constructed.

No shit, Sherlock. That's why a REAL BUILDING collapsing to completion ought to penetrate your fog but, unsurprisingly, it doesn't.

The loops at the bottom are 3 times as strong as the loops at the top. Can you provide any strength ratio information on any of those buildings in your videos?

Always too fast and loose with your LOLs.

Those buildings were stronger (higher capacity) than your paper loops because they were NOT built as weak as possible. You said so yourself. Now what are you going to say in response to this? (my prediction: NOTHING. Whenever you're shown wrong, you ignore it)

You seem to think I give a damn about ridicule or your ego.

All of the strength relevant to my model is in the paper loops. Nearly all of the weight is in the washers. One washer weighed more than all 60 paper loops. The ratio of the total weight to the weight of the supports has to be much greater for my model than for any possible building.

Thanks for coming up with a picture giving an indication of the weight distribution to help show how irrelevant your videos of collapsing short buildings are. But because my supports are so weak their distribution may be more similar to a skyscraper then your short buildings. It is just the nature of the square cube law. That is why I originally never tried to make a collapsing model I was thinking of duplicating a tube-in-tube structure and kept envisioning something much heavier. It is being small and light but very weak that makes the whole thing possible.

I find your heaping ridicule on the model for its very "strength" as a model of demonstrating a gravitational collapse to be quite amusing. This is the whole point of my not engaging in PMs with you. I want everyone to see this silly irrelvant crap like Victorian "We" and other rhetorical drivel that you bring up because you can't build a self supporting model that does what you claim the towers did.

Give me some more relevant stuff like that colorized mass distribution picture. I've saved that to my hard drive I may use it myself elsewhere.

Your argument is built on BELIEVING that the towers could collapse. You can't specify the tons of steel on each level in the core much less the amount of energy required to collapse each level and then say I haven't explained why distribution of mass matters in a collapse. You already know about my Python program for collapse time on Urich's site. The greater the mass further down relative to less mass higher up the greater the collapse time. But that is a magical collapse WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTS that have to be destroyed for the mass to come down.

So we are supposed to pretend we have never discussed that before. That pretense makes about as much sense as 1000 m/s.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Just in the futile hope that this might actually get through to psikey...

Your hope is certainly futile, alright. Noam Chomsky! Fortunately I could be doing something useful on my computer while that idiotic drivel played in the background. The fact that you suggest such drivel speaks volumes about you.

Where have I ever written anything about Bush? Where have I talked about Iraq? What did Chomsky say about the collapse time and the distribution of steel? He mentioned nano-thermite at the beginning and then went on and on about politics that I never talk about and don't give a damn about. It is not my fault that you think, or fail to think, in terms of conspiracy and politics.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about any conspiracies.

What does any conspiracy have to do with how many tons of steel were on each and every level in the core of the towers?

Is there some Conspiracy of Physics making it impossible for anyone to build a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

[GrahamH]

It is amazing that psikey is still using the 'impossble to make a model that collapses' line.
Dudley posted a video of exactly such a model.

Does psikey think that adding more floors at the bottom of this tower would somehow arrest the collapse?

Case closed.

...
They didn't even need to use explosives, they just pulled it down close to the top and let the weight collapse the rest of it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5bkxS2cFU[/youtube]

Keep in mind if you have objections such as how they are not analogous to the WTC that is irrelevant. You asked for any model. Well there you go!

[Kat Dorman]

Hey psikeyhackr, you know what's taller than your dick-high model?

This is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5bkxS2cFU[/youtube]

[psikeyhackr]

PM from KD

============================================================

Subject: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Give me some more relevant stuff like that colorized mass distribution picture. I've saved that to my hard drive I may use it myself elsewhere.

If I see you using my work without attribution (of course you don't even have permission to use it at all), I'll join whatever forum you've been spamming and call you on it, linking to your original mockery of the picture to show how intelligent and consistent you really are.

Of course, I think you're lying anyway.

ROFLMAO

What could I possibly be lying about? Whether or not I downloaded the picture?

Why would I bother lying about something as trivial as that?

I haven't used it yet and I didn't say that I had therefore I couldn't be lying about that unless you think I am lying about having used it. ROFL And of course I would not give a damn if you called me on it. The simplest way to use would be to just link the image to RatSkep.

The trouble is you think I give a shit about your ego and I don't but I also think you confuse your ego with your intellect. It is really funny that you post that video of the building collapse due to bulldozers after you make a graphic for distribution of mass of tall versus short buildings when that video only shows 12 stories and I would guess the building was only 16 stories tall and you can't see how successful the collapse was..

psik

!	GENERAL MODNOTE The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed. Durro

[Kat Dorman]

PM from KD

============================================================

Subject: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Give me some more relevant stuff like that colorized mass distribution picture. I've saved that to my hard drive I may use it myself elsewhere.

If I see you using my work without attribution (of course you don't even have permission to use it at all), I'll join whatever forum you've been spamming and call you on it, linking to your original mockery of the picture to show how intelligent and consistent you really are.

Of course, I think you're lying anyway.

ROFLMAO

What could I possibly be lying about? Whether or not I downloaded the picture?

Why would I bother lying about something as trivial as that?

I haven't used it yet and I didn't say that I had therefore I couldn't be lying about that unless you think I am lying about having used it. ROFL And of course I would not give a damn if you called me on it. The simplest way to use would be to just link the image to RatSkep.

The trouble is you think I give a shit about your ego and I don't but I also think you confuse your ego with your intellect. It is really funny that you post that video of the building collapse due to bulldozers after you make a graphic for distribution of mass of tall versus short buildings when that video only shows 12 stories and I would guess the building was only 16 stories tall and you can't see how successful the collapse was..

psik

What has TONS of STEEL and TONS and TONS of CONCRETE in it?

This does:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5bkxS2cFU[/youtube]


How many TONS of STEEL and TONS and TONS of CONCRETE does your model have?

[psikeyhackr]

What evidence do you have that there was any steel bigger than nails in that building?

I don't see any indication of girders.

How many people did my model have to support? So you can't build a collapsing model and you want to pretend that we haven't talked about the conservation of momentum in my model and the towers.

Your absurdity is getting beyond hilarious.

How many simulated tons of steel were in your 1000 m/s computer simulation?

Care to explain what you think I was lying about? Downloading the picture to my computer?

psik

[Kat Dorman]

No, I do not care to explain any aspect of a private message which you posted in a public thread without my prior knowledge or consent.


But I would like to explain why this is more like a BUILDING than a dick-high paper and washer model:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5bkxS2cFU[/youtube]

Because it's a BUILDING!

[psikeyhackr]

No, I do not care to explain any aspect of a private message which you posted in a public thread without my prior knowledge or consent.

Yes, you need to accuse people of lying in private.

Even though it was something you couldn't know I was lying about even if I was lying.

psik

[GrahamH]

No, I do not care to explain any aspect of a private message which you posted in a public thread without my prior knowledge or consent.


But I would like to explain why this is more like a BUILDING than a dick-high paper and washer model:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5bkxS2cFU[/youtube]

Because it's a BUILDING!

Yes, come on psikey, admit it. This building is a self supporting structure that collapses to the ground due to gravity when the smaller top section drops onto the larger lower section. That is what you proclaimed to be impossible.
This building is the model you said could not be built.
This building does what you claim is a contradiction of the laws of physics.