Oh, I have more than a degree of intelligence. And honesty. Your “experiment” isn’t honest.
Stop pretending you know anything about engineering. Or model building. Or structural testing. Or gravity, for that matter.
No, you assumed people labour under the same deluded assumptions under which you operate.
The AntiChrist must be in hiding. Their last activity was on June 5, about half an hour after their last post in this thread.
Three threads started, fourteen posts. Sounds suspicious to me, the men in black may be on to him. Conspiracy theorists, have at it!!!
**Moderating **
And all you can do is repeat the same nonsense over and over again to keep your name going in this thread. You have not provided any reason to support your weird claims in weeks. Even the other Truthers do not follow the odd path that you have laid out. A person who keeps insisting on a belief that only they in the entire world holds to be true is either insane or playing a game. You do not strike me as particularly insane, so I am left to conclude that you are playing a game.
This is a Warning to stop trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
psikey - do you have a video of your model and it’s collapse? I would rather not sift through hundreds of posts.
I really don’t understand what you are trying to argue, other than “something else happened”. Something else happened is not a very good premise for a debate.
(not that this has ever been a debate in any way)
Didn’t see your post tomndebb. Have to agree with you.
Here’s psikey’s paper loop experiment.
It’s really stupid.
He feels that paper loops can accurately stand in for concrete, forgetting that paper can’t break apart like concrete can. And ignoring the square-cube law.
Of course, he refuses to reveal the distribution of paper and washers on each level so his video is utterly worthless.
Shouldn’t he make a second video using fire crackers to destroy the paper rolls on the bottom and see if that makes the whole thing come down?
You will refrain from personal insults in this forum.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Mostly, it implies, (or explicitly demonstrates), that the designer had insufficient knowledge or experience to actually determine what was “as weak as possible.” “As weak as possible” would have used toilet paper or paper towel or onionskin rather than standard typing grade paper. “As weak as possible” would have employed numerous paper strips set vertically to hold up the washers rather than relying on a solid sheet of paper with the inherent strength of most solid objects made even stronger by the inherent sturdiness of a tube structure.
Since you are basing your “arguments” on a “model” that is so badly designed as to be worthless and then inaccurately claiming that your design was “as weak as possible,” (sorry: AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE), it is obvious to everyone that you are simply proceeding from an ignorance that you prefer to indulge rather than attempting to correct, and that you actually believe that typing in all caps makes a point different than that you think that shouting is an effective display of logic.
I’ll tell you what. Perform the same experiment, (you can even use the same extra-sturdy paper), but create columns of the paper by rolling each column around a toothpick, then removing the toothpick to set each column vertically. (I’ll even let you dab a bit of Elmer’s glue at the bottom of each column to hold it in place.) If 90 layers of that construction support 20 layers of similar construction falling on it, we can consider your “model.” (You will still be wrong, but we will have something to discuss that is not ludicrously obvious in its error.)
Still waiting for you to explain how “straight down” managed to damage 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Deutche Bank, and squashed that Greek Orthodox church.
Wow. I was expecting amateurish, but WOW.
It is only slightly beaten by Richard Gage dropping cardboard boxes on top of each other.
Completely ignoring the dowel rod that supports the entire ‘model’, and the friction of the washers on the rod. And the fact that the washers don’t and can’t disintegrate as the ‘tower’ collapses. Wow indeed.
psikey - this your model? Really?
In all fairness, without having a minute detailing of where every single ounce concrete was distributed in the Twin Towers, his model could be only so accurate.
He gets all the “fairness” he is due.
He claimed to have set up a model that was “as weak as possible” to prove a principle. What he proved was that he was every bit as clueless as he has demonstrated throughout this thread. It is his argument that the experts cannot actually determine what happened unless they publish a copy of the weights of each level of the WTC (probably sent directly to his house by certified mail). But then he went on to make a totally unrealistic model to demonstrate a “principle” that, for reasons we have noted, simply fails to make his point.
That is the point. How could the top of the north tower coming down make that happen?
You people just look at the videos and BELIEVE. You don’t explain squat.
The purpose of my model is to demonstrate that the top coming straight down could not even destroy structure below that was strong enough to support the weight over the entire height.
The 9/11 Affair is EXTREMELY STUPID, the Believers can’t even figure out what questions to ask.
You make a big deal about Popular Mechanics but they don’t even mention the term “Conservation of Momentum”.
psik
YAWN
Someone else claiming there is significant friction between the washers and the rod.
If the washers are centered on the rod there is a gap of about 1/16th of an inch all of the way around between the rod and the washer.
Like I said anyone that wants to can test it for themselves. The stack is so weak it cannot stand straight without the rod. If the stack tilts slightly the weak paper loops at the bottom crush on one side and the whole thing falls over.
psik
Proves nothing. Your model does not contain the same material as the WTC and there’s no attempt to even duplicate the properties of building materials.
Paper cannot duplicate the destruction of concrete. Rather it just crumples and stays in place. Aided by the wooden dowel which strangely does not fail, unlike the core of the Towers.
Explain why you claim the bottom of the tower failed when every video of the event shows only the top failing and the destruction progress downward.
You obviously don’t understand “Conservation of Momentum”. Same way you don’t understand kinetic energy and acceleration due to gravity.
You don’t understand that as each floor/level/flat thing/whatever the fuck you call it failed, it added to the falling mass.
Have you seen this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBbz2eIoVDQ of a huge Kapla tower being struck partway up, and collapsing? It’s quite interesting to watch (particularly as it starts to topple, and then “straightens out,” to fall nearly straight down.
By striking and disintegrating each successive level below it, forcing the debris out to the sides. It is all on the multiple videos posted.
Your insistence that nothing has been explained is one of the primary reasons that I believe you are trolling. You are just repeating yourself to keep the thread alive.
As noted, your “model” was a huge waste of time. It was much stronger than you pretend that it was; it was not built in the same manner as the WTC towers; it proved only that you had access to paper, tape, washers and a dowel.
(And you are dodging that issue–more evidence of trolling. If you do not stop this behavior, you will lose your privilege to post here.)