9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, here is a question for you - if you are theorizing that the collapse violated some law of momentum/conservation of energy...then how did it happen? What you are proposing would mean that there was an incredibly massive outside force thrusting down upon the building as it collapsed... what do you propose could do that without A) Being visible B) Violently detonating upon hitting the ground C) being noticed and reported by people in the building before the collapse occurred? If what you say is true, and the buildings DID fall faster than they physically should have been capable of in free-fall, then what CAUSED the initial structural failure is irrelevant compared to whatever invisible alien superforce was pushing down upon the building in such a way.

The wild theories just don't really make sense... especially the controlled demolitions one... we witnessed the two planes impact, we know they were much larger than the buildings were meant to withstand, we know that the fuel within them burned incredibly hot... it seems like a rather simple addition of logic to see that, as the metal bracing failed from the intense heat of the burning fuel and other materials, the structural integrity started to fail and, once it hit a certain point, total collapse was inevitable.

As for the video... he is using loops of paper in one experiment, and then tooth picks (or thin wooden dowel rods) in the other - neither of which have the material properties of steel subjected to extreme heat. Granted, I am at work and unable to watch the video with sound (I will watch it again when I return home) so I could be missing part of his point there, but a cursory glance makes it seem rather... inaccurate
 
Kittamaru said:
Okay, here is a question for you - if you are theorizing that the collapse violated some law of momentum/conservation of energy...then how did it happen?
Click to expand...

I did not invent the conservation of momentum. I did not invent skyscrapers.

Why shouldn't the engineering schools have to demonstrate that what happened on 9/11 was possible?

But how many have not officially said anything about it in TWELVE YEARS?

I actually don't give a damn what did it. But engineering schools not mentioning the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower is really curious.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
I did not invent the conservation of momentum. I did not invent skyscrapers.

Why shouldn't the engineering schools have to demonstrate that what happened on 9/11 was possible?

But how many have not officially said anything about it in TWELVE YEARS?

I actually don't give a damn what did it. But engineering schools not mentioning the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower is really curious.

psik
Click to expand...

Not really... I mean, the tilting of it would be interesting if the building had remained standing, because fixing that would have been an engineering nightmare... as it was, the fact that it was off-center didn't matter. It still hit the floor below it as it fell and imparted enough force to start a total collapse.
 
Kittamaru said:
Not really... I mean, the tilting of it would be interesting if the building had remained standing, because fixing that would have been an engineering nightmare... as it was, the fact that it was off-center didn't matter. It still hit the floor below it as it fell and imparted enough force to start a total collapse.
Click to expand...

But the core supported 53% of the buildings weight according to the NIST. Where was the center of mass relative to the core.

The problem with this debate is that the people who can just BELIEVE the videos don't need anything explained and don't need correct data. But anyone who doesn't just believe the videos does not deserve any explanations.

So no models that can actually collapse need to be demonstrated by experts but in fact most of the experts are saying NOTHING.

Of course it would be a serious social problem if it was PROVEN that the collapses were not possible. All of the people who said they were for the last 12 years would be proven idiots.

No don't build those models!

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Why shouldn't the engineering schools have to demonstrate that what happened on 9/11 was possible?
Click to expand...

Cause it's already been done. Lots of things you might want them to do; generally they don't do them unless they add value for their students.

But how many have not officially said anything about it in TWELVE YEARS?
Click to expand...

How many have not officially said anything about the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in THIRTY YEARS? Either 1) it doesn't need to be analyzed over and over, because the analysis done was valid or 2) there's a massive government coverup concerning nanothermite and hologram-generating missiles.

But engineering schools not mentioning the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower is really curious.
Click to expand...

And engineering schools not mentioning the investigation into Jack D. Gillum is equally curious (i.e. not at all curious.)
 
psikeyhackr said:
But the core supported 53% of the buildings weight according to the NIST. Where was the center of mass relative to the core.

The problem with this debate is that the people who can just BELIEVE the videos don't need anything explained and don't need correct data. But anyone who doesn't just believe the videos does not deserve any explanations.

So no models that can actually collapse need to be demonstrated by experts but in fact most of the experts are saying NOTHING.

Of course it would be a serious social problem if it was PROVEN that the collapses were not possible. All of the people who said they were for the last 12 years would be proven idiots.

No don't build those models!

psik
Click to expand...

Again... what part of the collapse was supposedly impossible?

The core being off center doesn't matter, nor is it overly surprising - the buildings integrity was SEVERELY compromised, originating on one side and into the middle. It makes sense that it would lean over due to the lack of support on that side!
 
Kittamaru said:
Again... what part of the collapse was supposedly impossible?
Click to expand...

There were three supposed collapses and they were not all the same. I say the one most easy to prove impossible is the north tower. Too small a portion could not destroy the much larger part.

The core being off center doesn't matter, nor is it overly surprising - the buildings integrity was SEVERELY compromised, originating on one side and into the middle. It makes sense that it would lean over due to the lack of support on that side!
Click to expand...

But the issue with the south tower is different. If the top had fallen down the side then the lower portion would have remained intact. So why did it tilt so far and stop? Knowing the location of the center of mass is necessary to analyse what should have happened on the basis of the forces we know about. So why didn't it fall down the side on the basis of what we know?

So why have no structural engineers or physicists even discussed the center of mass in TWELVE YEARS? We don't even get info on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Of course if we had that data we could locate the center of mass.

The curious thing is why so many people don't want to KNOW!

If what the believers think is true then why don't they want the data to PROVE IT?

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
There were three supposed collapses and they were not all the same. I say the one most easy to prove impossible is the north tower. Too small a portion could not destroy the much larger part.



But the issue with the south tower is different. If the top had fallen down the side then the lower portion would have remained intact. So why did it tilt so far and stop? Knowing the location of the center of mass is necessary to analyse what should have happened on the basis of the forces we know about. So why didn't it fall down the side on the basis of what we know?

So why have no structural engineers or physicists even discussed the center of mass in TWELVE YEARS? We don't even get info on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Of course if we had that data we could locate the center of mass.

The curious thing is why so many people don't want to KNOW!

If what the believers think is true then why don't they want the data to PROVE IT?

psik
Click to expand...

Why did it tilt so far, then stop? Simple - the other three sides were still connected, and thus it could only move so far before it ended up pulling on the rest of the (still firmly anchored to the ground) building.
 
Kittamaru said:
Why did it tilt so far, then stop? Simple - the other three sides were still connected, and thus it could only move so far before it ended up pulling on the rest of the (still firmly anchored to the ground) building.
Click to expand...

People that believe crap but don't analyse anything can think it is simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

All you have to do is look at the pictures and think about the angles to conclude that you are talking nonsense.

I guess this shows how smart most Americans are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
People that believe crap but don't analyse anything can think it is simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

All you have to do is look at the pictures and think about the angles to conclude that you are talking nonsense.

I guess this shows how smart most Americans are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

psik
Click to expand...

Okay, that video made me sick... the stupid shaking camera effect they added was terrible and unnecessary. None the less, I watched it and it seems to, if anything, support what I am saying in terms of what you see. The building started to rotate, then as the remaining structure "caught", it ceased rotating as it collapsed. Again, I don't see why you are saying this makes the collapse impossible... it tilted, then fell, onto itself...
 
psikeyhackr

There were three supposed collapses and they were not all the same. I say the one most easy to prove impossible is the north tower. Too small a portion could not destroy the much larger part.
Click to expand...

But it fell anyway. In science a theory that does not describe reality is pretty well busted. Those buildings fell because they obeyed the laws of physics. Two of them which were identical in nearly every respect fell from the same cause on the same day. Tower Two had more mass above the fire zone, so it fell first. Tower one's steel held out twice as long because it had half the weight above it's fire zone. And Tower 7 was hit by debris and burned for over 7 hours before it's own steel failed. All three buildings were of the same type, perimeter steel frames and central cores, with lightweight truss floors.

But the issue with the south tower is different. If the top had fallen down the side then the lower portion would have remained intact. So why did it tilt so far and stop?
Click to expand...

The damage to Tower 2 was asymmetric, the fires concentrated along one side and a corner. When that one side failed by folding inward the top tilted. This introduced a torque in the upper block, pivoting around the CG, which never moved(too massive, it would take the power of a small nuclear bomb to move that mass sideways enough to miss the rest of the building). This caused the top to go one way and the bottom to go another, shearing all the steel to steel connections in the original collapse area. The steel bypassed each other as the center of gravity dropped straight down(though the top hat did mostly miss the core, unlike in Tower 1, allowing more of it to survive the initial collapse. Though it did not cause the collapse, most of the floors below the collapse zone in both Towers were found pancaked into the basement with all the other rubble on top of them, their connections stripped from the inside on almost all of the steel outer frame and the core steel.

So why have no structural engineers or physicists even discussed the center of mass in TWELVE YEARS?
Click to expand...

Because they have no doubts that there was no force available that COULD move the center of gravity that far, short of a nuclear weapon, which would have blown it right over(and likely a good bit of the neighborhood). Those buildings had a footprint of an acre, the top weight tens of thousands of tons, you would have to move it 140 ft to get half of it off the side, in just a second or two, you do the math. The building was already crumbling, there was no hinge as all the steel was separated by shear forces, the fell past each other, disconnected. That CG never moved until it started dropping straight down. The only result of the tipping is that the top hat(the single biggest piece of steel in the whole building)did not hit the core squarely.

I did not invent the conservation of momentum. I did not invent skyscrapers.
Click to expand...

No, you just invent controversy where there is none in adult non-Troother society. We are satisfied those buildings fell due to the planes we saw fly into them and the fires we saw, too. Say whatever you like about Darth Cheney and his Alfred E Newman clone Shrub, but that is what the physics tell us is most likely.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
No, you just invent controversy where there is none in adult non-Troother society. We are satisfied those buildings fell due to the planes we saw fly into them and the fires we saw, too. Say whatever you like about Darth Cheney and his Alfred E Newman clone Shrub, but that is what the physics tell us is most likely.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...

There is no controversy because so many dummies don't bother getting their facts straight.

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=256425&postcount=14

psik
 
Kittamaru said:
You... are attempting to use an appeal to authority via one of your own posts on another forum?
Click to expand...

Does complaining about what you regard as a debating strategy change the information?

There are several videos that talk about the design of normal grid skyscrapers in relation to the WTC. But i have not seen a single one say how many columns a grid skyscraper the size of the WTC would have. They only say the columns would be 30 feet apart.

So come up with a Authority that disputes my Authority and quit complaining about the technique. Doesn't Authority say that gravitational acceleration is 9.81 meters per second? I don't hear anyone disagreeing with that.

That post contains links to videos. I was being efficient, sometimes known as lazy.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Does complaining about what you regard as a debating strategy change the information?

There are several videos that talk about the design of normal grid skyscrapers in relation to the WTC. But i have not seen a single one say how many columns a grid skyscraper the size of the WTC would have. They only say the columns would be 30 feet apart.

So come up with a Authority that disputes my Authority and quit complaining about the technique. Doesn't Authority say that gravitational acceleration is 9.81 meters per second? I don't hear anyone disagreeing with that.

That post contains links to videos. I was being efficient, sometimes known as lazy.

psik
Click to expand...

I CAN'T come up with anything to dispute your claim, because at this point I don't even know WHAT your claim IS! All I know is you keep rambling on about how the one section tilted... nobody is disputing that. It was obvious that it did. The question I have is - so what? It tilted... it still fell and impacted the floors below, and brought the rest of the building down.
 
Kittamaru said:
I CAN'T come up with anything to dispute your claim, because at this point I don't even know WHAT your claim IS! All I know is you keep rambling on about how the one section tilted... nobody is disputing that. It was obvious that it did. The question I have is - so what? It tilted... it still fell and impacted the floors below, and brought the rest of the building down.
Click to expand...

Well it is not my fault if you do not understand what a "center of mass" is.

psik
 
psikeyhackr

Well it is not my fault if you do not understand what a "center of mass" is.
Click to expand...

We do. But what does that mean? The center of mass of such a big building portion is not going to move on it's own(and we know that it did not move, it fell straight down). So what's your claim about the CG? If you think it should have moved, what huge expenditure of energy are you proposing moved it? From what source? Why did we not see it? And why did the CG fall straight down?

Grumpy:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top