[psikeyhackr (OP)]

How can you build scaled models demonstrating the physics if you don't have the distribution of mass data on the subject?

Yes that would be impossible to determine, and there are no resources that you can draw on.

Sarcasm is so easy.  Let us see you Google the quantity and weights of the exterior wall panels.

I told you what to look for, so you didn't have to figure that out for yourself.

BELIEVERS don't need relevant information.  Understanding is more stringent.  Believers don't even need to figure out what questions to ask.

psik

[wolfekeeper]

This is a science board. And now for the science bit.

In science we develop a 'normal hypothesis' and try to disprove it. The normal hypothesis is the simplest possible theory about how something happened. We get the normal hypothesis by using Ockham's razor.

So, building gets hit by enormous aircraft full of flammable fuel, there is a huge fire started and then after an hour or so, the building fell down.

What is the normal hypothesis?

The normal hypothesis is that the fire causes the building to fall down.

Unless you can provide a reasonable model and use the available evidence to show that the normal hypothesis is wrong (to within statistical bounds), then the scientific position is that it fell down due to the fire.

You have not done the work necessary to disprove the normal hypothesis.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

building gets hit by enormous aircraft full of flammable fuel, there is a huge fire started and then after an hour or so, the building fell down.

I love that SCIENTIFIC description.

The ENORMOUS aircraft was ONE HALF of ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT the mass of the building.

There were 10,000 gallons of fuel onboard at the time of impact but the plane was capable of holding 25,000 gallons so it was nowhere near FULL of fuel.

A lot of people talk all this trash about being scientific but then they use lots of subjective and relative wording to support their position and then have the nerve to use the H-word like that can magically wrap them in the mantle of SCIENCE.  That ain't science that is PROPAGANDA!

If we don't have correct data about the objects in question then talking about a hypothesis is idiotic presumption.

What is the number and weights of the 12 types of exterior wall panels?  That is what the airliners hit first.

If you want to see a HUGE fire look at that hotel in Beijing THAT DID NOT COLLAPSE.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7880348.stm

What does that say about your HUGE FIRE hypothesis?  There is of course the minor detail of the atmosphere only being 20% oxygen so that jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as in an engine that mixes the fuel and air properly.

psik

[wolfekeeper]

I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?

I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?

I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.

You are very good at parroting distorted information.

So now you concede it was only 10,000 gallons.  The plane wasn't FULL.

Is that equivalent energy based on a 100% efficient burn?  Open air fires can't burn with 100% efficiency.  That is why they produce carbon monoxide.  You are SO SCIENTIFIC with your Hypotheses.  LOL

But all of that is totally irrelevant to whether or not the conservation of momentum could have allowed the top of the north tower to crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.  You are going off topic.

psik

[L_D]

I note your excessive use of capital letters, and the fact that you still haven't got any relevant data; another hotel caught fire you say, that wasn't hit by an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel, and didn't burn down? What does that prove?

I also note you seem to be surprised that fuel which has a equivalent energy of 450 tonnes of TNT could take down a structure like the world trade centre.

You seem to think the aircraft impacts and the jet fuel is all that was needed to completely destroy those buildings, there has been two official reports so far and both (NIST and FEMA) concluded that the Towers survived both of these.

Ultimately it was ordinary office fires that officially brought down the Towers, that is why other highrise infernos ARE relevant, and there are many highrises that have burnt longer and hotter than the WTC Towers but none that have completely collapsed.

The NIST official account has approx 30% of the fuel exploding outside the building, and the rest burning off after a handful of minutes with it's main role being to ignite widespread office fires (FEMA had the jet fuel lasting 10 minutes).

These Towers were so strong they barely flinched when being hit by the aircraft and the accompanying jet fuel explosion, and yet after approx an hour later they both suddenly disintegrated all the way to the ground at a rate comparable to freefall, supposedly as a result of smouldering office fires.

As Psikeyhackr has said this is now going off track, he has raised a very important point and that is that the laws of C of M will not allow those upper portions to crush the much larger and stronger lower portions as fast as they did.

Even a C of M equation that assumes no losses, so is therefore unrealistically fast, will not allow such a fast collapse of the upper section simply because the sheer mass of the larger and undamaged lower portion HAS to significantly slow the falling mass.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

What's happening out there?

Views have been going up for two weeks but no more responses.

psik

[wolfekeeper]

What's the point; you've made your mind up and USED UPPERCASE TO DO IT. Clearly if you've used upper case, then your point must be true.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

What's the point; you've made your mind up and USED UPPERCASE TO DO IT. Clearly if you've used upper case, then your point must be true.

So where is your PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION MODEL to disprove my point?

SARCASM is great for debating but it is totally irrelevant to PHYSICS.

psik

[wolfekeeper]

Yes, I agree with you that it's only physics if you're using uppercase. That's how all modern physics is done, and it's not a sign of possible mental instability at all.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

Yes, I agree with you that it's only physics if you're using uppercase. That's how all modern physics is done, and it's not a sign of possible mental instability at all.

So two weeks and lots of hits but no other responses.

Are the people that come to this site interested in science or not?

Would you care to explain how innuendo or mental instability has anything to do with analyzing the physics of an event SEVEN YEARS AGO?

psik

[wolfekeeper]

Well, you know what they say; conspiracy theories can be fun.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

Well, you know what they say; conspiracy theories can be fun.

Anyone that cares sufficiently can search the thread to see what I have said about any con______y th__ry.  All you can do is come up with psychological BS.   (3775)

(6-23=3851)(6-24=3916)(6-26=4062)(6-28=4148)(6-30=4233)(7-2=4295)
(7-4=4373)(7-6=4457)(7-8=4540)(7-10=4648)(7-12=4748)(7-15=4883)
(7-17=5007)(7-19=5096)(7-21=5159)

psik

[wolfekeeper]

So, tell us again how you not bothering to model any of the correct stress or mass distribution in a 'test' proves that a building that fell down, couldn't have fallen down?

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

So, tell us again how you not bothering to model any of the correct stress or mass distribution in a 'test' proves that a building that fell down, couldn't have fallen down?

I need a long time to come up with an appropriate response to your deep intellectual input.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg253416#msg253416

It is impossible to make a model with correct stress and mass proportions without sufficient data.  The NIST doesn't even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers.  If you watched my videos you will see I ask about the steel and concrete on every level. How can anyone build a model as you describe without that data?  (5244)

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

Well. it's been 30 days with 30 hits per day and no responses.

Isn't this an issue that should interest science buffs?

Is everyone supposed to think what AUTHORITARIAN science tells them?  I am getting lectured about peer reviews.  European science is the only science obviously.  We have socio-economically controlled science.  Reality is irrelevant.

The so called educational system produces people that can't actually think about grade school physics for themselves.  LOL 

psik   (6263)

[Nizzle]

European science is the only science obviously.

Spread the news in your country!

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

European science is the only science obviously.

Spread the news in your country!

White Americans are Europeans!  So are Australians and South Africans and New Zealanders.  I am not talking about superficial nationalist crap.

The laws of physics don't have a nationality actually.  That is one of the things that makes 9/11 so ridiculous.

You can't build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level.  Aren't there skyscrapers in Europe?  So why aren't the Europeans in Europe demanding that the Europeans in the United States supply that information if THEY CLAIM that a 150 ton airliner can totally destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours.  LOL

psik  (6339)

[Nizzle]

We don't have to worry that much about plains in our skyscraper here on the European mainland, seeing as we don't p*ss off other nations around the globe as much as you do.

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

We don't have to worry that much about plains in our skyscraper here on the European mainland, seeing as we don't p*ss off other nations around the globe as much as you do.

And that has what to do with physics?

psik   (6438)