The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9521  Postby psikeyhackr » May 26, 2018 11:57 pm

felltoearth wrote:NIST has said explicitly that the pancake collapse model did not happen.


I know. Did they say that the Conservation of Momentum ceased to function? :lol:

The NIST just said "Global collapse was inevitable". They did not explain anything.

Everyone is supposed to just Believe and Worship! :dance:

[592812]
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9522  Postby Fallible » May 27, 2018 8:53 am

Worship?
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47095
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9523  Postby felltoearth » May 27, 2018 2:03 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
felltoearth wrote:NIST has said explicitly that the pancake collapse model did not happen.


I know. Did they say that the Conservation of Momentum ceased to function? :lol:

The NIST just said "Global collapse was inevitable". They did not explain anything.

Everyone is supposed to just Believe and Worship! :dance:

[592812]

Yes, indeed. The entire report can be boiled down to one sentence. You’re quite a master at this.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9549
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9524  Postby Thommo » May 27, 2018 2:40 pm

It's weird how the subject suddenly changed from the problems with the program. As though any perceived problems with the NIST report would change how utterly useless and wrong it is.

Perhaps we should stick on putting that right, since it's a mistake made by a participant in this thread and thus actually within the powers we have to fix?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24559

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9525  Postby felltoearth » May 27, 2018 2:46 pm

Thommo wrote:It's weird how the subject suddenly changed from the problems with the program. As though any perceived problems with the NIST report would change how utterly useless and wrong it is.

Perhaps we should stick on putting that right, since it's a mistake made by a participant in this thread and thus actually within the powers we have to fix?

Agreed. Sounds like a good and productive direction. Psikeyhackr, what do you think?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9549
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9526  Postby Agi Hammerthief » May 27, 2018 3:13 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:The NIST just said "Global collapse was inevitable". They did not explain anything.

have you heared of the phrase „can’t see the forest for all the trees“?

A big part of the NCSTAR1 report is explaining the construction of the WTC.
Anyone who understood that bit is probably also understands why "Global collapse was inevitable".

Someone who didn‘t understand the construction of the WTC will just have to go on „just asking questions“ forever.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2253
Age: 45
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9527  Postby psikeyhackr » May 31, 2018 12:55 am

felltoearth wrote:
Thommo wrote:It's weird how the subject suddenly changed from the problems with the program. As though any perceived problems with the NIST report would change how utterly useless and wrong it is.

Perhaps we should stick on putting that right, since it's a mistake made by a participant in this thread and thus actually within the powers we have to fix?

Agreed. Sounds like a good and productive direction. Psikeyhackr, what do you think?


It depends on what one thinks the meaning of the program is.

The program is a physically impossible over-simplification. What happens in reality must be more complicated.

BUT!!!:

In the program there is not friction. In the program there is no energy lost in breaking connections. In the program there is no breaking of concrete or bending of supports.

So how can the COLLAPSE TIME IN REALITY possibly be LESS THAN the collapse time computed by the PROGRAM?

That is what is totally ridiculous. The program only has GRAVITY and the Conservation of Momentum and demonstrates that changing mass distribution changes collapse time.

So what grounds do the believers in Inevitable Collapse have for not wanting accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete?

Complaining about the program only makes a little sense from people who don't understand the Conservation of Momentum or can't figure out the program and think it is computing incorrectly. Of course everyone is free to design their own program in whatever language and test the concept themselves. :lol:

The attitude that "Expert Sources" do not have to prove what they say is no different from religion. If the NIST can be an "expert source" then the Pope can be an "expert source". I went to Catholic schools and decided I was an agnostic at 12.

The NIST has to prove things just like the Pope. Oh sorry, I forgot, the NIST has Papal Infallibility. :crazy:

The program does computations at 1/1000th second intervals. That gives errors of less the 3 inches at 136 mph. Collision detection is another possible problem. But explaining collapse time has always been a 9/11 issue and just saying "Collapse was inevitable" does not address the timing even if it were true.
Last edited by psikeyhackr on May 31, 2018 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9528  Postby Thommo » May 31, 2018 12:59 am

psikeyhackr wrote:So how can the COLLAPSE TIME IN REALITY possibly be LESS THAN the collapse time computed by the PROGRAM?


Because the error in the program is larger than the error omitted by ignoring the lost energy to destroying structural supports.

It's not complicated.

ETA: I see, somewhat bizarrely, you edited this in:
psikeyhackr wrote:The program does computations at 1/1000th second intervals. That gives errors of less the 3 inches at 136 mph.


As though to imply accuracy (and contradicting yourself as well - your programme doesn't compute to 1/1000ths of a second).

When your input data is off by a factor of 30+ for the mass of the first collision and 300ft+ (or 25%+) for the height of the first collision these kind of claims are less than worthless. This is classic garbage in, garbage out.

How you think you measure an error that starts at more than 300ft and grows as the calculation progresses to a matter of inches is anyone's guess.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24559

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9529  Postby psikeyhackr » May 31, 2018 4:06 am

Thommo wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:So how can the COLLAPSE TIME IN REALITY possibly be LESS THAN the collapse time computed by the PROGRAM?


Because the error in the program is larger than the error omitted by ignoring the lost energy to destroying structural supports.

It's not complicated.


But simply calculating the drop time with nothing to slow it down yields 9.2 seconds. No program required.

But we are supposed to believe 90 stories of a real building only took between 11 and 25 seconds.

Ridiculous! So just not asking and not understanding means you must be right. :lol:

The NIST explained NOTHING!
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9530  Postby Thommo » May 31, 2018 10:59 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Thommo wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:So how can the COLLAPSE TIME IN REALITY possibly be LESS THAN the collapse time computed by the PROGRAM?


Because the error in the program is larger than the error omitted by ignoring the lost energy to destroying structural supports.

It's not complicated.


But simply calculating the drop time with nothing to slow it down yields 9.2 seconds. No program required.


So what?

That has no bearing on what you said, or what I said.

psikeyhackr wrote:But we are supposed to believe 90 stories of a real building only took between 11 and 25 seconds.

Ridiculous!


That's what we observed. How is it ridiculous? We literally saw that happen, it's not in dispute (outside of the fact that it is, itself a wide range). The question is to explain how it happened.

Surely what you mean is that you cannot believe (AKA are incredulous at) the suggestion that the loss of energy and momentum to destruction of internal supports and collisions added only 2-16 seconds to the collapse time.

But the important thing here is what does the shit programme show? Because that was the attempt you made at bringing evidence to the table to support your claim there's a problem here, and what you were taking umbrage over having criticised.

You cannot deploy the conclusion you want to support as itself supporting what you claim is the evidence for that conclusion. This is profoundly circular.

psikeyhackr wrote:So just not asking and not understanding means you must be right.


No, that's not at all what was said.

What was said was that the programme is shit. It's shit because even allowing that it's a model of a collapse mode which probably didn't take place (pancaking) it's riddled with errors, not least of which is that the initial collision takes place hundreds of feet higher than the initial collision in the actual collapse, and not least of which is that initial collision contains of the order of 1% of the mass it should if you were simulating the conditions you purport to be.

psikeyhackr wrote:The NIST explained NOTHING!


I don't agree, but that's 100% irrelevant to whether the programme is shit. They could be 100% thorough, or 0% thorough, in either case the programme gets it wrong and shows nothing.

I made a comment about your programme and you replied about it. What you're now doing is changing the subject to avoid that criticism. This matters because you've clearly been willing to drag up this programme almost a decade after it was shambled together because you've spent a long time under the mistaken impression it has evidentiary value that it so clearly does not.

Anyway, let me finish with a question. Why are you so desperate to avoid talking about the programme that you haven't either acknowledged the problem with dropping only the top floor instead of the top 30+ floors or tried to explain it away?

Clearly you thought this programme was worth introducing to the thread, why are you suddenly working so hard to avoid even the most cursory analysis of it?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24559

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9531  Postby Thommo » May 31, 2018 12:29 pm

Never mind.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24559

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9532  Postby psikeyhackr » Jul 11, 2018 3:55 pm

Thommo wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:I don't agree, but that's 100% irrelevant to whether the programme is shit. They could be 100% thorough, or 0% thorough, in either case the programme gets it wrong and shows nothing.


So write a program that computes collapse time based on gravity and the Conservation of Momentum and demonstrate that my program is incorrect.

All you can do is talk.

The NIST cannot make the Conservation of Momentum go away not matter what. Is anyone claiming that the towers did not have mass? Then how can the CoM not affect collapse time? Your argument is nothing but name calling.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9533  Postby Thommo » Jul 11, 2018 4:23 pm

That's not true, I think you're forgetting that the exact problems were explained weeks ago when this discussion was actually live.

Like me, all you're doing is talking, and in this case you're just talking about a time difference computed from a building collapsing in a way that the twin towers did not and by comparing a somewhat realistic building to one which is less dense than air on the top floor and as dense as a solid chunk of neutron star on the bottom.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24559

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9534  Postby econ41 » Jul 15, 2018 4:41 am

Thommo wrote:.... you're forgetting that the exact problems were explained weeks ago ....

Actually it is years not weeks. 10 of them. On the great great great grandfather to this thread BEFORE it changed residence to the present host site.

:popcorn:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1280
Age: 77
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9535  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jul 15, 2018 9:41 am

Hi Eric.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 40613
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9536  Postby Just A Theory » Jul 16, 2018 12:09 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Thommo wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:I don't agree, but that's 100% irrelevant to whether the programme is shit. They could be 100% thorough, or 0% thorough, in either case the programme gets it wrong and shows nothing.


So write a program that computes collapse time based on gravity and the Conservation of Momentum and demonstrate that my program is incorrect.

All you can do is talk.

The NIST cannot make the Conservation of Momentum go away not matter what. Is anyone claiming that the towers did not have mass? Then how can the CoM not affect collapse time? Your argument is nothing but name calling.


This is pretty simple and Thommo has already explained it to you.

You can go back and literally watch the footage of the towers collapsing. I saw it live, many others did too. You can get out your trusty stopwatch and time it.

Your program shows a different numerical result. Ergo, your program is incorrect.

QED.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9537  Postby econ41 » Jul 16, 2018 5:24 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:Hi Eric.

G'day Scot D.

It's a long time since I first posted on the Internet - starting in the great great great....great grandfather of this very thread.

When I opened the first post with this comment:
econ41 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:22 pm
"The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.....
...

....and I was deliberately saying "look out - here I am".

Two months later I was the first Moderator from AU - the time zone gave us 24 hour coverage.
"
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1280
Age: 77
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9538  Postby psikeyhackr » Jul 29, 2018 5:59 pm

Just A Theory wrote:This is pretty simple and Thommo has already explained it to you.

You can go back and literally watch the footage of the towers collapsing. I saw it live, many others did too. You can get out your trusty stopwatch and time it.

Your program shows a different numerical result. Ergo, your program is incorrect.

QED.


Utterly Brilliant! I am dazzled.

You collapse believers demonstrate that you don't even get the point.

The towers came down TOO FAST!

Wikipedia says the total time was 25 seconds. If you search YouTube for "WTC spire" you will see the remains of the core called, "The Spire", was what extended the time to 25 seconds. The material outside the core and what was above the spire came down in 11 to 15 seconds.

But how was that possible?

My program demonstrates that an equal distribution of mass slowed by only the Conservation of Momentum takes 12 seconds. Changing the distribution of mass to be impossibly bottom heavy for a building raises the time to 20 seconds. But that program does not need for connections to be broken, steel to be bent or concrete to be cracked. All of that would require energy which would slow things down, thereby extending the collapse time.

So the point of my program was to show the collapse being caused solely by the top of the north Tower falling on the lower intact portion is ridiculous. But that is mathematical. This is physical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo&t=237s

Collapse time infinite. :roll:

[606210]
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9539  Postby Just A Theory » Jul 30, 2018 1:19 am

psikeyhackr wrote:My program demonstrates that an equal distribution of mass slowed by only the Conservation of Momentum takes 12 seconds. Changing the distribution of mass to be impossibly bottom heavy for a building raises the time to 20 seconds. But that program does not need for connections to be broken, steel to be bent or concrete to be cracked. All of that would require energy which would slow things down, thereby extending the collapse time.t.


And yet the collapse time stubbornly remains ~25 sec. it's almost as if your program doesn't match reality.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9540  Postby psikeyhackr » Aug 10, 2018 3:03 am

felltoearth wrote:Yes, indeed. The entire report can be boiled down to one sentence. You’re quite a master at this.


No, it can't.

The NIST report said quite a few things, but explaining how the Twin Towers came down so fast is not one of them.

The report admitted in three places that analyzing the motion of the towers due to the planes' impacts would require knowing the distribution of mass in the buildings. But then they made no such analysis or provide that mass data.

They never mentioned the "center of mass" or "center of gravity" of the tilted top portion of the south tower even though they used both phrases a number of times. Whenever they used "center of mass" they were talking about the aircraft. When they say "center of gravity" it is about components simulated in the SAP2000 program.

It is you people who make claims about what the NIST said but then can't come up with specifics who seem to just BELIEVE things.

[609172]
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1398

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 8 guests