I don't get it, those things are well known facts, we know they happened, and many died, and many who did not are still scarred by those events or their aftermath. All that happened nearly 20 years ago, and it has been massively studied and investigated since.

And there are still morons who manage to doubt it...

Svartalf wrote: it has been massively studied and investigated since.

And there are still morons who manage to doubt it...

It should not be difficult to find the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level in that case.

[754930]

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:It should not be difficult to find the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level in that case.

true, but it takes more than two brain cells to read the NCSTAR report and find the numbers after being told where to look.

Oh sure, the empty claim that it is in the NCSTAR1 report. So print the quote and specify the page. I downloaded it and burned it to DVD more than a decade ago. The search turned up a little more than 3000 mentions of concrete. Read every one.

The hilarious thing is that one report talks about the damped oscillation of the South Tower due to the aircraft impact, and they admit that they need to know the distribution of mass of the building to analyze the motion caused by the deflection due to impact, but the data is not there.

You are just blathering the usual bullshit.

[755050]

psikeyhackr wrote:

Svartalf wrote: it has been massively studied and investigated since.

And there are still morons who manage to doubt it...

It should not be difficult to find the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level in that case.

[754930]

It should not be difficult to find the tons of posts and tons of articles refuting this tired old nonsense.

Welcome to the 20th anniversary of "global collapse ensued".

The Twin Towers Affair is a much bigger deal than the Twin Towers Event.

It very annoying to claim things that cannot be proven, but I woke up on 9/12/01 thinking the Twin Tower Collapses were not possible. I wondered why I was thinking that. I spent the next two weeks contemplating the physics of skyscrapers.

The Laws of Physics do not care about Americans or their freedoms. How do skyscrapers hold themselves up against gravity? Every level must support the weight of all of the levels above. How much steel was on level 95 compared to what was on level 5? Shouldn't that be easy to look up after 20 years?

Where is there a table with the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each and every level of the North Tower? And the height of each level. How does one compute the potential energy without that data? How could the smaller, lighter, weaker portion of the tower fall straight down, and totally destroy a mass six times its own size that had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?
In 20 seconds?

But oh, we don't have that data. The NIST did not raise the issue in 10,000 pages. The NIST told us that "global collapse ensued" after analyzing the airliner impacts and fires to death. By 9/30/01 I assumed that the collapses of the towers would be analyzed and resolved in a few months. In a few months the steel had been shipped out of the country. I didn't know about that. I didn't, and still don't pay much attention to the news. Too much idiotic drivel.

I did not begin discussing 9/11 on the internet until 2005. So here we are 20 years after the Event and the Affair rolls on.

We need more STEM trained people to grow the economy and ignore physics. STEM people cannot figure out planned obsolescence either.
What is Demand Side Depreciation?

I spent more time on this before 2005:
http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-warg ... imgar.html

[766907]

psikeyhackr wrote:

It very annoying to claim things that cannot be proven, but I woke up on 9/12/01 thinking the Twin Tower Collapses were not possible.

I think I found your problem.

Fuck the people killed, eh? You're here again today, exactly 20 years later, to use the moment to peddle crap you couldn't sell for twenty fucking years?

I'm sure that's normal behavior.

"Fuck the people killed, eh?"

About 30,000 Americans are killed every year in traffic accidents and that has been happening for 50 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_v ... S._by_year

In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel but half-a-century after the Moon landing engineering schools cannot model the collapse of the North Tower because morons want to believe obvious bullshit.

A 10,000 page report cannot tell us the the tons of steel and tons of concrete. Pretty Funny!

felltoearth wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:

It very annoying to claim things that cannot be proven, but I woke up on 9/12/01 thinking the Twin Tower Collapses were not possible.

I think I found your problem.

I guess that makes you one brilliant mofo that can't do middle school physics .

I'm no master of physics, nor am I someone that's spent really any amount of time discussing this topic. Is that comment about 20 seconds meant to suggest that the time frame is shorter than one might expect? And if so, wouldn't a shorter time frame be indicative of a greater application of force, and therefore a greater potential to destroy the lower floors? Wouldn't you also expect a cascade effect, similar to dominos, where the top floor destroys the infrastructure of the floor below it, and then both those floors collapse on the next floor, and so on?

psikeyhackr wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:

It very annoying to claim things that cannot be proven, but I woke up on 9/12/01 thinking the Twin Tower Collapses were not possible.

I think I found your problem.

I guess that makes you one brilliant mofo that can't do middle school physics .

That would make two of us. I have no illusions of grandeur.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've stayed out of this particular conspiracy rabbit-hole. What I will say is that the analyses of the physics I've seen from the denizens of Bertie's garden soirée* have all been considerably too blind to the existence of a shitload of confounding variables. I've watched the footage, and what I see in the collapses is pretty much what I'd expect to see just from accounting for a few of the obvious variables - heat, impact shock stresses on beams and joints, especially shear stresses on bolts and welds; frankly, the loss of fire retardant from the steelwork is a huge factor all on its own when combined with these variables.

Go on, tell me about your middle school physics and how I'm not competent.

*

Go on, tell me about your middle school physics and how I'm not competent.

*

So tell us how you apply the conservation of momentum without data on the mass of steel and mass of concrete in the lower 90 stories of the North Tower?

Then there is Newton's 2nd Law of 20 stories vs 90 stories supposedly crushing each other.

psikeyhackr wrote:So tell us how you apply the conservation of momentum without data on the mass of steel and mass of concrete in the lower 90 stories of the North Tower?

Then there is Newton's 2nd Law of 20 stories vs 90 stories supposedly crushing each other.

Why would I have to jump through any of your illiterate hoops? Noether's Theorem experienced no inconvenience whatsoever during the collapse of any buildings.

What this bollocks tells me is that you wouldn't even know what a cogent objection looked like, because this ain't it, not by a long chalk. You clearly know fuck all about physics at any level, and don't even possess the structural engineering competence to understand where the strength of rigid frames comes from, probably even now I just painted a big fucking sign on it.

hackenslash wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:So tell us how you apply the conservation of momentum without data on the mass of steel and mass of concrete in the lower 90 stories of the North Tower?

Then there is Newton's 2nd Law of 20 stories vs 90 stories supposedly crushing each other.

Why would I have to jump through any of your illiterate hoops? Noether's Theorem experienced no inconvenience whatsoever during the collapse of any buildings.

What this bollocks tells me is that you wouldn't even know what a cogent objection looked like, because this ain't it, not by a long chalk. You clearly know fuck all about physics at any level, and don't even possess the structural engineering competence to understand where the strength of rigid frames comes from, probably even now I just painted a big fucking sign on it.

As the first person to mention Noether's Theorem I will not dare to exhibit the chutzpah to challenge your intellect delusions.