Modelling the WTC collapse

[psikeyhackr]

Yea, personally I wish Mackey and so on did more stuff like the Hardfire shows. As Mark Roberts says, theres lots of professionals here but they arent usually the most vocal like the truther lot.

Yeah, Hardfire #3 was great.

Talking about making a scaled model without pointing out that the NIST hasn't published the information in human readable form to make a scaled model. Totally hilarious! Everyone needs to know about that.

psik

Split from: Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147480)

[FineWine]

Yeah, Hardfire #3 was great.

Talking about making a scaled model without pointing out that the NIST hasn't published the information in human readable form to make a scaled model. Totally hilarious! Everyone needs to know about that.

psik


Hilarious to you, but quite readable to real engineers. When you pointed out to the Berkeley and Purdue teams that their simulations were impossible, were they dazzled? Oh, you still haven't bothered to make a phone call? How curious.

[psikeyhackr]

When you pointed out to the Berkeley and Purdue teams that their simulations were impossible, were they dazzled?
.
Would you care to point out where I EVER said anything about Berkeley?

And what did I say was impossible about the Purdue simulation?

It is nothing but a simulation of the plane crashing into the building. We know that happened. I just haven't seen any information about how they account for the energy that had to go int shaking the building. In fact, I don't see anything in their simulation indicating that the building shook.

So is accusing people of saying things they never said all you can do?

psik

[carlitos]

Maybe you could ask the scientists how they account for the energy that had to go into shaking the building?

[psikeyhackr]

Maybe you could ask the scientists how they account for the energy that had to go into shaking the building?
.
Why don't you try finding where ANY SCIENTIST tries to account for the energy that had to go into shaking the building?

Stop trusting scientists and demand some answers.

psik

[Newtons Bit]

.
Why don't you try finding where ANY SCIENTIST tries to account for the energy that had to go into shaking the building?

Stop trusting scientists and demand some answers.

psik

I've actually already calculated it...

[FineWine]

.
Would you care to point out where I EVER said anything about Berkeley?

And what did I say was impossible about the Purdue simulation?

It is nothing but a simulation of the plane crashing into the building. We know that happened. I just haven't seen any information about how they account for the energy that had to go int shaking the building. In fact, I don't see anything in their simulation indicating that the building shook.

So is accusing people of saying things they never said all you can do?

psik


My point should easy for most people to grasp. With much effort, a "truther" might be able to get the general idea. You have made an ass of yourself by ranting pointlessly about an obsession that real engineers have dismissed as insignificant. The Berkeley and Purdue teams managed to model the collapses, and in order to do so, they must have estimated the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers to an acceptable degree of accuracy. Why haven't you explained to them that all of their work was invalidated by your stunning discovery that it is impossible to model the towers?

The question I ask constantly, the one you always ignore, is how did you learn things that real engineers and physicists don't know. Care to share with us?

[FineWine]

.
Why don't you try finding where ANY SCIENTIST tries to account for the energy that had to go into shaking the building?

Stop trusting scientists and demand some answers.

psik


But the scientists have provided answers. You don't understand the answers, so you keep demanding. They are wise to ignore you.

[psikeyhackr]

I've actually already calculated it...
.
Sure, the 81st floor of the south tower moved 14 inches horizontally in less than 2 seconds when the plane impacted and we don't have the weights of the 76 exterior wall panels that surrounded that floor but you calculated the energy required to move the mass that you don't know. :D :D :D

psik

[TruthersLie]

.

Stop trusting scientists and demand some answers.


except for OUR "scientists," you can trust them because they are part of the TRUTH movement. We wouldn't put TRUTH in our name if we weren't telling it? We are honest. Honest.

bYzIbOYaSy8

[tsig]

.
Would you care to point out where I EVER said anything about Berkeley?

And what did I say was impossible about the Purdue simulation?

It is nothing but a simulation of the plane crashing into the building. We know that happened. I just haven't seen any information about how they account for the energy that had to go int shaking the building. In fact, I don't see anything in their simulation indicating that the building shook.

So is accusing people of saying things they never said all you can do?

psik


There was a whole lot of shaking going on. Easy now.

http://www.kbapps.com/lyrics/songlyrics/LewisJerryLee_WholeLottaShakingGoingOn.html

[LashL]

There was a whole lot of shaking going on. Easy now.

http://www.kbapps.com/lyrics/songlyrics/LewisJerryLee_WholeLottaShakingGoingOn.html

Hey, come on. Twoofers cannot be expected to know anything about reading music, as they worship only at the altar of YouTube:

gfo5CVB4_98

[psikeyhackr]

except for OUR "scientists," you can trust them because they are part of the TRUTH movement. We wouldn't put TRUTH in our name if we weren't telling it? We are honest. Honest.

bYzIbOYaSy8
.
Care to provide a link to show I trusted ANYBODY.

Where has Richard Gage and his cohorts ever talked about the distribution of steel in the towers? How much computing power should they have compared to what was available in the early 60s to design those buildings? Then he talks about taking an architect or engineer to lunch. What a jerk!

Why should we need TRUST on a Grade School Physics problem? We just have lots of people pretending this is more complicated than it is. Duh, how do you build a skyscraper without figuring out how much steel goes on every level? Duh, just throw that steel anywhere.

Science isn't about TRUST. Science is about ACCURATE DATA and PROOF.

psik

[A W Smith]

.

Why should we need TRUST on a Grade School Physics problem? We just have lots of people pretending this is more complicated than it is. Duh, how do you build a skyscraper without figuring out how much steel goes on every level? Duh, just throw that steel anywhere.

Science isn't about TRUST. Science is about ACCURATE DATA and PROOF.

psik

If this is just a simple grade school problem. Why have you not picked an upper and lower bound and run the numbers?

[Newtons Bit]

.
Sure, the 81st floor of the south tower moved 14 inches horizontally in less than 2 seconds when the plane impacted and we don't have the weights of the 76 exterior wall panels that surrounded that floor but you calculated the energy required to move the mass that you don't know. :D :D :D

psik

You know, if you can measure the deflection of the tower from the plane impact, you can come up with a very reasonable approximation of the tower stiffness and mass?

[psikeyhackr]

You know, if you can measure the deflection of the tower from the plane impact, you can come up with a very reasonable approximation of the tower stiffness and mass?
.
So where is your link to where you did this?

No one ever measured it. The NIST measured 12 inches at the 70th floor. I extrapolated the 14 inches at 81 and I have never seen anyone else mention it.

It depends on what you call reasonable. More mass with less stiffness could give the same result as less mass with more stiffness. But mass would affect the time it would take fire to heat that mass of steel, not stiffness. It would also affect the potential energy of the building and the conservation of momentum for collapse. So there are multiple reasons for wanting to know the mass.

So I consider it to be totally UNreasonable for the NIST to not tell us the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik

[Heiwa]

You know, if you can measure the deflection of the tower from the plane impact, you can come up with a very reasonable approximation of the tower stiffness and mass?

LOL! Measure the deflection of a tower being impacted by a plane!! Try just to measure the deflection of the plane!

[FineWine]

.
So where is your link to where you did this?

No one ever measured it. The NIST measured 12 inches at the 70th floor. I extrapolated the 14 inches at 81 and I have never seen anyone else mention it.

It depends on what you call reasonable. More mass with less stiffness could give the same result as less mass with more stiffness. But mass would affect the time it would take fire to heat that mass of steel, not stiffness. It would also affect the potential energy of the building and the conservation of momentum for collapse. So there are multiple reasons for wanting to know the mass.

So I consider it to be totally UNreasonable for the NIST to not tell us the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik


It is maddening that you simply ignore the real engineers when they tell you to set upper and lower bounds. I am not a engineer, but if I think the total mass of something is roughly 1,000,000 kg, I can run two simulations: one using a mass of 800,000 kg, and the other using 1,200,000 kg. If I get the same result, haven't I solved the problem that stupefies you?

[FineWine]

.
Care to provide a link to show I trusted ANYBODY.

Where has Richard Gage and his cohorts ever talked about the distribution of steel in the towers? How much computing power should they have compared to what was available in the early 60s to design those buildings? Then he talks about taking an architect or engineer to lunch. What a jerk!

Why should we need TRUST on a Grade School Physics problem? We just have lots of people pretending this is more complicated than it is. Duh, how do you build a skyscraper without figuring out how much steel goes on every level? Duh, just throw that steel anywhere.

Science isn't about TRUST. Science is about ACCURATE DATA and PROOF.


psik


The reason you come off as such an insufferable twit is that you insist on lecturing working engineers and physicists about the essence of science. I keep taunting you to tell us what you know that they don't. Your silence suggests that you really don't suffer from the megalomania that afflicts Heiwa. Deep down, you seem to recognize that the real engineers do not regard you as a peer. Why then are you unable to learn anything from them? Plainly, you are NOT their equal in knowledge and understanding, so why not take advantage of the free lessons they provide?

[psikeyhackr]

The reason you come off as such an insufferable twit is that you insist on lecturing working engineers and physicists about the essence of science. I keep taunting you to tell us what you know that they don't. Your silence suggests that you really don't suffer from the megalomania that afflicts Heiwa. Deep down, you seem to recognize that the real engineers do not regard you as a peer. Why then are you unable to learn anything from them? Plainly, you are NOT their equal in knowledge and understanding, so why not take advantage of the free lessons they provide?
.
If they know so much about the essence of science then why don't they want the distributions of steel and concrete?

You just believe what you regard as AUTHORITY tells you. You can't demonstrate that you understand anything. R.Mackey is an AUTHORITY but he talked about making a physically scaled model in Hardfire #3 but of course he couldn't build one himself because he doesn't have the necessary data and hasn't been demanding it but then he wants to complain about Truthers not building them. That is funny as hell.

Now, I did not start this thread, our brilliant and glorious moderators pulled my posts from other threads and put them here. If they want to respond here that is their business but I'm out of here.

I demonstrated the relevance of the distribution of mass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

But you can't scale what you don't have the data on. The exterior wall panels supported 50% of the load and FEMA said they were only operating at 20% of capacity.

Tell that to your scientists.

BYE!

psik

[A W Smith]

You are "out of here" because you have been caught. when asked to pick an upper and lower bound and run the numbers you refused. Because you know as well as the rest of us it will expose your fallacy. As far as jumping on Anders Bjorkmans 10% 90% horse that too has been exposed.

eqygUApfnZg

[FineWine]

.
If they know so much about the essence of science then why don't they want the distributions of steel and concrete?


Could it be that they mean what they say when they keep telling you that the information you pretend to want is insignificant?



.
You just believe what you regard as AUTHORITY tells you. You can't demonstrate that you understand anything. R.Mackey is an AUTHORITY but he talked about making a physically scaled model in Hardfire #3 but of course he couldn't build one himself because he doesn't have the necessary data and hasn't been demanding it but then he wants to complain about Truthers not building them. That is funny as hell.


The only thing funny as hell is the way you combine arrogance with ignorance. Why should Mackey model the collapses when it's already been done by highly competent teams of researchers? Do you write that "of course he couldn't build one himself" because you are very obtuse or because you are very dishonest? I tend to think that it's a combination of the two.


.
Now, I did not start this thread, our brilliant and glorious moderators pulled my posts from other threads and put them here. If they want to respond here that is their business but I'm out of here.

I demonstrated the relevance of the distribution of mass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

But you can't scale what you don't have the data on. The exterior wall panels supported 50% of the load and FEMA said they were only operating at 20% of capacity.

Tell that to your scientists.

BYE!

psik


No, you didn't demonstrate the "relevance of the distribution of mass." Who are you to demonstrate anything? You're a loudmouthed know-nothing who can't learn from his intellectual superiors.

BYE.

[Justin39640]

jim norton of the opie and anthony show once asked (after being ambushed by truthers)
"why do they always get mad and run away?"
lol