Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

.
Yeah, it's like they have these bulletproof egos that they confuse with intellects. They can contradict themselves and not notice and claim whatever they said was true and corresponds to reality regardless of idiocy.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4573759&postcount=475

But now The Great, Ryan MacKey has stuck his foot in his mouth and I am going to push it farther in for all it is worth.

Thank you Ron!

The first and last episodes of the Ron & Ryan Comedy Hour are must sees.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're quite welcome. You're still an ineducable know-nothing who babbles utter nonsense. You can't find a single error in Mackey's lecture, but then he's a real scientist, while you, well, are considerably less.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, even for a conspiracy liar, your dodge is pathetically weak. I think we understand why you wouldn't dare to face a real engineer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, you won't be razzing ANYBODY. You've been exposed as an ignoramus--another fraud peddling utter crap. Tell us what Mackey got wrong.

 

.
You don't get it Ron.

I agree COMPLETELY with what MacKey said in Hardly Any Fire episode 3: Revenge of the Physics.

My point is that Ryan MacKey and his JREF cronies have been giving me a hard time for months. I have been saying we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE for every level of the WTC for months. Use Google, do a search on:

+psikeyhackr +"tons of steel" +"tons of concrete"

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=2169

I have been getting on Richard Gage's case about it. I went to Chicago last May when he gave a seminar at Illinois Circle Campus. I got in line to ask a question after the show about the distribution of mass. He gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. He is an architect heading a group of architects and engineers. How much computing power should he have at his disposal compared to what they had in 1961 to design the towers? He should be able to come up with some pretty good numbers without the NIST.

But now The Great Ryan MacKey, honored be his name, has bestowed upon us the right to know the distribution of steel and concrete in order to build an accurate scaled model. May the blessings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster be upon him.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And we owe it all to you Ron. You have saved us from the benighted darkness of ignorance.

The Ron & Ryan Comedy Hour shall go down in 9/11 history as a turning point for the Truth Movement.

psik

PS - You don't suppose I laid it on too thick there do you? ROFL

 

You have no choice but to lay it on thick. You have been caught bluffing. You are in way over your head and you have to shout very loudly to trick people into thinking you know what you're talking about.

Real engineers on the JREF have been handling you very roughly. AW Smith exposed your disingenuous prattle about the distribution of steel and concrete. You have sufficient information at your disposal to get within 5% of a precise result. But nothing can save you from "the benighted darkness of ignorance": it's where you dwell.

Another fraud bites the dust.

 

This appears to be what you are saying... You need certain data to build an accurate model... You don't have that data... Yet your model is correct.


Is that what you are saying?

 

about this "mass distribution",
i honestly don't see what psiky i getting all lathered up about.
the dimensions of the core columns are known.
the weight of the floors is going to be constant.
the perimeter columns can be assumed to decrease in weight in direct proportion to the core columns and you have a starting weight of 22 tons.
this information alone is enough to get you very close to the actual distribution.

 

.
The word model has more than one meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model

Is it an accurate scaled model of the WTC to a significant degree? NO!

Is it an accurate demonstration of the physical principles involved of a heavy mass falling on lighter masses and having to break their supports to continue motion. YES!

Now for anyone to make an accurate physical scale of the collapse of the WTC then they must have accurate data on the building. That is what MacKey was saying in Hardfire 3. I agree 100%. But MacKey has been talking BS for months on JREF saying enough data is already available or its irrelevant or whatever he regarded as convenient at the time.

Now the WTC was supported by vertical columns while my model just uses horizontal pieces of wood sticking out of a dowel. The way my model works that dowel is not going to collapse no matter what, therefore the degree that it is similar to the WTC will always be limited. But with more accurate info on the distribution of mass in the WTC then the masses in my model can be adjusted and using and testing various gauges of wire instead of toothpicks the strength and forces involved could be scaled to more closely resemble the WTC. But that cannot be done without accurate data.

I don't know of any physical model on Youtube that does nearly as good a job.

The trouble with computer models is that they require accurate data also. The designers must select their equations. There must not be any coding errors. The people watching the model must believe all that is correct. And who knows enough to check for themselves?

At the very least mine cannot have coding errors. I am not using any equations the REAL PHYSICS works on its own. I could cheat by somehow selecting strong and weak toothpicks or use some wood other than toothpicks. But my demonstration is VERY CHEAP. I am telling people how to do it. So anyone that wants to can duplicate it themselves. Nobody has to take my word for anything. I think wire would be better than toothpicks but I didn't think of it until the video was shot.

psik

 

psikey is an interesting one.

He/she goes to Richard Gage seminars, watches Ryan Mackey vidoes, signs up to forums to discuss 911, seems to spend a lot of time trying to ridicule the sceptics, and yet only really seems interested in passionate rants about knowing the TONS of STEEL and CONCRETE.

:shrug:

I'm sure the information could be found or at least calculated fairly accurately. Then what?

 

I've wondered the same damn thing...the whole fixation about the tons of steel and concrete. Go figure.

 

.
Haven't I mentioned multiple times that there is dispute about the quantity of concrete?

You can find lots of sources saying 425,000 cubic yards.

You can find lots of sources saying 90,000 tons.

That 425,000 is for both buildings but if you convert 212,500 cubic yards to tons using 110 lb/cu ft you get around 300,000 tons. There were 2 types of concrete used, 110 and 150.

From my perspective most people that believe the official story have not investigated enough to encounter so much fishy information and are far to inclined to be trusting. Like the business of the airliner impacting the core of the south tower. FEMA and the BBC say it missed or only grazed a corner. But the NIST says the nose went in just inside the corner.

Now personally I think the collapse is impossible with even a constant distribution of mass through the building. But the fact is I do not now how you are supposed to calculate the amount of energy necessary to crush one level of the tower even if the amount of steel is known. But then I don't understand how anyone can believe the collapse was possible in less than 18 seconds. Even granting a 2 to 1 advantage to the top 16 stories of the north tower. That means 16 stories could destroy 32 with 1 as the initial collapse distance so 49 destroyed leaves 61 still standing.

My model clearly shows that stationary mass does not add to the destruction, it slows things down just as the conservation of momentum predicts and I computed in FALL OF PHYSICS. But that had no supports so it just slowed the collapse. It did not stop. This model stops the falling mass and stops it faster with stationary mass so scaling is irrelevant. Accurate scaling would just mean the proportions of the stop over the total distance would more accurately reflect what should have happened to the WTC assuming the collapse should have started anyway.

Since we don't even know the amount of steel in the impact and fire zone we can't say for certain that the collapse ever should have started. :shrug:

psik

 

As AW Smith pointed out, he has sufficient information to come very close to the answer he professes to seek.

Pssst! He really isn't seeking anything.

 

.
To me a lot of the people like Richard Gage seem to be more interested in dragging this on forever rather than solving the problem so the average person can understand it. I emailed Gage about Frank Greening in 2007. He sent back that I was correct but never used the information on his site.

Do you think you need a PhD in physics and a masters in structural engineering to understand what holds a skyscraper up and has to fail for it to collapse?

You seem more interested in psychological bullshit than solving a grade school physics problem. So it doesn't bother you that Americans could be killing and dying in Iraq because most Americans aren't smart enough to ask the obvious questions about a couple of skyscrapers.

Who needs to watch a Ryan MacKey video. There were only two people. It is easy to distinguish their voices. You start it playing while doing something else on the computer. There was nothing to watch in the first two but I stopped it and went back when Ron made that "ten thousand tons" comment. I only watched the part of the second where he showed the diagrams of his models. He stuck his foot in his mouth there.

But then you don't say anything about the models I designed and built and shot and edited video and made sound tracks, and must have done testing that wasn't taped. You can't figure out that those had to take up a lot more time then all of the stuff you are making a big deal about?

What does that say about your psychology?

psik

 

.
Of course that would have to mean that Tony is lying here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2209954&postcount=386

And anyone that wants to search can find sites that say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. As far as I can tell that number comes from the Port Authority from BEFORE 9/11.

This site is about the 1993 bombing:

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

But that 200,000 tons of steel matches the NIST report. But that report does not give a total for the concrete.

psik

 

Here's what it says about your psychology. You couldn't understand a word Mackey said. Fair enough--he's a real scientist and you're merely an aggressive ignoramus. You dishonestly pretend that my obvious slip-of-the-tongue has a significance you couldn't begin to describe. Mackey says that he critiqued one of your models some time ago, pointing out its merits as well as the flaws. You couldn't process anything. He says he's tried to discuss your models with you, but you just can't follow the discussion.

Face it: you're a lightweight who got exposed.

 

psiky has a valid complaint.
NIST supposedly did some tests on models of the WTC so they apparently have the data.

there can be only one reason they aren't releasing it and that is the builders of the twin towers knew from the get go that these towers were not designed to be as sturdy as they should have been.
the presence of butt joints in the load bearing perimeter columns seems to support that observation.

 

Tony was regularly demolished on the JREF before he fled.

 

Ron, your amazing ability to just make comments, while providing no basis for them whatsoever, hasn't diminished since I was involved in discussion with you and some of the other hecklers on the JREF forum.

The reason I don't post there much anymore is that the company was rather poor and in many cases quite impolite. I actually did post a couple of small points there in the last two weeks, so there was no fleeing that you speak of. It just isn't an everyday thing.

While we are on the subject I have wondered why you stopped posting there.

 

.
I suggest you go back and watch that video because I did, 3 times. Just before you said "ten thousand tons" you hesitated like you were thinking about what to say and then you got it WRONG!. If that hesitation had not been there I might buy the slip of the tongue.

But all the stuff you say here just advertises your mentality. The way you behave with MacKey is hilarious. You need some AUTHORITY to tell you what to think.

I also watched MacKey the way he said, "Yeah Right." after "your slip of the tongue." I am inclined to wonder if he did in fact notice your mistake but just thought correcting you was pointless. Like, "Jeez what a meat head! But he's my meat head." ROFL

psik