The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

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.

It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.

You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.

Was 15% of the structure dropped the height of ONE LEVEL onto an INTACT STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT IT?

16 stories would have been 14.5% of the north tower.

1 story would have been less than 1%.

93 stories would have been 84.5%.

14 stories would have been 12.7%

You can't even tell how many stories there were to the building in that video.

Guessing that the building in the video was 16 stories.

3 stories were dropped a height of 2 stories onto 11 stories.

3 stories would have been 18.75% of the building collapse video.

2 story would have been than 12.5%.

11 stories would have been 69%.

With my model I dropped 12% but due to how I distributed the washers it was 10% by weight. What were the distributions for the north tower and what were they for the building in that video? Oops! NO DATA! So why don't we have it for the WTC after TEN YEARS and why isn't everyone that claims to know physics demanding it? If the collapse was possible then having correct data would only support that conclusion. But because my model was SO WEAK we know the loops at the bottom were three times as strong as the ones at the top. What do you know about the relative strength in that video?

Kat Dorman already provided a graphic indicating that the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of a 110 story would have been very different from that of a building 20 stories or less. So you are trying to say that PHYSICS IS IRRELEVANT because you can use the word BUILDING? Well whoop de doo!

Have I ever said anything about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? Oh yeah, KD is trying to ridicule me for that. Have I written a computer program for collapse time based on the conservation of momentum? This is not just about collapse it is about the TIME of the supposed collapse. Without supports to be destroyed it takes about 12 seconds. So the mass affects the time because of the conservation of momentum. So comparing to a short building is nonsense. But then we don't have accurate data after TEN YEARS but people talking about 1000 m/s will dismiss what they want and accuse me of lying about what they can't even know even if I was lying and is too trivial to lie about anyway. At least with a model I can work with knowable data and duplicate the experiment as much as I want.

And anyone else around the world can duplicate it also.

So if the towers could collapse why can't anyone build a model that can collapse completely.

Oh yeah! We never get to see what was left of that building so we don't know if it collapsed completely. We don't even really know how many stories there were. Emotional propaganda physics. So all you can do is talk and show irrelevant videos.

And Noam Chomsky can talk about the silliness of Bush conspiracies while not mentioning the physics of skyscrapers.



psik

[Kat Dorman]

It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.

It is obvious from the video no glass was ever installed on this non-building:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c[/youtube]

You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.

So your idea of some perfect material that can be right at the edge of collapse and can all give simultaneously is nonsense. The material must stand over time even if weakly.

My model ain't scaled to the WTC. I never said it was. It is demonstrating the physical principles involved in a gravitational collapse with AS WEAK AS practically possible crushable supports.

So if a heavier structure was made as weak as possible it would not really be on the verge of collapse. It would have to be able to stand reliably for a time.

My existing model is as weak as I know how to make it and still hold the STATIC LOAD. So it exhibits the unavoidable characteristic of the vertical supports resisting and absorbing energy from any mass falling from above and trying to crush them.

The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD. So all of the people who choose to believe or PRETEND TO BELIEVE that the collapse was possible must assume such a material exists.

The model is as weak as possible but it should be obvious from the video that it can support its own weight.

But it cannot be made weak enough to completely collapse but still be strong enough to support the static load.

Anyone that wants to can try to make it weaker. But any attempt to model a gravitational collapse must make the structure support itself under static load.

[Kat Dorman]

psikeyhackr:

It's funny, the less words and more smileys I use, the more you tend to articulate your position instead of resorting to argumentation by ridicule. You've managed to post for (nearly) an entire day without mentioning "1000 m/s", an effort to ridicule a single set of experiments I posted in JANUARY. Experiments which were designed to demonstrate an isolated point, in the same manner as the graphic you originally dismissed but which you're so fond of now.

Is it possible now for me to go back to argumentation without smiley? Or is that the only language you understand?

Kat Dorman already provided a graphic indicating that the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of a 110 story would have been very different from that of a building 20 stories or less.

Before you cite this graphic elsewhere, understand it. It is NOT distribution of mass, it's distribution of load (or equivalently, in this case - stress). In fact, it assumes uniform story mass. I could make a graphic which uses Urich's linearized or femr2's empirical mass distributions if you want, but it's a bit more work. Why bother since you think these spreadsheets are either incorrect or untrustworthy?

The other part you should understand is the intent of the graphic, since it doesn't mean what you think it does. I'm going to first state the purpose in your own words and hopefully you won't argue with yourself (like you did above):

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.

Emphasis mine. You understood it there. Strength is not mass. You are correct in saying the two are related via the constraint of self-support. But mass is not depicted in the graphic's color shading; if it were, it would be one solid color. Even if a Urich-style linear gradient of density were used, the gradient would not be as steep, so don't try to pass it off as mass distribution by color gradient. It's not. The graphic shows the load or stress gradient in structures with UNIFORM story masses. If demand to capacity ratio (DCR) is assumed constant, it also depicts static capacity gradient.

Like I say, one could make a stress gradient graphic by summing the mass above each point in Urich's or femr2's spreadsheet and scaling the color value accordingly, but what's the point? It would just be a sharper (Urich) or bumpier (femr2) gradient, but it would still match up in the comparison at the top, just like you say:

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.

[Xaihe]

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

I don't see any indication of girders.

- Why are you asking this question?
- Where does this objection even come from?
- Does this mean that you think the composition of a building or model is important and that it should have a certain minimum amount of steel?
- And does this mean you will refuse to accept any model that uses less steel than a particular, unspecified or unknown amount?
- What does this imply with regards to anyone replicating YOUR model?
- Ask yourself, is it possible that you will always declare something lacking in every model or building or analogy that will ever be presented?

[psikeyhackr]

It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.

It is obvious from the video no glass was ever installed on this non-building:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c[/youtube]

Now that is brilliant!

psik

[Kat Dorman]

Is it possible now for me to go back to argumentation without smiley?

Guess not.

[Kat Dorman]

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

I don't see any indication of girders.

- Why are you asking this question?
- Where does this objection even come from?
- Does this mean that you think the composition of a building or model is important and that it should have a certain minimum amount of steel?
- And does this mean you will refuse to accept any model that uses less steel than a particular, unspecified or unknown amount?
- What does this imply with regards to anyone replicating YOUR model?
- Ask yourself, is it possible that you will always declare something lacking in every model or building or analogy that will ever be presented?

psikeyhackr, you might consider answering Xaihe's questions, if only in your own mind.

Beyond that, I see rebar (or pre-stress cabling) hanging out the end of one of the falling members. The chances of this building being totally unreinforced concrete is pretty low anyway. Even minimally reinforced concrete shear walls, columns, or floor slabs means there are TONS (plural) of steel in the building.


How many TONS are in your dick-high model?

[Kat Dorman]

Speaking of evasiveness, I noticed there was no response to this part of my post:

You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.

So your idea of some perfect material that can be right at the edge of collapse and can all give simultaneously is nonsense. The material must stand over time even if weakly.

My model ain't scaled to the WTC. I never said it was. It is demonstrating the physical principles involved in a gravitational collapse with AS WEAK AS practically possible crushable supports.

So if a heavier structure was made as weak as possible it would not really be on the verge of collapse. It would have to be able to stand reliably for a time.

My existing model is as weak as I know how to make it and still hold the STATIC LOAD. So it exhibits the unavoidable characteristic of the vertical supports resisting and absorbing energy from any mass falling from above and trying to crush them.

The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD. So all of the people who choose to believe or PRETEND TO BELIEVE that the collapse was possible must assume such a material exists.

The model is as weak as possible but it should be obvious from the video that it can support its own weight.

But it cannot be made weak enough to completely collapse but still be strong enough to support the static load.

Anyone that wants to can try to make it weaker. But any attempt to model a gravitational collapse must make the structure support itself under static load.

You know, the part where you argue with yourself?

Wait...



Hahaha!

[Kat Dorman]

It can really be summed up as simply as this, everything else is a hamster wheel:

The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD.

Proven false beyond any question by the demolition above, and by all successful verinages. You're wrong.

So all of the people who choose to believe or PRETEND TO BELIEVE that the collapse was possible must assume such a material exists.

All of the people choosing to believe their own damn lying eyes when they see a video of a building destroying itself are much wiser than the two or three I've seen gushing over your.... d... d-d-d... di... model.

[GrahamH]

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.

It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.

You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.

Was 15% of the structure dropped the height of ONE LEVEL onto an INTACT STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT IT?

16 stories would have been 14.5% of the north tower.

1 story would have been less than 1%.

93 stories would have been 84.5%.

14 stories would have been 12.7%

You can't even tell how many stories there were to the building in that video.

Guessing that the building in the video was 16 stories.

3 stories were dropped a height of 2 stories onto 11 stories.

3 stories would have been 18.75% of the building collapse video.

2 story would have been than 12.5%.

11 stories would have been 69%.

With my model I dropped 12% but due to how I distributed the washers it was 10% by weight. What were the distributions for the north tower and what were they for the building in that video? Oops! NO DATA! So why don't we have it for the WTC after TEN YEARS and why isn't everyone that claims to know physics demanding it? If the collapse was possible then having correct data would only support that conclusion. But because my model was SO WEAK we know the loops at the bottom were three times as strong as the ones at the top. What do you know about the relative strength in that video?

Kat Dorman already provided a graphic indicating that the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of a 110 story would have been very different from that of a building 20 stories or less. So you are trying to say that PHYSICS IS IRRELEVANT because you can use the word BUILDING? Well whoop de doo!

Have I ever said anything about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? Oh yeah, KD is trying to ridicule me for that. Have I written a computer program for collapse time based on the conservation of momentum? This is not just about collapse it is about the TIME of the supposed collapse. Without supports to be destroyed it takes about 12 seconds. So the mass affects the time because of the conservation of momentum. So comparing to a short building is nonsense. But then we don't have accurate data after TEN YEARS but people talking about 1000 m/s will dismiss what they want and accuse me of lying about what they can't even know even if I was lying and is too trivial to lie about anyway. At least with a model I can work with knowable data and duplicate the experiment as much as I want.

And anyone else around the world can duplicate it also.

So if the towers could collapse why can't anyone build a model that can collapse completely.

Oh yeah! We never get to see what was left of that building so we don't know if it collapsed completely. We don't even really know how many stories there were. Emotional propaganda physics. So all you can do is talk and show irrelevant videos.

And Noam Chomsky can talk about the silliness of Bush conspiracies while not mentioning the physics of skyscrapers.



psik

I guess that is as close to an admission of error as we will ever get from you (i.e. denial).
Your own model had no resemblance to the WTC tower collapses.
You did not ask for an accurate model.
You attempted to make your tower "as weak as possible".
You dropped your model from more than one story.

The building is precisely the model that you said could not be made.

All you have responded with is quibbles about this building being weakened (but not even "weak as possible"), and a drop of two stories rather than one (and much less than your model).

N.B. Kat's graphic shows that the top of a tall building is similar to the whole of a much shorter building.

In the collapsed building, do you think that if it had more stories below what was the ground floor that the progressive collapse would necessarily have arrested? Do you think that the top ten floors of a building could collapse destroying 20+ stories below from an initial drop of 2 stories and yet is must necessarily arrest at 30, 40, 80 or more stories? How much taller would that building need to be to ensure it did not collapse?

Do you see a deceleration of the collapsing building?

[Dudely]

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.

It is obvious from the video that the glass was removed from the building.

You have no way of knowing if the walls were weakened in any way.

Was 15% of the structure dropped the height of ONE LEVEL onto an INTACT STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT IT?

16 stories would have been 14.5% of the north tower.

1 story would have been less than 1%.

93 stories would have been 84.5%.

14 stories would have been 12.7%

You can't even tell how many stories there were to the building in that video.

Guessing that the building in the video was 16 stories.

3 stories were dropped a height of 2 stories onto 11 stories.

3 stories would have been 18.75% of the building collapse video.

2 story would have been than 12.5%.

11 stories would have been 69%.

With my model I dropped 12% but due to how I distributed the washers it was 10% by weight. What were the distributions for the north tower and what were they for the building in that video? Oops! NO DATA! So why don't we have it for the WTC after TEN YEARS and why isn't everyone that claims to know physics demanding it? If the collapse was possible then having correct data would only support that conclusion. But because my model was SO WEAK we know the loops at the bottom were three times as strong as the ones at the top. What do you know about the relative strength in that video?

Kat Dorman already provided a graphic indicating that the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS of a 110 story would have been very different from that of a building 20 stories or less. So you are trying to say that PHYSICS IS IRRELEVANT because you can use the word BUILDING? Well whoop de doo!

Have I ever said anything about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers? Oh yeah, KD is trying to ridicule me for that. Have I written a computer program for collapse time based on the conservation of momentum? This is not just about collapse it is about the TIME of the supposed collapse. Without supports to be destroyed it takes about 12 seconds. So the mass affects the time because of the conservation of momentum. So comparing to a short building is nonsense. But then we don't have accurate data after TEN YEARS but people talking about 1000 m/s will dismiss what they want and accuse me of lying about what they can't even know even if I was lying and is too trivial to lie about anyway. At least with a model I can work with knowable data and duplicate the experiment as much as I want.

And anyone else around the world can duplicate it also.

So if the towers could collapse why can't anyone build a model that can collapse completely.

Oh yeah! We never get to see what was left of that building so we don't know if it collapsed completely. We don't even really know how many stories there were. Emotional propaganda physics. So all you can do is talk and show irrelevant videos.

And Noam Chomsky can talk about the silliness of Bush conspiracies while not mentioning the physics of skyscrapers.



psik

I wasn't aware there were other hidden requirements for the model beyond the "self-supporting structure that collapses when 15% of the weight is dropped" line that you repeated endlessly. Perhaps you should have included those. Or perhaps you're admitting that it meets the requirements but simply declaring that you're still unconvinced? That would make more sense but would still define you as someone who steadfastly clutches onto some tattered, failed idea. There are worse things for a conspiracy theorist to be than that I suppose.

And yes, it did collapse completely. In fact all three of the buildings in the videos I posted collapsed completely. Would you like me to find more? It's not difficult. I even found an entire demolition business that specializes in demolishing buildings in this way. Turns out it's easy to do, cheap, and safe.

[BlackBart]

Well, psik, I don't think you're going to get through to anyone here anytime soon. So why bother with them? Just take your model to the Washington Post, blow this puppy wide open, and then you come back here and do some serious pwning!

[Durro]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p951315

!

MODNOTE Psikeyhackr, your post above quotes another member's PM to you without their prior permission, in direct violation of the forum rules which specifically ask members not to :- i. share Private Messages (PMs) without the member’s permission. . As you have had multiple instances of Moderator advice and/or warnings previously, you have earned a warning for breach of the rules. You currently have one active warning. Please PM me or another mod, or discuss this in feedback if anyone has an issue. I ask that members don't derail this thread with discussion/debate about moderation though. Durro

[psikeyhackr]

Oh, so he can call me a liar as long as he does it in private.

psik

[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.

- Why are you asking this question?
- Where does this objection even come from?
- Does this mean that you think the composition of a building or model is important and that it should have a certain minimum amount of steel?

Were WTC 1 and WTC 2 skyscrapers?

What holds up skyscrapers?

Does the steel have to be properly distributed for a skyscraper to hold itself up?

For any building to collapse straight down completely doesn't it have to destroy all of its own supports? Have you seen me ask about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings before now. Is this something new for me? This ongoing pseudo-debate focuses on limited areas at different times and people act like I have forgotten about other related aspects. Just because I talk about collapse doesn't mean I forget that STEEL HAD TO GET HOT ENOUGH for the collapse to start. I have said there were three reasons for needing to know the distribution of steel many times. So how much steel was in the vicinity of the impacts. So the amount of steel on every level should have been settled long ago.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

It can really be summed up as simply as this, everything else is a hamster wheel:

The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD.

Proven false beyond any question by the demolition above, and by all successful verinages. You're wrong.

You just CLAIM things are proof when they are not when YOU helped provide the evidence that it is not.

YOU provided the graphic about the difference in distribution of mass in a 20 story versus 110 story building.

It is obvious from that video that 3 stories are dropped through a height of 2 stories onto an unknown number of stories. I computed my percentages on a guess of a total of 16 stories but we don't really know. But a higher percentage of mass was dropped over a greater percentage of distance.and we don't have pictures of what was left so we don't know how successful it was.

But you want to CLAIM it is PROOF!

What a JOKE! I never claimed my model was PROOF. It is only a demonstration of principles.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Response to a PM from KD where he talks about what I know or don't know regarding what he thinks of 9/11 being an "Inside Job".


You are free to search on how often I use the term "Inside Job". I don't care who did it or why. You just don't seem to comprehend how much I do not care what you think.

I only respond to you for other people's benefit.

I just want as many people as possible to comprehend the grade school Newtonian Physics of skyscrapers. The whole idea of a normal airliner destroying a building that big in less than two hours is ridiculous.

So all sorts of SCIENTISTS have made fools of themselves by letting this nonsense drag on for TEN YEARS.

We should listen to physicists talk about Black Holes when they won't resolve a problem regarding some measly skyscrapers? Duh, what does gravity have to do with skyscrapers? There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 ft. tall. How was it determined to distribute the steel in all of them? So it doesn't occur to physicists around the world to ask about something so obvious? Very interesting!

So how many people will look like idiots if it is widely agreed there was no way airliners could ever have done it? So a model that can be easily duplicated by grade school kids world wide must be ridiculled. What other strategy have you got? How many adults want grade school kids to think they are idiots?

But then the grade school kids have cheap computers so why can't they program their own conservation of momentum based collapse simulations?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have modified my inbox. All messages from Kat Dorman are automatically deleted.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

I wasn't aware there were other hidden requirements for the model beyond the "self-supporting structure that collapses when 15% of the weight is dropped" line that you repeated endlessly.

If I repeat it so endlessly then you shouldn't have any trouble finding it and providing a link to my saying it.

So you don't notice that I talk about skyscrapers being bottom heavy? So the top 15% BY HEIGHT would be less than 15% BY WEIGHT. So part of my argument against a gravitational collapse is that a lighter, weaker portion of the building should not be able to crush stronger heavier portions and certainly not accelerate in the process. If you read what you quoted then you would have found this:

With my model I dropped 12% but due to how I distributed the washers it was 10% by weight.

What does that tell you about height versus weight?

So if you can't even remember what I am actually saying then there is no reason to believe you comprehend the physics or my meaning.

All you can do is produce irrelevant babble.

psik

[Kat Dorman]

You just CLAIM things are proof when they are not when YOU helped provide the evidence that it is not.

It is unequivocal proof your referenced statement above is false.

You said "The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD. "

The building was made with material strong enough to support the static load but it was easily destroyed by the dynamic load. Right there in front of your eyes, couldn't be any simpler. QED.

YOU provided the graphic about the difference in distribution of mass in a 20 story versus 110 story building.

False. As I said above (and you IGNORED), it does not depict distribution of mass.

It is obvious from that video that 3 stories are dropped...

In the north tower, at least 12 stories dropped. Guess you forgot that. Twelve is a lot more than three.

...through a height of 2 stories...

So what? Since when did you specify drop height as a criteria? Keep moving those goalposts.

...onto an unknown number of stories.

You act like there could be 90 unseen and uncrushed stories. Couldn't be more than 11 below, probably more like 9. Call it 8. What difference does it make? If there are a total of 13 stories, then at most one remains uncrushed. Pick a number, any number. The lower you go, the closer it comes to being verifiably complete. If the lower portions of the towers were only 10/11ths destroyed, I guess you wouldn't have been whining about the tons of concrete and steel on forums for most of a decade. Eh?

I computed my percentages...

And that's one of your big errors. Percentages of total height don't matter. That's one of the things my graphic was intended to show. Of course, you still think it depicts distribution of mass, so how could you know?

But a higher percentage of mass was dropped over a greater percentage of distance.and we don't have pictures of what was left so we don't know how successful it was.

Successful enough, obviously. Seriously, you're grasping at straws. It was destroyed. For that matter, you have no proof whatsoever that there are more unseen stories below.

But you want to CLAIM it is PROOF!

It proves nothing with respect to the towers, but it clearly proves your statement above is false, and that's all I said.

I never claimed my model was PROOF.

Oh really? See below.

It is only a demonstration of principles.

WHAT principles?

It is demonstrating the physical principles involved in a gravitational collapse with AS WEAK AS practically possible crushable supports.

The demolition video also demonstrates the physical principles involved in a gravitational collapse. TRUE or FALSE? Doesn't matter if the building were as weak as possible, does it? It was self-supporting. You said:

The problem is any material strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD can't be so weak that it is easy to destroy with the DYNAMIC LOAD.

The demolition demonstrates your statement to be false. See, two can play your silly word games. Guess you can't argue with it now. I'll settle for "demonstrates" you to be wrong, makes no difference to what I say.

Or what you say:

Bazant can't get Newton's 3rd Law correct. My model demonstrates that he is WRONG!

Since the structure of my model is the same above and below the impact point it demonstrates how the falling mass absorbs its own kinetic energy crushing itself thereby putting the lie to Bazant with his violation of Newton's 3rd Law.

My real model has a short stack falling on a much taller stack. It demonstrates Bazant's nonsensical ignoring of Newton's 3rd law.

Demonstrate: to show clearly that something is true or that it exists.
Prove: to provide evidence that shows that something is true.

Practically synonyms. So you can play word games all you like, but answer this simple question: is Bazant wrong or not, and did your model show/demonstrate/prove that fact or not? You said it "puts the lie to Bazant"? Does it, or doesn't it? If your model only SUGGESTS, or IMPLIES, that he MIGHT be wrong, you need to back off your claims. Don't you?

Of course, self-contradiction is nothing new. You simply change your tune as the wind blows.

I model the north tower because it is simpler.

My model is not of the WTC...

[Kat Dorman]

I don't care who did it or why.

More importantly, you understand virtually nothing about collapse mechanics or physics in general! Perhaps you're taking the wrong major.

You just don't seem to comprehend how much I do not care what you think.

When I see you ignore 95% of what I write, where I rigorously show just about everything you say to be false, I'm pretty clear on it.

I only respond to you for other people's benefit.

Attention OTHER people: please give psikeyhackr his props for the benefits he bestows on you.

Cue the crickets.

Everyone here is disagreeing with you. Funny that.

I just want as many people as possible to comprehend the grade school Newtonian Physics of skyscrapers.

The best way you can do that is to stop posting and cluttering every medium you touch with bad physics, faulty logic and pseudoscience. Ya think?

So how many people will look like idiots if it is widely agreed there was no way airliners could ever have done it?

You can keep hoping, and keep waiting. Tick, tick, tick....

So a model that can be easily duplicated by grade school kids world wide must be ridiculled.

The model is what it is. The mockery has been directed at your interpretation of it.

What other strategy have you got?

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
This.


And that's only culled from the first 10% of my posts at this forum. It doesn't include the posts where I replicated your paper loops, measured their properties, and showed why your model arrests - the very reason I'd been saying all along. Neither does it include the post with the 1000 m/s experiment, so save your ridicule.

This DEMONSTRATES that you ignore what I write, therefore have no business remarking on it for the "benefit" of the "others".

I have modified my inbox. All messages from Kat Dorman are automatically deleted.

As opposed to posted here? Fine by me. I'll trounce you in public as I ALWAYS have. It's sport. I like shooting fish in a barrel.