The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Weaver]

Yes, people do experiments.

They do experiments to help explain how things work when they don't fully understand some of the details.

They also do experiments which are relevant to the conditions they are trying to replicate - in this case, they found that using dry ice (as on Mars) gave different results than water ice did.

So, what should you draw from this, psikeyhackr?
1) Make your experiments relevant to what you are interested in. Your legendary model is not relevant, as has been explained many times.
2) Experiments are used to help understand things that aren't well understood. The collapse of the WTC is well understood. There is no need to experiment to understand it further.

Nice try, but you shot yourself in the foot. Again.

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, people do experiments.

They do experiments to help explain how things work when they don't fully understand some of the details.

So you are saying it is fully understood how multiple tons of material was hurled 500 feet or more from the twin towers by a supposed gravitational collapse?

psik

[Weaver]

How much energy was generated by the fall, Psikeyhackr? Do you suppose some high-energy collisions during the collapse could have kicked material out sideways sometimes?

[tolman]

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.

Sure, as hypothetical as the money in your bank.

Or the models that real engineers use to understand real buildings.

[tolman]

So you are saying it is fully understood how multiple tons of material was hurled 500 feet or more from the twin towers by a supposed gravitational collapse?

Only the other week someone dropped a cup from waist height onto concrete, and I found fragments of it yards away.

Explain that, 'physicists'!.

Personally, I blame Mossad.
Or the Knights Templar.

[psikeyhackr]

So you are saying it is fully understood how multiple tons of material was hurled 500 feet or more from the twin towers by a supposed gravitational collapse?

Only the other week someone dropped a cup from waist height onto concrete, and I found fragments of it yards away.

Explain that, 'physicists'!.

Personally, I blame Mossad.
Or the Knights Templar.

But wasn't than from after it hit the ground directly below. Are you saying tons of material hit the ground below the tower and then bounced through the roof of the Winter Garden hundreds of feet away and some stuck like arrows out of buildings after bouncing. LOL

psik

[tolman]

Are you saying tons of material hit the ground below the tower and then bounced through the roof of the Winter Garden hundreds of feet away and some stuck like arrows out of buildings after bouncing.

Are you saying there was a controlled explosive demolition so incompetent that it flung massive objects hundreds of feet away without the explosion being captured by any of the numerous cameras which were (as any conspiracy planners would have expected) pointed at the buildings.

Bear in mind that controlled demolition of steel structures predominantly uses cutting charges which slice through things in situ, and has quite limited need for large propulsive charges, and that the structures in question could have been induced into unstoppable progressive collapse by relatively subtle methods (like detaching a few floors from their supports and letting gravity do the rest) making the need for large propulsive charges seem hard to justify.

Also bear in mind that for large objects to have been propelled over a large distance by explosions would be highly likely to leave tell-tale evidence all over those objects.

And that to plan a demolition in a way which resulted in unnecessary propulsion of objects over large distances in a densely-populated city with no control over where they landed would be ridiculously foolhardy, since control over who might get access to those pieces of evidence first could not be assured. Pieces could land on roofs or fly through windows on otherwise undamaged buildings and be picked up by anyone.

To suggest such a plan, even implicitly, seems to be a deliberate accusation that a conspiracy exists which is being run by idiots or the terminally reckless, or a demonstration of an inability to recognise the idiocy or recklessness in the idea.

[psikeyhackr]

Are you saying tons of material hit the ground below the tower and then bounced through the roof of the Winter Garden hundreds of feet away and some stuck like arrows out of buildings after bouncing.

Are you saying there was a controlled explosive demolition so incompetent that it flung massive objects hundreds of feet away without the explosion being captured by any of the numerous cameras which were (as any conspiracy planners would have expected) pointed at the buildings.

I am not saying what caused it. Only that airliner impact and fire could not have caused it.

But what does "controlled" mean? If a demolition was supposed to hurl the mass then it was not incompetent. It is a NORMAL controlled demolition that is not supposed to cause collateral damage. I am not responsible for your assumptions about what is meant by "controlled".

psik

[Weaver]

Right - you don't know what caused it, but you know it wasn't what actually caused it - without any evidence, without anything other than assumptions, you KNOW it couldn't have been the planes and the follow-on fires.

How about you put your amazing analytic abilities into determining what DID cause the collapse, instead of JAQing off about what supposedly didn't do it? Because the experts have asserted what they think the cause is - you have to come up with something other than "Nuh-uh, that wasn't it" if you want to get anywhere. Some suggestion as to what did cause the collapse, and why that is a better fit for the observed evidence than the expert's explanation.

[psikeyhackr]

Right - you don't know what caused it, but you know it wasn't what actually caused it - without any evidence, without anything other than assumptions, you KNOW it couldn't have been the planes and the follow-on fires.

Just the Conservation of Momentum and the need for an explanation for energy required to crush/destroy the supports that held the buildings up.

But then the people who claim the buildings could collapse don't bother specifying the amount of energy required to crush/destroy said supports from above. So I built a model that demonstrates what I'm talking about. But then the people who claim the buildings could collapse haven't bothered creating a physical model to demonstrate what they claim happened could actually happen. They jus talk and claim to be right.

psik

[Weaver]

The supports that held the buildings up were neither crushed nor destroyed. This has been explained to you countless times. Your entire premise is completely wrong. Your model demonstrates a totally different mode of collapse, utterly irrelevant to the WTC collapse. This too has been explained to you countless times. That you keep coming back to the same BS claims is evidence of your apparent deliberate dishonesty in the entire discussion.

