The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2181  Postby Nicko » Nov 28, 2010 10:50 am

the_5th_ape wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36fUenwaxw[/youtube]


Just more of the same.

Did the Bush administration come into office intending to attack Iraq and establish a permanent base of operations in the heart of the world's largest oilfields at the first sign of provocation by anyone Muslim? Probably. The pattern of interrogation after 9/11 showed pretty clearly where their priorities lay. Bush reluctantly agreed to make Afghanistan the first target only after Blair pointed out that no one outside the US was buying the whole "Saddam done it" line they had prepared.

Were they aware of al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11? Unlikely. The harshest thing that they could be accused of is agressive indifference to a possible threat. They may have been prepared to take advantage of a terrorist strike, but they also had to have deniability.

Was it a "false flag" operation? They would have had to be clinically insane. The risks of such an operation would so far outweigh the benefits that this claim is just preposterous.

Were the towers brought down by demolition? No. Absence of independently-tested residue, absence of evidence for demolition, absence of opportunity (if you are arguing for demolition, you are arguing for a conspiracy involving thousands).

As I have said before, the point people should be up in arms over is the first one. Instead, people who's mistrust of authority could be put to good use are sidelined into irrelevant bullshit. They're like a cop in front of of a bank being robbed busily issuing parking tickets.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2182  Postby econ41 » Nov 28, 2010 10:31 pm

the_5th_ape wrote:In the 2008 Edition of this stunning multimedia presentation, filmed professionally in a studio before a live audience, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides the myth-shattering scientific forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings on September 11, 2001

Part-1

{youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs[/youtube]


Watch ALL parts(1 to 13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeaw ... playnext=1

Why should I waste time watching videos when:
  • It is simple engineering forensic fact that there was no demolition at WTC; AND
  • Gage is a known and proven liar who is making a living out of deliberately misleading gullible people who lack the intellectual competence to see through his trickery.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2183  Postby econ41 » Nov 28, 2010 10:39 pm

Nicko wrote:...As I have said before, the point people should be up in arms over is the first one. Instead, people who's mistrust of authority could be put to good use are sidelined into irrelevant bullshit. They're like a cop in front of of a bank being robbed busily issuing parking tickets.

That is the central strategic point which attests that most truthers are not serious.

If they have genuine concerns about the political decision making protest why weaken their argument by telling lies about WTC Demolition.

The fact of no demolition is readily determined by any honest rational person. And any politician who is in a position of political influence to call for further investigation will not run with a case stacked with lies.

Idiotic political strategy. "We have real concerns about how we decided to go into these wars AND to show how serious we are about it here are some lying claims about demolition."
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2184  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 29, 2010 7:35 pm

Greetings and salutations,

This is my first post.

I searched for "distribution of steel" and got no hits.

"tons of steel" turned up 29 times.

Obviously skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. So level 1 had to support a lot more weight the level 105. So the designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel from top to bottom to support the weight and withstand the wind.

So why haven't experts been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level of the WTC? In order for the north tower to collapse then the top 14 stories would have to crush all of the levels below and accelerate at more than 50% of G in order to come down in less than 18 seconds.

So how can this possibly be analyzed without knowing the tons of steel on every level?

So to model the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2185  Postby econ41 » Nov 29, 2010 10:20 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:Greetings and salutations,

This is my first post.

I searched for "distribution of steel" and got no hits.

"tons of steel" turned up 29 times.

Obviously skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. So level 1 had to support a lot more weight the level 105. So the designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel from top to bottom to support the weight and withstand the wind.

So why haven't experts been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level of the WTC? In order for the north tower to collapse then the top 14 stories would have to crush all of the levels below and accelerate at more than 50% of G in order to come down in less than 18 seconds.

So how can this possibly be analyzed without knowing the tons of steel on every level?

So to model the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

psik

G'day psik; Welcome aboard.

I see you are sticking with the same old tune about "distribution of steel". It is well and truly outdated now in that the experts seem to have that information even though it is strictly irrelevant to explaining the global collapse.

Then you are well aware that the collapse did not "...have to crush all of the levels below and..."

...I take it you are now familiar with the work by Major_Tom variously titled "ROOSD" or "OOS". It explains the "global collapse" in near enough the same way as I posted on RDNet back in 2007-2008. The thread "OOS Destruction Collapse Model" posted at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-d ... -t264.html explains it quite well and in detail. My version has been re-posted here for the umpteenth time. It still stands scrutiny.

Eric C
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2186  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 29, 2010 10:48 pm

pretty sad that the only feasible global collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new and are still under construction/scrutiny
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2187  Postby hotshoe » Nov 30, 2010 1:44 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:... collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new ...

That's a lie.

Go ahead and retract it. It might do you good to tell the truth.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2188  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 2:35 am

econ41 wrote:G'day psik; Welcome aboard.

I see you are sticking with the same old tune about "distribution of steel". It is well and truly outdated now in that the experts seem to have that information even though it is strictly irrelevant to explaining the global collapse.

Then you are well aware that the collapse did not "...have to crush all of the levels below and..."

Eric C


Sorry, I don't need any more acronyms. So let's see you build a physical model that can support its own weight and yet be TOTALLY collapsed by dropping the top 15% or less on the rest. I provided a design that can be made for about $30. Grade school kids could build it and test it for themselves.

The strength of a level is determined by the thickness of the steel in the columns and that affects the weight of the steel on that level. But the thicker the columns the more energy required to crush the level so that further reduces the kinetic energy of the falling mass.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2189  Postby Weaver » Nov 30, 2010 2:52 am

Are you under the impression that the floor joists on the (say) 10th floor were designed to support the weight of the 95 floors above?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2190  Postby econ41 » Nov 30, 2010 3:09 am

hotshoe wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new ...

That's a lie.

Go ahead and retract it. It might do you good to tell the truth.

The first one was published when - 13 Sept 2001? Bazant & Zhou proved that global collapse was inevitable by showing that, even in the worst case for collapse (or best case for building survival if you prefer it that way round) there was more than enough energy to collapse the building.

And - side comment for psik's bit of nonsense about:
psikeyhackr wrote:...the thicker the columns the more energy required to crush the level....
...bullshit as psik is well aware. The collapse which actually happened did not crush the columns - even though Bazant & Zhou showed that there was enough energy to do so.

I referred psik to postings on "the911forum" which is a truther friendly forum with some good discussion of technical matters. psik has been a member there (may still be but not active AFAICS) AND the material I referred him to is an analysis by an acknowledged truther which closely parallels my own explanation for the global collapses of the twin towers. Worth a read by any one here seeking an alternate perspective which reaches the same conclusion - "no demolition needed during 'global collapse'"

And another note for relatively new members to this thread - ie those who only joined since ratskep forum was set up OR in the last few months of RDNet. psikeyhackr was a long term poster on RDNet 9/11 topic and you can take it as given that he has been informed of all the relevant arguments many times. He has made some quite good models to illustrate aspects of the Twin Towers collapses. Sadly all of them off target as to what really happened. But commendable effort just the same.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2191  Postby econ41 » Nov 30, 2010 3:15 am

psikeyhackr wrote:... So let's see you build a physical model that can support its own weight and yet be TOTALLY collapsed by dropping the top 15% or less on the rest....

This topic is not about my ability to build physical models. And I can explain the "global collapse" adequately by words possibly assisted by simple diagrams. No models required.

To the extent that models are relevant they should/could be models which are valid analogues of WTC collapse processes.

Given that the "global collapse" of the twin towers is so easily explained without models there is no real scope there. And the "initial collapse" is probably beyond physical modelling.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2192  Postby econ41 » Nov 30, 2010 7:32 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:pretty sad that the only feasible global collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new and are still under construction/scrutiny

Not really.

The inevitability of "global collapse" was never seriously doubted from the outset. My own postings on the matter came within weeks of my interest in the matter bringing me to the RDNet forum. Even then there was no doubt among those who accepted "no demolition" - merely curiosity as to the details. My posting of details was independent of any other Internet posting - the global collapse is relatively easy to explain - however I was not aware of anyone actually explaining it at the time I posted my material.

It may help if you can get yourself into the mindset of 2006-2007-early2008. There were few "Truthers" in the sense of those obsessed with conspiracy and prepared to argue at any cost to personal integrity. There were quite a few genuine sceptics - those who were sceptical to the "Official Story" of (in this case at WTC) "no demolition" AND those who simply did not understand the natural collapse mechanisms.

So it was nowhere near the same polarised two sided debate you see now. And reasoned debate was more the norm contrast with now where "truthers" dominate and have not the slightest interest in reasoned discussion or (much misused word) "truth".

It is all much easier to understand if you remember that there never was any serious possibility of demolition at WTC. Take that as your base line when looking at the history.

I realise that all of us involved in this debate tend to think from the distorted and untrue paradigm which presupposes that demolition is a reasonable alternative to consider. That is nonsense in any objective framing of the issues. But we have become accustomed to accepting it because the whole Internet debate requires the "opponents of truthers" to debate within the false boundaries set up by the truthers. That or there will be no debate.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2193  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 3:23 pm

Weaver wrote:Are you under the impression that the floor joists on the (say) 10th floor were designed to support the weight of the 95 floors above?


I presume you are talking to me.

The is why I make a point of distinguishing between FLOORS and LEVELS. By floor I mean the standard floor assemblies, the 4.33 inch concrete slab and the corrugated steel pans that the concrete was poured on and the 35 and 60 foot trusses that the held the pans. It is certainly curious that we NEVER hear how much those complete assemblies weighed. But those assemblies were attached to the core on their inner edge and to the spandrels of the perimeter columns on the outer edge.

By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot height including one floor assembly, 12 feet of the core and 12 feet of the perimeter columns. So as the thickness of the columns increased down the building the weight of the LEVELS increased.

The CN Tower in Toronto gives a visible example of how that distribution needed to change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBzLhy3Q7sY

So why can't the nation that put men on the Moon tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level for NINE YEARS. This is SCIENCE. ROFL

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2194  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 3:32 pm

econ41 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:And another note for relatively new members to this thread - ie those who only joined since ratskep forum was set up OR in the last few months of RDNet. psikeyhackr was a long term poster on RDNet 9/11 topic and you can take it as given that he has been informed of all the relevant arguments many times. He has made some quite good models to illustrate aspects of the Twin Towers collapses. Sadly all of them off target as to what really happened. But commendable effort just the same.


So it doesn't take more energy to bend a 2 inch column than a 1 inch column or more energy to bend a 4 inch column than a 2 inch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM

It seems on this issue some people assume they can talk other people into believing anything. So where has anyone built a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight? Physics does not give a damn about talk.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2195  Postby econ41 » Nov 30, 2010 3:49 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:And another note for relatively new members to this thread - ie those who only joined since ratskep forum was set up OR in the last few months of RDNet. psikeyhackr was a long term poster on RDNet 9/11 topic and you can take it as given that he has been informed of all the relevant arguments many times. He has made some quite good models to illustrate aspects of the Twin Towers collapses. Sadly all of them off target as to what really happened. But commendable effort just the same.


So it doesn't take more energy to bend a 2 inch column than a 1 inch column or more energy to bend a 4 inch column than a 2 inch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM

It seems on this issue some people assume they can talk other people into believing anything. So where has anyone built a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight? Physics does not give a damn about talk.

psik

Boring psik. The same false claims by inference as you made years ago and were corrected on at the time in multiple repeated explanations.

The facts remain the same and simple:
1 The global collapse of the WTC towers did not crush the columns;
2 The insults directed at "some people" when it is the physics of your claims which is wrong;
3 The truism that physics "does not give a damn" attached to the false inference that others - in this case I - have the physics wrong.

And who gives a damn about building "...a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight?" The real world had two full scale models where a small top section "caused the collapse" of the lower section. Those real examples were WTC1 and WTC2 and the top bit did not "crush" the bottom bit as you are fully aware. So your analogy by inference is false.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2196  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 4:24 pm

Boring psik. The same false claims by inference as you made years ago and were corrected on at the time in multiple repeated explanations.


Skyscrapers are BORING.

The Empire state Building was completed in 1931. What kind of electronic computers were used to design it?

The idiocy used to rationalize the belief that an airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building 2000 times its mass in less than 2 hours and then not tell people the distribution of mass even though that was part of getting it to hold itself up is pretty boring.

But I suppose such experts need to avoid the obvious.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2197  Postby uke2se » Nov 30, 2010 4:31 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
The idiocy used to rationalize the belief that an airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building 2000 times its mass in less than 2 hours and then not tell people the distribution of mass even though that was part of getting it to hold itself up is pretty boring.


Why do 9/11 conspiracy theorists always pull out this whopper? I mean, lying this boldly isn't making their "movement" look less like the laughing stock it is.

For those with a few brain-cells to rub together: nobody is claiming that an airliner TOTALLY DESTROYED the WTC. Airliner impact damage and FIRE removed the supports. Gravity did the rest.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2198  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 8:43 pm

uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
The idiocy used to rationalize the belief that an airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building 2000 times its mass in less than 2 hours and then not tell people the distribution of mass even though that was part of getting it to hold itself up is pretty boring.


Why do 9/11 conspiracy theorists always pull out this whopper? I mean, lying this boldly isn't making their "movement" look less like the laughing stock it is.

For those with a few brain-cells to rub together: nobody is claiming that an airliner TOTALLY DESTROYED the WTC. Airliner impact damage and FIRE removed the supports. Gravity did the rest.


I don't give a damn about any movement.

Are you saying the building was not 2000 times the mass of the plane?

The fire was the result of the plane and supposedly the fire allowed the start of the collapse. I am not interested in quibbling over semantics.

It is not my fault that you BELIEVE something that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC and yet you don't expect to be told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers. Let's see you build a model that can support its own weight and yet collapse completely from the top 15% or less being dropped on the rest. The building had to be designed to hold itself up against gravity and for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds it had to accelerate at more then 50% of G. So the stationary mass below had to be accelerated and the supports for that mass had to be overcome.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1448

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2199  Postby JQisAwesome » Nov 30, 2010 9:01 pm

Using a simple axe, I was able to take down a tree 2000 times the mass of the axe! Whoa! How did I do that?
JQisAwesome
 
Name: JQ
Posts: 593

Country: The Best One on Earth
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2200  Postby uke2se » Nov 30, 2010 9:12 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
I don't give a damn about any movement.

Are you saying the building was not 2000 times the mass of the plane?

The fire was the result of the plane and supposedly the fire allowed the start of the collapse. I am not interested in quibbling over semantics.


So, let's hear you say it: What took down the WTC (According to the scientific findings of NIST)?

psikeyhackr wrote:
It is not my fault that you BELIEVE something that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC and yet you don't expect to be told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers. Let's see you build a model that can support its own weight and yet collapse completely from the top 15% or less being dropped on the rest. The building had to be designed to hold itself up against gravity and for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds it had to accelerate at more then 50% of G. So the stationary mass below had to be accelerated and the supports for that mass had to be overcome.

psik


You really shouldn't accuse others of believing something idiotic when you can't understand building physics. According to your understanding, every building would need to be a pyramid, every floor supporting all those above it.

:lol:
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests