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

#2201  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 30, 2010 9:28 pm

JQisAwesome wrote: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?


Can you do it with ONE SWING?

Is the tree made of steel and concrete?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2202  Postby uke2se » Nov 30, 2010 9:47 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
JQisAwesome wrote: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?


Can you do it with ONE SWING?


I'm pretty sure he could do it with one swing and then igniting the cut in the tree and letting it burn for an hour.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2203  Postby Xaihe » Nov 30, 2010 11:07 pm

uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
JQisAwesome wrote: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?


Can you do it with ONE SWING?


I'm pretty sure he could do it with one swing and then igniting the cut in the tree and letting it burn for an hour.


What if they found termites in the tree 5 years later? Must've been planted there, so it wasn't the axe that took down the tree.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 877
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2204  Postby hotshoe » Nov 30, 2010 11:12 pm

Xaihe wrote:
uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:

Can you do it with ONE SWING?


I'm pretty sure he could do it with one swing and then igniting the cut in the tree and letting it burn for an hour.


What if they found termites in the tree 5 years later? Must've been planted there, so it wasn't the axe that took down the tree.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Great, great, great, love the use of "termites" to prove it wasn't the axe.
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

#2205  Postby amused » Dec 01, 2010 12:33 am

Oh man, we've been misunderstanding all this time. It was nano-termites that were planted in the WTC not nano-thermite. Of course! All they had to do was let them loose on the sidewalk and they ran into the buildings and started eating away.

Good God, those nano-termites could have been planted way back in the 1970's. And then on 9-11 another bunch of nano-termites gathered themselves together into the shape of airliners and flew themselves into the WTC. Then they self-destructed by eating each other! What an awesome grand conspiracy! :doh:
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2206  Postby Dudely » Dec 01, 2010 1:34 am

This thread is now 2000 times better than it was.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2207  Postby Weaver » Dec 01, 2010 3:01 am

I was wondering when somebody would discover nano-termites. As a professional disinfo agent, I've been worried about this day, and that the truth would finally be out there - but it's also nice to know we can finally admit what really happened.

Nano-termites were released into the building during the Reagan Administration - they were originally developed to destroy the redwood forests out West, but those pesky environmentalists got in the way of building developments with great views. We needed someplace to store them, and figured that a couple of huge skyscrapers would do the trick (they don't like crossing the street).

Unfortunately, they thrived on Post-It Notes and bits of stolen paper - and many a secretary was fired when she claimed that something she'd typed up had "simply disappeared". In fact, the nano-termites were on an eating binge - you could feed most of the colony on a single sheet of copier paper, and they considered legal pads to be a delicacy.

The problem was compounded when they started to evolve - something we in the Government knew wasn't possible, because the Bible told us so. We only taught evolution as a way to destroy America so we could be in charge of saving it. Anyways, the nano-termites started eating the fire insulation, leaving the support columns exposed when the planes hit (it was supposed to be just another run-of-the-mill "terrorist attack" like the first WTC "bombing" (amazing what you can do with a few thousand smoke bombs and a Cub Scout Pack), but it got out of hand when the nano-termites started exploding en masse and totally demolished the building. It's almost like they committed group suicide or something - must be because they hadn't heard of Jesus.

Anyways, it's all out in the open now - thank goodness. I can finally live my life in peace. Thanks to the Truthers for their persistence in bringing this story to life.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 54
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2208  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 01, 2010 3:14 am

econ41 wrote: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.


Only by assuming nothing besides the plane was involved.

If the plane did it you should be able to build the model. If you can't then...

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2209  Postby byofrcs » Dec 01, 2010 4:07 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote: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.


Only by assuming nothing besides the plane was involved.

If the plane did it you should be able to build the model. If you can't then...

psik


Why waste 30 bucks when someone has already done this years ago...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0706 ... nnWTC.html
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2210  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 01, 2010 8:29 pm

byofrcs wrote:Why waste 30 bucks when someone has already done this years ago...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0706 ... nnWTC.html


ROFLMAO

That is SCIENCE for you alright.

I emailed Prof. Sozen and two of his cronies at Purdue. Sozen didn't respond but his cronies referred me to him.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post2525.html#p2525

First of all that is just an animation of the airliner going into the north tower. It says nothing about the collapse. So bringing that up is a demonstration of vast brilliance.

Second there is an OBVIOUS scientific flaw in it. Watch the core columns as the plane comes in. Notice that they do not move. If you check the NIST report you will find that it says that the south tower was deflected by the impact 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet BELOW where the plane hit. So how is it that Purdue has the core columns remaining stationary for the north tower at the level where the plane hit?

And yet where are the EXPERTS that have been pointing out this obvious discrepancy for the last 3 years?

I did a physical model impact simulation also but it costs more than $30 and is much more difficult to build.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The mass and its distribution had to affect the impact analysis also. The NIST admitted that in two places in their 10,000 page report but then they didn't do it.

There are at least THREE REASONS for wanting to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level to analyze what happened to the twin towers on 9/11.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2211  Postby Patriots4Truth » Dec 01, 2010 11:56 pm

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.


what I said wasn't a lie. You failed to quote the whole sentence.

"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

#2212  Postby byofrcs » Dec 02, 2010 1:25 am

psikeyhackr wrote:....

I did a physical model impact simulation also but it costs more than $30 and is much more difficult to build.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The mass and its distribution had to affect the impact analysis also. The NIST admitted that in two places in their 10,000 page report but then they didn't do it.

There are at least THREE REASONS for wanting to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level to analyze what happened to the twin towers on 9/11.

psik


Well did you get the NIST SAP 2000 data ? It googles easily.

Anyway maybe you didn't notice but the WTC 1/2 actually withstood the impact of the planes. It was only after an hour or so of an uncontrolled fire that they failed. I didn't notice you burning your model in your Youtube.

Therefore your model simply mimics the building surviving the initial impact. That is great, now set fire to it, finish the simulation, don't leave us in suspense.

Also the floor loading of each floor is known and it is less than the weight of each floor. Thus in your model if you placed one of your "floors" on the other "floor" then that should break its connections to the vertical beams. You didn't show this.

And when you burn your model then the metal you use needs to start to lose its structural integrity.

That's all really. Your model shows that even this very open design of building is a very good design that can withstand the impact of a commercial jet (as it was designed to do) but you haven't shown what ultimately happened. Finish the job - burn the sucker.

Here is another experiment you can do - find a bit of RSJ and bury one end into some soft ground so it is standing up as a column. Hey it's not an accurate test but it's to show one point you are missing - now try and crush it with a vertical load. If the ground was resistant enough you probably could support a car. Even the most basic RSJ would require tonnes of compression load before the web failed. OK now push it sideways. Unless you fixed it into the ground you could topple it.

Look at the bottom of the WTC rubble plus the bits thrown out and you'll see lots of these column sections (3 columns welded with plates). They are not crushed but pushed aside.

The buildings were well built and designed, very light amount of materials for their floor capacity and they survived a commercial jet impact. OK so they didn't survive the subsequent fires but that's not what they were designed to survive.

Your model shows what they were designed to do. Can you please move on and show what they were not designed to survive ?
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2213  Postby hotshoe » Dec 02, 2010 3:57 am

Patriots4Truth wrote:
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.


what I said wasn't a lie. You failed to quote the whole sentence.

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

Bull puckey. A feasible global collapse scenario - supporting natural collapse - was introduced by our very own econ41 more than three years ago - NOT relatively new - and you've had it explained to you several times here. So, it's a lie you just told, and then repeated. Go ahead and keep repeating it.

The fact that you chose to believe and repeat the lies of the so-called truthers does not make it 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

#2214  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 02, 2010 5:46 am

byofrcs wrote:Well did you get the NIST SAP 2000 data ? It googles easily.

Anyway maybe you didn't notice but the WTC 1/2 actually withstood the impact of the planes. It was only after an hour or so of an uncontrolled fire that they failed. I didn't notice you burning your model in your Youtube.


Oh sure, everybody keeps claiming information is out there.

The core columns were not configured in an even rectangular array. But have you ever seen the layout of the horizontal beams in the array? What was the weight of those beams? Oh, it's not there. How many different weights of exterior wall panels were there and how many of each type? Oh, that isn't there either.

Why can't Lon Waters put that info on his site if it is available?

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/start

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories. But supposedly that much steel could weaken in ONE HOUR. But our experts don't ask and don't tell in NINE YEARS. Interesting!

No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true

My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.

So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse? What is stopping any engineering school in the world from doing it by the way?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2215  Postby uke2se » Dec 02, 2010 9:19 am

psikeyhackr wrote:

No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true


Seriously, you shouldn't project yours and other 9/11 conspiracy theorists failures on the rest of us.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2216  Postby Nicko » Dec 02, 2010 11:03 am

psikeyhackr wrote: No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true


The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.

My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.


Well...yeah. The buildings survived the impact (despite extensive damage) but it was the fire that completed the job.

Seeing as the event involved a fire, it would seem that any model that does not include fire is modelling a different event.

So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse?


Proofreading. Is useful.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2217  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Nicko wrote:The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.


What have I said about conspiracies or false flags? Link to my posts.

My collapse video has no verbal content. It shows mass being accelerated by gravity hitting more mass. The written description has sufficient information for anyone to duplicate it. The government is irrelevant to physics. The human race is irrelevant to physics.

Wasn't the destruction of the north tower supposedly mass being accelerated by gravity completely destroying more mass below?

But we don't have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Now why is that and why aren't supposedly intelligent people asking. Of course maybe they aren't intelligent.

Curiously Steven Jones and Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan aren't making a big deal of that missing information either. I asked Richard Gage about it in 2008. He got this shocked look on his face and then game me a LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change. It explains why the CN Tower is shaped like this:

ImageImage

This business is the 9/11 Religion believers versus the 9/11 Conspiracy Crackpots but the laws of physics are incapable of giving a damn about either one. But the engineering schools should have been talking about the distributions of steel and concrete within six months of 9/11. So why isn't it resolved in NINE YEARS? Does simple Newtonian physics need to be made to look complicated? How do they justify $100,000+ for 4 years of education.

Purdue makes a SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION where the core columns don't move. :lol:

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2218  Postby Xaihe » Dec 02, 2010 4:42 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Nicko wrote:The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.


What have I said about conspiracies or false flags? Link to my posts.

My collapse video has no verbal content. It shows mass being accelerated by gravity hitting more mass. The written description has sufficient information for anyone to duplicate it. The government is irrelevant to physics. The human race is irrelevant to physics.

Wasn't the destruction of the north tower supposedly mass being accelerated by gravity completely destroying more mass below?

But we don't have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Now why is that and why aren't supposedly intelligent people asking. Of course maybe they aren't intelligent.

Curiously Steven Jones and Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan aren't making a big deal of that missing information either. I asked Richard Gage about it in 2008. He got this shocked look on his face and then game me a LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change. It explains why the CN Tower is shaped like this:

ImageImage

This business is the 9/11 Religion believers versus the 9/11 Conspiracy Crackpots but the laws of physics are incapable of giving a damn about either one. But the engineering schools should have been talking about the distributions of steel and concrete within six months of 9/11. So why isn't it resolved in NINE YEARS? Does simple Newtonian physics need to be made to look complicated? How do they justify $100,000+ for 4 years of education.

Purdue makes a SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION where the core columns don't move. :lol:

psik

Explain this (Grand Lisboa in Macao) building's shape or stop comparing CN tower to WTC1/2, please.
Image
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 877
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2219  Postby BlackBart » Dec 02, 2010 4:55 pm

But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change.


Really? Last I checked it did. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=310
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12607
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2220  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 02, 2010 5:06 pm

Xaihe wrote:Explain this (Grand Lisboa in Macao) building's shape or stop comparing CN tower to WTC1/2, please.
Image


:whine: :whine: :whine:

Interesting looking building.

But it is similar to the WTC in that it does not show its distribution of strength and therefore mass from the outside.

I will continue comparing the CN Tower to the WTC because the CN Tower is not a building. It does not contain a lots of empty space to hide the NECESSARY INCREASE in mass toward the bottom. That upside down looking building is under 1000 feet while the CN tower and the WTC were over 1000 feet. But the WTC had more of a wind load problem because it did not get narrower toward the top like the CN Tower. It would be interesting to know the distributions of steel and concrete for that building in Macao but I have not found that information for any skyscraper in the world. Rather curious since gravity works the same way everywhere.

So why aren't all of the engineers and engineering schools demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete for the WTC?

Too many people operate on the seeing is believing principle rather than believe nothing but try to understand.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests