Posted: Dec 04, 2010 8:56 am
amused wrote:Brick wall econ, brick wall.
Yes, I know. But I do try to give everyone the opportunity to discuss in the proper format. i.e. either they rebut my claims OR they put forward a better explanation of (in this case) the Twin Towers collapses. If a couple more rounds with psikey fail to produce either his rebuttal of my claims OR his explanation which he claims is better than mine I will desist from further engagement. As you will know I rarely pursue side tracks, evasions OR rufous coloured fish of the genus Clupea,
psikey was a long time regular on RDNet and I spent many hours explaining the collapses of WTC1 andWTC2 to him.
He rarely if ever addressed the simple facts of the collapse mechanism which actually occurred on 9/11. If you look at his linked video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q you will see that he made a serious effort at modelling something about the collapses of the Twin Towers. I have many times commended him for his effort. However and sadly it is misdirected. Any examination of psikey's posting history will show that he is strongly focussed - maybe obsessed - with the weight distribution of steel and concrete. The weight distribution is clearly relevant to the oscillations and resonance effects caused by and following the initial impacts. If it does anything it is clear that psikey's model is about the aircraft impact and following effects. It is a long straw to claim that it has anything to do with the collapse of the towers - whether the "initial collapse" OR the "global collapse". Hence my recent challenge to psikey to show relevance if any. I am obviously giving him "benefit of the doubt" because it is a long leap to find relevance of the weight distribution to the two key stages of the actual collapse mechanisms.
psikey and I have been down these tracks many times. I will give him opportunity to actually state a claim OR respond to mine but, as recent posts affirm, we are not likely to see anything more specific than bad analogies, unclear inferences, lots of "ROFLMAOs" or equivalent and claims about physics being simple/reliable/unchanging BUT without any logical connections to any claims or assertions to show what psikey means by the praising of physics - apart from the innuendo that I don't understand physics. For the record I do understand physics and I do understand the physics of the WTC collapses on 9/11 AND I wouldn't care if psikey tried to show me where my claims about WTC collapses are wrong in physics. I'm not holding my breath.