How Dangerous is 9/11 Truth?

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
There weren't even real planes that hit the buildings on 911.

The above video is undeniable and just a part of the vast pool of evidence and proof of 911 video fakery.

A real airliner could not destroy the towers in two hours so I don't bother with the CGI business.

It just adds more psychological BS to the issue.

psik

9/11 is the most obviously Stupid BIG LIE in human history.

That is why it is globally psychologically dangerous if people UNDERSTAND it is a lie.

That is why the physics profession will look so ridiculous if people comprehend the grade school physics.

The so called Conspiracy Theorists are not dangerous because they can't prove any of their theories. The conspiracies are irrelevant even if they are true. It is the physics which dictates that the people with PhDs in physics should have explained why airliners could not do that in 2002. So why have we had 10 years of nonsense?

Do some people have a vested interest in pretending that Newtonian Physics is far more difficult than it really is?

But that is not the only area where European education does this. What happened to the depreciation of all of the consumer automobiles in the last 50 years? In dollar value that is a far bigger deal than 9/11. Funny how economists do not discuss planned obsolescence.

psik

What I would like to know, is, what exactly are your qualifications to make such proclamations? You are putting yourself over the actual experts and professionals at NIST, ASCE, FEMA, ICE and numerous other engineering and construction companies that investigated or studied the events on 9/11, and found no mystery or real faults with the reports given by NIST.

How can you say physics were "ignored" or such nonsense, when pretty much there is general consensus on how the buildings collapsed and why? Where is ASCE or ICE and why don't they find the collapses suspicious or against the laws of physics? Let me guess, they are all in on it too? Or being hushed up by evil powers?

Originally posted by GenRadek
What I would like to know, is, what exactly are your qualifications to make such proclamations? You are putting yourself over the actual experts and professionals at NIST, ASCE, FEMA, ICE and numerous other engineering and construction companies that investigated or studied the events on 9/11, and found no mystery or real faults with the reports given by NIST.

This is why 9/11 Truth is so dangerous.

The people who need AUTHORITY to tell them what to think about grade school physics can't deal with the emperor having no clothes. But they regard themselves as intelligent and expect everyone to think like them.

Anyone can download the NIST report and search it to see if it specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers or either tower. Anyone can search it to see if it says anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

It is not my fault if most people do not comprehend enough grade school physics to understand if that information is important. So this entire business depends on ignorance and I suspect willful stupidity.

It is not my fault if people won't think for themselves about grade school physics.

But where have any of your authorities built a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less. I built my demonstration that anyone can duplicate.

www.youtube.com...

Yeah it's paper loops but it is only 4 pounds. Each tower was over 400,000 tons. Is everybody saying that steel is easier to crush in relation to paper, relative to the weight it can support? I deliberately made my tower as weak as possible. That is not how skyscrapers are designed.

Shouldn't engineering schools that charge over $100,000 for four years of education be able to build and test bigger and better models than mine? But they don't even mention doing such a thing. Everyone is supposed to be in awe of AUTHORITY.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. Why does Gregory Urich, a programmer in Sweden have to do it and get it wrong. He admits he interpolated the perimeter columns.

Curious how you can't find that info on any skyscraper.

psik

Originally posted by GenRadek
What I would like to know, is, what exactly are your qualifications to make such proclamations? You are putting yourself over the actual experts and professionals at NIST, ASCE, FEMA, ICE and numerous other engineering and construction companies that investigated or studied the events on 9/11, and found no mystery or real faults with the reports given by NIST.

You aren't going to get an answer to that. I've asked him that at least three times and he's consistantly avoided answering. By now it's blatantly obvious Psikey is just basing his position on his own personal opinion rather than on actual physics study. If Psikey had any genuine background in physics he could take a stab at reverse engineering whatever it was he was trying to discuss instead of repeating the exact same thing over and over.

This is the same reason why Richard Gage's position fails. All it would take for him to prove his case is to reverse engineer the collapse of the buildings to show where these controlled demolitions had to have been placed and he refuses to do it even though (according to him) he's the most qualified and resourced person to do it.

Instead, Gage simply comes up with twenty films that explore new and exciting ways of repeating the exact same thing over and over. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You aren't going to get an answer to that. I've asked him that at least three times and he's consistantly avoided answering. By now it's blatantly obvious Psikey is just basing his position on his own personal opinion rather than on actual physics study. If Psikey had any genuine background in physics he could take a stab at reverse engineering whatever it was he was trying to discuss instead of repeating the exact same thing over and over.

Electrical engineering does not cover structural engineering but it does require physics courses. I admit that I have never taken a course in structural engineering. Where is the structural engineer who has built a model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?

Since this is a grade school physics problem anyway I see no point in playing credential games.

But I keep pointing out that missing concrete and center of mass information an nobody is refuting me I see. No one has in the years I have been pointing it out.

Everyone is supposed to pamper the minds of people who don't want to think for themselves. Are our schools designed to produce people who cannot think for themselves.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Electrical engineering does not cover structural engineering but it does require physics courses. I admit that I have never taken a course in structural engineering. Where is the structural engineer who has built a model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?

Ah, so your background is in electrical engineering. It would have saved about a year in bickering if you had come clean in the beginning.

Not that it matters, since the point I made still stands. You can get the blueprints of the towers off of Gage's web site, and you have five miles of footage taken from every angle that shows exactly how the towers fell. Why DON'T you take a stab at trying to come up with an explanation to that question you keep asking a million times? You're giving us the impression you're more interested in asking the question than you are getting an answer for it.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
There weren't even real planes that hit the buildings on 911.

The above video is undeniable and just a part of the vast pool of evidence and proof of 911 video fakery.

A real airliner could not destroy the towers in two hours so I don't bother with the CGI business.

It just adds more psychological BS to the issue.

psik

No, it is the only tangible proof of conspiracy there is, and it also proves the role of the media.

Everyone should bother with the CGI business because it is the blatant proof.

The 911 event was meant to be disclosed eventually. At that time they will discuss the origin of the project, not argue out at the branches and leaves where emotive rhetoric can win.

This must have been a huge NWO planned obsolescence project. The towers were non mason construction built from components custom made in Japan that would be prone to repeat wind load stress failure. The demolition was originally planned for 2002.

There are historical truths that would have a much larger consequence if not disclosed properly, the engineers already have a leg up on the rest of the population with 911 so any SHTF potential is limited.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not that it matters, since the point I made still stands. You can get the blueprints of the towers off of Gage's web site, and you have five miles of footage taken from every angle that shows exactly how the towers fell. Why DON'T you take a stab at trying to come up with an explanation to that question you keep asking a million times? You're giving us the impression you're more interested in asking the question than you are getting an answer for it.

The blueprints do not show the horizontal beams in the core even though they have the toilets.

What have the structural engineers you make a big deal about said about the beams in the core?

Oh yeah, NOTHING!

You are just repeating the usual irrelevant BS.

The videos show the towers DESTRUCTION. You ASSUME they could fall.

Anyone can do the grade school physics experiments for themselves. Even the structural engineers.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not that it matters, since the point I made still stands. You can get the blueprints of the towers off of Gage's web site, and you have five miles of footage taken from every angle that shows exactly how the towers fell. Why DON'T you take a stab at trying to come up with an explanation to that question you keep asking a million times? You're giving us the impression you're more interested in asking the question than you are getting an answer for it.

The blueprints do not show the horizontal beams in the core even though they have the toilets.

What have the structural engineers you make a big deal about said about the beams in the core?

Oh yeah, NOTHING!

So what hypothesis do you have that explains what happened to the beams in the core? To be more precise, what happened to THIS core column? You must have some idea, seeing you keep repeating "grade school physics" over and over like you were an authority on the subject..

The videos show the towers DESTRUCTION. You ASSUME they could fall.

Ummmm no I'm not *assuming* the towers fell. The towers actually fell. You can't pretend it didn't fall because you're short circuiting trying to figure out how it fell.

Now how about it? What caused this core column to wind up in this condition?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Do you have a source for that pic?

Never mind, found it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So what hypothesis do you have that explains what happened to the beams in the core? To be more precise, what happened to THIS core column? You must have some idea, seeing you keep repeating "grade school physics" over and over like you were an authority on the subject..

I have said repeatedly that we don't have data on the beams in the core. That is part of the problem with analysing this business.

I have never tried to explain what did happen, I just said airliners could not do it. The upper mass of the north tower could not force down the lower mass in less than 26 seconds.

It is like you can't comprehend eliminating a negative but insist that people explain the positive.

So if they can't come up with an alternative positive you insist that the negative must be true.

Great logic you have there. Like everyone is supposed to get emotional about your pictures. That just means whatever actually did it is unknown. Or at least not proven. Of course you will come up with some argument about the supposed nano-thermite. I don't have any of the dust or the equipment or knowledge to analyse it so I am not going to spend time arguing about that.

But I have already provided an experiment that anyone can duplicate. Yeah, I know it's paper and washers. But it is only 4 pounds. But accurate data on the distribution of steel down the buildings would have to include the beams in the core.

Curious how the physics profession didn't bring that up in 2002. Of course they will look stupid asking about it now.

So actually 9/11 gets more ridiculous with every passing year. The nation that put men on the Moon can't explain the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers. But we don't have that data on any skyscraper anywhere in the world. Very strange for grade school physics.

So you insist that people with relevant degrees tell you what to think but then you don't care if those people leave out obviously relevant information. So it comes down to your refusing to think about a simple problem for yourself and expect everyone else to be just as silly.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I have said repeatedly that we don't have data on the beams in the core. That is part of the problem with analysing this business.

Not true. You do have data on the beam in the core- this photo of one of the beams in the core that was recovered from ground zero, and as you can see, it's chock full of information about the makeup of the core columns and what sort of stresses it encountered during the collapse. I'm simply asking you to give me your "grade school physics" observations.

Here, I'll even give you one of my own observations to start the ball rolling- this column was hollow, and as such the column behaved and reacted differently during the collapse than a solid core column would have. Even students studying grade school physics would agree to that.

I have never tried to explain what did happen, I just said airliners could not do it. The upper mass of the north tower could not force down the lower mass in less than 26 seconds.

I'm not asking you what other people have said about the core columns, and I'm not asking you how airliners caused this core column to wind up this way. I'm asking you how YOU think this core column wound up this way.

It is like you can't comprehend eliminating a negative but insist that people explain the positive.

So if they can't come up with an alternative positive you insist that the negative must be true.

??? I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that because we can't answer question A we shouldn't even bother to try answering question B? That's an odd position for you to take, seeing that you're the one taking the time to build these elaborate paper models to explore your curiosity about...well, whatever it is you're trying to research.

So you insist that people with relevant degrees tell you what to think but then you don't care if those people leave out obviously relevant information. So it comes down to your refusing to think about a simple problem for yourself and expect everyone else to be just as silly.

Excuse me??? I'm asking, requesting, and even begging you to give us an explanation, any explanation at all, for what caused the condition of this core column, and not only have you said in your own words " I am not going to spend time arguing about it", you're actually claiming I'M the one who refuses to think about a simple problem for myself. Incredible. Simply incredible.

You know, I have a theory that you just skim over what other people post as you rush to reply and you simply don't care what anyone else is actually saying here. To test this, please repeat this word in your reply to let me know you've read it: WIGWAM.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm not sure why you are so focused on those bent beams.

Do they rule out controlled demolition? I can't see how they would.

Dave, what is your point?

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I'm not sure why you are so focused on those bent beams.

Do they rule out controlled demolition? I can't see how they would.

Dave, what is your point?

My point is that if the "controlled demolitions" theory is correct than this is one of the very core columns the controlled demolitions would have needed to sabotage. Otherwise they're not controlled demolitions. They're just bombs. Physics need to apply to conspiracy theories just as they do everyone else.

So under the controlled demolitions scenario, can you explain how explosives would have caused this core column to bend backwards, peel open like a banana, and snap cleanly at the joints, and all without any observable explosive strauma or blast marks? I can certainly explain how the natural mechanical forces of the collapse could have. The columns were HOLLOW, not SOLID. That right there holds the secret to why the building collapsed in the way it did.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


psikey,

your model has been shown to be flawed time and again, especially when in relation to the WTC collapses. Its odd because you acknowledge this and say it is not representative of the WTC collapses, but then you turn around and say because your structure didnt fully collapse, ergo, no way the WTC should have collapsed. That would be like me arguing that bullets cannot kill people, and then to demonstrate I throw a bullet at you, and say, "See? You didnt drop dead, ergo, no way bullets can kill people."

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

psikey,

your model has been shown to be flawed time and again, especially when in relation to the WTC collapses. Its odd because you acknowledge this and say it is not representative of the WTC collapses, but then you turn around and say because your structure didnt fully collapse, ergo, no way the WTC should have collapsed. That would be like me arguing that bullets cannot kill people, and then to demonstrate I throw a bullet at you, and say, "See? You didnt drop dead, ergo, no way bullets can kill people."

Well if the WTC could not collapse than how could anything be comparable to the so called "WTC collapses"?

So why hasn't anyone built a physical model that can collapse in ELEVEN YEARS?

My paper loops must support the static load. Every level in every skyscraper must do that. So a collapse from the top in a real skyscraper must accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports. My model demonstrates that both things cannot be done.

My model is deliberately as weak as possible relative to the static load. That is not how real skyscrapers are constructed. Admittedly my model is not a tube-in-tube structure like the WTC. But since no one has ever specified how strong the connections were around the floors relative to their weight there is no way anyone can build a decent tube-in-tube model on the basis of current information.

So all you can do is blather.

psik

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

It's pretty obvious to me that beam was bent when it was very hot. Bend cold steel and it will show cracks around the bend.

So how did that massive beam get hot enough to be malleable from office fires of one hour duration?

Even IF the fires reached 1000c, it would take far more than an hour for that heat to transfer to the steel.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

psikey,

your model has been shown to be flawed time and again, especially when in relation to the WTC collapses. Its odd because you acknowledge this and say it is not representative of the WTC collapses, but then you turn around and say because your structure didnt fully collapse, ergo, no way the WTC should have collapsed. That would be like me arguing that bullets cannot kill people, and then to demonstrate I throw a bullet at you, and say, "See? You didnt drop dead, ergo, no way bullets can kill people."

Well if the WTC could not collapse than how could anything be comparable to the so called "WTC collapses"?

So why hasn't anyone built a physical model that can collapse in ELEVEN YEARS?

My paper loops must support the static load. Every level in every skyscraper must do that. So a collapse from the top in a real skyscraper must accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports. My model demonstrates that both things cannot be done.

My model is deliberately as weak as possible relative to the static load. That is not how real skyscrapers are constructed. Admittedly my model is not a tube-in-tube structure like the WTC. But since no one has ever specified how strong the connections were around the floors relative to their weight there is no way anyone can build a decent tube-in-tube model on the basis of current information.

So all you can do is blather.

psik

The reason why they havent done so is, that, to the experts, the collapse is pretty much mustard after the meal. They wanted to find out what caused the START of the collapse, but unfortunately for you, they actually UNDERSTOOD that once the collapse started, nothing was going to stop it. They did not feel the need to go into another super detailed investigation to figure out that once the collapse started, it will fall down. The unique design of the building helped facilitate the total collapse and this has been brought up by other independent persons and organizations. But the point is that they had the way the building was designed in their hands and just from the blueprints, could see that the floor connections and the way it was built would not have been able to arrest the collapse.

Stop bringing up your experiment because it means diddly squat in the argument because it has no relevance at all. Your paper loops are the major flaws in the modeling. I suggested that you should have the washers supported by small toothpick tips glued to the inside of the tube to properly model the floor truss end connections. Your paper loops add more materials beneath the floor that slow the collapse down. The WTC Towers did not have such supports. The floors were free hanging between the exterior columns and interior columns. There was nothing underneath to hold up the floors like your paper loops. The floors were NOT holding up the floor above them. They just held up their weight. The exterior and interior columns gave the vertical strength. The floors merely helped keep the columns up and provided horizontal stability. They were not designed to take massive dynamic loads vertically. Many people have pointed this out to you but instead of being a good scientist conducting an experiment and fixing the errors and trying again you ignore any criticism and keep the flawed product. Great job. Just like Dr. Jones and his magic chips. His experiment was totally flawed and had erroneous results, but rather than fixing it and running it again after being pointed out the flaws, he refused and stuck with his garbage results. This is what you are doing. This is call "Bad Science". Your conclusion that "So a collapse from the top in a real skyscraper must accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports. My model demonstrates that both things cannot be done," is erroneous and flawed. You have failed with your garbage experiment. Again, care to take me up on the "Bullets cannot kill people" demonstration? I'll throw a bullet really really hard at you and we shall see if you drop dead. Then we shall find the truth about bullets. My experiment will prove that it is true: Bullets cannot kill people.