The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9341  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 06, 2017 12:40 am

Animavore wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Animavore wrote:Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.


Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.


How?


You need someone to explain inertia and the Conservation of Momentum and Damped Oscillation to you?

If you look in the right place in the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower you will see that it deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact of the plane at ~550 mph. What is curious is that the NIST never specifies their computation of the deflection at the 81st floor where the plane hit. They provide a graph of the oscillation for 4 minutes after impact.

The deflection and oscillation of a vertical flexible structure is going to be affected by the mass and strength of the structure. Since a skyscraper must withstand the wind from any direction this had to be analyzed before the building was constructed. Also if you do some research you will find that analysis of the towers was done in the late 90s with accelerometers at the top of the towers. They were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.

My physics demonstration model is not to scale and I never claimed it was. But a truly accurate physics model cannot be done without accurate mass distribution data. So where is it?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9342  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 06, 2017 1:09 am

Animavore wrote:
The argument is a single argument. There's far too many people involved in the conspiracy for it to be plausible. He then LISTS the individuals, groups, and organisations who would need to be involved. You seem to be treating each item on the list like they are separate arguments, rather than separate items on a list.

In your own words: :crazy:


Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1267
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9343  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 06, 2017 1:47 am

Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9344  Postby Xaihe » Oct 06, 2017 3:54 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik

The physics has been done and the collapse has been explained to you in detail, multiple times, in this very thread. There is no need for further discussion, as every point you will undoubtedly repeat has already been refuted earlier in this thread, multiple times. The only issue here is that people tend to forget the details of the discussions after a while, so the discussions repeat, and you make the same arguments again and again.
This is the case with everyone who still tries to argue for a conspiracy. All arguments used are just repeats of long refuted arguments and can be found earlier in the thread.

No amount of repeating an argument increases its validity, sorry.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 862
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9345  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 06, 2017 5:11 am

Xaihe wrote:The physics has been done and the collapse has been explained to you in detail, multiple times, in this very thread.


Yeah sure:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p651794

Physics that doesn't even have correct data on the building must be SO precise.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9346  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 06, 2017 6:16 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?


So, not only was 9/11 an inside job, but anyone who might have blown the whistle has been killed before they could provide any proof of the conspiracy.

at this point, you're better off proposing governmental induction of mass hallucination via mind control probes - it's actually more plausible than some cabal-of-thousands-with-a-homicidal-omerta.

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik


The physics has been done and the report published. Why don't you think that the Hyatt Regency disaster was an inside job too?
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1267
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9347  Postby Xaihe » Oct 06, 2017 7:12 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Xaihe wrote:The physics has been done and the collapse has been explained to you in detail, multiple times, in this very thread.


Yeah sure:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p651794

Physics that doesn't even have correct data on the building must be SO precise.

psik

As I said, multiple times. Every time you ignore the arguments you don't like and go on tangents, which are then addressed, which you ignore by going on tangents, etc... Surely you remember this, as it's happened so many times.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 862
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9348  Postby Animavore » Oct 06, 2017 7:41 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Animavore wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Animavore wrote:Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.


Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.


How?


You need someone to explain inertia and the Conservation of Momentum and Damped Oscillation to you?

If you look in the right place in the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower you will see that it deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact of the plane at ~550 mph. What is curious is that the NIST never specifies their computation of the deflection at the 81st floor where the plane hit. They provide a graph of the oscillation for 4 minutes after impact.

The deflection and oscillation of a vertical flexible structure is going to be affected by the mass and strength of the structure. Since a skyscraper must withstand the wind from any direction this had to be analyzed before the building was constructed. Also if you do some research you will find that analysis of the towers was done in the late 90s with accelerometers at the top of the towers. They were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.

psik

I'm not getting your point at all. The towers weren't blown down by a strong gust. You're not making much sense and you're still leaving out other elements like structural damage and the fire. Also, the planes brought a 500mph wind, which is over 3 times faster than 150.

:think:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38809
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9349  Postby proudfootz » Oct 06, 2017 11:37 am

Just A Theory wrote:
Animavore wrote:
The argument is a single argument. There's far too many people involved in the conspiracy for it to be plausible. He then LISTS the individuals, groups, and organisations who would need to be involved. You seem to be treating each item on the list like they are separate arguments, rather than separate items on a list.

In your own words: :crazy:


Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


Yes, I remember that article when it came out.

While it's an intriguing thought that someone could come up with an equation that would accurately predict complex human behavior, I'd be curious to know whether there was any real world data going into making it up.

Even then it would have to be tested before we could place much confidence in this guy's theory.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10010

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9350  Postby proudfootz » Oct 06, 2017 11:40 am

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.


Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:


If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10010

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9351  Postby Animavore » Oct 06, 2017 11:42 am

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.


Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:


If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:


Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38809
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9352  Postby proudfootz » Oct 06, 2017 12:49 pm

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.


Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:


If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:


Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.


When I search for those words in this thread, they only seem to turn up in your posts. :ask:

This must be more of your attempts at 'humor' - attacking me for things I never wrote. :nono:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10010

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9353  Postby Animavore » Oct 06, 2017 12:59 pm

Whatever. I'm done with you. I'm only interested now in how psikey's model proves anything. Though it's hard to get him to answer and explain instead of answering with a question.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38809
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9354  Postby proudfootz » Oct 06, 2017 1:03 pm

Image
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10010

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9355  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 06, 2017 2:08 pm

Xaihe wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Xaihe wrote:The physics has been done and the collapse has been explained to you in detail, multiple times, in this very thread.


Yeah sure:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p651794

Physics that doesn't even have correct data on the building must be SO precise.

psik

As I said, multiple times. Every time you ignore the arguments you don't like and go on tangents, which are then addressed, which you ignore by going on tangents, etc... Surely you remember this, as it's happened so many times.

I'm not so sure about the last point, which may be the actual problem here.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1912
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9356  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 06, 2017 2:10 pm

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.


Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:


If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:


Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.

It aparently only comes up when he runs out of other arguments.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1912
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9357  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 07, 2017 12:52 am

Animavore wrote:Whatever. I'm done with you. I'm only interested now in how psikey's model proves anything. Though it's hard to get him to answer and explain instead of answering with a question.


If you watch the video you see that the deflection and oscillation of the vertical structure changes with the total mass and the distribution of mass.

My impact mass is greater relative to the mass of the structure and lower velocity than the south tower. The south tower was more than 200 times the mass of the plane, but the plane had much higher velocity.

The model only demonstrates the principles. Scale cannot be duplicated without the distribution of mass data on the tower. My point is that 9/11 cannot be accurately analyzed without that data. Interestingly the people claiming to explain physics to me have not built any models demonstrating what they claim. They just talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

It is so curious that so many engineering schools manage not to model anything in SIXTEEN YEARS.

Purdue tried this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJ4ZXgK4Q

They claim it is "high quality" but they only do the top 20 stories. So their simulation does not show the building absorbing energy by deflection therefore the simulation is fundamentally incorrect. :lol:

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9358  Postby proudfootz » Oct 07, 2017 1:22 am

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:


If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:


Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.

It aparently only comes up when he runs out of other arguments.


I never used the phrase.

You are laboring under a delusion.

It looks like you were taken in by one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10010

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9359  Postby felltoearth » Oct 07, 2017 2:01 am

Animavore wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Animavore wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:

Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.


How?


You need someone to explain inertia and the Conservation of Momentum and Damped Oscillation to you?

If you look in the right place in the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower you will see that it deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact of the plane at ~550 mph. What is curious is that the NIST never specifies their computation of the deflection at the 81st floor where the plane hit. They provide a graph of the oscillation for 4 minutes after impact.

The deflection and oscillation of a vertical flexible structure is going to be affected by the mass and strength of the structure. Since a skyscraper must withstand the wind from any direction this had to be analyzed before the building was constructed. Also if you do some research you will find that analysis of the towers was done in the late 90s with accelerometers at the top of the towers. They were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.

psik

I'm not getting your point at all. The towers weren't blown down by a strong gust. You're not making much sense and you're still leaving out other elements like structural damage and the fire. Also, the planes brought a 500mph wind, which is over 3 times faster than 150.

:think:

I don't understand his point either. The building stopped swaying shortly after impact.

I returned to my office and decided to call my mother. A few seconds after hanging up the phone at 9:03 a.m., I felt a violent jolt and then a falling sensation. I remember thinking that the building was coming down, and it was the end. The impact caused the building to sway heavily. It was actually designed to sway to a certain degree as the towers have to withstand high winds on a regular basis, but this was far beyond anything I'd ever felt before.

Eventually the building stabilized. Much of the ceiling had come down, and I could feel the breeze from blown out windows on the other side of the floor. This felt oddly disconcerting since none of the windows were designed to open in the WTC.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/0 ... acks_.html
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7177
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9360  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 07, 2017 11:34 am

proudfootz wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

If you and I are arguing the same point, then you've come around to my position.

Good to see I've persuaded you at least! :cheers:


Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.

It aparently only comes up when he runs out of other arguments.


I never used the phrase.

You are laboring under a delusion.

It looks like you were taken in by one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

nice :lol:
and I bet Duane Tolbert Gish never use 'term' Gish Gallop in a debate either. :roll:
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1912
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests