WTC collapse simulation

[Tandem Thinking]

Alright, so I've been debating people on youtube and I came across these videos:





I found a couple things that did not sit well with me (especially the second video) and commented on it:

I looked at the quickstart guide, but I still have a problem with the simulations you conducted:
1) Even though you don't say it, you imply in your video that S+C 185/5... is supposed to be what should have happened if the building had collapsed due to gravity alone. Yet, you don't exclude the ~60 stories of core columns that remained standing afterwards.
This is misleading to a lot of people and I would suggest you tailor your simulation so that it is more representative of actual events.
In addition, for simulation S+C227/60...
You claim that this is what would have happened if the structural supports were demolished. If this were the case, the core columns would not have remained standing after the main collapse had finished. Your second simulation is not representative of what actually happened.
I understand people can tailor the factors for the collapse on your site, but your videos promoting the collapse simulator are misleading and need to be fixed.

He responded:

"you imply in your video that S+C 185/5... is supposed to be what should have happened if the building had collapsed due to gravity alone"
ALL of the scenarios are gravity driven ONLY. No external forces are present.
"Yet, you don't exclude the ~60 stories of core columns that remained standing afterwards."
A corner section of ~40 storeys remained standing momentarily, before dropping vertically. Ground zero subsequently contained no large pieces of that section of core, only short disjointed sections. (The energy required to break the core was still 'used') These simulations are about energy expenditure. I shall continue to ADD extra scenarios, but as you concur, users are free to experiment.
"I would suggest you tailor your simulation so that it is more representative of actual events. "
There are so many other factors in the simulation which lean in favour of continued collapse, that your point is moot.
Let's begin with:
a) Elastic collision inclusion
b) Surface area of impact
c) Imperfect collissions
d) Specific detailed mass loss
e) etc etc...
I shall of course be uploading further scanarios, but you're not going to like them as they will show more sources of resistance.
"You claim that this is what would have happened if the structural supports were demolished. If this were the case, the core columns would not have remained standing after the main collapse had finished. Your second simulation is not representative of what actually happened."
You do not understand. NO energy is used in the scenario you reference to deform the structure. None. Zero.
From a simulation point of view your point is irrelevant. It is as if there was NO structural support.
"your videos promoting the collapse simulator are misleading and need to be fixed."
No. You do not understand the principles of simulation. The scenarios are perfectly clear about what they represent, and will not be modified, as doing so would be tantamount to fabricating the results.
Further scenarios will of course be uploaded, but you will not like them as they will show more sources of resistance.

Unfortunately for me, I've only been "debunking" 9/11 twoof for a few months and since I'm taking mostly general required courses right now in college, a lot of what he said went over my head.

So some of my questions are:
1) Are the points I raise valid?
2) Did he actually answer my points?
3) Were his answers wrong or right?
4) If they were right, what am I misunderstanding?
5) If they were wrong, why?
6) Is it just me, or do the simulations seem iffy to you too?

This person seems to be very knowledgeable of computers and has a better grasp on physics than I do.
He also runs a website: http://femr2.ucoz.com were he has the parameters of his simulations, scientific papers, and some other stuff.

 

[Baylor]

We've gone over this before. This person hasn't got the slightest clue on physics. Even Stephen Jones argued against this. This is the infamous "crushed concrete" meme. The meme so stupid it didn't even make it to loose change. He's saying the all the conrete had to be crushed for the collapse to continue, which is the biggest strawman ever pulled. MikeW goes over it very well.

ETA: Laying out stupid assumptions then getting over technical is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

 

[GlennB]

Hi Tandem Thinking

It might be worth asking them exactly where they got their "final concrete particle scale" figures from, and why they're different in the 2 scenarios in vid #2. It might be explained but unfortunately I can get no sound with that video.

A few years back Jim Hoffman tried to use such a "concrete pulverisation" concept to justify his energy-sink calculations. However he'd taken the average particle sizes from the well-known Lioy et al study, which had only taken dust samples (and deliberately so) from fairly distant and sheltered locations to analyse the content of the drifting dust. Clearly this is not representative of the WTC concrete in general and cannot be properly used in energy-sink calculations.

 

[Tandem Thinking]

Thanks, both of you, when I feel like replying back to him, I'll make sure to bring up those points.

Just to make sure I'm getting this straight:
In his simulation, he is assuming that all of the concrete is being pulverized to dust (and even uses different sizes for the dust particles), even though (from photo evidence, etc.) we know that all of the concrete obviously didn't turn to dust.

I don't think this debate will last long, because whenever I bring up something, his usual go-to reply is to say that the properties of the simulations can be modified by users on his site.

 

[Baylor]

This person is deranged. I wouldn't waste too much time on him. He spams 2002 trutherisms, like "hunt the boeing".

 

[Tandem Thinking]

This person is deranged. I wouldn't waste too much time on him. He spams 2002 trutherisms, like "hunt the boeing".

I don't plan to, there are few people debating him, probably for that reason and the fact that he likes to use big words to make himself sound qualified.

Currently, though, I'm actually engaged in a civilized discussion with someone else who claims not to know what happened that day. I've seen these claims before and they almost always = 9/11 WUZ INSIDE JOB!!!

But so far, the guy seems to be sincere, we'll see...

 

[Alzke]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

The cover up started before 9/11 and it is still going to this day. When did you first take an interest in 9/11 truth? What you have to realize the movement has been the focus of a coordinated attack by intelligence agencies , foreign governments and through the dedicated work of other subversives (such as Gravy and co)

This is demonstrated by your honest beliefs in falsehoods such as the laughable notion that 60 stories of "core columns" remained standing after the collapse.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

Please remember the membership agreement to make posts civil and polite and to abstain from personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[rwguinn]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

Please remember the membership agreement to make posts civil and polite and to abstain from personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Tandem Thinking]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

The cover up started before 9/11 and it is still going to this day. When did you first take an interest in 9/11 truth? What you have to realize the movement has been the focus of a coordinated attack by intelligence agencies , foreign governments and through the dedicated work of other subversives (such as Gravy and co)

This is demonstrated by your honest beliefs in falsehoods such as the laughable notion that 60 stories of "core columns" remained standing after the collapse.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

I was 11.
And I stumbled across the web of lies that is 9/11 "truth" on September 11th, 2008.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility - see above

Since I've only been studying this overwhelming logical fallacy (as that is what 9/11 truth is, the whole premise is based on one logical fallacy: least plausible hypothesis) for a short time, I do not know everything. I used 60 stories casually because having seen the videos of the collapse, it looked like 60 to me. If it was 40, then I apologize.

It is not possible for me to care any less about what you think, so I will continue saying whatever I damn well please. M'kay?

 

[twinstead]

It is not possible for me to care any less about what you think, so I will continue saying whatever I damn well please. M'kay?

Very nice. Don't let folks like that get to you, kid. The only people who actually care about what these spittle-spewing ideologues say is themselves. As you have probably already guessed, people like Alzke are the internet equivalent of the bearded old man on the street corner inside every major city staring into space yelling the world is going to end and we're all going to Hell.

Rational people just step around them and continue with their business.

 

[beachnut]

I was 11.
...

It is not possible for me to care any less about what you think, so I will continue saying whatever I damn well please. M'kay?

He is upset you take knowledge, and sound judgment to fight the ignorance he loves to spew.

 

[GlennB]

This is demonstrated by your honest beliefs in falsehoods such as the laughable notion that 60 stories of "core columns" remained standing after the collapse.

This is a beautiful example of twoofer delusion/deception.

What Alzke would like to say is "there was no core left standing at all after the primary collapse, because it was CD'd from top to bottom. That's the whole point". But he can't because the ample visual evidence refutes that claim.

By vigorously attacking the actual figure provided while not providing a better one, however, he allows that possibility of total CD to lurk in the background for onlookers (and, heaven help us, maybe himself).

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

When did you first take an interest in 9/11 truth?

A natural extension of my own lifelong fascination with the seamier aspects of the circus clown world.

 

[Architect]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility

The cover up started before 9/11 and it is still going to this day. When did you first take an interest in 9/11 truth? What you have to realize the movement has been the focus of a coordinated attack by intelligence agencies , foreign governments and through the dedicated work of other subversives (such as Gravy and co)

This is demonstrated by your honest beliefs in falsehoods such as the laughable notion that 60 stories of "core columns" remained standing after the collapse.

This is a sceptic site. We expect arguments, evidence, and analysis. Not bluster. Please try harder next time.

 

[chillzero]

Please remember the thread topic - the simulations. Post on topic, and keep it civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[femr2]

We've gone over this before. This person hasn't got the slightest clue on physics. Even Stephen Jones argued against this. This is the infamous "crushed concrete" meme. The meme so stupid it didn't even make it to loose change. He's saying the all the conrete had to be crushed for the collapse to continue, which is the biggest strawman ever pulled. MikeW goes over it very well.

ETA: Laying out stupid assumptions then getting over technical is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

As I am sure you are now aware, your assumption about the mechanisms implemented to account for energy usage in crushing concrete are, and always have been, fully configurable. Tsk.

 

[femr2]

Thanks, both of you, when I feel like replying back to him, I'll make sure to bring up those points.

Just to make sure I'm getting this straight:
In his simulation, he is assuming that all of the concrete is being pulverized to dust (and even uses different sizes for the dust particles), even though (from photo evidence, etc.) we know that all of the concrete obviously didn't turn to dust.

I don't think this debate will last long, because whenever I bring up something, his usual go-to reply is to say that the properties of the simulations can be modified by users on his site.

The whole point of including parameters is to be able to modify them and see the effect.
A point you clearly seem unable to grasp.

 

[femr2]

This person is deranged. I wouldn't waste too much time on him. He spams 2002 trutherisms, like "hunt the boeing".

I thought this was a hilarious comment. Way to go unloved. Ignore the facts, make up behaviours and then attack the 'person'. Great stuff.

 

[femr2]

I was 11.
And I stumbled across the web of lies that is 9/11 "truth" on September 11th, 2008.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility - see above

Since I've only been studying this overwhelming logical fallacy (as that is what 9/11 truth is, the whole premise is based on one logical fallacy: least plausible hypothesis) for a short time, I do not know everything. I used 60 stories casually because having seen the videos of the collapse, it looked like 60 to me. If it was 40, then I apologize.

It is not possible for me to care any less about what you think, so I will continue saying whatever I damn well please. M'kay?

Your previous way of expressing your 'involvement', was this:

"Unfortunately for me, I've only been "debunking" 9/11 twoof for a few months and since I'm taking mostly general required courses right now in college, a lot of what he said went over my head."

A strange turn of phrase, and I don't see how my responses are over anyones head personally.