[tolman]

I am not saying what caused it. Only that airliner impact and fire could not have caused it.

And that seems, judging from your posts, to be based on a chronically inadequate understanding of the nature of structures, and an approach to the issue which is, at best, demonstrably obtuse.

But what does "controlled" mean? If a demolition was supposed to hurl the mass then it was not incompetent. It is a NORMAL controlled demolition that is not supposed to cause collateral damage. I am not responsible for your assumptions about what is meant by "controlled".

In your fantasy version of engineering reality, it would be clearly incompetent if the result was one which could not have happened in accordance with the desired official explanation, which you claim was the result.
The explanation which you claim is a deliberate lie and necessarily involves a widespread conspiracy of deceit and silence among professional engineers.
Who but an idiot would intentionally make a conspiracy harder by going out of their way to deliberately make events look impossibly 'unnatural' for no conceivable benefit?

As expected, you have failed to explain how large objects could have been blown large distances by explosives without seemingly leaving any evidence on the multitude of videos, or any other evidence.
The only evidence you have is your own incredulity.

Did the conspirators really wait to fire unnecessary propellant charges until they knew no-one would see their effects due to the buildings being well into irreversible collapse and the area thickly shrouded with dust?

[psikeyhackr]

The explanation which you claim is a deliberate lie and necessarily involves a widespread conspiracy of deceit and silence among professional engineers.

Who have I accused of lying about what?

But where is there any discussion of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

I don't give a damn about who did what or why. But the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers even though sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards. Sorry, but I did not make that up.

So let the experts that you worship explain why the info ain't there, whoever they are. I DO NOT CARE!

[102,343]
psik

[tolman]

The explanation which you claim is a deliberate lie and necessarily involves a widespread conspiracy of deceit and silence among professional engineers.

Who have I accused of lying about what?

If you fail to understand the obvious implications of what you say, or to dishonestly pretend that there aren't any, that's your obvious failure.

[psikeyhackr]

The explanation which you claim is a deliberate lie and necessarily involves a widespread conspiracy of deceit and silence among professional engineers.

Who have I accused of lying about what?

If you fail to understand the obvious implications of what you say, or to dishonestly pretend that there aren't any, that's your obvious failure.

So accusing a general group of failing to explain something adequately is accusing them of lying when in fact the vast majority seem to say NOTHING.

Like how can anyone explain why the tilted top of the south tower did not fall down the side when no one mentions the center of mass?

psik

[tolman]

The explanation which you claim is a deliberate lie and necessarily involves a widespread conspiracy of deceit and silence among professional engineers.

Who have I accused of lying about what?

If you fail to understand the obvious implications of what you say, or to dishonestly pretend that there aren't any, that's your obvious failure.

So accusing a general group of failing to explain something adequately is accusing them of lying when in fact that vast majority seem to say NOTHING.

What part of the word 'silence' do you dishonestly pretend to fail to understand?

[Nicko]

How about you put your amazing analytic abilities into determining what DID cause the collapse, instead of JAQing off about what supposedly didn't do it?

Psikey is well aware that anyone who has ever attempted this has been absolutely humiliated.

[psikeyhackr]

How about you put your amazing analytic abilities into determining what DID cause the collapse, instead of JAQing off about what supposedly didn't do it?

Psikey is well aware that anyone who has ever attempted this has been absolutely humiliated.

People who make claims about what did cause it have what data for support?

What data does Judy Wood have? I have seen pictures of the weirdly burned cars. But what did it? I don't know. I don't have a DEW weapon to test.

But if the top 15% of a skyscraper can fall straight down and somehow eliminate/disrupt/discombobulate the supporting mass below then why can't physical models or good computer models with completely available data be created? And in 12 years?

Arguing about what word to use because crushed isn't acceptable to some people is ridiculous.

And talking about a dropped cup is silly also. Didn't the cup just fall through AIR until it hit the concrete? Did the top of the north tower just fall through AIR?

Presumably we know the buildings had to hold themselves up and we know they were hit by aircraft and we know there were fires. So explain what happened on the basis of the known data. If it cannot be explained then there could have been factors we do not know about. What is so difficult about that? It seems some people do not like the conclusions that the admission of unknown factors would lead to so they insist on believing that the known factors could do things which they could not.

[102,592]
psik

[tolman]

What data does Judy Wood have? I have seen pictures of the weirdly burned cars. But what did it? I don't know. I don't have a DEW weapon to test.

That's a shame.
If your weapons testing was as incompetent as your modelling, you could do everyone a favour.

Arguing about what word to use because crushed isn't acceptable to some people is ridiculous.

Saying that someone who claims to be interested in the Truth should avoid deliberately and repeatedly using words with the intention of deceit and covering up the glaring flaws in their own modelling seems quite non-ridiculous to me.

But quite evidently not to someone like you.

[psikeyhackr]

2001 to 2013 should be the Great Physics Dodecade.
[105,000](6/28/13)

psik