• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Care to Comment

How can any of this surprise you about Red? He is afterall, the only person here who doesn't know the Moonies and the Unification Church are the same thing.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168205&highlight=moonies
That was a pretty hard feat to perform considering he'd been told this several times and still didn't know it.

But then he's really not any less informed about life than others in that gaggle of retards posting here about the 911 'Inside Job'.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I suppose you're right. In the world of the semantics cavalry when one says it can be done and another says it can't, this means the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that you believe it is semantics, especially when you so blatantly quote mine. Actually, I am not since it is your MO.
 
RedIbis said:
Dave said that a correct collapse model could not be done. Mackey said it could
Click to expand...

Over-simplification, the quote-miner's friend. I said that a model couldn't be constructed that would reproduce all the detailed behaviour of the collapse, although it would be possible to model the gross features. Ryan Mackey said that a model could be constructed provided some detail was neglected. I'm struggling to see the inconsistency here; if there is one, it's in how we separately interpreted the word "correct".

So, I'll go on record here as saying that I agree fully with Ryan Mackey that a collapse model can give correct reproduction of the gross features of the collapse, including (for example) the general appearance of the rotation of the upper blocks or the overall collapse time. However, it would not be possible to construct a model that would correctly predict, for example, the exact trajectory of the fragments of WTC1 which struck WTC7; the behaviour is too chaotic for such a level of detail to be reproduced.

In passing, describing a model as "correct" or "incorrect" is not how it's best done. A model is never perfectly correct, so, if you want to use a model to predict behaviour, you will need to specify the maximum level of inaccuracy that is acceptable between the model and the behaviour it's intended to reproduce, and construct and test the model in accordance with that specification.

So, depending on what resolution you want in the definition of the word "correct", the answer is different. To claim otherwise is to commit the fallacy of equivocationWP.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In passing, describing a model as "correct" or "incorrect" is not how it's best done. A model is never perfectly correct, so, if you want to use a model to predict behaviour, you will need to specify the maximum level of inaccuracy that is acceptable between the model and the behaviour it's intended to reproduce, and construct and test the model in accordance with that specification.

So, depending on what resolution you want in the definition of the word "correct", the answer is different. To claim otherwise is to commit the fallacy of equivocationWP.

Dave
Click to expand...

You should have taken it up with tj when s/he first asked you that question. It was his/her wording, not mine.
 
Scott Sommers said:
How can any of this surprise you about Red? He is afterall, the only person here who doesn't know the Moonies and the Unification Church are the same thing.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168205&highlight=moonies
That was a pretty hard feat to perform considering he'd been told this several times and still didn't know it.

But then he's really not any less informed about life than others in that gaggle of retards posting here about the 911 'Inside Job'.
Click to expand...

Not only is this against the rules for being off topic, mean spirited and blatant namecalling against members here, but really, is this all you got?

FTR, in that old reference it was the fact that I didn't know that the Moonies own the Washington Times, not that they are the same as the Unification Church, but if the charge is that I don't know much about that cult, than I'm guilty as charged.
 
RedIbis said:
Not only is this against the rules for being off topic, mean spirited and blatant namecalling against members here, but really, is this all you got?

FTR, in that old reference it was the fact that I didn't know that the Moonies own the Washington Times, not that they are the same as the Unification Church, but if the charge is that I don't know much about that cult, than I'm guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

Is it off topic?

And you are wrong. You did not know the term Moonies referred to the Unification Church. Reread the thread - you'll see. Memory is a funny thing. Don't trust memories of how smart you remember yourself being.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Is it off topic?

And you are wrong. You did not know the term Moonies referred to the Unification Church. Reread the thread - you'll see. Memory is a funny thing. Don't trust memories of how smart you remember yourself being.
Click to expand...

I suspect all this will be snipped as it should be, but where are my posts in that thread? All I see is your lying about me. And this is your proof?
 
R.Mackey said:
I talked about the challenge in detail in my first Hardfire series. The key will be figuring out what features of the collapse you want to model, and which you consider too much detail and neglect. Once you do that, work out equations of motion, and try to come up with a scaling approach that preserves relationships in the problem.

It can be done. But it will take a nontrivial effort. I've seen nothing from the Truthers (except in the digital realm) that comes close.
Click to expand...

The features of the collapse would be the "jolt" and how the top can crush the bottom. Basically, a counter to Cole's experiments.
 
tj15 said:
The features of the collapse would be the "jolt" and how the top can crush the bottom. Basically, a counter to Cole's experiments.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what I covered in Part III of that series. It's quite doable. However, whether you get a "jolt" or not depends on your assumptions -- if your apparatus has a flat contact geometry or is otherwise tilt-insensitive, and you don't differentiate between load-bearing and non-load-bearing parts of individual floors, you are likely to see a "jolt." This may or may not matter to you, depending on what you want to demonstrate.
 
tj15 said:
Bump.
Click to expand...

I believe this episode of hardfire is the one I want.

Ryan Mackey (a poster here) explains the problems with trying to make any scale models which can be tested to show how 9/11 occurred.



If it isn't this one, it is one of the 3 physics of 9/11 videos that Ryan did with Hardfire.
 
tj15 said:
The features of the collapse would be the "jolt" and how the top can crush the bottom. Basically, a counter to Cole's experiments.
Click to expand...

As for the "jolt" it would also depend on how accurate your measurements are, and if you are looking at the raw data or just the smoothed data.
 
R.Mackey said:
That's essentially what I covered in Part III of that series. It's quite doable. However, whether you get a "jolt" or not depends on your assumptions -- if your apparatus has a flat contact geometry or is otherwise tilt-insensitive, and you don't differentiate between load-bearing and non-load-bearing parts of individual floors, you are likely to see a "jolt." This may or may not matter to you, depending on what you want to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

I know the south tower had a large tilt.

Would a tilt even show a jolt? Could a jolt go unnoticed on film and still be there?

Also, what about modeling the top crushing the bottom?

I have seen (at least some of it) a Hardfire video... I will have to watch all of it and all parts.
 
TruthersLie said:
I believe this episode of hardfire is the one I want.

Ryan Mackey (a poster here) explains the problems with trying to make any scale models which can be tested to show how 9/11 occurred.



If it isn't this one, it is one of the 3 physics of 9/11 videos that Ryan did with Hardfire.
Click to expand...



Excellent piece of work. It shows that even if you simplify the problem a lot it still is not a trivial matter to model.

Gages cardboard boxes do however demonstrate one thing very well.....that He has not the remotest clue:D
 
tj15 said:
I know the south tower had a large tilt.

Would a tilt even show a jolt? Could a jolt go unnoticed on film and still be there?

Also, what about modeling the top crushing the bottom?

I have seen (at least some of it) a Hardfire video... I will have to watch all of it and all parts.
Click to expand...

You also have to define "jolt" in this context.......
 
What about an experiment to test how much steel sags under certain temps, certain durations, and under certain weight stress?
 
tj15 said:
What about an experiment to test how much steel sags under certain temps, certain durations, and under certain weight stress?
Click to expand...

NIST did that with what they believed to have been observed on 9/11. As for WTC 7, they did it with no physical evidence. The fires they modeled were unrealistically hot, did not take into consideration conductivity, and assumed little if any movement of the fires even after combustibles were consumed.
 
RedIbis said:
NIST did that with what they believed to have been observed on 9/11. As for WTC 7, they did it with no physical evidence. The fires they modeled were unrealistically hot, did not take into consideration conductivity, and assumed little if any movement of the fires even after combustibles were consumed.
Click to expand...

What were the specifics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom