# My September 11 Thoughts
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 4, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989 "2014-06-04T02:41:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 29
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/561 "2014-06-19T19:49:59Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> I was talking about the model of the Apollo.
The real Apollo wasn’t powered by gravity either. Nor could any scaled down physical Apollo model be built to faithfully create a scaled down moon trip (though computer models do model such trips pretty well).
What exactly is your point? Your attempt at a “clever” retort is clearly failing.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/562 "2014-06-19T20:35:46Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> LOL
>
> I was talking about the model of the Apollo.
Your quoting leaves a lot to be desired. Combine that with your almost irrelevant and unspecific complaints nobody has a an idea what you are talking about. Including you, I suspect.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/563 "2014-06-19T23:03:46Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> The real Apollo wasn’t powered by gravity either. Nor could any scaled down physical Apollo model be built to faithfully create a scaled down moon trip (though computer models do model such trips pretty well).
>
> What exactly is your point? Your attempt at a “clever” retort is clearly failing.
Rockets aren’t powered by gravity. How shocking!
So talking about a scale model of the Apollo in this discussion was ridiculous in the first place. So pointing out that it didn’t use gravity should have been obvious sarcasm.
Not in this crowd I guess.
psik
---
### Author:  [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/564 "2014-06-19T23:14:14Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> Something caused by someone would have had to destroy the supports below
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower.
> [@x-ray\_vision](#):
>
> Since we have video evidence of the towers when they started falling, that should end the debate.
>
> psikeyhackr, if you can provide evidence that the north tower started falling 90 floors below where the plane impacted, you win.
>
> If someone else can show video evidence that the north tower started falling at or near the point of impact, the other side wins.
Anyone?
---
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/565 "2014-06-20T00:51:53Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So talking about a scale model of the Apollo in this discussion was ridiculous in the first place. So pointing out that it didn’t use gravity should have been obvious sarcasm.
How so?
Model rockets might not be gravity powered, but they have their place in studying applied rocketry.
But like any **model** , you must be familiar with how the model doesn’t scale up.
Your sarcasm fails because it’s misplaced. An intelligent retort might have been recognized as such. But YOUR sarcasm is as comprehensible as your physics - kind of bears a resemblance to reality but makes less and less sense the more you stare at it.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/566 "2014-06-20T01:33:26Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So talking about a scale model of the Apollo in this discussion was ridiculous in the first place. So pointing out that it didn’t use gravity should have been obvious sarcasm.
>
> Not in this crowd I guess.
The sarcasm was noted. (Sarcasm appears to be about the only thing you can express coherently.) However, your “gravity” comment directly followed the sentence in the quote you supplied talking about the _Scientific American_ article. If you are no better able to use quotes than you are to understand physics and engineering, you are not in a position to make snide remarks about other posters’ abilities to recognize sarcasm.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/567 "2014-06-20T14:33:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> The sarcasm was noted. (Sarcasm appears to be about the only thing you can express coherently.) However, your “gravity” comment directly followed the sentence in the quote you supplied talking about the _Scientific American_ article. If you are no better able to use quotes than you are to understand physics and engineering, you are not in a position to make snide remarks about other posters’ abilities to recognize sarcasm.
The Scientific American article that uses the word “model” thereby implying models can be important but provides no description of, or data from, the model.
But this is supposed to dispute my pointing out that no models of the collapse have been done. All that is is talk. No video, no explanation of how it can be duplicated.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of my paper loop and washer model at least they have enough information to duplicate it for themselves and do not have to take my word for anything.
It supports its own weight, it has mass and uses gravity for acceleration. It is not an attempt to be to scale it is only a demonstration of physical principles. It does not get out of the atmosphere. 😃
psik
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/568 "2014-06-20T14:51:29Z")
:yawn:
This thread has become boring. Now, where’s that unsubscribe function again… ?
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/569 "2014-06-20T15:14:07Z")
> [@JohnT](#):
>
> :yawn:
>
> This thread has become boring. Now, where’s that unsubscribe function again… ?
it’s under the pile of debris.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/570 "2014-06-20T15:24:27Z")
That’s what they _want_ you to think!
---
### Author:  [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/571 "2014-06-20T16:02:54Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#):
>
> Anyone?
It’s called “Google [‘North tower collapse’](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=north+tower+collapse&gbv=2&oq=north+tower+collapse&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...0.0.0.1872.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac..34.heirloom-hp..0.0.0.-ovcjmV45sk)”
Can this thread be done now? Or does one of those videos show Godzilla knocking down the tower?
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/572 "2014-06-20T16:12:25Z")
> [@Gedd](#):
>
> It’s called “Google [‘North tower collapse’](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=north+tower+collapse&gbv=2&oq=north+tower+collapse&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...0.0.0.1872.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac..34.heirloom-hp..0.0.0.-ovcjmV45sk)”
>
> Can this thread be done now? Or does one of those videos show Godzilla knocking down the tower?
[Here’s one that’s a compilation of clips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w). They all show(surprise!) the tower failing at the point of impact and no “explosions” anywhere in the path of the fall.
---
### Author:  [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/573 "2014-06-20T16:17:58Z")
> [@running\_coach](#):
>
> [Here’s one that’s a compilation of clips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w). They all show(surprise!) the tower failing at the point of impact and no “explosions” anywhere in the path of the fall.
Well, there you go, psikeyhackr. You said:
_Something caused by someone would have had to destroy the supports below_
and
_No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower._
The video above clearly shows the tower falling at the point of impact and not falling from supports destroyed below. You lose the debate. So sorry.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/574 "2014-06-20T18:32:54Z")
Jesus, just LOOK at it. It’s not being demolished, it collapses exactly where it was hit. How can a sane person watch that and deny it?
---
### Author:  [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/575 "2014-06-20T18:40:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> Jesus, just LOOK at it. It’s not being demolished, it collapses exactly where it was hit. How can a sane person watch that and deny it?
There you go putting unrealistic qualifiers in your question.
If you were to remove the word sane we could answer.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/576 "2014-06-21T00:25:06Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> The Scientific American article that uses the word “model” thereby implying models can be important but provides no description of, or data from, the model.
>
> But this is supposed to dispute my pointing out that no models of the collapse have been done. All that is is talk. No video, no explanation of how it can be duplicated.
So what? My comment to you was based on your pointing tothe Scientific American article and making a dumb comment about gravity while you are now (again) ducking and weaving and claiming that you were “really” talking about the space program.
Perhaps you were. As I said, your ability to use the quote function appears to be as poor as your grasp of engineering and physics.
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> Regardless of what anyone thinks of my paper loop and washer model at least they have enough information to duplicate it for themselves and do not have to take my word for anything.
Again, so what? Anyone with a basic understanding can tell that the strength of the materials and construction of your model is not proportional to the strength and materials of the World trade Center. If some kid built a sand castle and knocked it down, we would not need to duplicate his efforts to see that they were irrelevant to a discussion of the WTC.
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> It supports its own weight, it has mass and uses gravity for acceleration. It is not an attempt to be to scale it is only a demonstration of physical principles. It does not get out of the atmosphere.
And your “principles” are worthless, since you have no idea what you are talking about, believing that you demonstate anything when not to scale. And with your dumb comment about the atmosphere, you reinforce my belief that you are trolling.
As noted earlier, I recognize that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish trolling from a lack of capacity to participate in a discussion. However, your recent actions and your monomaniacal persistence in repeating the same nonsense is causing me to see your posts as trolling, even IF you actually believe the stuff you post.
[/Moderating]
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2014, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/577 "2014-06-21T12:04:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> And your “principles” are worthless, since you have no idea what you are talking about, believing that you demonstate anything when not to scale. And with your dumb comment about the atmosphere, you reinforce my belief that you are trolling.
All you can do is TALK.
How can anyone build it to scale if they do not know the distribution of mass? :smack:
That is why I made supports AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. We know skyscrapers are not constructed that way.
To talk about scale and not demand that official sources provide data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is complete nonsense.
And then this site has the nerve to talk about fighting ignorance. 😃
psik
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/578 "2014-06-21T12:22:41Z")
So, psi. What you’re saying now is that not only does your “model” NOT represent the thing you purport it to, you made it intentionally in such a manner that it would not. Does that about sum it up?
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/579 "2014-06-21T12:41:00Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> All you can do is TALK.
>
> How can anyone build it to scale if they do not know the distribution of mass? :smack:
>
> That is why I made supports AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. We know skyscrapers are not constructed that way.
>
> To talk about scale and not demand that official sources provide data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is complete nonsense.
>
> And then this site has the nerve to talk about fighting ignorance. 😃
>
> psik
:smack:
I feel like I have some idea of how Bill Nye felt debating with Ken Ham.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/580 "2014-06-21T13:04:22Z")
> [@Monty](#):
>
> So, psi. What you’re saying now is that not only does your “model” NOT represent the thing you purport it to, you made it intentionally in such a manner that it would not. Does that about sum it up?
If you can read the description with the video I said it was as weak as possible when the video was posted.
So if a structure designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE can’t collapse straight down then what should that imply about structures designed to be stronger than that? And I actually did TWO DROPS and still did not get complete collapse.
I guess I was assuming people watching the video had some degree of intelligence. :smack:
psik
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989.md?page=28)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989.md?page=30)