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

Are you serious right now? Wind is a good one for starters. Replicating wind is rather tough. Then of course to recreate the fires you have to burn office supplies, and several dead bodies as well. Simulate all the broken windows the people broke out, which increased air flow through the building. You also have to replicate the area around the WTC as well. All the buildings create specific wind tunnels that sometimes fed the fires.

I don't think you possibly fathom how much the environment affecting the collapses that day, and how extremely difficult it would be to recreate. You can't setup fans on the ground and have them blow 110 storey's up.

Also, like Patriot said, if it wasn't tip for tap truthers would cry mulligan.

 

No offense but that is why I think you're a truther. I honestly feel like you don't understand what happened that day, and that's why you believe what you believe. Just a thought.

 

I know you don't care. That's part of the problem. You claim to care about physics but you don't make any attempt to educate yourself on the subject. Buckling is not the same as crushing and this is a big issue with your model. This is not just trivia, it's a major flaw in your premise.

 

Your supports are not as weak as possible. A support that was as weak as possible would buckle before it crushed. Your columns do not buckle. They crush.

wait a minute. did you really just type this:

Come on now. You didn't really mean this did you? Are you trying to claim that the issue has nothing to do with the scale of your model and everything to do with square cube law?

That's.

Downright hilarious on every level of your washer and loop model.

 

Notice that you did not mention the energy required to "crush" or "buckle".

Oh, that's right. Energy doesn't have anything to do with physics.

It is all about WORDS.

psik

 

Notice that you did not mention the energy required to "crush" or "buckle".

Oh, that's right. Energy doesn't have anything to do with physics.

It is all about WORDS.

psik

 

So, Patriot911, Ddave, and Fangbeer, is this correct? Is plague telling the truth here in this post?

I want to find out what your level of agreement is regarding this post.

 

this thread needs more "pull it"

 

Do I agree that an analogous small scale model is impossible and a full scale model is prohibitive and stupid? Yes.

Do I agree that truthers attempt to find weak points in narratives that they can weave together in an attempt to discredit strong points in narratives? Yes. If any attempt to recreate a full scale collapse does not include the correct alignment of all the planets in the galaxy, the correct temperature of the Earth's core, and properly align with both the Mayan and Chinese calendars, then at least 1 truther will attempt to use the discrepancy to claim that competent professionals are morons that don't know high school physics.

 

How much energy is required to crush or buckle what? Less energy is required to buckle a column in the WTC then is required to crush a column in the WTC. How much force is required to buckle one of your columns? How much force is required to crush them? I showed you how to calculate that.

 

You must have missed my question, psik. If I build a model that mimics the towers and completely collapses, will you stop with your silly claims?

 

When you do it I'll respond. It ain't my fault that you think saying it is as good as doing it.

You and Fangbeer suffer from the Delusion of WORDS.

Physics does not run on WORDS.

psik

 

Words however describe the process..<eyeroll>

 

Oye. When you try to teach Psik with math it's the delusion of math. When you try to teach Psik with words it's the delusion of words.

Apparently the only acceptable way to describe physical properties is YouTube video.

 

Apparently psikey goes by the credo of 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,baffle them with bull<cough>'

 

That wasn't what I asked though, was it.

 

They don't run on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) either. I want a commitment here. If I build a model that very closely resembles the construction of the towers, will you end your complaints? Simple yes or no will do.

 

Don't bother with HFD, Fangbeer. He is not here to debate but to play silly games.

 

Why can't you answer the question patriot?

I'm sorry, but outright refusal to answer a simple yes/no question is the epitamy of silly games.

Patriot your debate style reminds me more like the debates that politicians have.

"Mr. Congressman, did you or did you not vote in favor of HR984?"

"Well you see, what you gotta realize, is that my opponent cheated on his wife fifteen years ago blah blah blah."

 

What is "closely resembles"?

Does that mean has a similar weight distribution? My washers are sorted in order by weight with the heaviest at the bottom. I can't say how similar that is to the WTC since we don't have accurate mass distribution data on the towers.

Id "closely resembles" just means "looks like" then it doesn't mean anything.

psik

 

I have a great one of my kids opening their Christmas presents. I suppose I could intercut it with some footage of burning buildings and call it a day.

 

The purpose of my post was not to restate what you asked. The purpose of my post was to answer your question.

Since you seem to have forgotten what you asked, I'll remind you that you asked for clarification of my level of agreement with a specific post.

I answered by restating exactly what I thought the intent of his post was, and clarifying agreement with that intent.

If you disagree with my interpretation that's no skin of my nose, but it does answer your question.

 

Closely resemble in construction, not appearance. Since the washers are suppose to represent floors and the floors all weighed roughly the same, why do you put on heavier washers? How much heavier? I could understand the paper loops being thicker since that represents the core which was thicker at the base, but floors at the base were not heavier except for the occasional mechanical floor.

What I propose will have a core, trusses and floors just like the towers. I fully expect the core to be destroyed along with the rest of the structure since I will not be using a wooden dowel like you did.

 

I believe I very clearly stated that in the post you quoted. You're not here to debate but play silly games. The evidence is clear given your response to Fangbeer. He gave you a very precise answer that goes beyond a yes no answer because a yes no answer leaves room for interpretation. Interpretation is the tool by which dishonest posters try to put words in other people's mouths.

Like I said. You're only here to play silly games, not debate. You keep proving my point.

 

You didn't... You didn't say whether that post was correct or not.. You still haven't..

Simple yes/no here.

Fangbeer didn't tell me about whether or not he feels that details like corpses are necessary to be considered to get an accurate conclusion. He went on about his previous points instead.