# My September 11 Thoughts
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 4, 2014, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989 "2014-06-04T02:41:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 27
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/521 "2014-06-15T17:02:49Z")
Even pre-schoolers have a native undestanding of Fudd’s First Law of Opposition, “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.”
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/522 "2014-06-15T17:52:56Z")
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
I did read the entire article, YEARS AGO. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, your mind was closed and/or you just didn’t get it. But, as Forest’s mama would say, stupid is as stupid does. Case in point:
> [@](#):
>
> ROFLMAO
What a really stupid thing to say. Do you think that it helps your case?? 😛
> [@](#):
>
> But how often does AE911Truth try to explain the mass distribution of skyscrapers to EVERYONE.
Well, that’s an interesting question. Does it never give you pause that only loony 9/11 CT Truther types buy into this bullshit? Seriously…does it never give you pause that only 9/11 CT Truthers can see the seemingly (to you and them) crucial pont about mass distribution? That only you/they understand physics, while experts in those fields don’t? That you have to resort to giving me a link to a loony CT site in order to show how stupid an article from a major publication is after rolling on the floor and laughing your ass off when, to put it gently, the joke is really on you?
> [@](#):
>
> I asked Richard Gage about that to his face in May of 2008. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head. Then he told me that the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. It is like we are supposed to believe him because he can wave an architectural degree around.
And you just swallowed that? You didn’t, I don’t know, fact check to see if it was true? Never once thought ‘hm, wonder why all of the professional engineering organizations out there aren’t saying anything about that and are actually looking into revising building codes based on 9/11’? You just looked him in the eye and bought his line of bullshit??
Wow. That’s…something.
> [@](#):
>
> If the simple physics of this is properly explained then plenty of people will look dumb for not solving it in 2002. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. The Potential Energy cannot be accurately calculated without mass distribution data.
And no actual physicists, structural engineers who work on sky scrapers or others actually in the field noticed? Again, has it never occurred to you that, perhaps, the fact that you aren’t any of those things (a physicist, a structural engineer or someone who is even in the field, or has any sort of special knowledge or even non-specific knowledge about any of this stuff) and, clearly, don’t actually have a good grasp of even the basics might…just might…have something to do with the obvious disconnect? That looking Richard Gage in the eye and hearing his answer might mean that, while he believed the horseshit he told you, it didn’t necessarily mean it was right?
It’s funny in a sad sort of way. You are a microcosm of the 9/11 Truth movement, and hell every other CT out there. When confronted with facts you go to all sorts of convoluted ways to handwave them away. There is nothing that will ever convince you. You can be shown that even folks you cite don’t believe the horseshit anymore and you can handwave that away with another cry for about where it was shown experimentally. Some ignorance simply can’t be fought, at least not in an individual. However, you are a text book study on how CTers are immune to any sort of reason, and by doing and saying the things you have, hand waving away all attempts to try and explain, reason or educate you, I think you’ve done your part in showing those theoretical folks on the fence how idiotic the whole 9/11 Truth movement and their theories really are. So, keep coming back and keep posting…I think you are actually helping others, even if you, yourself are beyond saving.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/523 "2014-06-15T17:55:41Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> I didn’t say opposed, I said “Have said NOTHING!” Saying nothing is not opposing, but it is not supporting either.
>
> Are the organizations you listed a large percentage of ALL ARCHITECTS and ENGINEERS?
And here you move from fanatically silly to just saying dumb things to see your words on the screen.
Where are the large numbers of astrophysicists discussing the moon landings? Things that have been explained require no comment unless one intends to make money writing a book or magazine article or unless one is confronted by one more lunatic who has a need to believe that real events occurred in some alternative reality. There have been multiple investigations, (I noted several in my post), that included many architects and engineers qualified to talk on the topic. The rest of the qualified people have had no reason or incentive to spend the energy and time to write articles that say nothing more than “Yup. That’s how it happened.”
Only the lunatics have an incentive to keep talking about it.
