Thread: Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

  1. #441
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by RonWieck View Post
    So when will you be debating a real physicist or engineer?

    Why not?
    .
    Why do you need a physicist to tell you that the designers of skyscrapers must make decisions about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper?

    Why don't you just demand that information for yourself?

    Do you need some AUTHORITY to tell you what to think about GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS? Is the distribution of steel and concrete in a building too difficult for you to understand? I am saying this is not a difficult problem. You should not need anybody to debate anything. You just seem to operate with your brain turned off.

    Your hero MacKey talked about scaling the model in your 3rd episode. Ask him if a model can be properly scaled without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete. You have your own pet NASA SCIENTIST. Ask him that question.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU

    psik

  2. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Just for the record, what cause(s) does NIST give for the building collapsing? Does it specify any particular structural component(s) of WTC 7?
    The NIST says that due to thermal expansion the beams on the east side of the building at the 13th floor pushed a girder coming from the north face to core column 79 off it's seat on column 79 and then the beams fell off the girder and caused the floors under them to collapse and further remove lateral support from column 79, finally causing it to buckle which they say then caused a progressive collapse of the whole interior (without any deformation of the exterior) and then the exterior came down on it's own with 2.25 seconds of full freefall in the overall 6.6 second fall. Bear in mind that it would take 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to hit the ground at full freefall, but the NIST says this is all consistent with their fire induced progressive collapse model.

    Their story is almost as bad as Leopold's when he was confused about WTC 7 being built over a hole in the ground with long cantilever beams spanning the hole causing the collapse due to some form of fire weakening. At least Leopold finally admitted he didn't know. Maybe the NIST will someday.
    I think that NIST belongs in a somewhat different category; accomplice to the crime. Kevin Ryan wrote an interesting article concerning NIST:
    The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites



    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
    I really have to stop discussing this as the controlled demolition of these three buildings is so obvious that one has to be getting paid to say any different, once they have looked closely at it.
    Tony, you're a mechanical engineer with a good knowledge of structural engineering who's studied this issue rather thoroughly. The problem is that most people don't know all that much about structural engineering. I've studied the issue a fair amount but I simply can't argue the way you can; that is, with a firm knowledge of structural engineering.

    I can't even get as far as psikeyhackr; he seems to do fairly well with physics, but again, physics isn't my forte either. So I find myself rather out of the loop right now :-p. The thing is, I'm on your side; so if I don't really understand a point, I simply assume that you do. The same can't be said for people who believe the official story concerning 9/11.

  3. #443
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    that they were put under tremendous stress.
    it isn't too hard to see how that could happen.
    .
    So you think you can just squeeze a four ton girder and release it and it will just jump 600 feet like a giant spring?

    INCREDIBLE!!!

    psik

  4. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    psik,

    I finally got a chance to watch all three of the Hardfire shows with Ron Wieck and Ryan Mackey.

    I wanted to tell you the other day that I thought your comment on Mackey's model lecture was great. He played right into your alley with that one.

    Here is Mackey telling others how to build a complex model, and even go through multiple iterations to get it right as it is admittedly complicated. All the while he has to know we don't have every particular of the buildings. While the core column sizes and strength, the floor slab concrete thickness and reinforcement, and the floor truss sizes and strength have been released, there are many structural details which have not been made public.

    The actual wall thickness and strength of the perimeter columns at every story, the size and strength of the large perimeter columns at grade and sub-levels, and the beam sizes and their connections in the central core are all still a mystery.

    I wanted to call it Mackey's malarky. On top of that why does he feel it is the average citizen's job to build a model of this complexity? What do we have sophisticated labs with lots of resources like the NIST for if we have to do this ourselves? Why isn't Mackey asking why the NIST didn't build a physical model?

    Ron Wieck and Ryan Mackey should be embarassed to have put on such an obvious sophist ploy, especially with the softball questions of the first two shows. If you noticed in the third show Mackey completely ignores the fact that it has been determined that there is no discernable deceleration in the measurable first 114 feet of fall of the upper block of WTC 1 and that WTC 7 has been proven to be in freefall for the first 100 feet of it's collapse, meaning there was no impulse energy available during that time.

    The first two shows should have been called "Softfire" and the last "Hold back their fire".
    psikey, I just wanted to say that this comment of Tony's boosted my view concerning your issues with the lack of certain information, such as wall thickness, greatly.

  5. #445
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by RonWieck View Post
    I will repeat that terribly inconvenient question that ALWAYS sends fantasist frauds scurrying for cover: Why don't any engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. point out the "bad science" in the NIST Report?
    .
    I don't give a damn what physicists and engineers in any other countries do.

    The United States is the nation that put Men on the Moon.

    Why can't the nation that put men on the Moon tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of a couple of skyscrapers designed before the Moon landing? Don't we have enough computing power now?

    psik

  6. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RonWieck
    I will repeat that terribly inconvenient question that ALWAYS sends fantasist frauds scurrying for cover: Why don't any engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. point out the "bad science" in the NIST Report?
    I don't give a damn what physicists and engineers in any other countries do.

    The United States is the nation that put Men on the Moon.

    Why can't the nation that put men on the Moon tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of a couple of skyscrapers designed before the Moon landing? Don't we have enough computing power now?

    psik
    Might as well ask why they didn't analyze the steel for explosives, or why they removed so much so quickly with no analysis at all. I feel like Tony; I don't have hard evidence that there was a cover up, but there's so many things that point in that direction that it seems the most logical explanation.

  7. #447
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by RonWieck View Post
    You have agreed to debate Mackey. Will you appear in the studio or do you prefer using a web cam?
    Ron, first things first. Did you inform Mackey that I wanted to discuss the lack of deceleration of the North Tower's upper block and the freefall of WTC 7? If so, did he agree to that?

    If we were to have a debate I would appear in the studio, I live in New Jersey in the suburbs of Philadelphia and could drive up.

    I won't do it with you as the moderator though. I actually do not like saying that as I do not dislike you as a person but you are biased in one direction and it could make the discussion lopsided time wise.

    Perhaps the guy who moderated the Gage/Roberts debate would be willing to fill in again.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 03-31-09 at 08:02 PM.

  8. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    So you think you can just squeeze a four ton girder and release it and it will just jump 600 feet like a giant spring?

    INCREDIBLE!!!

    psik
    depends on how the steel was annealed.
    wasn't the core and perimeter columns tempered?

  9. #449
    the only real evidence of explosives is the shower of sparks coming from one corner of one of the buildings.
    veiwing the source of these sparks reminds one of a hose spraying these sparks.
    the only "hose" that i can imagine would fit would be an electrical conduit.
    this would produce the showers of sparks and emulate a hose.

  10. #450
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    @Wieck, Ron

    Are you keeping up with JREF?

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=471

    You need to be on the look ou for responses from your pet NASA SCIENTIST.

    psik

  11. #451
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    depends on how the steel was annealed.
    wasn't the core and perimeter columns tempered?
    .
    ROFLMAO

    You think 4 ton girders can spring 600 feet.

    I bet you can't get one to spring its own length.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)

    psik

  12. #452
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    @Wieck, Ron

    Are you keeping up with JREF?

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=471

    You need to be on the look ou for responses from your pet NASA SCIENTIST.

    psik
    So you agree that your model is wrong?

  13. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    ROFLMAO

    You think 4 ton girders can spring 600 feet.
    to repeat: depends on how it' annealed.
    if it's soft steel then no.
    if it's been tempered then yes.

    i don't have much faith in wiki articles, especially when it comes to stuff like this.

  14. #454
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Might as well ask why they didn't analyze the steel for explosives, or why they removed so much so quickly with no analysis at all. I feel like Tony; I don't have hard evidence that there was a cover up, but there's so many things that point in that direction that it seems the most logical explanation.
    .
    This is why I deal with the building and its state before airliner impact and try to figure out what the plane and fire might do to it.

    This insane business has gotten to the point that for all practical purposes the engineering schools are accomplices after the fact. Are we supposed to believe that engineering schools that charge $100,000 for 4 years shouldn't be able to address this issue? They can't be worth the money if not. Every engineering and architectural school should have a position paper explaining whatever they think about each of the 3 buildings. If they didn't provide it then their accreditation should be pulled.

    How many schools seem to be ducking the issue by saying NOTHING?

    psik

  15. #455
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Actually, someone from our physics forum dropped in on one of the other 9/11 threads. Psi just attacked him. At least I admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.
    .
    Here is a link to CptBork:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1275

    You can follow the thread and judge the ATTACK for yourself.

    psik

  16. #456
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    to repeat: depends on how it' annealed.
    if it's soft steel then no.
    if it's been tempered then yes.

    i don't have much faith in wiki articles, especially when it comes to stuff like this.
    .
    So provide us with any link to anywhere indicating a heavy piece of structural steel can spring its own length. I won't even ask for 100 feet.

    psik

  17. #457
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    So you agree that your model is wrong?
    .
    NO!

    Care to be more specific about your question?

    It can't be scaled to something if you don't have the data on the something. That is where MacKey put his foot in it. I have been talking about needing the steel and concrete distribution info on JREF, and other places, for months and those clowns, including MacKey, have been jumping on me for bringing it up. MacKey told me to read the NCSTAR1 report, like that crap isn't at least 95% worthless. But now the great Ryan MacKey, blessed be his name, wants properly scaled models. Demands it on television even. So now he should attack the invulnerable NIST to wrest the invaluable information from their dastardly clutches.

    I am going to love razzing MacKey about this FOREVER!

    Thank you Ron.

    psik

  18. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    So provide us with any link to anywhere indicating a heavy piece of structural steel can spring its own length. I won't even ask for 100 feet.

    psik
    this is where i'm at a disadvantage.
    i don't know how or where to find the information you request.
    maybe this is one of those areas that tony mentioned where common sense fails you, but it seems to me a tempered piece of steel placed under enough stress could fling itself quit a distance.

  19. #459
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Posts
    4,877
    Quote Originally Posted by dMx9 View Post
    You know, that pattern of referring to undocumented assertions as "facts" is actually a logical fallacy. According to Leo, anything that he says is considered "fact," and apparently anything I say will be considered as "bull." Frankly, that seems a little "grade school" to me, but Leo is free to "roll" that way, I suppose.

    "As cognitive bias and logical fallacy

    "Ad nauseam" arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseum
    You silly pseudoscientific fraud!
    9 out of 10 scintists say you r a dodo-head who dont no nothing abut phisics. that's a FACT!

    Clerly they buildings fell becuz of they were designed that way to fall on themselves, don't you know that? The fires from the planes melted all the steel and then it fell down like a pancakes, thats why it called the pancack theery you goof! George bush didnt fly those planes by remote, that's jus soo LAME, retardo! GO BACK TO SCHOOL and LERN SOME REAL PHISICS!!!!

    DON wory guyz, I took cared of this laim retardo.

    sorry for that. couldn't help being silly and yess that WAS sarcasm.
    Last edited by Giambattista; 04-01-09 at 05:34 AM.

  20. #460
    sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Giambattista's Avatar
    Posts
    4,877
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    @Wieck, Ron

    Are you keeping up with JREF?

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=471

    You need to be on the look ou for responses from your pet NASA SCIENTIST.

    psik
    JREF?!?! Frighteningly unwelcoming territory! At least for someone who holds views such as your own. The AMAZING Randi: mocking people for holding "stupid" and "illogical" views that go against the grain since 1825!

Similar Threads

  1. By Simon Anders in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 10-31-08, 10:28 PM
    Replies: 0
  2. By stretched in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 09-14-08, 10:31 PM
    Replies: 26
  3. By cosmictraveler in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 09-13-08, 04:19 PM
    Replies: 9
  4. By Ganymede in forum Politics
    Last Post: 09-14-07, 11:44 PM
    Replies: 15
  5. By Brutus1964 in forum Politics
    Last Post: 10-15-05, 03:22 PM
    Replies: 6

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •