What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well if our engineering schools can do this:

www.youtube.com...

Then why can't they build models much bigger and heavier than mine.

I'm sure they could, but the question is why would they? We both know that no matter how big a model they build, unless they completely reproduce the towers there will still be people complaining, and they are unlikely to learn anything relevant from attempting to reproduce a particular structure.

There is no question, one of us is obviously stupid.

I really wouldn't push this if I were you.

And regardless of what the truth is the physics profession has put itself into a peculiar position by not demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the buildings from official sources. Not even talking about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower is damn strange.

Why is it damn strange? What physics jobs have you held to allow you to give criticism of the "physics profession"?

You are stuck defending the position that the real building could do that in just a collapse though you can't specify how much energy is required to snap loose a floor or crush 12 feet of core.

What values would you like exactly?

Arguing about this for TEN YEARS without demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data is stupid from the get go especially since the NIST admitted that it was needed on page 40 of report 15-D. So shouldn't all of the physics experts have figured that out at least that?

We've been through this psikey. The values you've used and the models you've created are not accurate enough to be affected by any more accurate results. It's not been shown that any results are likely to change with the mass distribution.

Can you show me how Bazant's calculations fail if the mass distribution is an even more optimistic case than he assumed?

Originally posted by exponent
Excellent. This is the classic picture used to show the bowing, what excuse will you use?

There is nothing in that pic that shows what is causing the bowing.

It is just an assumption it is sagging trusses, no other possibility has ever been considered by the OS crowd.

Seeing as it is impossible for sagging trusses to put any pulling force on the columns, it has to be something else causing what we see in that pic. You can argue about that all day, but until you or someone can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns then known physics will win the argument every time.

Can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns, in your own words? I can explain to you how they couldn't and have many times, but the closest anyone ever comes to attempting it is catenary action. Which does not happen to trusses sagging from heat. For catenary action you need a rigid curve, a chain for example, that would not sag more if extra weight was added. All the force would be taken up by the sagging, and there was no extra weight added. The columns were designed to hold more than the force the trusses could put on the columns during their service.

In this vid load bearing columns are removed. They added weight to the floors, the floors sagged but were still rigid (not sagging from heat), yet they didn't pull in the columns.



You can tell yourself all week that that is bowing columns caused by sagging trusses, it doesn't make it fact.

Originally posted by ANOK
There is nothing in that pic that shows what is causing the bowing.

It is just an assumption it is sagging trusses, no other possibility has ever been considered by the OS crowd.

Other possibilities have been considered, it was initially thought to be just column sag due to the heat of the fires, but it was determined that that could not cause the amount of bowing shown. I am not qualified enough to authoritively calculate it, so I rely on people like Newtons Bit and Bazant.

So far, there are no viable alternatives.

Seeing as it is impossible for sagging trusses to put any pulling force on the columns, it has to be something else causing what we see in that pic. You can argue about that all day, but until you or someone can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns then known physics will win the argument every time.

What sort of demonstration would be sufficient? I assume anything short of a full scale physical model with strain gauges or similar would be acceptable?

I want to agree on what sort of evidence you'll accept before I try and present anything.

Originally posted by exponent
Why is it damn strange? What physics jobs have you held to allow you to give criticism of the "physics profession"?

We've been through this psikey. The values you've used and the models you've created are not accurate enough to be affected by any more accurate results. It's not been shown that any results are likely to change with the mass distribution.

Can you show me how Bazant's calculations fail if the mass distribution is an even more optimistic case than he assumed?

We all live in a reality of Newtonian Physics. It should be practically beneath the notice of anyone with a JOB of physics.

What have Bazant's equations succeeded at? No one has duplicated the phenomenon in an experiment. It is so curious that equations about the phenomenon are so important without data on the subject to plug into the equations. Like the lack of curiosity about the center of mass of the top of the south tower on the part of the physics profession. Where was it relative to the core of the lower portion of the building? If it was outside the core why didn't it tilt further?

And how would you scale gravity for a small model anyway. Increase it to make a mass attain a higher velocity over a shorter fall? But that would make all of the masses heavier. So that would mean all of the supports would have to be stronger to hold the weight. So wouldn't the effects cancel in terms of affecting any collapse?

It sounds like an excuse to invalidate model building.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We all live in a reality of Newtonian Physics. It should be practically beneath the notice of anyone with a JOB of physics.

What have Bazant's equations succeeded at? No one has duplicated the phenomenon in an experiment. It is so curious that equations about the phenomenon are so important without data on the subject to plug into the equations.

Bazant's equations succeeded at showing that in a best case scenario for collapse arrest, the upper block contains a lot more energy than is needed to fail a single floor, and that a single floor failure would lead to an inevitable collapse.

The data he used for it is more than accurate enough to determine the limiting case, no amount of increased accuracy will lead to a different result because of the large differences in available energy vs resistive force.

Like the lack of curiosity about the center of mass of the top of the south tower on the part of the physics profession. Where was it relative to the core of the lower portion of the building? If it was outside the core why didn't it tilt further?

Remember, Bazant's model is designed to be a limiting case, it does not represent the actual collapses as they were significantly worse cases for building survival.

And how would you scale gravity for a small model anyway. Increase it to make a mass attain a higher velocity over a shorter fall? But that would make all of the masses heavier. So that would mean all of the supports would have to be stronger to hold the weight. So wouldn't the effects cancel in terms of affecting any collapse?

It sounds like an excuse to invalidate model building.

I don't even know how to respond to this. You can't scale gravity, and while it would make masses heavier, it would not increase their mass. I thought you explained the square cube law to someone, or was that ANOK?

Anyhow, you can't scale gravity, so as an excuse I think it's a pretty infallible one!

I will make this simple...GRAVITY is a constant...that is why it works for models



.

reply to post by plube


You know, for once, we entirely agree

I hope I wasn't too harsh with you, and I have no animosity, so hopefully we can continue a good discussion on the models and the nature of the limiting case / the actual collapse.

reply to post by exponent


cheers ....i was going to put in some sort of digs...but i took them all out as the personal sentiments do not help in the discussions.....heres the But though....we are never going to agree on anything Bazants paper states....As it is completely and utterly farcical, It is wrong...and i would suggest that you stop trying to defend the undefendable...because that paper is not worth the trees wasted it was wriiten on.

So on Bazant...we will have to agree to disagree.

as for modeling....models are used in the building industry all the time...and then scaled up....we use models to test theories so that we don't spend a fortune building with new and untested techniques and materials....do the models always show every fault or problem that may occur....nope...but they are helpful for us to use to understand if theory can work in practice.

but also by the same token as engineers we can sometimes can get arrogant and when a worker shows us that something looked great on paper and then in the model, we find a problem at time of actual execution and we still have to sometimes make a change.....It pi**es us off as we think we are infallible but we have to back up...reassess and make any required change.

now also when someone says the truss seats were weak....they were not weak...they are standard...and still in use in structures to this day...they were designed to do the job...and they did their job just fine...they may have been the weakest link in the structure....but were they at fault....nope....for one thing....pancaking was not the failure....pancaking has been shown to be what did not happen....also when people were saying that the buildings did not come down at near free fall speeds....well when it was shown they did....NIST had to retract...and they came up with they matched it to the model....and it was David Chandler that put NIST on the spot over that one....A little ole physics teacher.

now i will ask a favour...to see if we are getting somewhere....as i see this is a tactic that gets used over and over by the OS...and truthers too have started to resort to this...Compartmentalization of what people say...it does nothing but detract from the flow of any reasonable debate...I like to give credit to intelligence....I believe that people are intelligent enough for the most part to answer in a normal way....tearing down paragraphs section by section is underhanded tactics to throw off legitimate discussion.

Also pointing out spelling and grammar is ridiculous.....
As i know myself i am responding asap so that fifty posts of nothing gets in between the posting one is trying to respond to, So when some one just comes back with that remark and trying to compare it to how someone may write up a document in a professional circumstance there isn't any comparison is there.

Ok So as far as the physics goes..i think we could agree...there aren't any special physics....the physics involved in the collapse always applies just as it applies in modeling......now...there is no scaling down of gravity....gravity always applies the same...whether it be small or large masses. in psiks model and in the model in the vid i showed....it does display newtons laws of conservation of momentum and energy so arguing whether or not the physics for the tower...applies or if it applies in the models is non productive...BECAUSE PHYSICS APPLIES TO ALL BODIES whether in motion or at rest.

I will not go into Bazant...but i will says this....physics is not math.....physicist ....do the physics...then the mathematician works the numbers....Almost every physics instructor i had used these words....We do the physics....we don't do the maths.

now...if you ask about the NIST retracting the free fall statement i will gladly post the vid.....since it was at a NIST press conference it is easy to find. heck i will do it now....I remember arguing the free fall stance before Mister Chandler even had this meeting.....but did the OSers in the threads acknowledge this.....they did eventually so they had to back track....now you been here awhile...you know this is correct....so please do not do the typical....PROVE IT....I will acknowledge your intellect as you most likely know this to be true.

So now the dilemma....the worst thing in experimentation is....fudging the data....in my classes if i were to fudge data...that would be the gravest of errors. Now Nist fudged the data to fit the Model and got caught out....so therefore one must draw the conclusion all data as false....because i know that is what i was taught in my physics.....and chem classes.



NOW i know the OS hates AE911....but this was the NIST press conference...so please watch it.

Originally posted by exponent
I don't even know how to respond to this. You can't scale gravity, and while it would make masses heavier, it would not increase their mass. I thought you explained the square cube law to someone, or was that ANOK?

Anyhow, you can't scale gravity, so as an excuse I think it's a pretty infallible one!

You could put the model into a centrifuge and conduct the experiment there. But if my model was put into a centrifuge to double its weight it would collapse without a drop because the paper loops are as weak as I could make them and would not support a double static load. So that would mean redesign for the test conditions resulting in stronger supports.

It would cancel out like I said. Can't PHYSICISTS figure out stuff like that in their heads? The trouble is the way they usually teach physics they behave as though math is more important than physics and you are supposed to learn the math to PROVE TO THE TEACHER that you are intelligent.

So what have all of the PHYSICISTS been proving to the world about their intelligence for the last TEN YEARS?

They can't even demand the data that they need to solve the problem. Western culture has gone form "My country right or wrong" to "My country's physics right or wrong." So everyone is supposed to believe American BS. That is why I don't get the Iranians. They built the Milad Tower. Why don't they have a propaganda campaign against the US based on correct physics?

psik

Originally posted by plube
But though....we are never going to agree on anything Bazants paper states....As it is completely and utterly farcical, It is wrong...and i would suggest that you stop trying to defend the undefendable...because that paper is not worth the trees wasted it was wriiten on.

So on Bazant...we will have to agree to disagree.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree, but you can't honestly expect people to find what you say convincing unless you have something to back it up. Whatever your feelings about Bazant, the papers have been published in journals prestigious that you can't easily dismiss them. That's some pretty solid backing, and they have been cited a fair few times (Bazant himself is ISI Highly Cited)

as for modeling....models are used in the building industry all the time...and then scaled up....we use models to test theories so that we don't spend a fortune building with new and untested techniques and materials....do the models always show every fault or problem that may occur....nope...but they are helpful for us to use to understand if theory can work in practice.

Certainly. I'm not trying to dismiss structural models at all, but everything Psikey has built so far is poor quality and he fails to understand what a model is supposed to do (reproduce a vital characteristic of the system under test)

now also when someone says the truss seats were weak....they were not weak...they are standard...and still in use in structures to this day...they were designed to do the job...and they did their job just fine...they may have been the weakest link in the structure....but were they at fault....nope

This is also reasonable to say. The truss seats were weak compared to the columns but there has been no suggestion that they were incapable of taking the specified live load.

....for one thing....pancaking was not the failure....pancaking has been shown to be what did not happen....also when people were saying that the buildings did not come down at near free fall speeds....well when it was shown they did....NIST had to retract

This however is not accurate. The original 'pancake theory' was that the floors in the towers failed under the heat and they alone provided the 'upper block' and descended down between the walls + core. This is what NIST refuted, by proving that while some floors did disconnect, it wasn't sufficient for pancaking, and that the bowing inwards of the exterior wall was not possible through floor disconnections alone. The current theory was described by Major Tom as "Rolling Open Office Space Destruction" or something like that, and refers to an upper block collapsing through the floor space and quickly becoming a rubble avalanche that overwhelmed the remaining floors, severing the outer walls and heavily damaging the core. NIST never retracted 'no free fall' for the towers, as WTC1 and 2 never hit free fall speed.

...and they came up with they matched it to the model....and it was David Chandler that put NIST on the spot over that one....A little ole physics teacher.

This referred to WTC7, where it attained free-fall speed for an 8 storey space, thoroughly disproving any controlled demolition theory in my mind, but we'll get to that later I'm sure!

I will not go into Bazant...but i will says this....physics is not math.....physicist ....do the physics...then the mathematician works the numbers....Almost every physics instructor i had used these words....We do the physics....we don't do the maths.

I must say I was never taught like this, I was taught that physics is as close to applied maths as you can get. 'Mechanics' if you like.

Now Nist fudged the data to fit the Model and got caught out....so therefore one must draw the conclusion all data as false....because i know that is what i was taught in my physics.....and chem classes.

I don't really know what this is referring to. NIST didn't fudge any of the data, they just didn't provide a graph that they later added after public comments. That doesn't seem particularly objectionable to me, especially as no coherent theory has even made use of this 'devastating' graph to this date!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It would cancel out like I said. Can't PHYSICISTS figure out stuff like that in their heads? The trouble is the way they usually teach physics they behave as though math is more important than physics and you are supposed to learn the math to PROVE TO THE TEACHER that you are intelligent.

This is total nonsense psikey. I can imagine many things cancelling out in my head. I can imagine myself jumping from 20 feet and my muscles slowly absorbing the force, myself carefully balancing to transfer all of the force harmlessly through my body.

If I did it for real, I'd probably end up in hospital. Just because I imagined it doesn't mean it works in reality, that's why the maths is important. You seem to think that you can somehow cancel out the lack of ability to scale gravity, but can you prove it?

So what have all of the PHYSICISTS been proving to the world about their intelligence for the last TEN YEARS?

That they're smart enough not to solve problems that are solved already?

They can't even demand the data that they need to solve the problem. Western culture has gone form "My country right or wrong" to "My country's physics right or wrong." So everyone is supposed to believe American BS. That is why I don't get the Iranians. They built the Milad Tower. Why don't they have a propaganda campaign against the US based on correct physics?

Because the US already got the physics correct. What other explanation do you have?

Originally posted by exponent
Other possibilities have been considered, it was initially thought to be just column sag due to the heat of the fires, but it was determined that that could not cause the amount of bowing shown. I am not qualified enough to authoritively calculate it, so I rely on people like Newtons Bit and Bazant.

And that is the problem you cannot figure it out yourself so you appeal to authority. You have no idea if Bazant is right or not.

So far, there are no viable alternatives.

There isn't? Are you sure about that? No alternative to an impossible hypothesis?

What sort of demonstration would be sufficient? I assume anything short of a full scale physical model with strain gauges or similar would be acceptable?

Did you watch the video? That was the demonstration.

I want to agree on what sort of evidence you'll accept before I try and present anything.

What do you think you need to do? Why do you even need to ask this question? You need to demonstrate this catenary action you all claim happened. If you have no idea how to demonstrate it, then you have no idea what it is. This is not rocket science mate.

I presented a video that shows catenary action in a very weak concrete structure that was weighted down, and load bearing columns removed, and it didn't pull in columns, or even collapse.

Can you show a demonstration of steel trusses sagging from heat pulling in columns? It's that simple.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It would cancel out like I said. Can't PHYSICISTS figure out stuff like that in their heads? The trouble is the way they usually teach physics they behave as though math is more important than physics and you are supposed to learn the math to PROVE TO THE TEACHER that you are intelligent.

This is total nonsense psikey. I can imagine many things cancelling out in my head. I can imagine myself jumping from 20 feet and my muscles slowly absorbing the force, myself carefully balancing to transfer all of the force harmlessly through my body.

OMG!

Another one of those stupid comparisons of the animate to the inanimate. You are obviously contradicting yourself by deliberately creating an unrealistic imagining to compare a realistic one. This is only about REALISTIC" imagining.

You are just playing the "if I talk this stupid bullsh# then I can win" game.

I notice you said nothing about the centrifuge and scaling.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Another one of those stupid comparisons of the animate to the inanimate. You are obviously contradicting yourself by deliberately creating an unrealistic imagining to compare a realistic one. This is only about REALISTIC" imagining.

You are just playing the "if I talk this stupid bullsh# then I can win" game.

No I am trying to teach you something. You say it's about realistic imagining but the whole point of that post was:

Originally posted by exponent
Just because I imagined it doesn't mean it works in reality, that's why the maths is important. You seem to think that you can somehow cancel out the lack of ability to scale gravity, but can you prove it?

Please take the time to read this and understand it before replying, it's important.

Originally posted by ANOK
And that is the problem you cannot figure it out yourself so you appeal to authority. You have no idea if Bazant is right or not.

Hold on, you are now saying that when I don't have the qualifications or authority to know something for certain, I shouldn't listen to recognised experts who do have the qualifications, authority and peer reviewed mathematics to back it up?

So far, there are no viable alternatives.

There isn't? Are you sure about that? No alternative to an impossible hypothesis?

I'm sure a pithy Sherlock Holmes quote could work here, but as the hypothesis isn't impossible, then I have no problems whatsoever in accepting it. There are no viable alternatives.

Did you watch the video? That was the demonstration.

A totally different building with a totally different structure not exhibiting the same behaviour? What exactly is it supposed to convince me of?

What do you think you need to do? Why do you even need to ask this question? You need to demonstrate this catenary action you all claim happened. If you have no idea how to demonstrate it, then you have no idea what it is. This is not rocket science mate.

I think a simple FEA would be fine. Set up some columns and trusses, heat trusses, instrument for tension and forces against the column.

I assume this would not be fine with you?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Another one of those stupid comparisons of the animate to the inanimate. You are obviously contradicting yourself by deliberately creating an unrealistic imagining to compare a realistic one. This is only about REALISTIC" imagining.

You are just playing the "if I talk this stupid bullsh# then I can win" game.

No I am trying to teach you something. You say it's about realistic imagining but the whole point of that post was:

Originally posted by exponent
Just because I imagined it doesn't mean it works in reality, that's why the maths is important. You seem to think that you can somehow cancel out the lack of ability to scale gravity, but can you prove it?

Please take the time to read this and understand it before replying, it's important.

It's obvious you don't understand anything since you keep either denying or pretending that the magical collapse is not the minimum possible and that the energy used up destroying supports would slow a real collapse further. Still no mention of the centrifuge I see. Are you saying that could not scale gravity?

en.wikipedia.org...

psik

Originally posted by plube
they may have been the weakest link in the structure

I think this is where the OS really trips up. OSers have claimed now for ever that the truss seats were the weak point.

But if that is the case, why didn't they fail before they could pull in the columns?

That doesn't make sense to me. Even IF they could pull in columns it would take more force than breaking the connections, if they are the weak point. There is no reason for the welded seats to fail, the connections, 1" and 5/8" bolts would be the weak point. If it was a simple pancake the connections would have failed not the welded truss seats. IF the trusses put a pulling force it would be on the connections also, and they would fail before the columns.

I think you are right the truss seats were taken out with thermite or something similar, and some kind of explosive took out the core.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It's obvious you don't understand anything since you keep either denying or pretending that the magical collapse is not the minimum possible and that the energy used up destroying supports would slow a real collapse further.

Because it isn't. It's not that I don't understand it, it's that you have convinced yourself it is true and can't come up with any logical argument. For the fifth or sixth time: How can requiring all of the mass of the tower be collapsed be a minimum time?

Still no mention of the centrifuge I see. Are you saying that could not scale gravity?

I thought you were joking! You're not scaling gravity, you're adding an extra acceleration vector. Please, feel absolutely free to build your model in a centrifuge, we'll all wait patiently!

Originally posted by ANOK
I think this is where the OS really trips up. OSers have claimed now for ever that the truss seats were the weak point.

But if that is the case, why didn't they fail before they could pull in the columns?

That doesn't make sense to me. Even IF they could pull in columns it would take more force than breaking the connections, if they are the weak point.

How do you know this? You're obviously not using NISTs tests so what tests of the floor system are you referring to to make this claim? Are you just making it up and hoping that it's true?

There is no reason for the welded seats to fail, the connections, 1" and 5/8" bolts would be the weak point. If it was a simple pancake the connections would have failed not the welded truss seats. IF the trusses put a pulling force it would be on the connections also, and they would fail before the columns.

The columns were not failed by the trusses, they were pulled out of line so their load carrying capacity was reduced. Fairly subtle difference though I'll grant you.

I think you are right the truss seats were taken out with thermite or something similar, and some kind of explosive took out the core.

You realise this would mean chiselling up the floor of working offices right? It's not a plausible mechanism for attack.

Originally posted by exponent
I thought you were joking! You're not scaling gravity, you're adding an extra acceleration vector. Please, feel absolutely free to build your model in a centrifuge, we'll all wait patiently!

So you are saying that gravity is not an accelerating vector? What kind of physics is that.

I am sure you at least suspect that it is quite unlikely that I have access to a centrifuge that could do the experiment. But if you know as much physics as you pretend then it is obvious that a centrifuge would increase the effective weight of my washers and therefore the compressive force on the paper loops, meaning they would have to be stronger to hold the static load.

psik