When a copy of the so-called “Judas Gospel” was discovered a few years ago, there were only a couple of articles written on the topic by biblical scholars–and they all said the same thing. The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars said noting because the first few people who commented got it right, (we’ve know that such a work existed and what it said in outline since the time of Irenaeus, around 150 C.E.), so the thousands of other biblical scholars had no need to say anything. Your big claim that massive numbers of architects and engineers have said nothing is simply you trying to invent a reason to be skeptical when, in fact, that “silence” reinforces the validity of the reports from N.I.S.T., MIT, and Popular Mechanics.
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> But this is someone from Stanford:
>
> Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
> by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Russell was never part of the actual study by Stanford. He is an electrical engineer who happens to be at the same school spouting off on stuff which he has no training or experience that he does not understand. (He is also a fruitcake who has supported the “pod plane” theory of substituted aircraft along with a number of other conspiracy theories reaching back as far as first century Rome.) Where are the other Stanford architects and engineers writing to support his bullshit?
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/524 "2014-06-15T18:11:56Z")
Relax, **tom**. For a lot of people understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head, and **psik** ’s head has room for lots of bees.
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/525 "2014-06-15T18:16:18Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> Relax, **tom**. For a lot of people understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head, and **psik** ’s head has room for lots of bees.
You mean **psikey’s** part of a hive-mind? 😃
---
### Author:  [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/526 "2014-06-15T20:34:10Z")
> [@rock\_party](#):
>
> If the reason for the 9/11 attack was to give GWB carte blanche to go into Iraq and steel the oil…
An even more basic question that the conspiracy theorists never answer: If the above was the motive, why the hell didn’t the administration bother to make it look like Iraq was involved in the attack? Instead, Bush & Co forced themselves to (a) put off their Iraq conquest dreams for a couple of years while we fight in Afghanistan; and (ii) gin up a completely new set of excuses to go after Iraq.
Instead, we are presented with a group of conspirators who are simultaneously brilliant enough to pull off mass murder in front 1000s of ground witnesses and millions of TV witnesses without their involvement leaking out, yet dumb enough to pull off the conspiracy in a way that doesn’t advance – indeed, that hinders – their agenda.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/527 "2014-06-15T22:44:06Z")
> [@XT](#):
>
> Sadly, your mind was closed and/or you just didn’t get it. But, as Forest’s mama would say, stupid is as stupid does.
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> . . . and **psik** ’s head has room for lots of bees.
Let’s stick to addressing his words and leave the personal remarks out of this.
[/Moderating]
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/528 "2014-06-16T00:34:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Russell was never part of the actual study by Stanford. He is an electrical engineer who happens to be at the same school spouting off on stuff which he has no training or experience that he does not understand.
So the Empire State Building was completed before electronic computers or transistors were invented but the physics of skyscrapers are beyond the comprehension of electrical engineers.
But even though the nation that put men on the Moon can’t specify the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers designed before 1969 and cannot demonstrate the north tower collapse experimentally everyone is supposed to shut up and think what they are told.
So far I haven’t see the Conservation of Momentum with any so called explanation. Just what is supposed to inspire awe in Stanford. If there study is so great why hasn’t anyone duplicated it?
[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html](http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html)
We can find stuff that mentions Stanford but explains nothing. That is really great!
So do you know of a link to this Stanford study that says something about the Conservation of Momentum and the collapse time of one of the twin towers?
psik
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/529 "2014-06-16T00:51:15Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So the Empire State Building was completed before electronic computers or transistors were invented but the physics of skyscrapers are beyond the comprehension of electrical engineers.
Are you trying to persuade me that you are trolling?
The Empire State Building was constructed using radically different methods than those employed in the WTC. Saying “skyscraper” does not make them equivalent. Saying that they are equivalent indicates that either you are truly too ignorant to participate in this discussion or that you are trolling.
Beyond that, how many electrical engineers participated in the design of the Empire State Building? Intelligence is not an issue, (although, given Russell’s other enthusiasm of Conspiracy Theories, mental health might be). Ignorance is the issue and a person trained in a totally different field of engineering cannot be pointed to as an expert on an area in which he or she is not trained.
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So do you know of a link to this Stanford study that says something about the Conservation of Momentum and the collapse time of one of the twin towers?
I have no idea whether the Stanford people are trying to satisfy the bugaboos that you have invented. They clearly are studying the collapse, even today.
[STANFORD ENGINEERS STUDY 9/11 FOR LESSONS ON HOW TO HELP BUILDINGS WITHSTAND THREATS](https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-study-911-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats)
And actual structural engineers from Stanford participated in the earliest examinations:
[Structural engineer to discuss impact of the World Trade Center collapse](http://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/blumelecture1128.html)
And if you think that you are going to get any traction by trying to pick apart the Stanford participation as though we will not notice your avoidance of the studies by N.I.S.T., MIT and Popular Mechanics, you will further persuade me that you are trolling.
[/Moderating]
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/530 "2014-06-16T01:23:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Let’s stick to addressing his words and leave the personal remarks out of this.
Hey! I’m not the one coming this\>\
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/531 "2014-06-16T01:27:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Let’s stick to addressing his words and leave the personal remarks out of this.
>
> [/Moderating]
Well, I was attacking the post, not the poster, but I’ll back off. The Forest’s mama thing was probably skating right on that edge. My apologies to all.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/532 "2014-06-16T01:55:49Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> So the Empire State Building was completed before electronic computers or transistors were invented but the physics of skyscrapers are beyond the comprehension of electrical engineers.
I certainly wouldn’t trust any skyscraper built and designed by an EE.
> [@](#):
>
> But even though the nation that put men on the Moon can’t specify the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers designed before 1969 and cannot demonstrate the north tower collapse experimentally everyone is supposed to shut up and think what they are told.
_yawn_ Stuck record time. The reason nobody is making an experiment to your liking is because they see no point to it. They have little desire to jump through hoops and waste time and resources to satisfy CTers who have demonstrated time and time again that they simply cannot be satisfied unless they get the answer they want to hear instead of the answer reality give.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/533 "2014-06-16T03:17:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> The Empire State Building was constructed using radically different methods than those employed in the WTC. Saying “skyscraper” does not make them equivalent. Saying that they are equivalent indicates that either you are truly too ignorant to participate in this discussion or that you are trolling.
Just FYI, Psikey believes that we don’t understand the physics of the Empire State Building because it was completed a year before the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick.
[Cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17453779&postcount=267)
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/534 "2014-06-16T04:08:02Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> Tell it to the NIST who rejected the pancake theory long ago.
> [FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation](http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm)
>
> **the floors did not fail progressively**
>
> OOPS!
>
> So are you saying the NIST does not know what it is talking about?
You’re really bad at reading comprehension, and you have a really bad memory of the things you yourself have said earlier in this very thread. Earlier you were complaining that NIST only modeled up to the point that the collapse was initiated, not the collapse itself. Your point, such as it was, seemed to be that you thought that even after the top section collapsed down onto level 93 or whatever, the lower part of the building should have arrested the collapse.
Then I addressed that very point, that the lower part of the building couldn’t have arrested the top once it started moving, because each floor only has enough strength to support its own weight (plus a safety margin), not the entire upper part crashing down onto it.
So here’s the deal: NIST was absolutely correct that pancaking floors are not what initiated the collapses, it was bowing inwards of the perimeter columns due to the floor trusses buckling. Once the perimeter columns bowed in, they could not support the great weight above them and failed at that point.
Once this got going, the perimeter columns funneled the leading edge of the collapse wave so that it was largely focused on the next floor below. As the wave accumulated, the part behind the leading edge of the wave then pushed out the perimeter columns, which were left without lateral support because the floors were no longer there, and the perimeter columns were flung outwards.
I wouldn’t call it pancaking, because that gives the impression of intact floors stacking up on each other; instead it was an avalanche. But in any case, in order for the lower parts of the building to arrest the falling upper part, the floor supports would have had to withstand many floors worth of debris impacting them at high speed. No floor was strong enough to do that, therefore the collapse continued all the way down.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/535 "2014-06-16T18:12:09Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#):
>
> I’m not sure that’s strictly true; at least in the case of a falling building. It starts with a certain potential energy because of its position above the ground. Take out the supports and it will start to fall, trading potential energy for kinetic, but it doesn’t have more energy once it’s moving.
>
> If you meant “force” instead of “energy”, that’s a whole different thing. Once the top part of the building started falling, it would take significantly more force to arrest that fall than to have supported the static load before the collapse.
I did mean force…been out of school too long.
---
### Author:  [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/536 "2014-06-17T04:27:01Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> But information from before 911 says there was a total 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both towers which would come to more than 300,000 tons per building and the floors do not account for that.psik
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> Jesus!!!
>
> You can’t figure out what the volume of the basements had to be? The buildings were 208 feet by 208 feet. The basement went about 70 feet into the ground. Then you must divide by 27 for the number of cubic feet in a cubic yard.
>
> But that does not take into account how much of the basements were actually empty space or steel. So that cannot all be concrete. So if the pre-9/11 data of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete is correct then its location within the towers has not been reported since 9/11.
>
> So the 9/11 Affair is totally bullsh!t science.
>
> But I keep forgetting. This site is supposed to be fighting IGNORANCE. 😃
>
> psik
So I finally had a minute to spare so I thought I would research this “fact” you keep waving about of 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.
All I can say is either you have the weakest google-fu of anyone around, or you know the 425,000 figure is wrong.
Here is a [cite](http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html) from The New York Museum that says
> [@](#):
>
> 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
Note the use of the word **complex** That would include all the buildings, the foundations, the slurry wall sidewalks and exterior stairs.
Or this [one](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM)
> [@](#):
>
> Concrete in one tower: 390,000 tons = 163,000 cubic meters
That would be for one tower and 2X 163 is not 425 so that would tend to support the cite from the museum.
Also of interest in the second cite is a second page entitled **Nutty 9-11 Physics** I came across this:
> [@](#):
>
> The fall doesn’t have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the fasteners pop and the welds break. The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There’s no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.
>
> If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g’s.
>
> This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories - why waste the steel? Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one, and the dynamic loads on the points that actually resist the fall - the welds and the rivets, will be far greater. If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you’re talking hundreds of g’s. In the south tower, where the top 25 or so stories fell, the impact load at eight g’s would be equivalent to 200 stories, or twice the total height of the building. Some conspiracy buffs argue that engineering standards require a safety factor several times the actual load on the structure, but the dynamic loads would far overwhelm those standards.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/537 "2014-06-17T13:14:22Z")
> [@Rick](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **The fall doesn’t have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the fasteners pop and the welds break.** The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There’s no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.
> >
> > This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories - why waste the steel?
There is a difference between “doesn’t have to” and whatever it actually did.
All he is proposing is SPECULATION.
Where is the experiment? Where is accurate data on the distribution of mass down the building? Now even if all that happened was breaking welds that still required energy. How much? Because of Newtons 3rd Law the falling 10 stories could not remain intact while destroying 90 stories that had to be stronger and heavier and welds do not eliminate mass and the Conservation of Momentum.
So he can repeat the JREF mantra
“Static, Dynamic, Static, Dynamic”
Try finding “Conservation of Momentum” on the “Nutty 9-11 Physics” site. Good Luck! My computer program which simulates collapses based on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the Conservation of Momentum still takes 12 to 14 seconds and does not lose energy to breaking welds so how does Steve Dutch account for that? I looked over his site years ago.
conservation site:[https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/](https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/)
That is why I built a static model that supported its own weight and raised the mass at the top. It still arrested even though the supports were only paper.
All you guys can come up with is TALK and 8th grade math with incomplete data.
Are experiments too difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon?
psik
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/538 "2014-06-17T13:30:08Z")
So, psi; what you’re now telling us is that you don’t know what geology is. Your posts already show you don’t comprehend any aspects of engineering.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/539 "2014-06-17T14:18:41Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> There is a difference between “doesn’t have to” and whatever it actually did.
>
> All he is proposing is SPECULATION.
>
> Where is the experiment? Where is accurate data on the distribution of mass down the building? Now even if all that happened was breaking welds that still required energy. How much? Because of Newtons 3rd Law the falling 10 stories could not remain intact while destroying 90 stories that had to be stronger and heavier and welds do not eliminate mass and the Conservation of Momentum.
>
> So he can repeat the JREF mantra
>
> “Static, Dynamic, Static, Dynamic”
>
> Try finding “Conservation of Momentum” on the “Nutty 9-11 Physics” site. Good Luck! My computer program which simulates collapses based on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the Conservation of Momentum still takes 12 to 14 seconds and does not lose energy to breaking welds so how does Steve Dutch account for that? I looked over his site years ago.
>
> conservation site:[https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/](https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/)
>
> That is why I built a static model that supported its own weight and raised the mass at the top. It still arrested even though the supports were only paper.
>
> All you guys can come up with is TALK and 8th grade math with incomplete data.
>
> Are experiments too difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon?
>
> psik
You’re really bad at this engineering thing, aren’t you?
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [June 17, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989/540 "2014-06-17T14:21:00Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> There is a difference between “doesn’t have to” and whatever it actually did.
>
> All he is proposing is SPECULATION.
>
> Where is the experiment? Where is accurate data on the distribution of mass down the building? Now even if all that happened was breaking welds that still required energy. How much? Because of Newtons 3rd Law the falling 10 stories could not remain intact while destroying 90 stories that had to be stronger and heavier and welds do not eliminate mass and the Conservation of Momentum.
>
> So he can repeat the JREF mantra
>
> “Static, Dynamic, Static, Dynamic”
>
> Try finding “Conservation of Momentum” on the “Nutty 9-11 Physics” site. Good Luck! My computer program which simulates collapses based on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the Conservation of Momentum still takes 12 to 14 seconds and does not lose energy to breaking welds so how does Steve Dutch account for that? I looked over his site years ago.
>
> conservation site:[https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/](https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/)
>
> That is why I built a static model that supported its own weight and raised the mass at the top. It still arrested even though the supports were only paper.
>
> All you guys can come up with is TALK and 8th grade math with incomplete data.
>
> Are experiments too difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon?
>
> psik
And the Scientific American article? What’s your rebuttal to that? Just going to hand wave again, or roll on the floor laughing? You built a model that doesn’t scale or show anything, then all you do is hand wave and whine about the fact that no one is out trying to prove that the towers could have collapsed using old analogue systems or experiments while ignoring the computer models used. Then you whine somemore about how no one is trying to prove, to your satisfaction through experimentation something that only you and other 9/11 Truthers need proof for…proof being defined as impossible to provide data, since you and they won’t accept anything short of ‘you are right, the buildings really were destroyed by magical explosives planted by fairy ninjas, and it would be impossible for a building to collapse any other way’.
You’ve been shown the facts and you refuse to even read them, as noted by your ROFLMAO, because, you see, my link wasn’t actually to the Popular Mechanics debunking site, but was an article about that article. Your claim that you read it was a load of horseshit, since what you (might) have read in the past was the Popular Mechanics debunking article itself. Calling it ‘stupid’ then and now with a drive by link to a 9/11 CT site just shows you aren’t really even interested in a good faith debate.
I have to give you this though…at least you haven’t tucked tail and bolted. It’s clear you really, truly believe this horseshit and are a complete convert, and that you are willing to stand in here regardless of how silly and stupid your theories are shown to be or how ignorant you demonstrably are about the actual physics involved. At least you are willing to stand in here and take it for your faith, so that’s something…unlike the majority of your fellow 9/11 Truther types (including the OP) who have long ago tucked tail and fled for easier climes (probably on some circle jerking Truther site where they can all join the echo chamber).
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989.md?page=26)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-september-11-thoughts/689989.md?page=28)