My September 11 Thoughts

[psikeyhackr]

@running_coach

So you’re saying that the full volume of concrete would not have fit in the basement?
That’s your proof that the amount of concrete is wrong?

No I am saying the maximum volume of concrete that could be in the basement and all of the floors above the basement could not add up to what was reported in the buildings before 9/11.

Now if you had been paying serious attention to this issue you would know there has been dispute about whether or not there was a box of concrete around the core or concrete around individual columns in the core at least part way up the building.

If there was then that would affect any data regarding the tons of steel and TONS OF CONCRETE on each LEVEL. It could also affect the amount of damage an aircraft impact could do to the core.

All I KNOW is that there is contradictory data about the volume of concrete. The amounts I have seen reported don’t add up to 425,000 cubic yards for both building even with the ridiculous maximum possible for the basements.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@XT

Popular Mechanics almost didn’t do their own famous debunking.

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.

ROFLMAO

I did read the entire article, YEARS AGO. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality...

But how often does AE911Truth try to explain the mass distribution of skyscrapers to EVERYONE.

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.

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.

Why hasn’t AE911Truth done a physical model? When have they ever even discussed it.

Of course if they solve the problem there would be no need for more donations.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@JohnT

You mean the airplane that the pilot steered into the building? That sort of something caused by someone?

Anyway, we’re entering the crazy zone. Y’all have fun.

No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@Rick

Yes there were isolated pockets of fire on 78, that was from well for lack of a better term, splash over from the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel that was sprayed all over the building a few floors up. Orio Palmer the fire fighter that made that broadcast was below the main fire by one or more floors.

All you have to do is watch the videos of the south tower impact to see that a large percentage of the fuel exploded outside of the building. Most sources that discuss the subject say about a third. But if you just look at the exterior of the building after the explosion you see it had not effect on the steel.

So how is it that so many bigger and longer lasting fires in skyscrapers did not bring about collapses?

You or course know that no other building built like the WTC has had a large fire either before or since. And since you know that, you are the one spreading bullshit ideas, and you are the one that can’t handle the truth.

You can call whatever you like bullshit and believe that nations that can put men on the Moon cannot model something as simple as a skyscraper collapse with today’s computers. The core of the WTC was just a normal grid design with double the normal column density.

http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/page_3_2.php

That is one of the hilarious things about 9/11 these days. Supposedly we can simulate the climate of a planet involving millions of cubic miles of atmosphere but not a measly skyscraper.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@tomndebb

Every member of every study group, (governmental, e.g., N.I.S.T., educational, e.g., MIT or Stanford, or private, e.g., Popular Mechanics), is included in the large number of legitimate architects and engineers.

No legitimate architect or engineer who has experience in this sort of structure has opposed the explanation of the collapse put forth by N.I.S.T.

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?

But you said:

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.

Like there was some VAST NUMBER of legitimate architects and civil engineers that have been duped when it is obvious that most have not said sh!t in 12 years.

But this is someone from Stanford:

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

psik

[psikeyhackr]

@CurtC

The core and perimeter columns could have been made out of Krell Metal and it wouldn’t have made a significant difference. The floors are what gave way, and the perimeter columns then had nothing left to hold them upright and got pushed out by the avalanche.

You keep avoiding this idea: the core columns got thicker lower in the structures, but that didn’t matter one whit.

For one thing, by the time the collapse avalanche had reached the lower parts of the structure, it was giant and unstoppable. For the other thing, the parts that failed were the floors. Each floor was the same and the lower ones were not stronger.

Tell it to the NIST who rejected the pancake theory long ago.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

the floors did not fail progressively

OOPS!

So are you saying the NIST does not know what it is talking about? :smack:

psik

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

That is one of the hilarious things about 9/11 these days. Supposedly we can simulate the climate of a planet involving millions of cubic miles of atmosphere but not a measly skyscraper.

psik

Square-cube law.

Thus, just scaling up the size of an object, keeping the same material of construction (density), and same acceleration, would increase the thrust by the same scaling factor. This would indicate that the object would have less ability to resist stress and would be more prone to collapse while accelerating.

This works in both directions. A scale model would be far harder to topple than the original building.

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

But this is someone from Stanford:

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

psik

So which field did the crackpot get his degree in? And it was a Master’s degree. The Ph.D is in Psychology.

[Rick]

@psikeyhackr

Tell it to the NIST who rejected the pancake theory long ago.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

the floors did not fail progressively

OOPS!

So are you saying the NIST does not know what it is talking about? :smack:

psik

Goddamn it, when I read this my irony meter’s needle hit the peg so hard it sheared the pin off, then it spun around 3 or 4 more complete revolutions, smoke started to our from the unit, and it started to make this wailing noise. I opened my front door, threw it in the yard just before it exploded.
Now I have to go buy a troofer proof unit and that model is expensive.
So first NIST is a bunch of idiots that DON’T know what they are talking about and are all wrong, now they are THE authority.
OOPS indeed.

[Rick]

@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?

But you said:

Like there was some VAST NUMBER of legitimate architects and civil engineers that have been duped when it is obvious that most have not said sh!t in 12 years.

But this is someone from Stanford:

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC

by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

psik

From your great “cite”

The author has a master’s degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.

good thing my irony meter was already broken, I don’t think it could withstand this.
This yahoo is a doctor of psychology. I would like to point out that at least where I went to college engineering and the other hard science people looked down on psychology as some idiots that crawled out from under a rock and are trying to call themselves scientists. His article brings back those memories.
So this guy was such a shitty engineer he went and got a degree in what many engineers consider a pseudo science.
Also this is why we don’t let psychologists design big buildings.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@psikeyhackr

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

And your evidence for this is…

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:

We have explained to you numerous times over dozens of threads why this comparison fails, now stop making it. You either have half the board on ignore (and I only know one person who can make that excuse) or you’re just ignoring valid counterarguments. See, here’s how this keeps happening:

You: “We need a scale model!”
Poster A: “Scale model wouldn’t work because cube-square law”
You: “We need a scale model - they did it for that bridge!!”
Poster B: “Scale model wouldn’t work because cube-square law; the bridge model was testing something which did scale.”
You: “WE NEED A SCALE MODEL BECAUSE REASONS!!!”
Posters A, B, C, and D: “headdesk”

@psikeyhackr

http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/622-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-3.html

Here, let me just cite NaturalNews in this discussion about vaccines… :rolleyes:

[dropzone]

@psikeyhackr

No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower.

Yep. It was Mass, Gravity, and the limited strength of Material Objects. Which were all created by God. So ultimately the religious explanation is that God did it. Wasn’t the first time He knocked something down because it pissed him off. See: the Tower of Babel, the Walls of Jericho, and the Colossus of Rhodes, in his Helios avatar.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Rick

From your great “cite” good thing my irony meter was already broken, I don’t think it could withstand this.
This yahoo is a doctor of psychology. I would like to point out that at least where I went to college engineering and the other hard science people looked down on psychology as some idiots that crawled out from under a rock and are trying to call themselves scientists. His article brings back those memories.
So this guy was such a shitty engineer he went and got a degree in what many engineers consider a pseudo science.
Also this is why we don’t let psychologists design big buildings.

I note that this person goes out of his way to *not *list what kind of engineering degree he has. Most engineers I know of are very clear what their degree is when they sign their work: Mechanical, Structural, Civil, Electrical, Chemical, Sanitation, Computer, Software, Network. This person is going out of their way to not say what their engineering degree is in and that stinks to high heaven that it isn’t a relevant field. Doesn’t seem to bother psi, of course.

The whole article is a bad joke, too boot. The man managed to make multiple mistakes in single sentences. That’s pathetic.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Here, let me just cite NaturalNews in this discussion about vaccines… :rolleyes:

Oh come now, ae991t has surely reached whale.to levels by now.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@psikeyhackr

Like there was some VAST NUMBER of legitimate architects and civil engineers that have been duped when it is obvious that most have not said sh!t in 12 years.

That means nothing, as has been explained to you several times.

But this is someone from Stanford:

Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC
by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

psik

WHOOOPS!

and I quote:

We still commonly see people quoting from Jerry Russell’s “Proof of Controlled Demolition at the WTC”. While Russell has in no sense become a believer of the complete official story (see http://www.911-strike.com for his current position), only a few weeks later he said this about his own article:

The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
Me, James Bond?

Another reason to be careful, especially with old articles – they may no longer represent the authors true views.

So it is still a stupid, stupid article, but kudos for the author to recognize that his article was wrong.

[x-ray_vision]

@psikeyhackr

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

@psikeyhackr

No, I mean something else destroyed the supports in the 90 stories below where the plane impacted the north tower.

Since we have video evidence of the towers when they started falling, that should end the debate.

psikeyhackr, if you can provide evidence that the north tower started falling 90 floors below where the plane impacted, you win.

If someone else can show video evidence that the north tower started falling at or near the point of impact, the other side wins.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Mr.Miskatonic

I note that this person goes out of his way to *not *list what kind of engineering degree he has. Most engineers I know of are very clear what their degree is when they sign their work: Mechanical, Structural, Civil, Electrical, Chemical, Sanitation, Computer, Software, Network. This person is going out of their way to not say what their engineering degree is in and that stinks to high heaven that it isn’t a relevant field. Doesn’t seem to bother psi, of course.

The whole article is a bad joke, too boot. The man managed to make multiple mistakes in single sentences. That’s pathetic.

Sorry to bump my own post but a little searching does seem to indicate that Jerry Russel is an Electronics Engineer. Others refer to him as a 'Computer Scientist.

Either way - not someone who I would cite as an authority on building structures.

[psikeyhackr]

@Mr.Miskatonic

The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that** it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure.** The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct…

" it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure."

And he demonstrated this experimentally where?

psik

[running_coach]

@psikeyhackr

" it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure."

And he demonstrated this experimentally where?

psik

You actually think that’s wrong?

Remember the middle school physics you were going on about?
This is grade school physics.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@psikeyhackr

" it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure."

And he demonstrated this experimentally where?

psik

Mere moments ago you were beaming about this (electrical) engineer from Stanford who supported your silly arguments. Now you are upset that he hasn’t gone around building and collapsing buildings when he changed his mind.