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

#9701  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 20, 2021 8:22 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
I am pointing out that the explanation is lacking along with the data necessary to do a competent analysis.

:rofl: the incarnation of incompetence on this (i.e.: you) is murmuring about „a competent analysis“
you haven‘t got a fucking clue.

psikeyhackr wrote:You don't know anything and have nothing meaningful to say.

projection much?

what you are doing is the equivalent of sitting in a padded room going
„weNEEDmoreDATA :wall: weNEEDmoreDATA :wall: weNEEDmoreDATA :wall:

psikeyhackr wrote:We are missing a whole lot of concrete. Where did it go?

I‘ve got an idea:
They hid it in the attic!1
Where nobody noticed it for 28years!!1!

or maybe it just got embezzled :think:


Projection? LOL

The Twin Towers had 6 basement levels. 5% of 116 story buildings.

We're they 5% of the Mass. There have been diagrams of the box columns made from 4" steel slabs. Is that what was used above the 100th floor? Of course, would they use light weight concrete in the basements?

The tilted top of the South Tower broke above the 2nd maintenance level while the 3rd maintenance level was at the top of the building along with the hat truss. And though the NIST admits that the tilt was 20 to 25 degrees no "expert source" discusses the center of gravity and why it did not fall down the side.

Mere projections however, gravity and distribution of mass are irrelevant.

[778176]
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

#9702  Postby The_Metatron » Nov 21, 2021 1:22 am

So, what's the answer?

You are desperate to convince us you have the answer, so what is it? Get to your punchline.

When you get there, follow up by explaining how it is that you, and only you, have the unbridled genius to figure out what no one else can.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21345
Age: 58
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9703  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Nov 21, 2021 3:38 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:

Projection? LOL

The Twin Towers had 6 basement levels. 5% of 116 story buildings.

We're they 5% of the Mass. There have been diagrams of the box columns made from 4" steel slabs. Is that what was used above the 100th floor? Of course, would they use light weight concrete in the basements?

The tilted top of the South Tower broke above the 2nd maintenance level while the 3rd maintenance level was at the top of the building along with the hat truss. And though the NIST admits that the tilt was 20 to 25 degrees no "expert source" discusses the center of gravity and why it did not fall down the side.

Mere projections however, gravity and distribution of mass are irrelevant.

[778176]

oh dear :roll:
you had over a month time to get your thoughts sorted for a reply and this jumble of Non Sequiturs is the result?

the NIST admits that the tilt was 20 to 25 degrees

this is a lie; as mentioned here and explained here

no "expert source" discusses the center of gravity and why it did not fall down the side

I’m quite sure this bit is true.
Do you seriously still think the top should have fallen over the side?
we‘ve been over that around here and also over at RDF.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2893
Age: 48
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9704  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 21, 2021 10:50 pm

The_Metatron wrote:So, what's the answer?

You are desperate to convince us you have the answer, so what is it? Get to your punchline.

When you get there, follow up by explaining how it is that you, and only you, have the unbridled genius to figure out what no one else can.


I have no idea what you mean by THE ANSWER!

Just because airliner impact and fire could not totally destroy a 1360 ft skyscraper in less than two hours does not mean I know what did. Suspecting and Knowing are two different things.

The social failure of so many people failing to analyze the destruction of the Twin Towers is more important than the destruction of the Twin Towers.

It is just a physics problem DAMN IT!

I gather most people don't want to consider the consequences of proving airliners could not do it.
I don't give a shit!

The economics profession ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods worldwide wide is more important but that does not seem to bother most morons.

LOL
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

#9705  Postby The_Metatron » Nov 22, 2021 1:26 am

If you don't even have the answer, what the fuck are you doing here after all these years? Clearly, you don't accept what we see as reality. So, you have some other answer to describe the events of that day.

What the fuck is it, and why should we believe you?

Unlike you, we have very high confidence that flying jumbo jets into such buildings causes them to collapse. We saw it happen. Twice in one day.

You are the one with the task to explain your problem. So, get to it. You've had twenty fucking years. And you have nothing.

Imagine the minds you'll change with that approach, eh? You must get a lot of requests for your research papers. What do you charge for consulting? What similar problems have you solved, so we may review your work?

I say you have none of that. You like this schtick: Prove me wrong.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21345
Age: 58
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9706  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 22, 2021 4:36 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Unlike you, we have very high confidence that flying jumbo jets into such buildings causes them to collapse. We saw it happen. Twice in one day..


Jumbo jets only applies in comparison to other airplanes.

A single floor slab in the towers weighed THREE TIMES as much as the plane.

Maybe the plane that hit the South Tower caused it to deflect 14 inches.

The NIST just said it deflected 12 inches, 11 stories below where the plane hit.

High confidence is really impressive when you cannot even specify the percentage of mass of the building that was in the 6 basement levels below ground. Try finding any report or article that even mentions it.

So why do you bother posting if you are so CONFIDENT?

I find confidence based on ignorance quite impressive. I am not confident that airliners could destroy the towers. I presume that you simply cannot handle uncertainty.
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

#9707  Postby psikeyhackr » Nov 22, 2021 9:49 pm


The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled east face) to the east (about 7o to 8o) and south (about 3o to 4o) as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.


The tilt to the south did not increase any further as the upper building section began to fall, but the tilt to the east continued, reaching 20 degrees to 25 degrees before dust clouds obscured the view.


From NCSTAR 1-6

To anyone sufficiently interested to read what the NIST wrote about the TILT.
Last edited by psikeyhackr on Nov 23, 2021 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

#9708  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Nov 22, 2021 10:06 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:

The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled east face) to the east (about 7o to 8o) and south (about 3o to 4o) as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.


The tilt to the south did not increase any further as the upper building section began to fall, but the tilt to the east continued, reaching 20 degrees to 25 degrees before dust clouds obscured the view.


From NCSTAR 1-6

To anyone sufficiently interested to read what the NIST wrote about the TILT.

so how does „admit“ play in to this?

Also: there is your answer to why it didn’t fall over the side: it started moving down.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2893
Age: 48
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9709  Postby econ41 » Jan 06, 2022 3:50 am

A Happy New Year to all especially my long time colleagues. psikeyhackr probably the longest time of acquaintance.

I'd better make a token contribution to the discussion. This latest comment from Agi.
Agi Hammerthief wrote:Also: there is your answer to why it didn’t fall over the side: it started moving down.

It was a "race" between topple and drop. "drop" won.

Reasoning:
Topple was the possible outcome of "tilt". Tilt needed a fulcrum to pivot over. It was a "virtual fulcrum" which moved and involved different columns as the columns progressively failed due to load redistribution.

Once the capacity of columns to support Top Block was less than the weight of the top block the Top Block started moving downwards. Which meant all columns had now failed. THEREFORE there was no "virtual fulcrum" to support further changes to the rotational momentum of the Top Block.

Moving downwards won the race against whatever remnant toppling momentum remained.

See you all again in New Year 2023 unless there is a sudden spurt of activity in this thread.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9710  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Jan 06, 2022 9:19 pm

econ41 wrote:See you all again in New Year 2023 unless there is a sudden spurt of activity in this thread.

Happy New Year to you too :cheers:

it’s been rather quiet in here.
Even the crickets are on a loop and only pause when psikeyhackr gives his dead horse a few whacks.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2893
Age: 48
Male

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9711  Postby Greg the Grouper » Jan 06, 2022 9:56 pm

I've known about this thread for all of a month, and I'm already sick of it. I can't imagine how y'all feel.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 166

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

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9712  Postby hackenslash » Jan 06, 2022 10:15 pm

Have you seen the expanding Earth thread?

Luckily, it seems to have stopped expanding. The thread, that is. The Earth is, of course, expanding as it always has, but don't tell the loons. It's been hard enough keeping it covered up.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22261
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9713  Postby BlackBart » Jan 06, 2022 10:31 pm

Shh!
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12526
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9714  Postby hackenslash » Jan 07, 2022 12:01 am

:oops:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22261
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9715  Postby econ41 » Jan 07, 2022 2:45 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
econ41 wrote:See you all again in New Year 2023 unless there is a sudden spurt of activity in this thread.

Happy New Year to you too :cheers:

it’s been rather quiet in here.
Even the crickets are on a loop and only pause when psikeyhackr gives his dead horse a few whacks.

Thanks Agi. Serious 9/11 debate mostly died a few years back. And the last high-level engineering discussion I had was in 2013 on another Forum. We were discussing my ideas for correcting Bazant & Verdures "Crush Down/Crush Up" hypothesis and my two engineering discussion partners abandoned ship when they realised that I was saying Bazant was wrong. Apparently that was considered to be "lèse-majesté"

I still see an occasional bit of mid-level serious discussion on one other Forum and - believe it or not, on FaceBook :naughty2:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9716  Postby econ41 » Jan 07, 2022 2:59 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:I've known about this thread for all of a month, and I'm already sick of it. I can't imagine how y'all feel.

My first ever post on-line was in the great great great great (about 6 more) grandfather of this thread. 13 Nov 2007. (14 Nov for me - I'm in TZ LIMA >> Eastern Australia).

At that time I was the first and for some time the only engineer posting on the topic. And myself new to 9/11 CT - I had seen the WTC1 collapse as breaking news on the day. As a retired civil and military engineer I saw "plane hits tower - tower collapses" stored it away as a technique for military demolition and forgot about it until 2007. When a colleague asked for my professional opinion about the CD of the Twin Towers. I laughed before I realised he was serious.

I found the R Dawkins pre-cursor of this Forum and my goal was "Let's clear up this nonsense about CD so we can discuss the real issues which are in the politics." That must rank as one of the most naive bits of optimism seen in on-line debate.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests