9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2015, 05:19 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-03-2015 08:07 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 11:43 AM)BnW Wrote:  Refusing to cater to the lowest common societal denominator doesn't make you egotistical. It makes you pragmatic. People bitching about this nonsense are never going to accept any model anyway. That's the beauty of the conspiracy theory; it exists outside the evidence and anyone who "proves" it wrong must be in on it.

So tell me: what happened that day? Let's hear your theory as to how and why the Towers fell.

Yeah right!

The NIST not even specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers in 10,000 pages was so pragmatic.

And yet in three places they said they needed to know the weight on each level to analyze the motion of the tower due to the aircraft impact.

You need to keep throwing around "conspiracy theory" to show what nonsense it is to have correct data to do the physics.

psik

Fascinating.

So, tell us: How and why did the Towers come down?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
20-03-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 05:19 AM)BnW Wrote:  Fascinating.

So, tell us: How and why did the Towers come down?

The purpose of a model would be to determine FOR CERTAIN if airliners could cause it.

A thought experiment that actually uses brains:

Quote:Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds?

Eliminating 5 stories is more damage than plane and fire could do. But it should make for a much simpler computer simulation. So if a computer simulation does not allow it to all come down in less than 30 seconds then something more than an airliner and fore had to be involved.
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p...stcount=65

I don't give a damn about conspiracies. I am not claiming to know what or who or why. I am just betting that airliner impacts and fire could not have done it.

So doing models to test it which would require accurate data on the building is the way to go. Of course this would create a problem for all collapse believers if models prove me right.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Right. Basically the "I'm just asking questions" gambit. Pretty much what I thought was going to be the answer.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
20-03-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 09:01 AM)BnW Wrote:  Right. Basically the "I'm just asking questions" gambit. Pretty much what I thought was going to be the answer.

Horsesh!t again!

You are just dishing out excuses.

I say airliners could not do that. But determining that for certain still requires accurate data on the building.

Claiming that airliners and fire could do it but saying you don't have to PROVE it because "everybody knows it" is moronically egotistical crap. This is a science problem that should be resolved scientifically. Quoting articles from 2001 that don't even get the quantity of fuel correct is STUPID.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 11:00 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 09:01 AM)BnW Wrote:  Right. Basically the "I'm just asking questions" gambit. Pretty much what I thought was going to be the answer.

Horsesh!t again!

You are just dishing out excuses.

I say airliners could not do that. But determining that for certain still requires accurate data on the building.

Claiming that airliners and fire could do it but saying you don't have to PROVE it because "everybody knows it" is moronically egotistical crap. This is a science problem that should be resolved scientifically. Quoting articles from 2001 that don't even get the quantity of fuel correct is STUPID.

psik

It has been resolved scientifically - you just refuse to look at the evidence and insist that only a physical model is acceptable to you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-03-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 11:00 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 09:01 AM)BnW Wrote:  Right. Basically the "I'm just asking questions" gambit. Pretty much what I thought was going to be the answer.

Horsesh!t again!

You are just dishing out excuses.

I say airliners could not do that. But determining that for certain still requires accurate data on the building.

Claiming that airliners and fire could do it but saying you don't have to PROVE it because "everybody knows it" is moronically egotistical crap. This is a science problem that should be resolved scientifically. Quoting articles from 2001 that don't even get the quantity of fuel correct is STUPID.

psik

What's horse shit is you thinking you get to have a contrary opinion to actual experts. What are your qualifications to comment on this at all? I've not seen you offer anything the would lead anyone to conclude you have any idea about what you're taking about.

For the record, I have zero qualifications to opine on the Towers collapse. What I do have, however, is an opinion of experts who have explained it, and presented their explanation to other people who are qualified to understand it and critique it. Absent some evidence that all these people are in on some conspiracy, there is no reason to disbelieve them. So, I don't.

What you do is come up with some artificial standard of proof, without any qualification at all, and call that the threshold of evidentiary proof required. And, on what basis do you come to that conclusion? I have no idea, but it's clearly not education or professional experience.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BnW's post
20-03-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 11:00 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  [I say airliners could not do that. But determining that for certain still requires accurate data on the building.

This reminds me of something. 20 years ago, the firm I worked at had this woman who did filings who did not believe in cancer. Her whole family didn't believe in it, based on what she told me. I was a young lawyer and I lived in the law library and got to know the staff really well, so they used to tell me stuff.

Anyway, one day she tells us that her sister was diagnosed with cancer. Only problem was her sister didn't believe in cancer. And, since no one in her family believed in it, no one tried to convince her to seek treatment. The woman I knew had an explanation for all the symptoms but it wasn't cancer.

Anyway, maybe 6 months later her sister died. Even then she insisted her sister did not have cancer. The moral to the story is when you have no qualifications to render an opinion on something, you should defer to those who do.

Btw, that's a true story. I didn't make it up for this forum. It really happened.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
20-03-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 12:02 PM)BnW Wrote:  Anyway, maybe 6 months later her sister died. Even then she insisted her sister did not have cancer.

<Shudder>... They walk among us, they look like us... Jesus FUCKING Christ on a broomstick. Get a fucking CLUE. That goes for you too, PsikeyDipShit.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-03-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
*sigh*

Perhaps we don't mess with it because there are a shortage of civil engineers? And an even greater shortage of structural specialists? Perhaps we have other things to do with our time than explain material sciences to idiots who think it was a controlled demolition?

Just for shits and giggles I pulled out my mechanics of materials textbook, and lo and behold the columns of the towers did EXACTLY what the chapter on column design and stress said they would. They reached critical axial loading and then buckled and failed. They even have pictures in the textbook of the type of buckling we can expect. Even without knowing the exact shape of the columns it's pretty clear from that this is what we would expect if the building was supported by a series of columns that transferred the force of the building down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
20-03-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-03-2015 11:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  It has been resolved scientifically - you just refuse to look at the evidence and insist that only a physical model is acceptable to you.

ROFL

This from that man who provides a link to an article that can't get the quantity of fuel correct. But who calls me lazy after not checking his sources.

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