My September 11 Thoughts

[psikeyhackr]

@Czarcasm

From now on, you could really speed things up by just giving us the nonsensical answers that would be acceptable to you right after you ask your questions. That would save the rest of us the time and effort of doing research that will only be automatically rejected by you. Stop pretending that you are “just asking questions” and just tell us what you think really happened.

Experiment:

Experiment

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@CurtC

Every floor did not have to be strong enough to support all the weight above - that weight was on the columns, not the floors. .

I did not say FLOOR!

I said LEVEL!

Care to try READING?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@42fish

I’m still trying to figure out why psikeyhackr thinks his position is improved by admitting “It’s middle school physics that baffles me, not any of that graduate school stuff.”

ROFL

Because at least 30% of 8th graders should have been able to explain why the north tower could not collapse like that in 2001 just because of airliner impact and fire.

So if it could why shouldn’t it be easy for plenty of people to duplicate the phenomenon experimentally since then. But then we can’t even get steel and concrete distribution data.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@RickJay

If you are of the impression middle schoolers could build a skyscraper, I’ll stay out of any building you endorse.

Where did I say they could build them?

I said they could understand the physics of them.

Therefore they could figure out why the north tower “collapse” made no sense and what data to demand to determine why it made no sense.

psik

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

I did not say FLOOR!

I said LEVEL!

Care to try READING?

psik

Ah. Dictionary physics.

[psikeyhackr]

@tomndebb

Which, of course, explains why every legitimate architect and civil engineer with any experience in constructing tall skyscrapers has been duped into believing the “official” story, while the only people who “recognize” that it is false are people who have no experience in the subject.

How many legitimate architects and civil engineers do you have information on saying anything about 9/11 one way or the other? That is the curious thing about 9/11. It is not like lots of climatologists agreeing on climate change. It is the deafening SILENCE that is so interesting.

Care to provide some links to these legitimate experts?

This is a simple problem and there should be a large majority publicly on one side or the other but that is not the case. It is a large majority not saying a damn thing.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@tomndebb

Which, of course, explains why every legitimate architect and civil engineer with any experience in constructing tall skyscrapers has been duped into believing the “official” story, while the only people who “recognize” that it is false are people who have no experience in the subject.

How do you know what they “believe” or “think” if they say nothing about 9/11?

Care to explain your assumptions?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@running_coach

Ah. Dictionary physics.

Actually I think it is called lying about what someone is saying and then accusing them of being in error on that basis.

psik

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

Actually I think it is called lying about what someone is saying and then accusing them of being in error on that basis.

psik

You should re-do your experiment with the paper loops only this time, use pulped wood joined bands. Maybe the results will be different.

What difference does it make if it’s a FLOOR or a LEVEL?

[psikeyhackr]

@running_coach

You should re-do your experiment with the paper loops only this time, use pulped wood joined bands. Maybe the results will be different.

What difference does it make if it’s a FLOOR or a LEVEL?

A LEVEL in the WTC would be all of the mass that is part of the building between the planes of two adjacent floors. In most cases they would be 12 feet apart but that would include all of the columns and beams in the core and the perimeter columns and spandrels.

I have been discussing this long enough that people change their usage of the word FLOOR to serve the purposes of their argument at the time. So I have long since made a point of distinguishing between a FLOOR and a LEVEL. A single standard FLOOR assembly was about 750 tons with the concrete slab being 600 tons. So every LEVEL down increased the weight that had to be supported by more than 750 tons.

Now a LEVEL in my model would consist of one paper loop and one washer. So obviously the bottom paper loop has to support the weight of 33 washers and the top loop only one. So I tested the loops to be as weak as possible relative to the weight. But a heavier and taller model would be much better to give more control in designing the strength of the support at each level. The top 11 paper loops are all the same single loop design, so the top 10 are too strong relative to the weight they support.

Curious how expensive engineering schools haven’t come up with a better test in 12 years. Of course they would have a problem if the collapse proved IMPOSSIBLE.

psik

[running_coach]

Where did you get 750 tons from? You’ve been claiming no one knows the weight.

[XT]

@psikeyhackr

How many legitimate architects and civil engineers do you have information on saying anything about 9/11 one way or the other? That is the curious thing about 9/11. It is not like lots of climatologists agreeing on climate change. It is the deafening SILENCE that is so interesting.

Care to provide some links to these legitimate experts?

This is a simple problem and there should be a large majority publicly on one side or the other but that is not the case. It is a large majority not saying a damn thing.

psik

You mean like all those architects and engineers at NIST, the guys at Popular Mechanics, hell, the architects and engineers who built the actual WTC towers? Like those guys? Or do they not count? None of them have been silent. But the thing is, only CT nutters feel the need to bother with most of this stuff…most ACTUAL experts really don’t bother because it’s such a stupid theory that it’s not worth their valuable time to debunk.

Hell, according to this, Popular Mechanics almost didn’t do their own famous debunking.

The Popular Mechanics article may never have been published were it not for a $3 million national ad campaign by an eccentric millionaire to promote a self-published book called Painful Questions. The campaign posited that the World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was never hit by a jetliner, and asked questions about whether the fires in the Twin Towers were sufficiently hot to bring about their collapse or whether the hole in the Pentagon was big enough to fit a commercial airplane. When Popular Mechanics Editor James Meigs saw the ad, he says, “I thought, well, we’re Popular Mechanics and we’ve been reporting about what happens when planes crash, how skyscrapers are built, for 100 years. Let’s actually answer the questions.”

So the magazine went about reporting out some of the most interesting and serious conspiracy theories, and responding to them based on interviews with more than 70 experts in aviation, engineering and the military. Its article found that all of the supposedly scientific evidence for government involvement in 9/11 was based on shoddy research and, to a large extent, manipulated and misleading argumentation. The piece remains the most widely read story the magazine has ever published, with more than 7.5 million page views.

“We were the first people to actually take the conspiracy theory claims seriously and address them very directly,” Meigs says. “And the reaction was so overwhelmingly hostile, and kind of scary, that it was a real education in how these groups work and think.” Among the responses was a report by anti-Zionist conspiracist Christopher Bollyn, who claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young researcher on the magazine’s staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal conspiracy with its coverage.

You should really read the whole article. It goes into some interesting aspects of the psychology of CT truther types and how they are immune to any sort of debunking. Debunking actually reinforces their faith in their own narrative.

The Popular Mechanics article was turned into a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, which came to include interviews with more than 300 sources and eyewitnesses. David Ray Griffin responded with his own book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking in 2007, in which he reiterated theories that he said had not been adequately debunked, claimed that the only successful debunking Popular Mechanics had done was of straw men, and repeated the Chertoff cover-up accusation.

It’s worth lingering over Griffin’s response to illustrate a typical reaction among conspiracy theorists to refutation. One of the bedrocks of the conspiracy theory is that U.S. military planes should have been easily able to intercept any of the four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 to prevent the attack. The Popular Mechanics article notes that only one NORAD interception of a civilian airplane over North America had occurred in the decade before 9/11, of golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, and that it took one hour and 19 minutes to intercept before it ultimately crashed. Based on initial reports that misread the official crash report, conspiracists had previously cited the Stewart case as evidence that it normally only took NORAD 19 minutes to intercept civilian aircraft.

“That’s a very debated thing,” Griffin told me. “It looks like somebody has kind of changed the story there. I don’t know what happened, but I’ve read enough about it to look like that’s not true that it took that long.” And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes, which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that morning in painstaking detail? Griffin’s response is that the tapes have likely been doctored using morphing technology to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos according to a government-written script. It’s not surprising, he says, that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit the official narrative.

“This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it,” Meigs says. “In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and it is very similar to, if you’ve ever known a really hardcore, doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make.”

[psikeyhackr]

@running_coach

Where did you get 750 tons from? You’ve been claiming no one knows the weight.

I said the tons of steel and tons of concrete on EACH LEVEL is not known publicly. I did not say the weight of each standard FLOOR assembly was unknown. The thickness of the columns in the core and on the perimeter changed down the building. That is why I emphasize LEVEL and not FLOOR. And then there were beams connecting the columns in the core. There is almost no data on that.

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.

It is not my fault that you have opinions on this subject but have not investigated it enough to know what important information is known and not known. :smack:

psik

[Human_Action]

@psikeyhackr

It is not my fault that you have opinions on this subject but have not investigated it enough to know what important information is known and not known. :smack:

…says the guy who’s unaware that a mass in motion has vastly more energy than a mass at rest. :smack: indeed.

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

I said the tons of steel and tons of concrete on EACH LEVEL is not known publicly. I did not say the weight of each standard FLOOR assembly was unknown. The thickness of the columns in the core and on the perimeter changed down the building. That is why I emphasize LEVEL and not FLOOR. And then there were beams connecting the columns in the core. There is almost no data on that.

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.

It is not my fault that you have opinions on this subject but have not investigated it enough to know what important information is known and not known. :smack:

psik

Of course the floors don’t account for all of the concrete. From this page.

Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.

There’s also the core.

[andros]

@psikeyhackr

Of course they would have a problem if the collapse proved IMPOSSIBLE.

I know that you’ve been asked this before. And asked. And asked. And asked again.

If, as it appears, you are convinced that the WTC collapse was impossible, at least insofar as the “official” record…

Then what is your alternative hypothesis?
If we’re all duped, what really happened?

[Robot_Arm]

@Human_Action

…says the guy who’s unaware that a mass in motion has vastly more energy than a mass at rest. :smack: indeed.

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.

[psikeyhackr]

@andros

Then what is your alternative hypothesis?

Something caused by someone would have had to destroy the supports below.

I DON’T CARE who, or why or how in any detail.

But if the top of the north tower could just fall and destroy everything below then it should not be all that difficult to test and demonstrate experimentally. This idea that a full size structure would have to be built is a bunch of crap. It is just an excuse that reasonable experiments not be done.

A 54 foot 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built in a wind tunnel in 4 months in 1940 but we can’t get a model of the north tower in TWELVE YEARS. :smack:

A 1:100th scale model of the north tower would only be 13.7 feet tall and now we have 3D printers that can create finer detail than human modelers. So we could have computer precision in a physical model. And put this crap to rest.

psik

[split_p_j]

@XT

Hell, according to this, Popular Mechanics almost didn’t do their own famous debunking.

Quote:

The Popular Mechanics article was turned into a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, which came to include interviews with more than 300 sources and eyewitnesses. David Ray Griffin responded with his own book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking in 2007, in which he reiterated theories that he said had not been adequately debunked, claimed that the only successful debunking Popular Mechanics had done was of straw men, and repeated the Chertoff cover-up accusation.

It’s worth lingering over Griffin’s response to illustrate a typical reaction among conspiracy theorists to refutation. One of the bedrocks of the conspiracy theory is that U.S. military planes should have been easily able to intercept any of the four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 to prevent the attack. The Popular Mechanics article notes that only one NORAD interception of a civilian airplane over North America had occurred in the decade before 9/11, of golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, and that it took one hour and 19 minutes to intercept before it ultimately crashed. Based on initial reports that misread the official crash report, conspiracists had previously cited the Stewart case as evidence that it normally only took NORAD 19 minutes to intercept civilian aircraft.

“That’s a very debated thing,” Griffin told me. “It looks like somebody has kind of changed the story there. I don’t know what happened, but I’ve read enough about it to look like that’s not true that it took that long.” And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes, which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that morning in painstaking detail? Griffin’s response is that the tapes have likely been doctored using morphing technology to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos according to a government-written script. It’s not surprising, he says, that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit the official narrative.

“This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it,” Meigs says. “In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and it is very similar to, if you’ve ever known a really hardcore, doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make.”

You should really read the whole article. It goes into some interesting aspects of the psychology of CT truther types and how they are immune to any sort of debunking. Debunking actually reinforces their faith in their own narrative.

I’ve never heard David Ray Griffin saying the tapes were doctored, and I notice that part of your link is not a direct quote from Griffin, it’s more like a paraphrase.

The fact of the matter the was the chaos was caused by the 46 drills that were taking place on 911. That link goes into great detail on how the drills called for fake blips to be inserted on ATC radar screens, among other things. No one is saying there was some kind of script, or that the chaos wasn’t real.

We are saying that it was deliberately caused in order to cripple the US response. The whole point was that it wasn’t clear at first what was real and what was part of the drills. This is what we mean by stand down. It’s not that individual people decided to just let the attacks happen, that really would take 1000’s of people. With the drills, people were trying to do their jobs once the real hijackings happened , they just didn’t realize they were hamstrung from the start.

Now it just comes down to whether you believe the terrorists got lucky and hijacked airplanes on a day when so many drills were running.

I don’t believe in luck. This issue is the one that got me thinking the official myth was a lie.

[psikeyhackr]

@running_coach

Of course the floors don’t account for all of the concrete. From this page.

There’s also the core.

Been there and done that already. I even computed in the six basement levels assuming they were NOT HOLLOW.

Do the volume calculations YOURSELF and see what you get.

70×208²÷27=112,165.9 cubic yards

But we know the basements were not a solid block of concrete.

So you spew out claims with no data checking. And when I compute the floors I include the core as though it is all solid with no holes for elevators.

It is just so curious that the NIST never specifies a total for the concrete but does for the steel which agrees with the pre 9/11 sources that say the concrete was 425,000 cubic yards.

psik