is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that your model does not represent the physics of the WTC.

 

You will 'tolerate'?..<snicker>

Too bad you won't tolerate reality

 

Curious also how you completely misunderstand the concept of scale yet pretend to have really proven something with your little toy.

When your design constraints include comments like "I used the biggest washers I could find at the hardware store." , you really shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Don't make me go find it. You did say it.

 

Be that as it may, at least he tried a physical model subject to the world around us as it is.. As lacking as it may be, it's still a step up from the less-than-scientific simulations of proprietary computer models used by NIST.

 

So . . . paper loops, washers, and a dowel are a step up in modeling the collapse potential of a 110 story office building compared to a computer model??

Really??

 

Really.

 

Can you defend this position?

 

I kind of did.. A physical model is subject to the laws of the physical world as they really are. These laws are the same regardless of our understanding of them. The same even for the cavemen. The physical model will interact with the world as it really is.

Computers are different. The computer model interacts with algorithms based on specifications made by human programmers. The problem is that humans, since they aren't God, don't really know all the ins and outs of the physical world and how it works. In fact, human knowledge is still, even though we've come light years since our early days, highly lacking in what looks like a very fundamental understanding, including quantum interactions and gravity especially, both of which would have bearing on what we see and observe in the physical world, including falling towers.

Therefore a physical model is preferable.

Computers do have their uses, but really can't "prove" things. They can help us make predictions however, such as car crash simulations, climate projections etc. but it is not foolproof.

Their main reliance is because we can't really do physical tests for a lot of things, including a proper reinactment of collapsing skyscrapers.

Their scientific use does have enough validity that they can, if done properly, point us in the general direction or give us about the level of certainty we use in and take for granted in other various postulates, which still we can't by definition know for sure.

Because of this, if it is true that the physical model involves toilet paper tubes, maybe the computer sim is a bit better, if that is the extent of the physical model in question, maybe I spoke too soon in making the comparison.

I'd like the original link or quote to the description of that model as now I'm curious.

When I made the comparison, what I meant was, and I hope you understand, that going after a physical model was a better and more reasonable approach, then using a proprietary computer model. Should be a better one than a toilet roll tube though.. It's really sad that the actual physical tests conducted were so scant, and it's annoying that NIST put like 99 percent of their eggs in the computer basket.

IF you use a computer model to run a simulation, there are a LOT of necessary safegaurds, checks, and verifications from many fields of science, and certain paramaters you shouldn't change and corners you should not cut.

So not only is it about computer modelling in general, but specifically NIST's less than scientific use of computer modelling in which to draw scientific conclusions. There's somewhat a pier review type process required, in order that a model be verified by the different fields of science and such that it must accuratly relfect, therefore arbitrary and proprietary programming of a model start to finish typically gives not so authentic results. You can be the expert in your field and design a crap model because the physical world reflects interactions between the different mechanics, meteorology, quantum interactions etc. NIST manipulated inputs and parameters until it got the results they wanted, or felt made sense to them. That makes automatically biased and therefore inadmissable conclusions. The physical world doesn't bias like that. If it does something a certain way, there's a reason for it, even if we don't understand the reasons fully yet.

So computer modelling isn't the best in general, but I acknowledge its use in some circumstances, yet NIST's use of it didn't follow the correct procedures for it, so that's the double wammy. This means their conclusions are at least "almost" as uncertain as a toilet paper tube. Note my use of the word "almost" which should hopefully make this somewhat more palatable for you.

 

One clarification, I'm referring to computer models made to determine a certain scientific conclusion, not to illustrate a point or visually depict a concept which makes them great for teachers and such.

Also, this does not apply to mathematical models and sims, which can be more precise and accurate than the smartest mathemetician could even dream of, as there's the universal certainty behind the algorithms used which doesn't apply to our scientific understanding of the laws of science.

 

Less than scientific simulations? Proprietary computer models? Really?

The software used was SAP 2000, an off the shelf modeling software designed for structural engineers to test various scenarios.

The raw data used

The data broken out into spreadsheets

Other structural engineering firms and universities have designed their own models and came to almost the same conclusion as the NIST. I say almost because they determined the collapse would have happened even without the structural damage.

And thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have absolutely no clue about the relevancy of models. Pretending a toy made out of a couple dozen pieces in ANY way mimics the real world collapse behavior of two 110 story towers consisting of millions of pieces is like taking a piece of wood shaped like the titanic and pretending it accurately models the sinking of Titanic to prove the Titanic didn't sink.

 

Mathematical models and sims are exactly what the NIST uses to determine a certain scientific conclusion. What did you think they were using? Legos? Sounds to me like someone figured out their claims were total horse(*)(*)(*)(*) and are trying to cover their mistake with obfuscations.

 

I think this shows it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Source please?

 

Nonsense.

Gravity cannot be scaled. The strength of materials cannot be scaled. A physical model is not preferable because it's not possible. You can't make a reduced scale model that has the scale physical properties of a full scale model. A column that is half as long, half as wide, and half as deep does not have half the strength or half the mass of a full size column. The half size column is much stronger. This is why ants can carry 50 times their own mass.

The sap2000 model is preferable because scaling is not necessary. Real world variables can be used to test real world properties of the design of the tower.

 

This is wrong, especially in psik's case. A scale model does NOT react in the real world as the full sized model does. That is why they don't use scale models except in very rare instances.

Really? We don't understand physics? Wow. So how is it us mere humans can create modeling software that can accurately model things like structural failure? If we're so stupid, computer models would be useless, yet they are used all the time.

Look up the square cube law and then try and say a physical model is preferable to a computer simulation. Physical models are used when testing sub assemblies at full scale.

Whenever a problem with the computer model shows itself, it can be corrected. Can you show what problems there are with the computer model? No? Big surprise. Why is it engineers use computer models to design and test structures despite your caims of their unreliable nature.

Yet you reject that modeling. How convenient.

Yet you claim computer modeling taking into account every structure and the unique characteristics of those structures is "almost" as uncertain as a retarded toy. Wow. Funny how all those engineers are wasting all that money on computer modeling when they could be playing with paper and washers and get results that are almost as good.

So why don't engineers use simplified models? Sure, they could make it more complex, but they still don't do it. Why? Because models don't behave the same way except in HFD la la land.

You keep making claims that they "cheated" on the models. Do you have ANY evidence to back up this claim? Any at all?

The report was reviewed by numerous reputable firms and universities. Not one has claimed the NIST was fundamentally wrong or that the computer models YOU falsely claim are proprietary were flawed.

Another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim you can't back up. Talk about confirmation bias!

How did it not follow the correct procedures for it? When are you going to back up your claims with actual evidence? You're making serious claims against a world renouned agency. Of course, the fact you think their efforts are "almost" the same as a retarded little toy that proves nothing should give a real good idea of just how credible your claims are from the start.

 

You can spell "snicker". I AM Impressed.

Are you implying that physical models do not demonstrate REALITY?

Where is your physical model that can completely collapse?

All you can do is talk and CLAIM to be talking about REALITY.

psik

 

Where's your model that buckles instead of crushes?

 

You need to do some reading.

The Tyranny of Words (193 by Stuart Chase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9H1StY1nU8
http://pdfcast.org/pdf/tyranny-of-words

It works really great on my Google Nexus 7.

You can try to make all the hay you want out of "buckle" versus "crush". It is irrelevant.

Physics doesn't operate on words. It does not even operate on mathematics.

psik

 

Are you trying to claim that buckling is the same as crushing? Oh my. I'm not the one that needs to do some reading.

 

I don't care.

Both require energy which means they absorb kinetic energy from the falling mass, thereby slowing it down. You are merely distracting the issue by quibbling over trivia.

psik

 

The issue is that the supports are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE relative to the static load. The issue is the square cube law not scale.

So where has any engineering school, that charges $100,000+ for 4 years of what they claim is education, built a physical model that can completely collapse? In fact where has any engineering school even mentioned trying?

9/11 is a scientific farce.

psik

 

It's in the same place as your model that accurately represents the collapse potential of 110 story office buildings. It has not been built yet.

Clearly.

By the way, what do you think of Gage's cardboard box demo? Are you familiar with it?
You really don't understand scale, do you. You have such little understanding of what it is you're trying to model that you can't understand why people make fun of your model. Pretty amusing really.

 

No engineering school will ever try for multiple reasons.

1) It would cost entirely too much to build. There is no way around it, they have to be exact replicas of the world trade centers. Anything less is just pissing in the wind.

2) Everything, I repeat EVERYTHING would have to be the same. Which is relatively impossible to replicate. That's part of the issue with truthers, you don't seem to understand how specific the events were to that day.

3) There is reputable no structural engineer that is confused at what happened on the days of 9/11. The people you describe have no desire to replicate it because they understand what happened that day. Only you want it to be done all over again, because the chances it will go exactly the same are slim to none.

I apologize that, for some reason, you don't understand. I truly believe that you think 9/11 was an inside job because you just don't understand what happened that day.

 

You still don't get it. The square cube law is all about scale.

Tell you what. If I build a toy like you did that completely collapses, will you drop this silliness?

 

EVERYTHING really?

Can you give examples of what kinds of things are impossible to know or replicate, and what are the smallest of details, which if not incorporated into the model would invalidate the conclusion?

Why can't we replicate these?

How is it that their ommission would compromise the conclusion?

 

Because truthers would claim it collapsed because it wasn't EXACTLY like the towers. DUH!