Conflicting theories of fire-induced collapse 20 years after 9/11...

[psikeyhackr]

. You didn't input any of your model's numbers into Mackey's formulas did you?

Mackey didn't say his model was AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE did he? He didn't actually test anything. He created a mathematical delusion.

The Square-cube Law creates a problem for small models. Mick admits that in our conversation on Youtube. The pieces in his model do not sustain damage resulting in elastic collisions and lots of bouncing around.

Inelastic Collision

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics.

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics.

www.academia.edu

 

[Gamolon]

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

But to test the possibility of collapse I deliberately made it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still SUPPORT the STATIC LOAD.

The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Are you going to address this major issue with your model?

You disqualified your own model based on your own criteria! Your model cannot support the static load as it tips over WITHOUT the dowel, which you claim is NOT part of the model!

How can a component, which interacts with other components, not be part of the model!?!?

How idiotic!

 

[Gamolon]

Mackey didn't say his model was AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE did he? He didn't actually test anything. He created a mathematical delusion.

The Square-cube Law creates a problem for small models. Mick admits that in our conversation on Youtube. The pieces in his model do not sustain damage resulting in elastic collisions and lots of bouncing around.

Inelastic Collision

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics.

World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics.

www.academia.edu

You still don’t get it do you?

Did you plug your numbers into his equations?

No you didn’t.

You’re missing a key piece in his video. You have no clue what you are doing.

 

[Gamolon]

Mackey didn't say his model was AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE did he? He didn't actually test anything. He created a mathematical delusion.

What is Mackey's mathematical model claiming/showing and how did your model disprove it?

 

[Gamolon]

He created a mathematical delusion.

Did he? How would you know?

Here's what the description for your YouTube video says. Important part in red...

Here is a overblown but defective description of collapse modeling by a NASA scientist followed a similar real model showing the actual results which our brilliant scientist failed to predict.

Here is a screenshot of Mackey's video. Did you miss the part circled in read in the screenshot below?

You know, the part that says:

- If v drops below zero, collapse stops

So, did you plug your model's numbers into Mackey's formulas presented in his video and actually see what they predict? After doing his formulas, did "v" drop below zero, thus predicting the collapse arresting for your model?

I know you didn't because you already admitted you didn't do any calculations.

Again, you have no idea what you are doing. You are completely clueless.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You appear to think mathematics trumps physics. This where Mackey says, "subtract the energy to break the supports" that is what the model does with Real Physics not some guess plugged into an equation. No two paper loops could be identical. I tested many of them under static loads. It took a minimum of 12 washers and a maximum of 15 to crush a single loop. The only way to know the force for certain is to test the loop to destruction and then it is of no use.

So your argument is just BS. Have you built your model with glass yet?

 

[Gamolon]

View attachment 711730
You appear to think mathematics trumps physics. This where Mackey says, "subtract the energy to break the supports" that is what the model does with Real Physics not some guess plugged into an equation. No two paper loops could be identical. I tested many of them under static loads. It took a minimum of 12 washers and a maximum of 15 to crush a single loop. The only way to know the force for certain is to test the loop to destruction and then it is of no use.

You still don't understand do you. YOU made the claim below, which was taken from your description below your video:

Here is a overblown but defective description of collapse modeling by a NASA scientist followed a similar real model showing the actual results which our brilliant scientist failed to predict.

The "results" of your "model", supposedly based off Mackey's model/formulas, showed that he failed to predict a collapse was able to arrest. Show us all where he made the claim that all collapses would completely collapse and never arrest. YOU CAN'T!

He even puts this in one of his slides, which you MISSED!:

- If v drops below zero, collapse stops

You are completely clueless which is why you keep sidestepping my questions.

So your argument is just BS.

No, your model is BS based on your own criteria. First you say this:

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

Then, in the same post, you say this:

The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Your model fell over because it couldn't support the static load. Then you added a wooden dowel so it WOULDN'T fall over and then make the idiotic statement that it's "not part of the model". How can a component that interacts with the rest of the model not be part of it!!!!

 

[Gamolon]

Have you built your model with glass yet?

Why would I do that? You don't even understand your OWN criteria for your models as I've shown above. Why would I waste my time creating a model to discuss with you when you don't understand the subject matter?

 

[Gamolon]

You appear to think mathematics trumps physics.

I'll make this REAL easy for you.

What is Mackey's mathematical model claiming/showing and how did your model disprove it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'll make this REAL easy for you.

What is Mackey's mathematical model claiming/showing and how did your model disprove it?

Mackey shows that he cannot put data into his variables and then does not actually make a physical model to demonstrate anything. He does not point out that his supports must get stronger as more levels are added. Where does he mention the number of levels.

He just produced hot air like you.

 

[Gamolon]

Mackey shows that he cannot put data into his variables and then does not actually make a physical model to demonstrate anything. He does not point out that his supports must get stronger as more levels are added. Where does he mention the number of levels.

He just produced hot air like you.

It's like talking to a rock! You STILL have not answered the question!



You said he failed to predict the collapse arrest of your model? What WAS his model predicting then?

 

[Gamolon]

Mackey shows that he cannot put data into his variables

Which variables?

 

[Gamolon]

He just produced hot air like you.

You can't answer this question, can you?



You claim in the description in your video that Mackey failed to predict that your model's collapse would arrest:

Here is a overblown but defective description of collapse modeling by a NASA scientist followed a similar real model showing the actual results which our brilliant scientist failed to predict.

Tell us what Mackey/his model and formulas predicted in that he/it failed to predict your model's collapse arresting?

How is the dowel in your model, which interacts with the rest of your model, not part of your model?

Address the fact that your criteria is the that model supports the static weight, yet you need a dowel to keep it from falling over?

Your silence is deafening.