However... You said "perhaps". Means not entirely ruled out. Keep an open mind.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
However... You said "perhaps". Means not entirely ruled out. Keep an open mind.
What if the Jews hired Arnold Schwarzenegger to hire Al Qaeda to do it? How would anyone know if they're not already in the know?
That "scientific" simulation is hysterically funny.
If you check what Purdue reported about it you will find that they only simulated the top 20 stories of the north tower. But the plane impacted at the 94th floor so they had only 6 stories below the impact. But if you check the NIST report you will find that the NIST says the south tower deflected horizontally 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact which occurred at the 81st floor. So the south tower moved a foot horizontally below where the Purdue simulation even checked.
But each floor assembly in the tower weighed 750 tons. In fact the Purdue simulation does not move horizontally at all.
So you people who believe all of this so called SCIENCE do not even check it to see if there is anything wrong with it.
The NIST has a graph of the deflection and four minutes of oscillation. Maybe you should actually download the report and see what is and IS NOT in it. Like no mention of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.
psik
Can you provide any evidence as to why the horizontal deflection actually matters? After all, these towers were DESIGNED to sway to counteract the forces of the wind... you know, like nearly all modern high-rise buildings are...
You still have yet to provide any evidence as to why the shift in center of mass of the top portion of the tower matters...
You still have yet to provide any evidence as to why the shift in center of mass of the top portion of the tower matters...
Your questions demonstrate that you either can't comprehend the physics of the problems or don't want to.
The impact had to do two things, structural damage and deflection. But the more deflection the less structural damage. So any simulation which gets the deflection wrong would show more structural damage and therefore be UNSCIENTIFIC. Since the south tower impact was lower it should have caused less deflection due to stronger heavier steel but the south tower impact was also faster. So for the Purdue study to not even mention deflection is ridiculous.
For you science is whatever the authority that you regard as scientific tells you it is. You can't think about the problem for yourself.
psik
Okay, you didn't provide evidence, you simply deflected and stated a different premise.
Provide evidence that the deflection changed, by any significant degree, the transfer of kinetic energy of the falling sections upon the floors below.
Do I need to give you a definition of evidence?
Do I need to give you a definition of THINKING.
You can check the NIST report for the deflection of the south tower for yourself. I do not give a damn whether you do or not. You can regard yourself as an arbitrator all you want. I decide how much time I waste on you.
psik
I looked it up, ironically enough they had you as an antonym.
This from the guy whos every comment is a waste of time.
Yet a while back you said there were no simulations.
Were you ignorant of this one, or were you intentionally lying?
Truth be told, I would rather enjoy seeing you attempt to do this without the help of a dictionary, thesaurus, or the internet... but I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
Right, right... let me put it to you this way then:
You have, as of right now, three options:
1) Provide EVIDENCE to back your claim, that either A) The deflection of the building during impact would have significantly reduced the transfer of kinetic energy into the structure. or B) The deflection and twisting of the upper portion of the building, as it fell upon the lower floors, would have somehow negated the transfer of kinetic energy and mass/weight into that lower floor, thus averting (or slowing) a total collapse.
2) Retract your statements if you cannot provide this evidence.
3) Received an infraction for intellectual dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
The choice is yours. I have tried to be nice, but your stubborn insistence to NOT back your statements with any kind of factual evidence is in contention with every founding idea of this forum.
I am saying that the NIST said that the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though the plane impacted at the 81st floor.
You people who haven't checked squat about the real data from 9/11 but have irrefutable opinions are hilarious.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/south-tower-oscillation-as-evidence-of.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=sou...outh-tower-moved-impact-t24446p2.html;971;595
The velocity of the building at the 70th floor can be computed from the slope of the deflection. Survivors described the motion of the floor after the impact.
psik
Really? The evidence you give me is a statement that includes this little gem:
We have several VIDEOS of the damn plane impacting it. Dozens, if not more, eyewitness accounts and radar data... seriously...
For that matter, what kind of missile are you thinking hit it? Last I checked, we don't have many missiles the size of a JETLINER... unless you wish to theorize it was something along the lines of a Tomahawk Cruise Missile...
Really though? That guy is your ace in the sleeve? Your argument is that you don't think the building should have rebounded like that from an aircraft impact?
Ah. So you don't know what the deflection was at the point of impact.
Let's see if you know any math. Choose a deflection at the point of impact. (If you can't use 13.8 inches; that's the linear extrapolation.) Choose a period for that deflection and then calculate what percentage the kinetic energy of the 767 (traveling at 465mph) was reduced by the compliance of the building.
to be fair, the buildings didn't absorb all of the energy.
the landing gear made it through.
i believe one of the black boxes made it through.
parts from the engines made it through.
yeah, a minor affair.
Per the video a fair amount of the fuel made it through, too.
Some numbers: 160,000 kg flying at 207 m/s. Impact energy - 3.4 billion joules, or about 1 megawatt-hour. If the entire event took 1 second then the total release of power would have been 3.4 gigawatts during the collision - the combined output of three large nuclear power plants. If half the aircraft made it through the building (actually a very bad sign as not enough structure remained to stop aircraft components) you are still at almost 2 gigawatts of power for the initial impact.
Then the fuel started burning. If it lost half its fuel to the fireball that leaves about 5000 gallons of fuel burning in the building, which is about 185 megawatt-hours of energy. Over the 100 minutes the tower burned that's a release of about 100 megawatts of energy, constantly. Consider that a large Bessemer furnace, designed to melt and process steel, takes about 70 megawatts.
The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the building but then did not provide it. If the building deflected below the point of impact then it had to deflect above the point of impact also.
It is the total lack of horizontal movement in the Purdue simulation that makes it so ridiculous.
psik
I guess the answer to my question is "no" then.
I never said anything about a missile. All I talked about was the deflection of the building. If you want to go haring off about a missile be my guest.
psik
that may be true, but it can't be over stressed to point out these buildings were not the typical house or empire state type of buildings.
also, i believe these butt joints played a HUGE role in 1 & 2's destruction.
i believe those buildings would have eventually collapsed even without the fires.
1 & 2 swayed quite a bit.
up to 3 feet? or was it 6.
it was enough to unnerve some people.
the buildings were designed to accept this swaying.
- Status