If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

Ever here of the theory about specific targets being hit, like Office Naval Intelligence in pentagon, morgtage brokers in trade centers, incriminating CIA and FBI documents in the little tower that went down too(not hit by plane), incriminating notes in vaults in trade centers, and Intelligence and evidence gathered by honest people investigating theft from government of i believe 219 billion, Office Naval Intelligence was helping with investigation.

www.citizensforgovernmentaccountability.org...

That will get you started, unless you were already aware. Of course it served as a good false flag attack and im sure other purposes as well like patriot act, but not many consider the above theory.

9/11 turther or so called "truthers" should re-coin as "history truthers".. put 9/11 into a historical context, rather than quibbling over minutia.

Historically people who call themselves politicians do these things to push their agendas... and large segments of the unwashed masses choose the path of least resistance by believing & OBEYING.

I do agree to an extent, conspiracy theories are built into the system. People like to articulate their rage, and see their rage articulated.. emotional message that plants a seed that once enough other people see their truth, something will be done.

Yet generations go by and the only change you can believe in is from bad to worse.. dispatching a tyrannical govt is just too hard.. way too much effort. And to an extent, thats true.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Talking about figuring out how much damage the impact did to the building without determining how much energy moved the building without doing damage is TOTAL NONSENSE. Skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind which is a shear force just as the airliner impact was a shear force.

Oh, so what you're saying then is that it's impossible to claim that a sniper's bullet weighing half an ounce could have ever killed John F. Kennedy without first knowing how far the bullet pushed him forward and his dying from massive internal injuries is "total nonsense". Good luck trying to sell that idea to anyone.

Be honest, here- which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites put this ridiculous mind game into your head?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Talking about figuring out how much damage the impact did to the building without determining how much energy moved the building without doing damage is TOTAL NONSENSE. Skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind which is a shear force just as the airliner impact was a shear force.

Oh, so what you're saying then is that it's impossible to claim that a sniper's bullet weighing half an ounce could have ever killed John F. Kennedy without first knowing how far the bullet pushed him forward and his dying from massive internal injuries is "total nonsense". Good luck trying to sell that idea to anyone.

Be honest, here- which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites put this ridiculous mind game into your head?

Brining up conspiracy crap again with JFK.

You are so boringly predictable.

An airliner is an inanimate object. A skyscraper is an inanimate object. Skyscrapers do not have blood pumping through them or muscles that can go limp. The WTC was not differentiated the way a human body is. Most of the levels were pretty much the same except for the thickness of the steel which would affect the weight of each level.

You are not the first person to make the idiotic comparison of a bullet hitting an animate mass as though it is a relevant comparison. It would be more accurate to compare a bullet hitting a tree stump 2000+ times the mass of the bullet. What effect would you expect from that?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by flipflops
Over 1500 respected engineers...all idiots huh? You must not have seen anything other than the news for that entire month after 9-11..

Where do these respected engineers talk about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers?

Where are all of the engineers and physicists talking about this?

Are these people more interested in making their professions look complicated and just want to be BELIEVED? Are physicists supposed to do experiments?

Is the scientific travesty of 9/11 dragging on for TEN YEARS now more important than the crime of 9/11? Physicists should have been asking certain obvious questions in 2002.

Talking about looking at 9/11 Truth in a certain way is more into psychology than physics and says more about the psychology of the person putting it that way than the physics of 9/11.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

psik, I'm trying hard to understand your position (still, lol) and I have a few questions.

Do you think A&E is on the level at all if they don't include and address your steel distribution data?

And if not do you think it's on purpose or just an oversight?

You seem to be of the opinion that the Spire "dustified" and did not just simply waver and fall, so, what are you trying to achieve by asking for correct steel data? Are you trying to show scientifically that the planes and fire didn't and couldn't have demolished the towers? Surely if you feel the steel dustified how does this even relate to the actual distribution? Doesn't the fact that the Spire turned to dust make all the data you desire somewhat moot?

Like, if the Spire "dustified" and it was part of the interior core shouldn't there be or wouldn't there be, evidence therefore that other steel like the perimeter also was turned to dust? And wouldn't an investigation into what would/could turn steel to dust be more important than exactly how much steel was there if we can see that the Spire (being core columns) was in the middle of the building?

Like, even if we just estimate an average amount of steel (for data purposes) don't we have to figure out what could make it all seem to just go away?


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned

psik, I'm trying hard to understand your position (still, lol) and I have a few questions.

Do you think A&E is on the level at all if they don't include and address your steel distribution data?

And if not do you think it's on purpose or just an oversight?

You seem to be of the opinion that the Spire "dustified" and did not just simply waver and fall, so, what are you trying to achieve by asking for correct steel data? Are you trying to show scientifically that the planes and fire didn't and couldn't have demolished the towers? Surely if you feel the steel dustified how does this even relate to the actual distribution? Doesn't the fact that the Spire turned to dust make all the data you desire somewhat moot?

Like, even if we just estimate an average amount of steel (for data purposes) don't we have to figure out what could make it all seem to just go away?

First of all I regard the destruction of the twin towers as simple physics problems. It is not about people. It is not about conspiracies and it is not about AE911Truth.

So first of all we need to understand some basics of skyscrapers. They MUST hold themselves up. That means lower levels must support all of the LEVELS above. I say LEVELS instead of FLOORS because some people, I think deliberately, start confusing that with the floor assemblies outside of the core.

Since those floor assemblies have a standard design they do not change down the building. It is the amount of steel in the core and the perimeter columns that increases. So if that information is not known then we really do not understand the building.

So if AE911Truth wants to actually get people to understand this why aren't they making a big deal about it? I have been to one of Richard Gage's dog and pony shows and I asked him about it. He said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But there are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. They could come up with good estimates without blueprints from the NIST. The physics of gravity dictates how that has to be done and they just have to decide what safety factor to incorporate.

Tony Szamboti and I ware arguing with Ryan Mackey on SciForums a couple of years ago. As long as Mackey was there it was like Tony and I were on the same side. When Mackey left Tony got on my case. It is like EXPERTS are more interested in pretending that this problem is complicated instead of explaining it so grade school kids can solve it. Why are there only 1500 people in AE911Truth if this is a physics problem. 90% of EXPERTS should all be on one side or the other.

But it looks more like 90% of the experts are saying nothing and avoiding the issue.

The distribution of steel has to be important because the buildings must hold themselves up against gravity. The people trying to promote belief in collapse have to focus on what they claim is a weak link. The floors outside the core. But a chain works on tension not compression and a skyscraper works on compression. It is like pressing down on a stack of empty milk cartons. Yeah, the weakest carton will collapse first. But that does not make all of the other cartons collapse.

Paper loops collapse in my model. But that takes energy and slows the falling mass so it runs out of energy and arrests. GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS! So why hasn't AE911Truth explained such simple sh# by now? Are they just a distraction to expend the energy of die-hard conspiracy theorists and they don't want everyone to UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS?

I don't know what their motives are so I am not going to go off on a tangent of thinking about them.

So my point is UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS FOR YOURSELF and forget worrying about what everybody else thinks. Conspiracies are irrelevant. Human beings cannot change physics.

The dustification of the Spire is merely interesting to me. We don't see that until after the collapse. It is the physics of the collapse that is really important. So maybe what caused the dustification caused the collapse. But that would simply mean that airliners and fire did not do it. I am not trying to account for whatever really caused the collapse my point is that airliners and fire could not do it because of the the nature of what skyscrapers have to do to hold themselves up. So once everyone UNDERSTANDS why the planes could not do it then we can look for what did.

So why doesn't AE911Truth explain the physics of why airliners could not. Just look at the shape of the CN Tower in Toronto and see how such a structure must get stronger and heavier toward the bottom. So how could the top 15% destroy everything below?

psik

Excellent question. So how DID the top 15% destroy the remaining floors below, AND the 47 story building next to them?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
An airliner is an inanimate object. A skyscraper is an inanimate object. Skyscrapers do not have blood pumping through them or muscles that can go limp. The WTC was not differentiated the way a human body is. Most of the levels were pretty much the same except for the thickness of the steel which would affect the weight of each level.

You're changing your story yet again to suit your argument. You weren't talking about how much damage the plane caused the structure. You were talking about how far the plane moved the structureupon impact. Why do I continuously need to point out your own statements to you?

At any rate, what the heck difference does it make whether the building was alive or not? It still had a complex support structure that needed to remain intact and undamaged for it to continue standing (or if it appeals to your inner geek, continue to resist gravity attempting to pull it down), and an object came along that inflicted unknown damage and therefore caused unknown impact on its ability to continue standing. Whether we're discussing if a building's internal matrix can continue to resist gravity or a body's internal organs ability to keep the body alive is immaterial because in either case, an entire complex system can fail if enough critical individual support components fail.

