The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Agi Hammerthief]

Third, as far as I am concerned this is not about who to believe and personalities it is about every individual UNDERSTANDING the physics for himself. That is why debating 300 year old Newtonian physics 40+ years after the Moon landing is hilariously absurd.

you're saying they didn't use Newtonian Physics to go to the moon?
and which moon landing do you refer to specifically?

Second, I am not trying to make this a general study of physics just have people understand enough to solve this problem.

people understand enough to solve the problem
YOU don't understand enough to comprehend the solution

Edit: Spellink

[psikeyhackr]

Well I sure don't know the answers, but a qualified structural engineer would. And maybe a whole group of those engineers got together and produced some sort of report on the nature of apples, fishing line and how that related to recent world events which may or may not have occurred in New York. I sure would like to read that report to find out what the structural engineers think!

Some people are too dumb to think for themselves or have been brainwashed from childhood to doubt their own intelligence.

That is how religion works.

psik

[Kat Dorman]

Exactly, that was the best response you could come up with for not telling everyone about your massless COMPRESSION springs...

Again, "admitting" the springs in a mass-spring-dashpot simulation are massless is like "admitting" a car has an engine.

Duh! Duh, psikeyhackr, duh!

...which cannot come close to existing in reality therefore they cannot be physics.

False. Idiotic after all that's been said. Please email the professor with the test question involving 3.5m massless springs in compression which support 953kg and tell him he's not doing physics. Surely you have the balls. While you're at it, tell him you think potential energy is not energy, but is a delusion.

There is no way for a physical model that anyone can duplicate to not be physics.

So what?

My objective is getting people to understand the absurdity of the supposed physics of 9/11 not play ego games with Kat Dorman.

You've failed miserably. Name one person who came to any understanding as a result of your drivel. ONE. You don't even have to limit yourself to this forum. One.

I want people to duplicate the model and understand it not believe some idiotic graphs without knowing the data behind the graphs. 100 hz oscillation!

Yeah, , returning to your old vomit I see. Vibration is real, natural, and you've just resurrected another idiotic objection. Broken record.

In all this time, you've only ever been able to come up with three objections, and they're all bullshit. These are the best responses you could come up with for not ADMITTING to everyone you're totally fully of shit.

[Kat Dorman]

Some people are too dumb to think for themselves...

And some people are too dumb to think, period.

[Kat Dorman]

Drop one real steel column on to another and see if it makes a sound. Is the sound at a frequency of 100Hz or above? Mount a velocity transducer on the columns; would it show ringing? That looks like the oscillations in my graph? Do the same with the stinking little pathetic washers. Would the same be true?

Yes to all the above. Duh, fucking duh.

psikeyhackr, pick ANY physicist at any institution in the world, email them, and tell them potential energy is a delusion.

[psikeyhackr]

Exactly, that was the best response you could come up with for not telling everyone about your massless COMPRESSION springs...

Again, "admitting" the springs in a mass-spring-dashpot simulation are massless is like "admitting" a car has an engine.

Duh! Duh, psikeyhackr, duh!

When you first posted the original graph in this thread WHERE DID YOU SAY THERE WERE ANY SPRINGS at all?

[91,055]
psik

[Kat Dorman]

When you first posted the original graph in this thread WHERE DID YOU SAY THERE WERE ANY SPRINGS at all?

Duh! I told you -

There are NO springs in my model at all, dumbass - there is only a load-displacement function.

For god's sake, pay attention!

[Galaxian]

Some more expert judgement that the NIST report was a pack of lies from academics under political duress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqeS2n_D5-g

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqeS2n_D5-g[/youtube]

[psikeyhackr]

Third, as far as I am concerned this is not about who to believe and personalities it is about every individual UNDERSTANDING the physics for himself. That is why debating 300 year old Newtonian physics 40+ years after the Moon landing is hilariously absurd.

you're saying they didn't use Newtonian Physics to go to the moon?

A truly brilliant interpretation of what I said. Sophistry is so much more important than physics.

[91,231]
psik

[psikeyhackr]

When you first posted the original graph in this thread WHERE DID YOU SAY THERE WERE ANY SPRINGS at all?

Duh! I told you -

There are NO springs in my model at all, dumbass - there is only a load-displacement function.

For god's sake, pay attention!

Yes, fancy jargon for simulated springs makes some people sound so much more intelligent.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/58395

That is the fundamental issue of 9/11 pseudo-intellectual geniuses making a trivial problem complicated.

With this for a result:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1302102

Maybe veterans should start bumping off physicists. LOL

I like this because it shows how ridiculous this business is without any technicalities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iNQd3Dr9f4

psik

[Kat Dorman]

Yes, fancy jargon for simulated springs makes some people sound so much more intelligent.

Seriously, "load displacement" is too complicated a term for you? Did you drop out of 4th grade?

[Kat Dorman]

By the way, one side is arguing Newtonian physics. The other side (you, psikeyhackr) is arguing pre-Aristotelian knuckle-walker naive physics.

[Kat Dorman]

That is the fundamental issue of 9/11 pseudo-intellectual geniuses making a trivial problem complicated.

If it's trivial, how come you don't understand it?

I like this because it shows how ridiculous this business is without any technicalities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iNQd3Dr9f4

Ridiculous indeed. The entire basis for this video is incredulity, nothing more. Not one whit of engineering.

1/50th scale?

[Agi Hammerthief]

Third, as far as I am concerned this is not about who to believe and personalities it is about every individual UNDERSTANDING the physics for himself. That is why debating 300 year old Newtonian physics 40+ years after the Moon landing is hilariously absurd.

you're saying they didn't use Newtonian Physics to go to the moon?

A truly brilliant interpretation of what I said. Sophistry is so much more important than physics.

not so much an interpretation as an attempt to unrevel the non sequiteur.

[DarthHelmet86]

!

MODNOTE Kat Dorman, this post contains a personal attack/insult: [Reveal] Spoiler: your reported post, relevant text in bold red font Dorman didn't say anything about my refusing to supply the weight of the paper loops... Because it's irrelevant and I've always been clear about that. Razzing you for failing to provide an accurate table of masses was to razz you for being a hypocrite and also for being a prick about it at every step of the way. until after he admitted to the massless springs and I made a big deal about it. Again, "admitting" the springs in a mass-spring-dashpot simulation are massless is like "admitting" a car has an engine. Making personal attacks against other forum members is not allowed, as is spelled out in our Forum User's Agreement, paragraph 1.2.c, to which you agreed when you joined our forum. [Reveal] Spoiler: relevant section of the Forum User's Agreement Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to: 1.2. not post or transmit defamatory, abusive, threatening or illegal material, or any other material with the intent to purposely mislead or harm others or infringe on the ability of others to enjoy rationalskepticism.org. This includes but is not limited to: c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members Accordingly, you are being issued with your third active warning and the accompanying one week suspension from the site that entails. DarthHelmet86 Please do not discuss this modnote or moderation in this thread as it is off-topic. If you need clarification or want to appeal this decision, please email the moderation team at: info@rationalskepticism.org

[psikeyhackr]

Ridiculous indeed. The entire basis for this video is incredulity, nothing more. Not one whit of engineering.

1/50th scale?

But what pictures or videos from 9/11 show the full size of the building relative to the plane?

None that I have seen. Most with the plane do not show the bottom portion of the building.

That incredulity tends to show how ridiculous this issue really is. Saying the building had 2,000 times the mass of the plane is more significant to me but I had a barber complain when I asked him to cut my hair back by 2/3rds.

That engineering does not cut it with some people. But I suspect you count on that.

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

That incredulity tends to show how ridiculous this issue really is. Saying the building had 2,000 times the mass of the plane is more significant to me ...

and the point is?

You are amazed that a mass A of 1/2000 of mass B can destroy the structual integrety of mass B?

Throw a weight of 90kg in the right place of a 767 in flight and see what's left over.
hitting it on the ground will also work, If you do the proportions fuel:aluminium like the 767.

[Just A Theory]

Well I sure don't know the answers, but a qualified structural engineer would. And maybe a whole group of those engineers got together and produced some sort of report on the nature of apples, fishing line and how that related to recent world events which may or may not have occurred in New York. I sure would like to read that report to find out what the structural engineers think!

Some people are too dumb to think for themselves or have been brainwashed from childhood to doubt their own intelligence.

That is how religion works.

psik

And some people realise the limits of their knowledge and expertise and don't succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[psikeyhackr]

That incredulity tends to show how ridiculous this issue really is. Saying the building had 2,000 times the mass of the plane is more significant to me ...

and the point is?

You are amazed that a mass A of 1/2000 of mass B can destroy the structual integrety of mass B?

Throw a weight of 90kg in the right place of a 767 in flight and see what's left over.
hitting it on the ground will also work, If you do the proportions fuel:aluminium like the 767.

Notice that you said IN FLIGHT. Why not stationary and on the ground? Is it heavier in flight?

The World Trade Center was not flying when it was hit.

But then there are so many people who say it was the fire but then they don't talk about the quantity of steel and how much had to be heated in less than two hours.

[92,061]
psik

[psikeyhackr]

And some people realise the limits of their knowledge and expertise and don't succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And some people are too strong minded to fall for the Asch Conformity crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confo ... xperiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvGh_n3I_M

But then real physical experiments are incapable of responding to psychology and be manipulated like computer programs with massless compression springs.

[92,063]
psik