9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
psikeyhackr

Oh yeah, like you did it without accurate data on the distributions of mass of steel and concrete down the towers.
Click to expand...

You obviously can read and understand English, so I'm baffled by the oft repeated claim that we don't know the distributions of mass(steel and concrete)on every floor of the WTC and for the whole building above ground. The NIST reports lists every ton of it. Is it some strange form of Dyslexia? Is it that the only information you can process must come from sites where everyone is similarly afflicted? It it "Trootherism Disease"(the inability to discern valid info from woo)? Because the information you say is unavailable is. Structurally, there was no concrete above ground except in the three machinery floors, and the floors in the mostly empty area around the elevators in the core. All the other floors had no structural function beyond being the floor. And the mass distribution of the floors below the damage are irrelevant to the collapse.

That is the hilarious part about it. No one can do it without that data. It is called the Conservation of Momentum.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know what that means. Because conservation of momentum is exactly why the towers fell. Once the damaged steel reached a temperature where it started to fail and the top block started to move downward not even the pyramids could stop it after just one floor(12 feet). And even the strongest steel beams cannot give any support while they are falling past each other after detaching. The floors might as well have been paper, they provided no resistance at all.

But after 12 years even people with degrees in physics would look ridiculous asking about it. Why didn't they ask in 2002?
Click to expand...

The people who have degrees in physics were probably well aware of why those buildings fell, some of them worked at NIST and it's all there in that exhaustive report. Speculate all you like about who flew the aircraft and why, but we know why the buildings collapsed, some assholes flew 250,000 lbs of aircraft and fuel into them at near 500 mph(actually anyone with more than two functioning synapses knows that).

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
I'm not sure you know what that means. Because conservation of momentum is exactly why the towers fell. Once the damaged steel reached a temperature where it started to fail and the top block started to move downward not even the pyramids could stop it after just one floor(12 feet). And even the strongest steel beams cannot give any support while they are falling past each other after detaching. The floors might as well have been paper, they provided no resistance at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure why he brought that up either.
 
psikeyhackr said:
It is called the Conservation of Momentum.
Click to expand...

In grade 10, they'll teach you that a system's momentum is conserved only when no net external forces are applied, which isn't the case when you're dealing with gravity, an attractive force that pulls things toward the center of the Earth and makes apples fall.
 
CptBork said:
In grade 10, they'll teach you that a system's momentum is conserved only when no net external forces are applied, which isn't the case when you're dealing with gravity, an attractive force that pulls things toward the center of the Earth and makes apples fall.
Click to expand...

The Conservation of Momentum does not disappear because of that. It just means more factors are involved.

It means that since the buildings stood against gravity for 28 years energy must be expended to break the supports. So how did the north tower come down in less than triple free fall time. The bottom of the building had to be stronger and heavier than the falling top. Why hasn't this been tested experimentally by now?

If collapse was possible then it should not be that difficult to prove. An arrest isn't difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

[46,103]
psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
The bottom of the building had to be stronger and heavier than the falling top.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if I were to join you in building lego towers while you come up with your conspiracy theories, the lego blocks at the bottom of the tower are stronger and heavier than the ones at the top?
 
psikeyhackr

It means that since the buildings stood against gravity for 28 years energy must be expended to break the supports.
Click to expand...

First, the supports were not much stronger than needed to hold the building against gravity and wind loads, about 150% needed strength.

Second those buildings were tube within tube buildings with an elevator core and a perimeter frame. Floors were simple trusses with pans and four inches of lightweight concrete. They were attached to the perimeter and the core and were designed to hold that floor's loads and transfer it to the perimeter and the core. The floors did not hold the weight of floors above them, only their own and a safety factor of 2. ONLY THE PERIMETER FRAME STEEL AND THE COLUMNS IN THE CORE GOT STRONGER AS YOU WENT DOWN.

Third, did you see the 250,000 lbs planes fly into them at almost 500 mph, is that not energy? And what about the multi-floor fires the fuel set off? Not energy? The buildings actually survived the impacts, without the fire softening the remaining steel it is possible they could have been repaired. Asymmetric damage and fire in vulnerable areas stripped of the foam fireproofing on the steel did the rest.

So how did the north tower come down in less than triple free fall time.
Click to expand...

It's called gravity, once the top block fell 12 feet the momentum was above any possible resistance in the frames, which were busy disassembling themselves doing away with ANY remaining strength anyway. The floors were already halfway to the ground inside the tube of the outer frame by that point. That outside frame peeled off and fell in chunks, the core columns stood a few seconds more before debris kicked their legs sideways. The steel was designed to hold the building up against 1.5 g acceleration(gravity is 1 g acceleration). Once the top block dropped 12 feet it's weight plus it's momentum of falling exceeded that figure, the top block in Tower 1 fell through three floors before it encountered intact and undamaged structure, about 40 feet. In Tower 2, the steel on one side failed, dropping that side first, this rotated the top block, the bottom sheared all connections and it fell. In both cases momentum crushed all possible resistance and disassociation took much of the resisting ability away(steel beams falling past each other provide zero strength, they must remain attached to do that). Thus near freefall speed.

If collapse was possible then it should not be that difficult to prove. An arrest isn't difficult.
Click to expand...

NIST did provide the best understanding of the initiation of the collapses, and once initiated arrest was impossible in that particular building type's collapse. The Empire State Building would have probably survived, it is steel reinforced concrete lattice.

Grumpy:cool:
 
$1000 reward offered to anyone who can successfully argue official 911 story

Dr. David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University) wins the Debate
No physicists show up to support the official government story of 9/11
not even for the $1000 prize

Dr. Griscom donated his prize to the New Independent Dust Study
to add to the 20 studies published in peer reviewed independent scientific journals
w w w . 911CA. o r g and w w w .JournalOf911Studies. o r g

Announcing the debate on the Dr. Kevin Barrett Show:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e. c o m/watch?v=X1yogXSpyFM

The 9/11 Physics Debate:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e. c o m/watch?v=_m8XaLdGKBw


About Dr. David Griscom:

Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-Garc�*a Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

Dr. Griscom was selected by NASA as a Principal Investigator, to determine the chemical content of Moon rock, a very competitive position. He has published 194 papers in peer reviewed independent scientific journals.
 
eric_tull said:
$1000 reward offered to anyone who can successfully argue official 911 story

Dr. David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University) wins the Debate
No physicists show up to support the official government story of 9/11
not even for the $1000 prize

Dr. Griscom donated his prize to the New Independent Dust Study
to add to the 20 studies published in peer reviewed independent scientific journals
w w w . 911CA. o r g and w w w .JournalOf911Studies. o r g

Announcing the debate on the Dr. Kevin Barrett Show:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e. c o m/watch?v=X1yogXSpyFM

The 9/11 Physics Debate:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e. c o m/watch?v=_m8XaLdGKBw


About Dr. David Griscom:

Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-Garc�*a Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

Dr. Griscom was selected by NASA as a Principal Investigator, to determine the chemical content of Moon rock, a very competitive position. He has published 194 papers in peer reviewed independent scientific journals.
Click to expand...

So? This just goes to prove that ANYONE can be a fool.
 
eric_tull said:
It seems to me that it proves that nobody is prepared to argue their case on a televised forum and win $1000 and a great deal of Kudos. I think that the challenge is still open.
Click to expand...

Really?

Heh-heh! $1000 is practically nothing. Talk them into raising that to $10,000 or $100,000 and you'd most likely get some action. No one is interested in a single thousand.
 
eric_tull said:
About Dr. David Griscom:

Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-Garc�*a Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

Dr. Griscom was selected by NASA as a Principal Investigator, to determine the chemical content of Moon rock, a very competitive position. He has published 194 papers in peer reviewed independent scientific journals.
Click to expand...

See, here's a classic example of why it's good to do the hard work involved in getting a good science education. If you're mathematically and scientifically illiterate, you have no ability to discern the veracity and logical consistency of a claim, and are stuck going on appeals to authority and popularity contests. If Einstein says the world is plagued by a zombie curse and it can only be cured by sending him all your money, as a scientifically illiterate moron who can't think for themselves, your world appears to be full of spooky magic and you're simply S.O.L.
 
psikeyhackr said:
The Conservation of Momentum does not disappear because of that. It just means more factors are involved.

It means that since the buildings stood against gravity for 28 years energy must be expended to break the supports. So how did the north tower come down in less than triple free fall time.
Click to expand...

Answer: it didn't.

Where do I write to for my $1000 bucks?
 
psikeyhackr said:
It means that since the buildings stood against gravity for 28 years energy must be expended to break the supports. So how did the north tower come down in less than triple free fall time. The bottom of the building had to be stronger and heavier than the falling top. Why hasn't this been tested experimentally by now?

If collapse was possible then it should not be that difficult to prove. An arrest isn't difficult.
Click to expand...

#1: Where do you get the elapsed time of collapse? Most people look at the outsides and not when the building started to cave in on the inside first.
#2: If your claim about "less than triple free fall time" is true, why do you think that's not possible?
#3: Do you agree that when wind resistance is negligible, a one-tonne iron ball falls to Earth at the same rate as a 1lb plastic ball?
 
If both were dropped from a height, which falls faster, a Tonne of Feathers or a Tonne of Lead?

The rate of fall for the most part is the same with the only difference being "Resistance", in the case of the two Tonne's that would just be atmospheric pressure, in the case of a falling building that the make up of it's structure is what generates resistance. A building would never be able to collapse any faster than what it's composite would fall at, if anything it would be slower. To claim something collapses faster than it could fall would suggest that it had to have additional forces applying to a collapse other than gravity (Like for instance pointing attached rockets to shoot the top floor downwards, which should be obvious as being quite ludicrous).

Any buildings taken down using explosives only use the explosives to break the structure apart to remove the resistance and allow gravity to do the work of demolishing it.

The building fell at a normal rate, if it fell a bit slow it would just be down to resistant forces.
 
Stryder said:
If both were dropped from a height, which falls faster, a Tonne of Feathers or a Tonne of Lead?

The rate of fall for the most part is the same with the only difference being "Resistance", in the case of the two Tonne's that would just be atmospheric pressure, in the case of a falling building that the make up of it's structure is what generates resistance. A building would never be able to collapse any faster than what it's composite would fall at, if anything it would be slower. To claim something collapses faster than it could fall would suggest that it had to have additional forces applying to a collapse other than gravity (Like for instance pointing attached rockets to shoot the top floor downwards, which should be obvious as being quite ludicrous).

Any buildings taken down using explosives only use the explosives to break the structure apart to remove the resistance and allow gravity to do the work of demolishing it.

The building fell at a normal rate, if it fell a bit slow it would just be down to resistant forces.
Click to expand...

Who are you accusing of saying what?

I said it came down in Less Than TRIPLE free fall time.

Free fall time would be 9.22 seconds. Wikipedia says it came down in 25 seconds.

What is the problem?

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
It means that since the buildings stood against gravity for 28 years energy must be expended to break the supports. So how did the north tower come down in less than triple free fall time.
Click to expand...
Through the kinetic energy of the upper mass of the building pulverizing it.
The bottom of the building had to be stronger and heavier than the falling top.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. (Although many are.)
Why hasn't this been tested experimentally by now?
Click to expand...
Go for it! Build another one and fly a plane into it.
 
psikeyhackr said:
Who are you accusing of saying what?

I said it came down in Less Than TRIPLE free fall time.

Free fall time would be 9.22 seconds. Wikipedia says it came down in 25 seconds.

What is the problem?

psik
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that the WTC - both of them, mind - fell down in more than free-fall time.

Let's be clear here: this is your position. You can't take it back now. The WTC fell in more than free fall time. You're saying three times more.

Aaaand we're done with that one! WTC was a simple collapse, not the result of a demolition, which Troofers claim because they say it went down in free fall. But it didn't - it went down in much, much more time than free fall!

So, 'demolitions claim': done! We can move on to the next proposition on offer from the 9/11 Troof Movement. Which one did you want to pursue? Several of us have already dealt with the plane parts craze, and the Pentagon being hit by a plane and so forth, so I'm not sure what you'd like to cover next. Something about the radios, I think it was?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top