9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2015, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2015 09:18 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Dude it is seriously very very obvious you are showing off like some kid in high school physics class if we say you are an uber brilliant physicist on a par with Einstein will you please then go away or at least answer direct questions instead of droning on about structural physics there are more questions around 9\11 that make a conspiracy ridiculous than this obsession about the physics of the structural collapse. Btw explain how the building was prepped for the demolition charges with everyone milling around in there, explosives require intimate and precise contact its not possible, you cannot ignore all the other components that make this conspiracy so laughable by doing so you are showing us how laughably unscientific you are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 08:14 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  So provide us with a link to the computer model of the north tower collapse.

And link us to the table of data it uses for the steel and concrete mass distributions. Won't a computer model have to be built with that data?

Funny how they could scale the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 to duplicate the oscillation of the real bridge and they didn't have electronic computers. It only took FOUR MONTHS. We are 5 days short of FOURTEEN YEARS and have computers everywhere.

psik

Consider

Well... at least it seems you've gotten the understanding that the buildings in question weren't built the way you've been claiming they were built. So that's a start. Thumbsup

As for the 'Link me through to some where that's done all the work'? What?

Deny you the pleasure of going through all the effort in creating good models with which to review the physics of the day? I'm not that much of a spoil-port.

You're seeming dead keen on working through the problem, I'll not deny you such pleasures.

As for computer models.. I believe some one already linked to something like that. Though I've been following the thread on the phone at work, so I'm not sure.

Yes they did build a scale model of the bridge... in a very large wind tunnel... so it was a very large model.... However, you'll agree that it was most probably a reasonably accurate physical model, yes?

Now that you have acknowledged the construction of the towers, you can have a go at doing some better modeling. Let us know how the new scaled models turned out, hey? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 09:37 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 08:14 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  So provide us with a link to the computer model of the north tower collapse.

And link us to the table of data it uses for the steel and concrete mass distributions. Won't a computer model have to be built with that data?

Funny how they could scale the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 to duplicate the oscillation of the real bridge and they didn't have electronic computers. It only took FOUR MONTHS. We are 5 days short of FOURTEEN YEARS and have computers everywhere.

psik

Consider

Well... at least it seems you've gotten the understanding that the buildings in question weren't built the way you've been claiming they were built. So that's a start. Thumbsup

As for the 'Link me through to some where that's done all the work'? What?

Deny you the pleasure of going through all the effort in creating good models with which to review the physics of the day? I'm not that much of a spoil-port.

You're seeming dead keen on working through the problem, I'll not deny you such pleasures.

As for computer models.. I believe some one already linked to something like that. Though I've been following the thread on the phone at work, so I'm not sure.

Yes they did build a scale model of the bridge... in a very large wind tunnel... so it was a very large model.... However, you'll agree that it was most probably a reasonably accurate physical model, yes?

Now that you have acknowledged the construction of the towers, you can have a go at doing some better modeling. Let us know how the new scaled models turned out, hey? Smile

I gotta tell you man I admire your patience I really don't know how you do it, truthers just drive me bonkers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 10:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I gotta tell you man I admire your patience I really don't know how you do it, truthers just drive me bonkers.

Hug

Well... giving psik a fair go, they haven't actually given a position on what they think.

Which is pretty much the only place my frustration grows from.

Still.. it's good to see psik is learning/understanding things. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 10:22 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 10:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I gotta tell you man I admire your patience I really don't know how you do it, truthers just drive me bonkers.

Hug

Well... giving psik a fair go, they haven't actually given a position on what they think.

Which is pretty much the only place my frustration grows from.

Still.. it's good to see psik is learning/understanding things. Smile
That's the majority of my frustration too although I gotta be honest I am prejudiced against the truther crowd and didn't notice he was learning something I've gotta own that I'm afraid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 10:22 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 10:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I gotta tell you man I admire your patience I really don't know how you do it, truthers just drive me bonkers.

Hug

Well... giving psik a fair go, they haven't actually given a position on what they think.

Which is pretty much the only place my frustration grows from.

Still.. it's good to see psik is learning/understanding things. Smile

Learning what? Good physical and virtual should give the same results and will require the same data to design. But it may be easier to lie with virtual models.

But with cheap powerful computers everywhere it should be easy to provide simulations that everyone that wants to can check for themselves. That is one of the ironies of the 9/11 Affair. It is just so funny that there is so much talk about "experts" but those "experts" can't discuss the distribution of mass in skyscrapers. Oh yeah, that is not important because "clowns" say so but the "experts" say NOTHING about it. They might have to explain why it isn't important and would look really stupid if they tried.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 10:45 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Learning what? Good physical and virtual should give the same results and will require the same data to design. But it may be easier to lie with virtual models.

But with cheap powerful computers everywhere it should be easy to provide simulations that everyone that wants to can check for themselves. That is one of the ironies of the 9/11 Affair. It is just so funny that there is so much talk about "experts" but those "experts" can't discuss the distribution of mass in skyscrapers. Oh yeah, that is not important because "clowns" say so but the "experts" say NOTHING about it. They might have to explain why it isn't important and would look really stupid if they tried.

psik

Blink

Nope... now you've lost me again.

You agree that the towers were concentric tube constructions.

You agree that, on the day, each building was impacted by an aircraft.

You agree that both buildings eventually collapsed.

You agree that large reports, by people with the relevant skills, were done/made and have since been published.

Point out which one of the above you've got problems with.

Please give us you words on what you think happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-09-2015 11:04 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 10:45 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Still.. it's good to see psik is learning/understanding things. Smile

Learning what?

I'd like to know too Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 05:48 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
[Image: a9B9WVj.png]

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
07-09-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-09-2015 05:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  [Image: a9B9WVj.png]

As far as I'm aware melting was wasn't necessary but could be wrong I'm no physics buff how are you doing btw?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: