9/11 was an inside job

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    In my view, it would be utterly Impossible to recreate the conditions exactly as happened on the day that a group of fanatical, evil nutbags, flew a couple of fuel laden jets into the towers...Utterly Impossible.
    And to try and use such flimsy data, while completely ignoring the blatantly obvious data and evidence, is bordering on criminality in my opinion.
    Either that, or the possibility that the person or persons, pushing such crap, are politically, and/or mentally compromised.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization. As I recall psikeyhackr says they're irreleevant because of the loading redundancy. Built into the towers. As I recall his opinion is that they're irrelevant because they could not/should not, according to NISTs projections have damaged or destroyed enough core columns to be a problem.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    The point, from where I am, is that [1] Is it possible to recreate conditions exactly as happened on 9/11?
    [2]Any slight variation, [angle the plane hit, the speed it was going at, the amount of fuel when it did hit] would make any projections on load redundancies, butt joints, the exact amount of steel, the concrete, and many more incidentals and conditions I have failed to mention, would invalidate any calculations re what some suppose should have happened.

    So using the laws of physics in any and all those situations is never going to be conclusive.
    At least that's the way I see it as a layman.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,936
    Except those same reports, and others, go on to state how it was a combination of immediate failures brought upon by the impact of the jet coupled with delayed failures due to metal deformation from uneven heating due to the jet-fuel fires that eventually brought the towers down.
     
  8. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Duplicating the conditions exactly would be irrelevant and idiotic. All that matters is testing whether collapse was possible.

    Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 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.

    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 the the north tower collapsed in 11 seconds.

    Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

    9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in human history.

    http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

    But I propose a 5 story gap, which we know did not happen, combined with constant speed of destruction of supposedly intact levels would take 19 seconds. So most of the supposed gravitational collapse would have to accelerate while destroying most of the structure and just leaving behind some of the core.

    So we just need to model the collapse and create a gap greater than aircraft and fire could possibly cause. If the structure is deliberately built weaker than the WTC in proportion to its weight and it still won't collapse then what happened on 9/11 had to have destructive agents above and beyond aircraft impact and fire.

    So it is certainly interesting that we don't have data on the distributions of steel and concrete and no engineering school has discussed modelling the collapse.

    psik
     
  9. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Do you have trouble reading?

    This is what I wrote:
    I said the issues of who caused it and why is irrelevant. That does not affect whether or not the consequences of the impact could destroy the north tower.

    psik
     
  10. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,936
    Except the impact of the planes, and the fires they caused, are DIRECTLY and UNDENIABLY tied to the failure of the supporting structure... calling it irrelevant is like calling the knife blade that caused the stab wound a person is bleeding to death out of irrelevant...
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    In actual fact the only farce that exists on this forum, is you and the other troubled alternative/conspiracy pushers that haunt us from time to time.

    If you had "ANYTHING" concrete value, "ANYTHING" of substance, any "EVIDENCE" at all to show that things were not as was obvious to most sensible folk, you would not be here...you would not be sprouting garbage, in the fringe sections of any forum.
    You would be out showing the world, what you have found, and what you have been smart enough to find that has escaped everyone else.

    But you cant. Because these forums are the only outlet you have to preach your nonsensical crap.

    Actually, you did not have to answer my questions. It is quite obvious that you are a conspiracy troll, going on other posts and threads covering this type of nonsense.

    We can all be thankful though, that as time progresses, this type of crap, and the people sprouting conspiracy crap, will gradually die out and it will be taken to the grave when your time comes.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    reasonably accurate would be close enough.
    your model is not reasonably accurate.
    it fails to model the loosening core and especially the perimeter below the collapse.
    in my opinion your model only depicts how well the floors are suspended.
    given the above and the fact the floors were held by the core and perimeter your model is not accurate at all.
     
  13. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Kittamaru

    It is correct to say those buildings survived the impacts, the built in reserve strength allowed them to continue standing after that event. But there were many columns that were overloaded(as compared to as built)and near their yeild point or point of failure under load and the external frames were severed altogether in large areas on both buildings. If there had been smaller fires successfully fought those buildings could still be standing. But there were actually multi-floor, widespread, jetA fueled fire zones with temperatures well above 500C, at 500C structural steel loses half it's strength and starts yeilding, further overloading some of those columns, which finally fail. Gravity, Kenetic energy, weak floors and weak butt joints dictate the rest. As we saw happen, twice, on the same day.

    That is just the physical reality, but some cannot accept the facts or the real physics involved. Most of these people grow up and move out of their mom's basement. The few who don't...:shrug:

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703


    Nice explanation Grumpy!
    Where's ya been!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,727
    Was it twice or thrice? If I recall, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all went down pretty dramatically.
     
  16. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Neddy Bate

    The Twin Towers fell due to aircraft impact damage aggravated by multi-floor, widespread fires, Tower 7 fell because of impact damage from debris from Tower One exacerbated by over 7 hours of unfought localized fire and serious design compromises in it's frame members(they were cantilevered over an existing power plant on the first floor). All steel framed, diaphragm truss floored buildings will collapse under those conditions(as we saw three times that day). Reinforced concrete buildings won't(as a general rule), they will withstand those conditions(as the Empire State building withstood the 1948 crash of a B 25 full of Avgas). The difference being in how they handle heat. It's in the physics, no explosives or thermite needed.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,936
    But as some people show, physics is BORING. They want there to be explosives, or thermite, or invisible rockets on the roof pushing the debris down faster than gravity could supposedly pull it. They need that conflict and conspiracy to... well... I dont' know what they want or need it for, but they do sure seem to need it!
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    I agree it is not accurate enough to be conclusive. I never claimed it was PROOF.

    How expensive would a good tube-in-tube model be? The only way I think of building a good one that could be replicated without much difficulty would be by using a 3D printer. It the 3D printer could make each level 2 feet on a side then it would be about 1.5 inches tall. It would still require accurate distribution of mass data to properly weight each level and make them only as strong ast necessary.

    psik
     
  19. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,727

    It's hard to make a model that is strong enough to stand on its own, but also weak enough to collapse at near free-fall speed. Did you try downloading the free physics program I mentioned? It's pretty neat. I was just playing with it now, and I noticed that it has a gravity setting, which helps somewhat.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    do you understand that 1 & 2 is not like the empire state building (ESB) in construction?
    ESB only relied on the outer part to remain standing.
    1 & 2 relied on 3 interacting elements to keep them standing, the core, the floors, and the perimeter.
    the perimeter carried the majority of the load, 53% i believe, the core carried the rest.
    the floors kept the core and perimeter aligned on the vertical and kept the building from twisting.
    the core columns was not one long piece.
    they were several short pieces end to end.
    you have seen video of core column samples.
     
  21. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Where did you come up with that? The ESB was a grid design with columns spaced 30 feet apart throughout the structure.

    http://www.generalcontractor.com/resources/articles/empire-state-building.asp

    http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The Height of Ambition Part Four.pdf

    psik
     
  22. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,727
    I'm not sure what your response has to do with my comment, "It's hard to make a model that is strong enough to stand on its own, but also weak enough to collapse at near free-fall speed." My comment was meant to illustrate that even if psikey did use a 3D printer to make a scaled-down model of WTC1 or 2, there would still be the question of how strong the material should be, and how strong the connections should be. If it is too strong, it won't collapse, and there won't be anything to analyze. If it is too weak, like a "house of cards" type arrangement, then it can collapse, but the question arises as to whether that is a valid model of a building designed to remain standing through hurricane strength winds.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455

Share This Page