It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 29
20
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is the fundamental Bazant nonsense.

Throw up some fancy complicated math that few people can wade through. Throw Newton's 3rd Law out the window and claim that it is correct. So the mystery is why so many people with degrees who supposedly know physics let this BS go on.

Psikey. You also do not know physics, you have proven this by showing your terrible work and presenting it as if it contained any rigour. As I explained to ANOK in my previous post. My own results show that indeed the top block experiences a progressively lower force, even though it is set to the weakest possible state.

Produce your own results that show differently, or accept that the compacted rubble layer protects the upper block. It is trivially provable but both of you seem intent on ignoring it because it disagrees with you.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is the fundamental Bazant nonsense.

Throw up some fancy complicated math that few people can wade through. Throw Newton's 3rd Law out the window and claim that it is correct. So the mystery is why so many people with degrees who supposedly know physics let this BS go on.

Psikey. You also do not know physics, you have proven this by showing your terrible work and presenting it as if it contained any rigour. As I explained to ANOK in my previous post. My own results show that indeed the top block experiences a progressively lower force, even though it is set to the weakest possible state.

Produce your own results that show differently, or accept that the compacted rubble layer protects the upper block. It is trivially provable but both of you seem intent on ignoring it because it disagrees with you.


Here we go! It basically comes down to anyone who doesn't believe their mathematical delusions has proven themselves to be incompetent fools by their very lack of belief.

So where is your PHYSICAL MODEL that can be repeatedly built which behaves the way you say? Physics does not really give a damn about mathematics or the egos of people who claim to do complicated mathematics.

Let's see the EXPERIMENT. TEN YEARS and no engineering school has built a model that can completely collapse. I am not even aware of any that has tried.

My thought experiment with the magical supports would be difficult to do in reality. It might be done on a small scale with electro-magnets to hold my washers and computer control to turn them off appropriately. But doing that up to 1300 feet with hundreds of tons would be out of the question.

So we are supposed to fall for this "Emperor's New Clothes" game with mathematics from Bazant and his cult followers. You're too stupid to do the math. All of us geniuses understand it. We just can't make a physical model do it. Computers can do the Garbage In Garbage Out games though. Like Purdue's impact simulation where the core columns don't move even though the NIST says the south tower was deflected by the impact. And the NIST can make computer simulations that don't look like what happened to WTC7 from the outside.

More Red Herrings from psikeyhackr no doubt. That is my epithet on Urich's site.

So 9/11 is really a global psychological issue where people are supposed to think what they are told and not think about simple Newtonian Physics for themselves even though the EXPERTS don't have to bother supplying accurate distribution of steel and concrete data. Physics without data. Brilliant!


psik



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Here we go! It basically comes down to anyone who doesn't believe their mathematical delusions has proven themselves to be incompetent fools by their very lack of belief.

No you proved it by showing your code which didn't match reality in anyway, and showing that despite your complaints and claims, you've done no work to advance the understanding of the physics of the WTCs.

You've done nothing but complain and write a terrible model, and are now complaining that I am calling you out on this.


So where is your PHYSICAL MODEL that can be repeatedly built which behaves the way you say? Physics does not really give a damn about mathematics or the egos of people who claim to do complicated mathematics.

I don't have 1300 feet of vertical space to reproduce the required gravity acceleration. Have you added a gravity acceleration phase to your model yet? I doubt it.


Let's see the EXPERIMENT. TEN YEARS and no engineering school has built a model that can completely collapse. I am not even aware of any that has tried.

Because there are few as ignorant but as arrogant as you appear to be. Building scale models is sometimes a valid engineering exercise, demanding that someone rebuild a miniature WTC to satisfy your fantasies is not valid, nor rational.


So we are supposed to fall for this "Emperor's New Clothes" game with mathematics from Bazant and his cult followers. You're too stupid to do the math. All of us geniuses understand it. We just can't make a physical model do it. Computers can do the Garbage In Garbage Out games though. Like Purdue's impact simulation where the core columns don't move even though the NIST says the south tower was deflected by the impact. And the NIST can make computer simulations that don't look like what happened to WTC7 from the outside.

That's right psikey. Despite the fact that your model was some of the worst code I've ever seen, and didn't remotely accurately reproduce the physics or the facts of the day. You are now attacking actual engineering groups like NIST and Purdue because their results disagree with yours.

It's nonsense, you're appointing yourself the most expert physics expert in the world, and trying to dismiss anyone who says you're wrong. This despite the fact that you published the details of your own model and it was woefully inadequate.

How about you try admitting that the top collision forces are significantly lower than the lower collision forces, and that even with the minimum strength for the upper section, the 'upper block survival' is still modelled in such a simple system.

Show me your code that disproves this effect. I'm eagerly waiting.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Here we go! It basically comes down to anyone who doesn't believe their mathematical delusions has proven themselves to be incompetent fools by their very lack of belief.

No you proved it by showing your code which didn't match reality in anyway, and showing that despite your complaints and claims, you've done no work to advance the understanding of the physics of the WTCs.

You've done nothing but complain and write a terrible model, and are now complaining that I am calling you out on this.


So where is your PHYSICAL MODEL that can be repeatedly built which behaves the way you say? Physics does not really give a damn about mathematics or the egos of people who claim to do complicated mathematics.

I don't have 1300 feet of vertical space to reproduce the required gravity acceleration. Have you added a gravity acceleration phase to your model yet? I doubt it.


Let's see the EXPERIMENT. TEN YEARS and no engineering school has built a model that can completely collapse. I am not even aware of any that has tried.

Because there are few as ignorant but as arrogant as you appear to be. Building scale models is sometimes a valid engineering exercise, demanding that someone rebuild a miniature WTC to satisfy your fantasies is not valid, nor rational.


So we are supposed to fall for this "Emperor's New Clothes" game with mathematics from Bazant and his cult followers. You're too stupid to do the math. All of us geniuses understand it. We just can't make a physical model do it. Computers can do the Garbage In Garbage Out games though. Like Purdue's impact simulation where the core columns don't move even though the NIST says the south tower was deflected by the impact. And the NIST can make computer simulations that don't look like what happened to WTC7 from the outside.

That's right psikey. Despite the fact that your model was some of the worst code I've ever seen, and didn't remotely accurately reproduce the physics or the facts of the day. You are now attacking actual engineering groups like NIST and Purdue because their results disagree with yours.

It's nonsense, you're appointing yourself the most expert physics expert in the world, and trying to dismiss anyone who says you're wrong. This despite the fact that you published the details of your own model and it was woefully inadequate.

How about you try admitting that the top collision forces are significantly lower than the lower collision forces, and that even with the minimum strength for the upper section, the 'upper block survival' is still modelled in such a simple system.

Show me your code that disproves this effect. I'm eagerly waiting.


I said the simulation was MAGICAL. How is that supposed to match reality?
And you claim to have written a great model IN TWO HOURS. Though you have not provided the code and data. You said you got 11.6 seconds with the impossible magical conditions and yet some sources say the north tower came down in 11 seconds. As far as I am concerned you demonstrated my point. How could supports that held up the building for 28 years be crushed from the top so fast? The simulation was MAGICAL not real. Now you want to attack me on the grounds that it "doesn't match reality" when I said that in the first place. No code matches reality. It is just a matter of being useful.

How could a real building come down in anywhere near the computed time from code based on nothing but the conservation of momentum?

But you haven't BUILT A PHYSICAL MODEL that can completely collapse and neither has anyone else in TEN YEARS. So 9/11 is a kind of Psycho-cultural fixation. If you don't believe in it then you must be stupid, but the experts don't have to supply accurate data about it. It's the 9/11 RELIGION.

So where is your code and data file?

Try reading Ultima Thule by Mack Reynolds
www.magick7.com...

What happens when the immortal god-king dies in public?

What happens if most people decide 9/11 is a bunch of crap and that most people claiming to know physics went along with it but then didn't apply any experimental science to test it for a decade? Science is whatever the people claiming to be smart say it is.


psik



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said the simulation was MAGICAL. How is that supposed to match reality?
And you claim to have written a great model IN TWO HOURS. Though you have not provided the code and data.

No, I didn't claim to have written a great model. I just reproduced yours minus any obvious errors. It's not a great model, it's a very poor model as I have repeatedly said, but even this poor model exposes fundamental truths about an accelerating body. I notice that you can't bring yourself to accept it despite the figures being in front of you and your model supposedly able to reproduce it.

Which is it? Does the upper block experience significantly lower forces than the rubble layer and the lower block, or doesn't it? You can presumably answer this without paragraphs of hyperbole.


You said you got 11.6 seconds with the impossible magical conditions and yet some sources say the north tower came down in 11 seconds. As far as I am concerned you demonstrated my point. How could supports that held up the building for 28 years be crushed from the top so fast?

In this simulation we remove all structural integrity from the whole upper section and still get a realistic time. Your point has not been proven at all, in fact we've shown that even with single floor failures, a collapse is still possible in an extremely short time.


The simulation was MAGICAL not real. Now you want to attack me on the grounds that it "doesn't match reality" when I said that in the first place. No code matches reality. It is just a matter of being useful.

Right, your code was neither accurate nor useful. My code seems so far to be accurate but you can easily double check it by just using the public figures and fixing your simulation. Instead you're intent on finding my code so you can try and dismiss it. Reproduce it yourself, it took me 2 hours from scratch. I'll give you my data file if you like: paste2.org...
edit: How many sites are banned here anyhow, I assume it's to stop user tracking but a nicer list or a warning before post would be useful!


How could a real building come down in anywhere near the computed time from code based on nothing but the conservation of momentum?

By having rigidity in the upper block, the momentum transfer is massively increased.


But you haven't BUILT A PHYSICAL MODEL that can completely collapse and neither has anyone else in TEN YEARS. So 9/11 is a kind of Psycho-cultural fixation. If you don't believe in it then you must be stupid, but the experts don't have to supply accurate data about it. It's the 9/11 RELIGION.

Psikey you cannot just go back to your old claims. We now know that you are talking nonsense and in fact the data available is far more accurate than you need, and far more accurate than you used.


Try reading Ultima Thule by Mack Reynolds
www.magick7.com...

What happens when the immortal god-king dies in public?

Could be a fun read. If I read this, will you read a similar length topic I assign you, in full, without cheating?


What happens if most people decide 9/11 is a bunch of crap and that most people claiming to know physics went along with it but then didn't apply any experimental science to test it for a decade? Science is whatever the people claiming to be smart say it is.

Exactly what happened when the Moon Landing was tested. Widespread approval, acceptance by experts, a small community of people who intently remain ignorant still don't believe it.

That is what has already happened with 911. You have proven it.
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: changed pastebin site



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said the simulation was MAGICAL. How is that supposed to match reality?
And you claim to have written a great model IN TWO HOURS. Though you have not provided the code and data.

No, I didn't claim to have written a great model. I just reproduced yours minus any obvious errors. It's not a great model, it's a very poor model as I have repeatedly said, but even this poor model exposes fundamental truths about an accelerating body. I notice that you can't bring yourself to accept it despite the figures being in front of you and your model supposedly able to reproduce it.

Which is it? Does the upper block experience significantly lower forces than the rubble layer and the lower block, or doesn't it? You can presumably answer this without paragraphs of hyperbole.


I never treated them as just two blocks. Bazants crush-down, crush-up is nonsense.

It is not just about forces it is about the strength of the blocks. Bazant's nonsense would have us believe that the upper block was a lot stronger than the lower block. My magical collapse gives the blocks NO STRENGTH. The collapse time is determined by the Conservation of Momentum only. So why does it take slightly longer than what is reported for the real building?

So where is your code and data?

psik



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never treated them as just two blocks. Bazants crush-down, crush-up is nonsense.

It is not just about forces it is about the strength of the blocks. Bazant's nonsense would have us believe that the upper block was a lot stronger than the lower block.

No it wouldn't. I didn't assume anything about such a thing but the energy loss is drastically different.


My magical collapse gives the blocks NO STRENGTH. The collapse time is determined by the Conservation of Momentum only. So why does it take slightly longer than what is reported for the real building?

So where is your code and data?

I have already explained this and posted my data and requested something from you.

You're not even reading are you?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Psikey. You also do not know physics, you have proven this by showing your terrible work and presenting it as if it contained any rigour. As I explained to ANOK in my previous post. My own results show that indeed the top block experiences a progressively lower force, even though it is set to the weakest possible state.


Not to mention, his zero credentials in physics and doubtful meaningful training in physics whatsoever. I've asked the guy quite a number of times what his background in physics is and he steadfastly refuses to answer, which tells me the guy probably just read the definition of "conservation of momentum" on the Internet and he now fancies himself to be another Stephen Hawking.

I for one am tired of this guy hijacking every forum here and steering it off into insipid arguments over junk physics he himself has no understanding of.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never treated them as just two blocks. Bazants crush-down, crush-up is nonsense.

It is not just about forces it is about the strength of the blocks. Bazant's nonsense would have us believe that the upper block was a lot stronger than the lower block.

No it wouldn't. I didn't assume anything about such a thing but the energy loss is drastically different.


My magical collapse gives the blocks NO STRENGTH. The collapse time is determined by the Conservation of Momentum only. So why does it take slightly longer than what is reported for the real building?

So where is your code and data?

I have already explained this and posted my data and requested something from you.

You're not even reading are you?


Is this your data for the top of the building?

110,16,4.8768,412.0896,2610.2

412.0896 is that meters to the top?

The World Trade Center Height: 1368 and 1362 feet (417 and 415 meters)

www.skyscraper.org...

The North Tower (1 World Trade Center) was slightly taller than the South Tower (2 World Trade Center). The roof of the North Tower stood at 1,368 feet (417.0 meters), while the roof of the South...

wiki.answers.com...

Does that mean all of your other altitude and height numbers are off?

It's really cool the way you took it out to 4 decimal places. Very precise.

psik
edit on 30-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by exponent
Psikey. You also do not know physics, you have proven this by showing your terrible work and presenting it as if it contained any rigour. As I explained to ANOK in my previous post. My own results show that indeed the top block experiences a progressively lower force, even though it is set to the weakest possible state.


Not to mention, his zero credentials in physics and doubtful meaningful training in physics whatsoever. I've asked the guy quite a number of times what his background in physics is and he steadfastly refuses to answer, which tells me the guy probably just read the definition of "conservation of momentum" on the Internet and he now fancies himself to be another Stephen Hawking.

I for one am tired of this guy hijacking every forum here and steering it off into insipid arguments over junk physics he himself has no understanding of.


LOL, It is really cool how I get accused of hijacking every forum when if you check I have never posted to the majority of forums. I don't even go in to read them because they are about things that do not interest me.

Dr. Whathisname made that same accusation.

I think making physics comprehensible annoys some people.

Dave, I have steadfastly said this is grade school physics so where have you explained what was incorrect about anything I have said? Who needs credentials for grade school physics. Bazant can't build a physical model that can completely collapse. So it seems that physics has turned into intimidating the ignorant with complicated mathematics.

psik
edit on 30-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
LOL, It is really cool how I get accused of hijacking every forum when if you check I have never posted to the majority of forums. I don't even go in to read them because they are about things that do not interest me.

Dr. Whathisname made that same accusation.

I think making physics comprehensible annoys some people.

psik


There isn't anything remotely comprehensible about your junk physics. I watched your videos and you try to pass off a structure with solid paper rings as an analogy for the design of the towers and how the floors collapsed, and you pass off a two demensional structure as an analogy for how much a three demensional structure swayed after an impact. Confusion over your junk physics isn't even limited to me- I saw the comments the viewers left on Youtube and none of them could make head or tail out of what you're trying to claim either. Plus, you obviously see the criticism you're encountering with your Python program.

I've asked you what your background in physics is but getting a straight answer out of you is akin to nailing jam to the wall. Will you at least admit where you originally learned the definition of "conservation of momentum" from?
edit on 30-5-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Is this your data for the top of the building?

110,16,4.8768,412.0896,2610.2

412.0896 is that meters to the top?

It was compressed downwards to the bottom of the floor in order to minimise PE so you couldn't complain.


Does that mean all of your other altitude and height numbers are off?

It's really cool the way you took it out to 4 decimal places. Very precise.

It does not. It was auto converted from height in feet, the number of decimal places was handled automatically.

Can you answer my question yet? Why does the upper block see a much smaller loss of energy than the lower block?


I think making physics comprehensible annoys some people.

I think I have a much better understanding of physics than you, and still find it extremely hard to comprehend your logic. How you would think that a full momentum transfer represents a minimum energy function is beyond me. I'm willing to take this as far as needs be, so start a thread if you are so confident that your understanding is correct.
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: adding psikey quote



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
LOL, It is really cool how I get accused of hijacking every forum when if you check I have never posted to the majority of forums. I don't even go in to read them because they are about things that do not interest me.

Dr. Whathisname made that same accusation.

I think making physics comprehensible annoys some people.

psik


There isn't anything remotely comprehensible about your junk physics. I watched your videos and you try to pass off a structure with solid paper rings as an analogy for the design of the towers and how the floors collapsed, and you pass off a two demensional structure as an analogy for how much a three demensional structure swayed after an impact. Confusion over your junk physics isn't even limited to me- I saw the comments the viewers left on Youtube and none of them could make head or tail out of what you're trying to claim either. Plus, you obviously see the criticism you're encountering with your Python program.

I've asked you what your background in physics is but getting a straight answer out of you is akin to nailing jam to the wall. Will you at least admit where you originally learned the definition of "conservation of momentum" from?


It is not an analogy to the towers. Thinking in terms of analogy is DUMB.

It is a vertical self supporting structure which is what the towers were. It is not a tube-in-tube structure which would be much more difficult and expensive to build especially without accurate data on the towers.

But my simple structure makes it possible to have the crushable supports as weak as possible relative to their static loads. That is not how skyscrapers are designed. But my self supporting structure still arrests.

It is not my fault that you regard anything that is beyond your comprehensions as junk. Explain what is stopping you from building a structure that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%.

Did you notice that your hero got the height of the north tower wrong even with four decimal places.


psik



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Did you notice that your hero got the height of the north tower wrong even with four decimal places.


psik


You were responding to a different person. Do you even bother to read the posts you reply to? Maybe you should try adding 'floor height' to 'floor position' and see what you get. Maybe you should think for more than 10 seconds before rushing to post your brilliant insights



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
In this simulation we remove all structural integrity from the whole upper section and still get a realistic time. Your point has not been proven at all, in fact we've shown that even with single floor failures, a collapse is still possible in an extremely short time.


Masses floating in air held up by nothing come down in slightly more than what the real building is supposed to have done and you call it REALISTIC.

The top block could not have remained intact and forced down everything below in less than 12 seconds

If it's possible then why hasn't anyone built a physical model that can do it in years?

All of the components of the building were subject to the same forces of gravity but they were also designed to resist those forces hence the towers stood for 28 years. So how could the falling top block overcome that strength so fast. My program is intended to show the minimum collapse time with no strength. So a real building would have to take significantly longer unless something was eliminating those supports.

psik



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
the realization of mind control experiments and the history of the Zionist cabal and the elite

very convincing stuff but you can't preach it if you can't teach it.

this is why so many do not get it. if you cannot convince people that the very will of others can and has been DIRECTLY hijacked... you might be very hard pressed to convince someone who is fully convinced otherwise.

here's the thing.. the picture is much bigger than just this alone. even the elite are caught up in some stupid entanglement. it's hard to fathom why some would go such an extent with their lies unless you can see just how ingrained it is into our very beings and is attached to our very primal fears and fight for survival. some people say the elite know EXACTLY what they are doing. they are missing something very important and in the end, if they can't grasp it... it has to be complete and utter denial of equilibrium on universal scale.

sooner or later, empires will fall. even while seeing this happening around their ears, they still deny it.

many Israelis are just mean out of their own survival extinct. all they see is us or them.

the larger picture is much broader. those at the top are either mentally challenged and just spoiled by sheltered birthright or they are spiritually stunted and only feel the quest for power, which is an ever shifting energy that can't possibly remain stable no matter which side you're on.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
this of course being in the reverse... and debunking the legitimacy of the whole thing.

i think this is important to mention because like i said... you can hack on people all day, but you can't preach it if you can't teach it.
edit on 30-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Masses floating in air held up by nothing come down in slightly more than what the real building is supposed to have done and you call it REALISTIC.

No, I said that the time results show that the actual collapse time is realistic.


The top block could not have remained intact and forced down everything below in less than 12 seconds

In reality, it didn't have to. Here we're making it accelerate every possible bit of mass in the towers downwards, with no upper section rigidity to minimise velocity loss.


If it's possible then why hasn't anyone built a physical model that can do it in years?

Because we have better ways of analysing reality. Remember, gravity doesn't scale and so for any of these tests we'd have to build towers hundreds of feet high. Who is going to do that when they can pay a couple thousand dollars for simulation time?


All of the components of the building were subject to the same forces of gravity but they were also designed to resist those forces hence the towers stood for 28 years. So how could the falling top block overcome that strength so fast.

Severing floor connections. As people have explained to you about a thousand times.


My program is intended to show the minimum collapse time with no strength. So a real building would have to take significantly longer unless something was eliminating those supports.

Right and your program got literally nothing right. If you want to show the minimum collapse time the only valid way to do it would be to use a rigid upper section and only include the momentum and energy transfer for small fractions of the floor areas. This is all that's needed to fail the building, and therefore provides a minimum bound.

I think the problem is that you just don't understand what the process you're supposed to be going through here is. If the building can only collapse by accelerating all of the mass below it. How does this make it a minimum time?

In Bazant's paper, he biases the tower for survival. He does this by assuming infinite ductility in columns, including data for air and physical expulsion, mass shedding, concrete communition etc. The energy sinks are maximised and so the chance of collapse is minimised. The energy balance still comes out massively pro-collapse, and so we can reliably say that even in the best case scenario, the tower would collapse. All you have proven is that in a moderate idealised case, the tower collapses in a time similar to the first ground hits in the real collapse.

Have you added the floor height to its position yet? I wonder what value you might get!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
suspicious details are just details... they can be reinterpreted. you can point some things out all day, but it can come across as a bad omen, from evil itself... vexed against Americans and it only makes their fight against terrorism STRONGER.

to prosecute for a crime you must always establish motive... and the motive behind 9/11 is very complex. you can't just say oil. it doesn't work when we know we have alternate energy sources. that is easily collapsible.

you have to dig much deeper than that to be convincing.

motive is number one. number two is the capacity to commit such a heinous crime. which means you have to dig all the way into the full infiltration of American government and society by the zionist cabal and how they ahve so many people brainwashed. therefore you need to show that these people are not even who they claim to be and show how much mind control is part of our history.

this is WELL hidden and is an age old lie. VERY complex.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is not an analogy to the towers. Thinking in terms of analogy is DUMB.


Well that should come as interesting news to pretty much every physicist alive, since everyone up to and including Stephen Hawking uses analogies to make their points easier to understand.


It is a vertical self supporting structure which is what the towers were. It is not a tube-in-tube structure which would be much more difficult and expensive to build especially without accurate data on the towers.


That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. *Every* building is a "vertical self supporting structure", not just the WTC...and if you're admitting yoru model doesn't simulate the structure of the WTC accurately then you're openly admitting your model is rubbish.


It is not my fault that you regard anything that is beyond your comprehensions as junk. Explain what is stopping you from building a structure that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%.


I already have- it's a row of dominos where a single half ounce domino can knock over fifty pounds of dominos. The falling domino can overcome the next stationary domino in line becuase no domino provides any support for any other domino. The relation of this to the design of the floors in the towers has been pointed out to you many times so for you to ignore it at this point only makes your own credibility suffer, not anyone else's.


Did you notice that your hero got the height of the north tower wrong even with four decimal places.


I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to here so I have no idea what it is that's inticing you to "laugh out loud" over.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join