9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2015, 03:53 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 05:37 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 01:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 12:39 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Sure, but you can't make a model to duplicate the collapse of the north tower.

But then no one has done it in FOURTEEN YEARS.

Hey, how did I go back down to -12?

psik

Please, share your thoughts on what you think happened on that day.
He wont ever answer that question because he knows then we have got him. So even though the only alternative to the aircraft bringing down the towers is the demolition conspiracy psik thinks if he doesn't answer the question he's home and dry and no one can claim he's a conspiracy theorist and then he will be taken seriouslyLaugh out load

What he doesn't seem to understand is that it makes him look like a nut job anyway , as its tantamount to saying "I know conspiracies
don't make sense i still believe it and i don't think anyone will actually notice if i obfuscate"

Actually thinking about it I think even as a non physics person I can prove psik is wrong, if the towers were not brought down by the planes then it proves the theory of controlled demolition correct because there's no real alternative and being as the idea of hundreds of government officials colluding to kill thousands of US citizens let alone the impossible logistics of the operation and the impossibility of keeping all those people involved silent, means the demolition theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Therefore the planes brought about the collapse of the towers, ergo psiks physics is wrong Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 05:58 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 03:53 AM)adey67 Wrote:  if the towers were not brought down by the planes then it proves the theory of controlled demolition correct because there's no real alternative

That's incorrect. Not having another alternative is not evidence for controlled demolition. That hypothesis would still need to have evidence to support it. If it could be shown that the damage from the planes and the fires was not a good explanation then we'd be left with an unknown.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 06:04 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 06:45 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 05:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 03:53 AM)adey67 Wrote:  if the towers were not brought down by the planes then it proves the theory of controlled demolition correct because there's no real alternative

That's incorrect. Not having another alternative is not evidence for controlled demolition. That hypothesis would still need to have evidence to support it. If it could be shown that the damage from the planes and the fires was not a good explanation then we'd be left with an unknown.

Damn and blast it you are correct im no good at this shit, can you do classes in logic and critical thinking I think I need it lol so psik might not be as potty as I thought then ? I feel really bad Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 12:39 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 08:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  Girly's not quite right in the head; psikey is a fucking lunatic. Yes

Sure, but you can't make a model to duplicate the collapse of the north tower.

But then no one has done it in FOURTEEN YEARS.

Hey, how did I go back down to -12?

psik

If you would have only read my entire post...here let me reiterate

“Dynamic nonlinear explicit finite element FLEX simulations coupled with independently validated airplane crash models were leveraged to understand and assess the structural states of damage to the tower interiors that could not be observed; this includes the degradation or loss of the load carrying capacity of columns and floor assemblies as well as the stripping of fireproofing from structural members."

Facepalm

You are the most myopic human being I’ve ever encountered.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
02-11-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 06:46 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 12:39 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Sure, but you can't make a model to duplicate the collapse of the north tower.

But then no one has done it in FOURTEEN YEARS.

Hey, how did I go back down to -12?

psik

If you would have only read my entire post...here let me reiterate

“Dynamic nonlinear explicit finite element FLEX simulations coupled with independently validated airplane crash models were leveraged to understand and assess the structural states of damage to the tower interiors that could not be observed; this includes the degradation or loss of the load carrying capacity of columns and floor assemblies as well as the stripping of fireproofing from structural members."

Facepalm

You are the most myopic human being I’ve ever encountered.

I don't give a damn if you are impressed by the word "nonlinear".

If they simply make a simulation of the north tower and remove levels 91 through 95 that would leave a 60 foot gap which is more damage than airliner impact and fires could possibly do. That would result in the top 15 stories in freefall for 60 feet and impacting the top of the intact 90 stories at about 42 mph.

I have not been talking about the aircraft impact all of this time, I am talking about the collapse. The Conservation of Momentum would have to be a factor which means the distribution of mass down the building would be a factor. What do you be that was nonlinear. LOL

The distribution of mass can't bee seen, from the outside of the building so myopia is irrelevant.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
So unless the mass fell in a linear fashion which I guess it wouldn't do the towers wouldn't fall straight down ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 02:48 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 01:21 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  I don’t give a damn if you are impressed by the word “nonlinear”.

weak

(02-11-2015 01:21 PM)‘psikeyhackr Wrote:  If they simply make a simulation of the north tower and remove levels 91 through 95 that would leave a 60 foot gap which is more damage than airliner impact and fires could possibly do. That would result in the top 15 stories in freefall for 60 feet and impacting the top of the intact 90 stories at about 42 mph.

I have not been talking about the aircraft impact all of this time, I am talking about the collapse. The Conservation of Momentum would have to be a factor which means the distribution of mass down the building would be a factor. What do you be that was nonlinear. LOL

The distribution of mass can't bee seen, from the outside of the building so myopia is irrelevant.

psik

You are in love with your pet theory and get angry and defensive when pointed in the right direction. I don’t hold any hope for you but in the event others are reading this thread take a look at the following:

Claim: The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place.

Rebuttal: While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. (It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.)

In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect. NIST concluded that:

The collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else; and
The time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by a) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and b) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.[11]
Based on observations of the collapses as they happened and hundreds of experts' analysis of the building site and materials, the NIST was able to consider and reject other possible explanations for large buildings collapsing in their own footprints. The first is the theory that damage to the WTC floor systems caused their progressive collapse, known as the "pancake theory."[11] The second is the theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled detonation. Neither theory matches the observation that each building appeared undamaged except at its top until it collapsed. The NIST concluded that damage to perimeter support columns initiated the detachment of the floors at and above the fire and impact floors, which subsequently fell into and through the towers. The claim that a building damaged by metal fatigue cannot collapse vertically does not square with observations of the collapses as they happened, nor the conclusions of experts evaluating the effects of physical damage to and the weakening by unusually high temperatures of critical building structures. WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not the first steel-framed structures to ever collapse from fire.[12]

In addition, the buildings did not fall onto their footprints: they left substantial debris scattered across the entire WTC complex site, damaging or destroying almost all of the surrounding buildings, mostly with large pieces of the external aluminum cladding forced outwards by the descending mass of the floors. The damage to WTC 7 was actually caused by debris from WTC 1, 370 feet away. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behavior.

↑ 11.0 11.1 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, NIST
↑ First time in history, Debunking 9-11

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories

BTW did you finally enroll in any college level engineering classes like I suggested? It certainly doesn’t appear that you have. Laugh out load

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
02-11-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
What made the WTC different from other buildings was the fact that it was constructed in a new way. The outer skin of the building bore much of the weight of the building, as opposed to the inner core, which meant that it collapsed in an entirely unique fashion.

I think one would have to be a complete moron to think this was anything other than the result of a terrorist attack. I saw the second plane hit live on TV with my staff watching with me in horror. I just think it's sick and twisted about trying to turn this into some kind of conspiracy when there were thousands of people watching other people die in front of their eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 03:01 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What made the WTC different from other buildings was the fact that it was constructed in a new way. The outer skin of the building bore much of the weight of the building, as opposed to the inner core, which meant that it collapsed in an entirely unique fashion.

I think one would have to be a complete moron to think this was anything other than the result of a terrorist attack. I saw the second plane hit live on TV with my staff watching with me in horror. I just think it's sick and twisted about trying to turn this into some kind of conspiracy when there were thousands of people watching other people die in front of their eyes.
That makes sense, I'm learning here, btw psikey isn't interested in the victims only the physics of the collapse apparently (his words not mine) also he claims not to be a conspiracy theorist still not sure how that one works but there you are. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(01-11-2015 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Bullshit psik you're a conspiracy theorist playing word games, data not required you were owned ages ago there is no conspiracy

What did I ever say about any conspiracy?

It is not my fault if you think conspiracies are more important than physics.

Talking about mass, graviry and the conservation of momentum is a word game?

Only because you do not understand them I presume.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: