9/11 was an inside job

[Kittamaru]

Psikeyhackr, I'm going to throw the gauntlet down here:

YOU are the one making the claim that the center of gravity shifting a little makes a difference... thus it is up to YOU to provide evidence as to WHY this matters at all.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

Who is WE? Who do YOU speak for?

The many people tired of Troother lies and noise-making? The real scientists who understand that those buildings fell down due to damage, fire and gravity caused by idiots flying their planes into them for their god? Everyone who thinks it's time for you to move out of your mom's basement and grow up? Those who think forming reactionary, conspiracy-hoax-driven, circular firing squads after a national tragedy like 911 is counterproductive? Those who think an Idiocracy is all too close to becoming fact(two words President Palin)? Those who mourn critical thinking skills and those who think their opinions trump the facts? All of these people could be the "we" I was talking about.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

Psikeyhackr, I'm going to throw the gauntlet down here:

YOU are the one making the claim that the center of gravity shifting a little makes a difference... thus it is up to YOU to provide evidence as to WHY this matters at all.

In case you haven't noticed I have been pointing out that NO EXPERTS have been discussing where the center of mass was for 12 years.

Can you do trigonometry? The NIST said the top tilted 20 to 25 degrees. Richard Gage says 22 degrees. Frank Greening says 25 degrees in 5 seconds.

If the center of mass was in the exact center of a block 200 ft by 200 ft by 360 ft then a tilt of 22 degrees could move it horizontally by 67 feet. Since the core was 85 by 135 feet then moving the center of mass by as little as 43 feet could put it outside of the foot print of the core which the NIST said supported 53% of the weight.

Ever notice that you don't come up with any details about anything? But then you demand it.

psik

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

In case you haven't noticed I have been pointing out that NO EXPERTS have been discussing where the center of mass was for 12 years.

That's because there is absolutely no controversy about where it was or what it did. It's like getting excited because no one was discussing that there was air inside those buildings. Again, what's your point?

Can you do trigonometry? The NIST said the top tilted 20 to 25 degrees. Richard Gage says 22 degrees. Frank Greening says 25 degrees in 5 seconds.

Yes, it was a rotation around it's center of gravity, the top going one direction, the bottom the other. The CG never moved until it fell straight down. Again, what's your point?

If the center of mass was in the exact center of a block 200 ft by 200 ft by 360 ft then a tilt of 22 degrees could move it horizontally by 67 feet.

No, it was too large to move at all, while the top moved 30 some feet one way, the bottom moved nearly exactly the same distance in the other direction. There was no force available to even budge that CG until gravity took over, then that CG went straight down. And it was 280 ft x 280 ft(one full acre).

Like I said, the CG never moved and it dropped straight down on top of the rest of the building. Again, what's your point?

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, it was a rotation around it's center of gravity, the top going one direction, the bottom the other. The CG never moved until it fell straight down. Again, what's your point?

Yes, what happened is more complicated than just tilting. But if no one says where the center of mass was then how do we know it was around the center of mass? ROFL

You have a bit of a problem there Grump.

But all you have to do is watch the videos to see that 'b.' did not happen.

So how did it really happen. People are just coming up with bullsh!t excuses and dummies want to believe them. So for 12 years we still don't have people discussing something as simple as the center of mass. Very SCIENTIFIC!

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

*blink*

Okay... again, why does any of this matter? You are asking for them to spend money on fact-finding and simulations... why?

This is like asking them to "prove water is wet"... regardless that nobody has scientifically proven it, it doesn't matter - it is wet, that's what matters.

In this case, the building rotated, fell, and collapsed. That's what matters.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

Yes, what happened is more complicated than just tilting. But if no one says where the center of mass was then how do we know it was around the center of mass? ROFL

You have a bit of a problem there Grump.

It really does not matter where the exact center of gravity was, there was no available energy to make it move sideways wherever it was. And everything in the Universe rotates around it's center of gravity, that's how we find the CG in things, rotate it and look to see where the point that does not move is, that's the CG. The top portion moved exactly as my diagrams showed, when it tilted to one side momentum(through the CG)moved the bottom the other way and the CG stayed where it was until the failing steel dropped it, just like we see in every picture and film. It's just simple physics, things in motion continue in motion unless they are acted on by a force, things not in motion remain motionless unless acted on by a force. Was the CG moving when the building was standing? No. So what force are you proposing that would move those megatons sideways one single foot? The steel in the collapse zone sheared sideways in Tower 2(IE the hinge disintegrated), that's because the weight of the top moved sideways, the mass rotated around the CG and therefore the bottom moved a like amount the other way. So what force are you proposing, other than gravity(which pulls straight down), that would be able to move megatons sideways over 280 ft in order to miss the building?

The CG NEVER MOVED until gravity pulled it straight down. Simple physics. It would take energy equivalent to a small atomic bomb to move that mass sideways that far. Nothing in that structure would have survived the application of such force(that building was very fragile in other than the undisturbed, as-built condition and forces). You have a problem. Not only was there not any sideways force, the top block was seen to fall straight down. When your bitching doesn't conform to reality, it is your bitching that is at fault, not physics.

But all you have to do is watch the videos to see that 'b.' did not happen.

b is an exageration of the initial motion, c is what happened. The rotation was caused by asymmetric failure on one side(as illustrated by b), but the physics turned that initial failure into rotation around the CG as seen in c.

The steel sheared sideways, disconnecting and collapsing, the rest was all gravity.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

But all you have to do is watch the videos to see that 'b.' did not happen.

'b' happened. The tower tilted very slightly before the collapse began.

Don't believe me? From a TRUTHER site:

"When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above)."

 

[psikeyhackr]

*blink*

Okay... again, why does any of this matter?

From the man who can't do trigonometry.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

'b' happened. The tower tilted very slightly before the collapse began.

Don't believe me? From a TRUTHER site:

"When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above)."

It rotated as in 'c.'. It did not tilt first. That the problem with the south tower. How to explain the physics of the top of the south tower rotating at the 89th floor.

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

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

Okay, once more psikeyhackr (and leave out the personal attacks if you please) - provide even a SHRED of evidence, backed by fact and not truther paranoia, as to why any of this matters at all.

The fact of the matter is, the buildings structural integrity failed above the impact zone. The building above the impact zone fell... it doesn't matter if it was rotating or not... and impacted the building below it. This caused a total collapse.

What does it matter if it fell straight, at an angle, or even upside-fucking-down? That doesn't change the fact that a vast amount of mass impacted the floors below the crash zone and caused a total collapse.

And no, you are wrong - the top of the tower DID tilt before the rotation occurred... you can watch it in the videos...

 

[Grumpy]

billvon

'b' happened. The tower tilted very slightly before the collapse began.

You are correct, the initial motion was down on one side, this caused a torque around the CG which kicked the bottom the other way(as in c), the CG never moved appreciably, it stayed centered above the footprint as it fell straight down. The hat truss(at the top of the core)did not hit the remnant core squarely, however.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

It rotated as in 'c.'. It did not tilt first.

Tilting is rotation.

That the problem with the south tower. How to explain the physics of the top of the south tower rotating at the 89th floor.

Loss of support below the 89th floor. The asymmetrical failure caused a slight rotation of the remaining building as the support for first one side, then another side, was lost.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Tilting is rotation.

My aren't you brilliant.

But rotation is not necessarily tilting.

psik

 

[Balerion]

My aren't you brilliant.

But rotation is not necessarily tilting.

psik

You're still at it?

 

[Kittamaru]

I think, at this point, the best we can do is leave psikeyhackr to his own devices... he isn't listening, or even acknowledging reason, and hasn't been able to provide much in the way of evidence (or even, honestly, a coherent claim) himself.

 

[Read-Only]

I think, at this point, the best we can do is leave psikeyhackr to his own devices... he isn't listening, or even acknowledging reason, and hasn't been able to provide much in the way of evidence (or even, honestly, a coherent claim) himself.

Agreed 100%! Just allow him to talk to HIMSELF only or (preferably) leave.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Agreed 100%! Just allow him to talk to HIMSELF only or (preferably) leave.

And not a single comment on my trigonometry.

Considering there are no "intelligent" responses you are probably correct.

Search the last 4 pages for uses of the word "degree" in the trigonometric sense and I am the only one who has done it. Grumpy quoted me once. So you guys are really impressive.

And then want to talk about 'tilt' versus 'rotation. LOL

psik

 

[billvon]

But rotation is not necessarily tilting.

Both b) and c) show rotation of the upper part of the building. Both b) and c) show tilt of the upper part of the building. Thus your statement is incorrect. (To put it another way, your statement is Truther.)