9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-08-2015 03:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:47 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Since most engineering schools have actually neither supported nor denied the physics of the official story it actually looks rather peculiar.

Still pretending that no one actually did an any analyses, are we?

Still pretending you are brilliant by exaggerating what someone says?

Where did I say NO ONE?

I said "MOST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS". I have seen stuff from MIT with Bazant and cronies and Sozen's "scientific" simulation at Purdue who I emailed and got no response from. What other engineering schools do you know of emitting comments? And I do not know if those are the "official positions" of the schools.

What comments have there been from Caltech about 9/11?

Where is there an analysis from anyone with distribution of steel and concrete data?
Was the same amount of steel on the 105th level as on the 5th level? Did they have to support the same amount of weight?

Is that too difficult a question for engineering schools?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-08-2015 11:47 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Is that too difficult a question for engineering schools?

psik

No it's not "too difficult" it's arbitrary.

You seem to still not grasp a extremely critical element to this. Why would they!? YOU think it's important for more people to look to answer now, that doesn't mean anyone else should/does.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-08-2015 11:47 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Still pretending you are brilliant by exaggerating what someone says?

I'm not pretending, no.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Psikeyshithead, you gonna address this, or just hope it slides off the page?

Quote:*Even though* two gigantic fucking aircraft hit them point blank there was still a massive inquiry into the incident. That is in *no way* unscientific. What *is* unscientific is posting rambling bullshit on a forum full of non-experts in some kind of ridiculous attempt to validate your own vanity that you are somehow special.

I just thought I'd remind you that you're a fucking nitwit. Have a shitty day Smile

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
20-08-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-08-2015 12:48 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 01:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why don't you look other places besides the NIST report?

What makes you think I haven't? But whose responsibility was it to explain this?

I think every engineering school in the US and most around the world should have said something about this by now. But who has pointed out that the NIST does not even specify how much concrete was in the towers.

psik

Big fuckin' deal. The information is available.

They were under time pressure to get a report published. It's not perfect? Golly, gee. Dodgy

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
20-08-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-08-2015 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:48 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  What makes you think I haven't? But whose responsibility was it to explain this?

I think every engineering school in the US and most around the world should have said something about this by now. But who has pointed out that the NIST does not even specify how much concrete was in the towers.

psik

Big fuckin' deal. The information is available.

They were under time pressure to get a report published. It's not perfect? Golly, gee. Dodgy

I have seen this before and before and before.

People claiming information is somewhere but then never saying what it is or where it is. Info from before 9/11 says there was 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in the towers. The NIST never agrees with that. They never specify any total. But they do say there are two densities of concrete, 110 lb per cu/ft and 150 lb per cu/ft. So we don't have any post-9/11 total for each tower which were not the same height.

You can claim BS all you want, but you don't specify data and provide a source.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 09:19 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Gasp

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 09:46 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 06:48 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 08:01 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Seeing as most of us have read the NIST

Oh really? You read all of 10,000 pages?

I didn't. I downloaded it and burned it to DVD. I then did hundreds of searches for various terms.

They use the term "Center of Mass".

They use the term "Center of Gravity".

The total use is less then 50. Whenever they say "Center of Mass" they are talking about the aircraft. Whenever they say "Center of Gravity" they are talking about some computer simulated component of the building. They never use those terms about the entire building or the tilted top portion of the south tower.

I searched for "concrete".

They use that more than 3,000 times. I read every sentence with that word. Fortunately it usually occurred lots of time in paragraphs. They never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

I searched for "steel".

In three place they specify a total of "roughly 200,000 tons".

Why a total for steel and not concrete?

Did you notice that in your READING?

And then I can't find centers of mass and gravity used about any specific skyscraper on the Internet.

But in three places the NIST admitted that they needed to know the weight on each level to analyse the buildings' motion due to the aircraft impacts but then they never provide that data. But without it the Potential Energy of the towers cannot be accurately computed.

Another funny thing that turns up doing searches is that the same sentences and even entire paragraphs turn up again and again like it is a fluffy snow job to impress people that are not going to read it.

But with all of that you expect me to BELIEVE you read the entire NIST NCSTAR1 report. If the planes could cause the collapses they should be able to explain it in fewer than 200 pages. Who has done that?

psik


I read it. Did not count the pages. You didn't?


I read long books. Not anymore though, although I plan to read les Miserables. I somehow missed it.

I don't really expect you to believe anything. You are obviously insane.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
21-08-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-08-2015 05:04 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Big fuckin' deal. The information is available.

They were under time pressure to get a report published. It's not perfect? Golly, gee. Dodgy

I have seen this before and before and before.

People claiming information is somewhere but then never saying what it is or where it is. Info from before 9/11 says there was 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in the towers. The NIST never agrees with that. They never specify any total. But they do say there are two densities of concrete, 110 lb per cu/ft and 150 lb per cu/ft. So we don't have any post-9/11 total for each tower which were not the same height.

You can claim BS all you want, but you don't specify data and provide a source.

psik

Sorry, but where did I claim what as BS?

If you want to spend your time and energy on this, you go right ahead. I think it is a colossal waste of time.
You could turn your hand to something useful and productive.

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
21-08-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 01:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, but where did I claim what as BS?

If you want to spend your time and energy on this, you go right ahead. I think it is a colossal waste of time.
You could turn your hand to something useful and productive.

I meant that your claiming that the information is "out there" is BS.

Each level of a skyscraper needing to support all of the weight above is not a difficult concept. So not having data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level is what is so absurd after 14 years. The "experts" can't talk about the obvious. Not even Richard Gage.

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