# 9/11 was an inside job

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by WINSTON, Jun 26, 2012.

1. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
Right, I forgot that you were totally out of touch with reality... Your lack of perception notwithstanding, if you want to make extraordinary claims then you must back them with extraordinary evidence... Simply saying something is true or false, frankly, doesn't cut it. If you believe that the towers collapsed in an impossible or somehow remarkable way, then you must provide proof... And do remember, a lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

3. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
I am not responsible for your name calling and feel no need to live down to your absurd expectations.

It is not my fault that you can't do the physics. Ask the NIST why they can specify the total amount of steel in their 10,000 page report but not the concrete. I didn't stop them. I just pointed out what they are missing.

Are you saying that I am keeping engineering schools from doing a model to demonstrate this supposed SCIENCE? Because if I am not then you can wonder why they haven't. You decide what to think or not think about what you are NOT TOLD.

psik

5. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
Perhaps it is "missing" because it doesn't matter in the slightest... The concrete was not load bearing, if the blueprints are any indication

Messages:
21,703
The hallmark of most conspiracy theorists.
The reality of what happened is indisputable, and no amount of crying, wringing ones hands in grief, or trying to gain the moral high ground claiming physics supports your cause, will make any scrap of difference to what did happen, and what any reasonable thinking people know did happen.
You do realise that you are pushing shit up hill, don't you?

8. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Moderator Note

I've moved several offtopic posts here. To be honest, I was tempt to lock that thread and cesspool it, however, for the time being anyway I have left it open.

9. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
What Psikeyhackr is saying, however, is that the mass distribution within the tower is important because it affects, among other things, how much mass is available to do work on the bottom section, and resist work being done on the bottom section.

10. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
And from what I have read, the NIST and several other reports address this, even going so far as to touch on how the specific mass changes as you go higher up the building due to changes in specific gravity at higher elevations - yes, the deviation isn't incredible, but it is there.

This site shows some of the data compiled into one nice, easy to read location and, ultimately, corresponds with the NIST reports.

Taking it further, this site explains several things that Psikeyhackr has claimed, such as why the towers didn't move much upon impact:
In truth, the distribution of concrete didn't matter once the floor members started giving way - there was simply no way for the collapse to be halted at that point. I don't know many buildings, to be frank, that COULD withstand having a large percentage of their upper middle structure fail, allowing the top structure to crush the rest.

11. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064

ROFLMAO

I love how people make claims about stuff they do not check. That is Gregory Urich's data and I already know about and I have talked to Urich about and I have his spreadsheet on my computer.

If you look at his spreadsheet you will notice that there is no columns specifying the height of each level. But you can modify his spreadsheet by adding columns to compute the height by dividing the Potential Energy by the Mass.

If you do that you will find that Urich has the roof lower than the top 10 stories. Urich also admitted that he did a linear interpolation of the perimeter wall panels because no on has the actual data. But in order to do that he made the panels at the 9th floor 19 tons. But we have an article from 1970 saying the heaviest panels were 22 tons.

The distribution was not linear. Urich's data is wrong. I pointed this out to him and he calls it a Red Herring and I have been banned from his site.

But if you compute his heights by dividing PE by mass you get:

Code:
         Mass and energy

Mass       totals    Height     Height      Weight
kg 10^3      PE(MJ)    Meters      Feet        Tons

#111  2,610.20      9,391    366.77    1,202.99    2,871.22
---------------roof-----------------------------------------
#110  3,845.54     15,496    410.76    1,347.30    4,230.09
#109  2,639.91     10,540    406.99    1,334.94    2,903.90
#108  4,210.56     16,655    403.22    1,322.58    4,631.62
---------------107------------------------------------------
#107  2,849.55     11,166    399.46    1,310.22    3,134.51
#106  1,848.07      7,174    395.69    1,297.86    2,032.88
#105  1,847.48      7,103    391.92    1,285.50    2,032.23
#104  1,853.91      7,059    388.15    1,273.13    2,039.30
#103  1,860.34      7,015    384.38    1,260.77    2,046.37
#102  1,866.78      6,970    380.61    1,248.41    2,053.46
#101  1,873.21      6,925    376.85    1,236.05    2,060.53
---------------100------------------------------------------
#100  1,830.32      6,699    373.08    1,223.69    2,013.35
#99  1,836.75      6,654    369.31    1,211.33    2,020.43
#98  1,843.18      6,610    365.54    1,198.97    2,027.50
#97  1,849.61      6,564    361.77    1,186.61    2,034.57
#96  1,856.05      6,518    358.00    1,174.25    2,041.65
#95  1,862.48      6,472    354.23    1,161.89    2,048.73
#94  1,868.91      6,425    350.47    1,149.53    2,055.80
#93  1,875.34      6,378    346.70    1,137.17    2,062.87
#92  1,881.77      6,331    342.93    1,124.81    2,069.95
#91  1,873.41      6,233    339.16    1,112.45    2,060.75

Total Tons above ground      272,763.48 
But don't most sources say the buildings were 400,000 to 500,000 tons? So why is Urich's number so low?

So you ban me on the basis of data that you don't check. It just looks nice.

Typical 9/11 Religionist.

psik

12. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
What are you accusing me of claiming. I said the NIST reported that the south tower deflected 12 inches due to the impact. You present that as though I was lying but your quote does not say anything specific about it.

The NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete but you can make the EMPTY CLAIM that the distribution does not matter. You don't even know how much there was from an official source after 9/11. But sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards in both towers. That would be more than 300,000 tons per building.

psik

13. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
You are the one claiming the distribution matters... and yet, you have not presented any reasoning or evidence to back that claim.
It is not my responsibility to provide evidence for your claim.

14. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
On page 6

Is my post with the link to my Python program computing collapse times on the basis of the Conservation of Momentum and gravitational acceleration.

It is not my fault that mass distribution affecting the results because of the Conservation of Momentum is not obviouls to you. I consider it to be middle school physics.

What is the matter, no comment on Urich getting the roof in the wrong place?

psik

15. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
That model was already dismissed for several reasons, including the fact that such a model does not accurately represent what happened inside the WTC... comments you handwaved away with arguments about the square cube law and conservation of momentum, despite using them in entirely the wrong ways...

16. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
That program does not have anything to do with the square cube law.

But how do 109 equal masses spaced at 12 feet with no supports take 12 seconds to collapse when Dr. Sunder of the NIST says the north tower came down in 11 seconds when supports had to be broken?

You and other collapse believers just dismiss what you can't explain and then ban someone for being smarter than you are.

All you have is talk and not even engineering schools can build a collapse model in TWELVE YEARS.

psik

17. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
All you have is, apparently, unmitigated anger and an over-inflated sense of self-worth and ego...
Bring actual evidence to the table. Hell, if you are so certain about this, publish your findings. Perhaps there is a reason there has not been a scale model built of the 9/11 collapse... it has, however, been simulated multiple times, by people far more experienced in this area than you or I.

I choose to believe years of experience over your ramblings... after all, how are we expected to believe you can accurately simulate, in miniature, the collapse of the WTC when you can't even figure out who here is a moderator when the information is given to you wrapped up in a nice little bow?

Messages:
21,703

For the third time, why not answer the questions I have asked you?
Are you afraid you will label yourself a silly conspiracy pusher?
Or are you afraid it will show that what you raise is irrelevant and given to confuse and cloud the real issue of that which everyone knows did happen.

You are convicting yourself by not answering my questions.

19. ### KittamaruSuppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,936
Simply put, he cannot answer them.

20. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
14,519
Thank you for once again proving my point.

21. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
You are welcomed whatever you think the point was.

psik

22. ### psikeyhackrLive Long and SufferValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,064
You can think that all you want.

Human beings cannot change the way physics works. So the issue is how the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion in less than 30 seconds. Who caused some type of aircraft to hit the north tower and why are irrelevant issues to me so I do not even think about it.

You can demand the answers to questions I do not care about all you want. I am not trying to answer them for myself so why should I care about answering them for you?

psik

Messages:
21,703