The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

Since all you can do is discuss psychological bullshit and claim to know engineers but cannot demonstrate that you understand this grad school physics for yourself I see no point in responding to you.

I therefore take your comments as the pathetic childish dishonest trolling that I and most people here have come to expect from your posts.

And to describe your demonstrated level of physics as 'grad school' is a complete fucking joke.
I can only assume that you forgot an 'e'.

LOL I think I have said "grade" school physics often enough so you know what I meant.

Just more psychological BS.

Try applying a little obvious thought to the physics of skyscrapers.

Suppose we had a skyscraper 100 storeys tall, each level 1,000 tons and 10 feet in height. Obviously the bottom level would have to be strong enough to support the weight of 99,000 tons. The second level would have to support 98,000 tons. But the 10th level from the top would only have to support 9,000 tons and the top level just support the roof, for which I did not specify the weight. But how could every level be the same weight? Making them stronger would require more steel which would make them heavier and if the bottom storeys could hold that much weight then wouldn't the upper storeys be unnecessarily strong if they were just as heavy?

But this 9/11 business has gone on for nearly 12 years. Where have these engineers you talk about discussed the distributions of steel and concrete on every level of the towers? Where is that data? Couldn't the NIST fit it into 10,000 pages? What does the mass distribution have to do with psychology? The effect of the mass distribution can be demonstrated in physical experiments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

But you want to talk about childish psychology instead. I guess that does not require any brains. Actually the NIST report admits in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight to analyse the impact. But then they never provided the data.

Curiously the Empire State Building is 80 years old and must have been designed without electronic computers. But before 2001 Sandia Labs did computer simulations of kilometer wide asteroids impacting the Earth at 25,000 mph.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/comethit.htm

But with all of the improvements in computer technology in the last 10 years we can't get a collapse simulation of a 1360 foot skyscraper that would not involve movement more than 300 mph. Yeah, this is all about psychology. The psychology of the majority who can't figure out the obvious.

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

psik

[tolman]

What would be really childish would be for someone who has demonstrated a primitive level of understanding of physics and engineering to attempt to be patronising, even if they fail in that attempt as pathetically as most people would expect them to do.

Or for someone to repeatedly and blatantly ignore points which undermine their fuckwitted attempts at an argument, since that looks simply like a retarded demonstration of dishonesty which is unlikely to fool anyone.

Such as, for instance someone repeatedly harping on about the vertical compressive strength of vertical supports in a structure and twattishly and dishonestly pretending that that particular structure failed by complete vertical crushing of such structural elements, when it is not only obvious to everyone else that that is demonstrably not how the structure failed, but that the person making the twattishly dishonest comments knows perfectly well that that is not how the structure failed (unless, of course they are suffering from some chronic and serious issues which prevent them understanding and acknowledging quite obvious and fundamental facts about an issue they claim to be interested in).

Or retardedly pretending that certain data is being withheld (implying it is being withheld to prevent calculations being made) when:
a) Sufficient data is available to allow competent engineers to make useful calculations
b) Incompetent amateurs would be able to do nothing useful with the supposedly suppressed information if it was right in front of them.
c) The person making the retarded comments appears to be of the opinion that certain kinds of building can't collapse other than by demolition, rendering the point of the figures to them somewhat moot. Had they been correct in their opinion, and had they possessed sufficient engineering understanding to qualify them to make it, they could have made a solid general argument without the need for specific figures in the first place.

Obviously, it doesn't help when the person concerned believes (or at least, claims to believe) that progressive collapse of structures in general, whatever their design, is not possible if it starts at a height which is more than some magic fraction of the structure's total height, yet is chronically unable to present a sound argument to defend that position, and steadfastly refuses to answer the most simple questions which might make their alleged reasoning clear, leaving people in little doubt that they know they can't try and defend their position without saying idiotic things which even they would find embarrassing, and that therefore their continued holding of that position is an act of chronic, profound and shitty dishonesty.

Just for the record, I don't think that publicly or privately funded engineering schools are under the slightest obligation to waste time and money to try and satisfy the supposed concerns of people who repeatedly demonstrate profound dishonesty and obtuseness regarding the entire issue in question.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Of course they have a problem after almost 12 years. How could they dare do an experiment that would demonstrate they have been talking bullsh!t all this time?

Just more psychological BS.

excuse me, I failed to read your wall of text for the hipocracy so early on in the post.

[psikeyhackr]

What? Somone thinks math might not be real? But then math ain't physics!

Shocking!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E

psik

[Weaver]

Umm ... OK?

And that's relevant how, exactly?

Math is a tool to manipulate numbers, to enable us to understand and model reality without the necessity of amassing enough fingers to count upon. Just as physics is a tool to describe, using mathematical language in most cases, observed reality.

[psikeyhackr]

Umm ... OK?

And that's relevant how, exactly?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p780784

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p780827

Old arguments about physics versus mathematics.

psik

[tolman]

They're not about 'physics vs mathematics' from an adult perspective

The first one is yet another rehashing of a pathetic argument based on people drawing unjustified conclusions from woefully inaccurate toy models. About the only place physics comes into that is in the sense that someone with a vaguely competent teenage understanding of physics should be able to see why the toy model is bollocks, especially after having it explained to them countless times.

As KD demonstrates in the second, you're trying to call on physics and mathematics to support your argument when it suits you, but to be ready to dismiss them whenever they're inconvenient.
That's the kind of behaviour one would expect from a self-deluding pseudoscientist or knowing charlatan would.

Unfortunately, I think you'll find it's typically only people who know less than you appear to do who are likely to be impressed by empty appeals to the authority of Physics or the authority of Mathematics.
People who do actually have a decent science education are likely to look at the quality (or otherwise) of the argument rather than some empty gestures, and if they find the argument lacking, are likely to view the appeals to authority as being, at best, pathetic demonstrations of self-delusion.
And that's assuming that the argument isn't laced through with dishonest evasions on obviously important things which seem extremely difficult to interpret as being other than deliberate.

If someone builds a useless model and someone else explains why it's useless, that's not 'physics vs mathematics', it's 'incompetence vs competence'

[psikeyhackr]

They're not about 'physics vs mathematics' from an adult perspective

The first one is yet another rehashing of a pathetic argument based on people drawing unjustified conclusions from woefully inaccurate toy models.

YAWN!

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

Why haven't any brilliant physicists and structural engineers with degrees built it in almost 12 years?

It just recently occurred to me that using 3D printers might be a good way to do that. It would provide more precise and repeatable computer control than any hand made modelling. But it would still need the proper mass distribution. Do you suppose any of our engineering schools could do that?

psik

[BlackBart]

They're not about 'physics vs mathematics' from an adult perspective

The first one is yet another rehashing of a pathetic argument based on people drawing unjustified conclusions from woefully inaccurate toy models.

YAWN!

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

Why haven't any brilliant physicists and structural engineers with degrees built it in almost 12 years?

It just recently occurred to me that using 3D printers might be a good way to do that. It would provide more precise and repeatable computer control than any hand made modelling. But it would still need the proper mass distribution. Do you suppose any of our engineering schools could do that?

psik

I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

[psikeyhackr]

They're not about 'physics vs mathematics' from an adult perspective

The first one is yet another rehashing of a pathetic argument based on people drawing unjustified conclusions from woefully inaccurate toy models.

YAWN!

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

Why haven't any brilliant physicists and structural engineers with degrees built it in almost 12 years?

It just recently occurred to me that using 3D printers might be a good way to do that. It would provide more precise and repeatable computer control than any hand made modelling. But it would still need the proper mass distribution. Do you suppose any of our engineering schools could do that?

psik

I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

I have emailed Purdeu. I may have even provided the emails on this site before.

Two people responded and referred me to Prof. Sozen.

Sozen has not responded.

Why can't you figure out grade school physics for yourself?

psik

[BlackBart]

They're not about 'physics vs mathematics' from an adult perspective

The first one is yet another rehashing of a pathetic argument based on people drawing unjustified conclusions from woefully inaccurate toy models.

YAWN!

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

Why haven't any brilliant physicists and structural engineers with degrees built it in almost 12 years?

It just recently occurred to me that using 3D printers might be a good way to do that. It would provide more precise and repeatable computer control than any hand made modelling. But it would still need the proper mass distribution. Do you suppose any of our engineering schools could do that?

psik

I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

I have emailed Purdeu. I may have even provided the emails on this site before.

Two people responded and referred me to Prof. Sozen.

Sozen has not responded.

Did you not show him your little model? I'm sure he couldn't fail to be impressed by that.

Why can't you figure out grade school physics for yourself?

A. Where did I say I could?

B. I'm not making any claim. You are.

[tolman]

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

It's already been explained countless times why making such a physical model would be a waste of time for anyone competent enough to understand the structure.
They wouldn't need to build it to satisfy themselves, and there would be little point wasting resources trying to satisfy a bunch of unsatisfiable amateurs, many of whom would accuse anyone who did build such a model of being in a conspiracy when it did fall down.
Who really wants to spend money attracting the wrath of the Green Ink Brigade for no obvious benefit?

Why haven't any brilliant physicists and structural engineers with degrees built it in almost 12 years?

Because they are neither ignorant nor daft enough to need to build one.
One of the main points of having a decent education in technical subjects is that you don't need to waste time proving stuff that you can easily work out.

It just recently occurred to me that using 3D printers might be a good way to do that. It would provide more precise and repeatable computer control than any hand made modelling. But it would still need the proper mass distribution. Do you suppose any of our engineering schools could do that?

See above.

[psikeyhackr]

Because they are neither ignorant nor daft enough to need to build one.

Same old, same old.

Believe what you are told by EXPERTS who cannot PROVE what they say.

The 3D printers could produce consistent columns which could be tested for strength and repeated reliably. Couldn't do that in 2002. So what can the experts use as an excuse now?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Did you not show him your little model? I'm sure he couldn't fail to be impressed by that.

Purdue claims their simulation is scientific but they admit they only did the top 20 stories.

But the NIST says the south tower moved horizontally 12 inches 11 stories below where the plane impacted. But the Purdue simulation shows no horizontal movement. It would seem that one of them has to be wrong.

But in 5 years no other engineering schools have commented on this discrepancy that I encountered.

So it looks like science on 9/11 is of questionable value with so many people letting obvious errors go without comment.

psik

[tolman]

Because they are neither ignorant nor daft enough to need to build one.

Same old, same old.

Same old avoidance of reality by you.

The 3D printers could produce consistent columns which could be tested for strength and repeated reliably. Couldn't do that in 2002.

If we want to make large numbers of similar small objects, I think you'll find that there were ways of doing that some time ago.

But in any case, as everyone here knows, and every honest person here is happy to acknowledge, column 'strength' is of limited relevance to a progressive collapse which evidently didn't progress as a result of column failure.

[Xaihe]

So where is the adequate non-toy model that will collapse completely?

It's already been explained countless times why making such a physical model would be a waste of time for anyone competent enough to understand the structure.
They wouldn't need to build it to satisfy themselves, and there would be little point wasting resources trying to satisfy a bunch of unsatisfiable amateurs, many of whom would accuse anyone who did build such a model of being in a conspiracy when it did fall down.
Who really wants to spend money attracting the wrath of the Green Ink Brigade for no obvious benefit?

Especially when psikey has time and again complained that a model that can't be reproduced by him is unacceptable (his argument against computer models). Why would this be any different for a highly technical and expensive model?

[Weaver]

Because they are neither ignorant nor daft enough to need to build one.

Same old, same old.

Believe what you are told by EXPERTS who cannot PROVE what they say.

Because EXPERTS in a field should always be jumping through hoops at the beck and call of amateurs with a proven issue understanding the basics of the field.

The 3D printers could produce consistent columns which could be tested for strength and repeated reliably. Couldn't do that in 2002.

How do you figure that? Just because YOUR model featured poor repeatability doesn't mean that the state of the art at the time precluded repeatability.

So what can the experts use as an excuse now?

psik

They continue to need no excuse.

[psikeyhackr]

Especially when psikey has time and again complained that a model that can't be reproduced by him is unacceptable (his argument against computer models). Why would this be any different for a highly technical and expensive model?

When and where has any physical model for which full data was provided completely collapsed?

You seem to be talking about entirely hypothetical models, if that. More like delusional debating points.

psik

[tolman]

When and where has any physical model for which full data was provided completely collapsed?

Why would anyone but an engineering ignoramus, (or someone who gets turned on by watching things collapse) need to have a physical model built in a case where there was enough information to allow a competent person to predict what the model would do?

And let's be honest - as people have said above, if a model was built which differed from the WTC buildings, when it collapsed the argument would move straight from a dishonest/ignorant 'It is impossible for structures to progressively collapse!' one to a 'That structure isn't sufficiently like the WTC' argument.

I'm fairly confident that 'Different!!!' would be the cry from conspiracy theorists even if the differences were ones specifically chosen to allow a scale model to more accurately model the full-size structure.

Of course, for the adequately educated, they can model the actual structure perfectly adequately in simulation, without having to correct for scale effects, and with the immense advantage that innumerable runs are possible virtually for free, with all kinds of starting conditions (different degrees of initial damage, etc), something which a professional who was sufficiently interested could use to gain a general understanding of the range of behaviours of the structure.

Which everyone here knows, and almost everyone here is happy to acknowledge.

[psikeyhackr]

This is really shocking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNXBfz1iVzc

Some people actually believe in doing experiments.

They must be effete, immoral snobs.

psik