All it takes is one domino to fall to cause any number of other dominos to fall and it's a waste of my time and your own to be arguing over how much the set of dominos weighed. I don't understand why I need to point that out to you either.

You are not the first person to make the idiotic comparison of a bullet hitting an animate mass as though it is a relevant comparison. It would be more accurate to compare a bullet hitting a tree stump 2000+ times the mass of the bullet. What effect would you expect from that?

If you genuinely don't understand the difference between a 98% hollow building with a 100% solid tree stump then I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending you're some sort of physics scholar, because you're clearly not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
An airliner is an inanimate object. A skyscraper is an inanimate object. Skyscrapers do not have blood pumping through them or muscles that can go limp. The WTC was not differentiated the way a human body is. Most of the levels were pretty much the same except for the thickness of the steel which would affect the weight of each level.

You're changing your story yet again to suit your argument. You weren't talking about how much damage the plane caused the structure. You were talking about how far the plane moved the structureupon impact. Why do I continuously need to point out your own statements to you?

Mentioning the FACT that a skyscraper is an inanimate object is CHANGING THE STORY?

So if someone punches you in the face and knocks out your tooth your head isn't going to move in the process? They are simultaneous events. You were talking about what Purdue said and their simulation already shows damage so we knew about that already. I was pointing out what Purdue left out. Everyone has seen the videos and knows the buildings were damaged.

I assume that anyone who is not COMPLETELY STUPID already knows that and does not need to be told. Don't get mad at me because you brought JFK into it so you could smear everything with conspiracy sh#.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

They MUST hold themselves up.

And together. You keep forgetting that little tidbit. No building can stand if the elements that comprise the building can hold together. Want to bring something down? You don't need to challenge the aggregate mass of the building, just the strength of the connections.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The distribution of steel has to be important because the buildings must hold themselves up against gravity. The people trying to promote belief in collapse have to focus on what they claim is a weak link. The floors outside the core.

According to Purdue the distribution of steel really doesn't make much difference.

Here

"Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

and another quote

The research was funded in part by the National Science Foundation.

So I guess either they are in on it too or they don't know their a## from a hole in the ground.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The distribution of steel has to be important because the buildings must hold themselves up against gravity. The people trying to promote belief in collapse have to focus on what they claim is a weak link. The floors outside the core.

According to Purdue the distribution of steel really doesn't make much difference.

So I guess either they are in on it too or they don't know their a## from a hole in the ground.

Then they are saying that the NIST is lying because the NIST mentioned that it was important to analyzing the impact in two places.

But physics is not about talk. The effect of mass and its distribution has already been demonstrated. People complain about my posting the video bot no one explains what is incorrect about it if there is anything incorrect about it. So I guess they don't like correct and irrefutable information shoved in their faces.



It is the conservation of momentum and damped oscillation in a vertical flexible structure. The NIST has a graph of the oscillation of the south tower demonstrating a similar effect. But it does not show different motion at different levels and it could not be changed and rerun like my model.

That "in on it" crap is conspiracy BS. The conservation of momentum is incapable of caring about it. It is just the stupid are incapable of figuring out the conservation of momentum.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Are you saying the professors and engineers at Purdue are wrong/lying when they say it doesn't matter how many columns were cut, the fire alone would have brought down the building?

Does your expertise supersede theirs?

To me it reads that the distribution of steel and concrete are irrevelant when there is no fire proofing remaining on it.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Are you saying the professors and engineers at Purdue are wrong/lying when they say it doesn't matter how many columns were cut, the fire alone would have brought down the building?

Does your expertise supersede theirs?

To me it reads that the distribution of steel and concrete are irrevelant when there is no fire proofing remaining on it.

The Purdue simulation is nothing but the airliner impact. It does not show the collapse. The Conservation of Momentum does not care about anybody's expertise. They contradict the empirical data collected by the NIST on the south tower impact because their simulation does not show the core columns moving due to the impact whereas the NIST has the building moving 15 inches.

Are you saying the NIST's empirical data is wrong?

Are you saying that you can't comprehend grade school physics? You are trying to change this from physics to ego? But I have emailed people at Purdue. Professor Sozen does not respond. The other two referred me to him.

Apparently the problem is all of the people who need AUTHORITY to tell them what to think and expect everyone to be that dumb. Physics is incapable of caring about Purdue. My physical models do not give a damn about me. They do not care about my ego. Anyone that wants to can duplicate them to test my results.

It's called SCIENCE!

It is a pity that stupidity is not irrelevant.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Mentioning the FACT that a skyscraper is an inanimate object is CHANGING THE STORY?

So if someone punches you in the face and knocks out your tooth your head isn't going to move in the process?

It's patently obvious your grotesque confusion is coming from your inability to distinguish between apples and oranges. If my teeth were in fact knocked out then it will be patently obvious it would be caused by my being punched in the face, and noone would give a rat's hairy [censored] about how far back my head would have recoiled from the punch..except maybe for you.

I trust I don't need to menion it would be the height of absurdity to claim they really fell out because sinister secret agents planted hidden explosives in my teeth without my noticing anything.

They are simultaneous events. You were talking about what Purdue said and their simulation already shows damage so we knew about that already. I was pointing out what Purdue left out. Everyone has seen the videos and knows the buildings were damaged.

...and it should be increasingly obvious it's because noone gives a rat's hairy [censored] about how far back the building recoiled from the impact. It's entiirely the damage from the impact and the damage from the fires that is of critical importance to how and why the building collapsed.

I assume that anyone who is not COMPLETELY STUPID already knows that and does not need to be told. Don't get mad at me because you brought JFK into it so you could smear everything with conspiracy sh#.

Oh, no, I am a certified type B personality so it takes quite a lot to get me mad over anything. Besides, I have the facts on my side so I have no need to be mad over the myriad absurdity being posted here. All I need to do is present the facts and they pretty much can fend for themselves. On the other hand, I notice that it's you who are becoming frustrated at having noone taking you seriously...even your fellow conspiracy theorists here. Gage doesn't seem to think determining how far the building recoiled from the impact is relevent, either.

Any alternative theory to the official story that does not include an explanation for the massive involvement of Israel and the Zionist overlords that run the US is a scam.

If anyone knows that it is "Thick".

He has never denied the Zionist involvement - successfully.

Israel / Zionism / 9-11 / False-Flag

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Mentioning the FACT that a skyscraper is an inanimate object is CHANGING THE STORY?

So if someone punches you in the face and knocks out your tooth your head isn't going to move in the process?

It's patently obvious your grotesque confusion is coming from your inability to distinguish between apples and oranges. If my teeth were in fact knocked out then it will be patently obvious it would be caused by my being punched in the face, and noone would give a rat's hairy [censored] about how far back my head would have recoiled from the punch..except maybe for you.

Actually no one would give a rat's hairy a$$ about your being punched in the face.

But we are talking about a building that cost a few hundred million dollars to construct.

Since the mass and velocity of the plane are known then the kinetic energy of the airliner can be computed. How would we know the kinetic energy of a fist punching you in the face? But that kinetic energy would do two things in both cases. So how much energy went into moving the building is relevant in determining how much energy was left over to go into doing damage. But computing that energy would require knowing the distribution of mass and the stiffness of the building.

Now I would bet engineers worked out programs to do similar stuff decades ago for wind calculations on skyscrapers. The WTC was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. So the absurdity is that this has not been mentioned and addressed by numerous EXPERTS by now.

So go back to playing with your apples and oranges Your rhetoric is to shallow for rats.

psik

A thread can never get better when the subject turns to puncing one member in the mouth, knocking out teeth ans arguing about the physics involved in all of it.

The Purdue video looks like a CGI visual model of what may have happened not a true rule of physics based model like the sort used to simulate a nuclear detonation for example.

I just want to remind you, psikeyhackr you are writing for the benefit of "Aw Jeez, not this crap again!" but for all of the rest of us who actually do appreciate your posts and the thought you put into them.

Carry on lads!

More punching in the mouth talk, please.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

Mentioning the FACT that a skyscraper is an inanimate object is CHANGING THE STORY?

So if someone punches you in the face and knocks out your tooth your head isn't going to move in the process?

It's patently obvious your grotesque confusion is coming from your inability to distinguish between apples and oranges. If my teeth were in fact knocked out then it will be patently obvious it would be caused by my being punched in the face, and noone would give a rat's hairy [censored] about how far back my head would have recoiled from the punch..except maybe for you.

Actually no one would give a rat's hairy a$$ about your being punched in the face.

But we are talking about a building that cost a few hundred million dollars to construct.

Since the mass and velocity of the plane are known then the kinetic energy of the airliner can be computed. How would we know the kinetic energy of a fist punching you in the face? But that kinetic energy would do two things in both cases. So how much energy went into moving the building is relevant in determining how much energy was left over to go into doing damage. But computing that energy would require knowing the distribution of mass and the stiffness of the building.

Now I would bet engineers worked out programs to do similar stuff decades ago for wind calculations on skyscrapers. The WTC was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. So the absurdity is that this has not been mentioned and addressed by numerous EXPERTS by now.

So go back to playing with your apples and oranges Your rhetoric is to shallow for rats.

psik

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I would respond...

a) the whole "mostly empty section" bit is yet more conspiracy mongoring. You know as well as I do that the the truthers would have made up whatever excuse they needed to in order to hoodwink people into thinking why the plane hitting any of the five sections would be suspicious. If it wasn't that "wing A was mostly empty" it would be because "some relevent person was at wing B who needed to be assassinated" (like the way they're done with John Oneill), and if not that, it would be because "wing C had computer systems that contained incriminating evidence that needed to be destroyed" (like the way they've done with WTC 7). If those theories about alternate realities are true and the plane hit wing D instead, right now you and I are discussing whether or not "the plane intentionally hit wing D because it was at the optimum angle that kept the number of credible witnesses of the impact at a minimum" (like the way they've done with the Shanksville crash).

I understand your point, but the whole "mostly empty section" bit is actually a fact, and it's a fact that seemed odd to me on that day, not after I'd been hoodwinked by anyone. Also odd that you've been able to find facts to back up the other conspiracy theories you mentioned. Do you really think the story of John O'Neill isn't weird? The more you look into it, the weirder it gets.

b) Noone is refuting that witnesses heard explosions. The question to be answered is whether the explosions were from explosives or from flammable objects known to have been in the buildings that would naturally go BOOM while on fire...electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, fuel tanks, and the like. What concerns me is the steadfast refusal of the truthers to address the fact that no hard evidence exists anywhere of any supposed explosives, but it's an irrefutable fact that the building did in fact contain items that would go BOOM when on fire.

I acknowledge the fact that no hard evidence exists. I also note that there's a ridiculous amount of circumstantial evidence that does exist. Anyway, I was again referring to the things that made me initially suspicious, and not citing proof of anything. When I see a lot of witnesses talking about explosives, and then realize that no one ever investigated explosives, that seems weird.

c) the fact that Bush acted oddly throughout the 9/11 attack illustrates the case that he was little boy sent to Washington to do a man's job and he was failing miserably at it, more than it does culpability. The same goes for how they knew it was al Qaida so quickly- the gov't almost certainly has more information about the 9/11 attack than what it's admitting to, but they're keeping mum because they don't want to admit their incompetence got 3000 people killed. I certainly can give you as many examples of prior gov't incompetence as you want.

I'm definitely not going to argue against the incompetence of government in general or President Bush in particular. Those are definitely possible explanations.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty, but it still strikes me that you're intentionally gravitating toward these conspiracy scenarios rather than judging both possibilities with equal critical analysis.

Right back at ya. Both sides of that statement. From my perspective, you're intentionally embracing the assumptions that are most palatable to you, and refusing to consider scenarios that you find uncomfortable. They're all possible explanations, but you haven't proved any of them, and you've still only refuted the conspiracy theories by arguing from incredulity.

...certain events still have established rules to follow because physics necessarily apply to conspiracies just as it does everything else.

Agreed.

Controlled demolitions for example are set up to attack the weak points of a specific structure to make the structure fall straight down, which necessarily means these controlled demolitions must have been at the specific weak points in the towers.

And yet you're willing to assume, without any proof, that uncontrolled fires and structural damage would simultaneously affect all of the specific weak points in the towers so as to cause the structures to fall virtually straight down? If it's difficult to achieve that via controlled demolition, it should be difficult to achieve it via uncontrolled fire damage, right? Especially three times in a row.

reply to post by magicrat


That " mostly empty section "of the Pentagon sustained 125 fatalities. What "seemed odd" to you at the time ?