Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

I can't post there. I was banned for showing that the mods, particularly "Darat" and "Chillzero," are vindictive bullies who don't like it when
their lack of objectivity is exposed.

You, on the other hand, were regularly battered by Newton's Bit, RW Guinn, Mackey, and the other real engineers. Remember how much time you wasted with your idiocy about "dual-citizenships"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You "might buy the slip of the tongue"? What a pathetic dunce! Nah, I r-e-a-l-l-y believe that planes are a mile long and weigh as much as a 30-story building. Yeah, there's a serious debate about this. Mackey points out on the JREF that I chided myself for the slip when we spoke on the phone that night.

This is exactly where you conspiracy liars hang yourselves. Your own approach consists entirely of falsehoods, so every mistake by a rationalist must be a "lie." You seem not to grasp the concept that people tell lies to gain some sort of benefit. It is impossible to see what I hoped to achieve by committing an obvious blooper.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those guys didn't batter me. Did you forget I am the one who pointed out Newton's Bit's error on the angle of rotation for buckling. RW Guinn is a joke who chimes in on occassion with sarcasm but never really starts or ends a discussion and acts like all mechanical engineers design HVAC. Mackey didn't do any damage to my points either.

It sounds like you really went for the bluster of Newton's Bit. He was the only one trying to say how wrong I was about the effective length factor being .65 to .70 for the columns in the towers, while insisting it couldn't be lower than 1.0 when he was using a conservative design approach that always treats columns as pinned on both ends and not fixed or partially fixed. He never showed you both nomographs from the AISC manual, only the one that had the conservative approach with the columns pinned and alloowing for full rotation. You just ate it all right up without giving it a second thought. You are really out of your league with this type of discussion and I don't see how you could judge. But you do anyway and show your obvious bias.

Mark Roberts is actually the one who started the dual citizen discussion in the direction it went. I guess you never noticed that. It was also just one thread and I made about eight to ten posts about it with Roberts. He couldn't deny it, so he apparently is a dual citizen. If you noticed, I didn't spread it all over the Internet. However, are you saying it has no possible pertinence? I do not believe his claimed motives for trying to debunk the 911 Truth movement. That is that he , a supposed NYC tour guide, thinks it is just wrong and decides to invest an inordinate amount of time on things he can barely understand if at all. I am amazed at how much time the guy seems to be on the computer. I see posts from him night and day. When does he work? I would like to see his tour receipts and his W2 form.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
ROFLMAO

But you come here and demonstrate that you should have fit in there. I guess some have to be worse than others. Most of the people at the site are like that.

Addled Authoritarians flock together.

psik

 

A small correction: Roberts DID deny your ludicrous assertion. He is NOT a dual-citizen, and nobody thinks he is.

You will debate Mackey in May, then. Do you want to use a web cam, phone-in your responses, or show up in the studio?

 

Well if Roberts denied the dual citizenship thing he didn't do it to me. I really don't care.

As for debating Mackey in May that would be fine but as I said first things first. There needs to be an understanding of what we will discuss, similar to what you did with your show with him having specific points to be discussed. Did you ask him if he agreed to discuss the lack of deceleration of the North Tower's upper block and the 2.25 second freefall of WTC 7?

I don't have a web cam, but might think about getting one. If not, I would come to the studio.

I also said I would want another moderator besides yourself as you are obviously biased on this issue.

 

I'm not talking about what you BELIEVE now. I'm talking about what you didn't KNOW then. I didn't make up that hesitation just before you said it. Watch the recording yourself. Maybe you just didn't know how much planes weigh AT THAT TIME. Now you know how ridiculous it was.

psik

 

you are biased. but the main thing that you cannot get away from is the simple fact that planted explosives could never bring the building down in the crumbling fashion we see as explicitly evident in the videos. obviously you should know why but maybe you just cannot understand this.

if you cannot explain that then you cannot move any further or raise any points because then it just becomes fiction.

edit: to avoid the obvious response- planted explosives would NEED to be on every flor and strategically placed on outer perimeter. under the circumstances, it is just not possible.

 

psikey, you should face the facts that your experiments are so flawed that they are just not relevant to anything. if reality was to be an issue.

 

I myself think they are quite interesting, but I'm not an expert on such things. Tony has never said that his experiments are flawed. Seeing as he seems to be the only person in here who has a good knowledge of structural engineering, I will reserve judgement.

 

.
So why don't you explain the flaw instead of showing that quote about Ron?

The real problem is that scaling business that Mackey talks about in episode 3. When I made that first model in 2007 I wasn't even considering making a collapse model. The problem is the way the strength to weight ratios change with the size of objects. Small objects are much stronger in relation to their weight, so a gravitational collapse that depends on weight breaking its own supports in a small model would be very difficult. Maybe that is what Mackey was counting on. That Hardfire 3 had to be planned before I ever uploaded my video.

But I wrote that FALL OF PHYSICS essay last July so I started imagining in my head how to do that in real life. I was thinking of electromagets holding the weights and shutting off just before the falling mass hit. But that caused me to stop thinking in terms of a BUILDING MODEL. Just use some weak supports and drop a mass on them and vary the masses on the weak supports.

So NO it is not a model of any building but YES it does model the physical principles involved. Engineering is applied physics and engineering cannot escape from physics. So EXPERTS should have been demanding the distribution of mass information on the towers in 2002.

psik

 

No, there won't be any other moderators. Last May, I was pitted against a half-dozen conspiracy liars on the far-left talk show CLOUT. I was interrupted every ten seconds, although the loons were permitted to rant for up to eight minutes at a clip. You're a big boy, and you ARE in possession of Da Twoof. You can tolerate a host who won't blow your nose. As anyone who has ever watched my shows understands, I let everybody talk. Fetzer used more air time than Mark and me combined. Either you can refute Mackey or you can't. I have no interest in getting in the way.

 

Oh, I get it! At the time I really thought a plane weighed as much as a thirty-story building. Now I understand. Yes, it would be important for me to watch the video because otherwise I wouldn't be able to determine what this Wieck fellow meant. So, in the fifty or so posts on the JREF, Screw Loose Change, Conspiracy Smasher, and a half-dozen other forums, where I talk about "100-ton projectiles," "100-PLUS-ton projectiles," "120-ton projectiles," 125-ton projectiles," "roughly 150 tons of plane," "a plane weighing over 100 tons," etc., etc., I REALLY think that I'm underestimating the weight of the plane by a factor of 2,000. That makes perfect sense.

When I called Mackey and asked him if he noticed that I had said "tons" instead of "pounds," I had to look up the weight of a Boeing 767 first to make sure it didn't weigh as much as a medium-sized building. Aha! I think you caught me!

Nobody can be as stupid as you pretend to be.

 

.
I don't think you are pretending.

You are one of the people that BELIEVES 150 tons of airliner can destroy 400,000 tons of building in less than 2 hours and make it collapse in less than 18 seconds and doesn't demand to know the distribution of steel and concrete.

How could the top 15% by volume force the rest down that fast? What is the conservation of momentum? What data is Mackey going to supply to make the scaling possible that he talked about in Hardly Any Fire episode 3?

psik

 

Holy buhjeezus! This discussion is still going on? Not even worth going back and re-reading the past 13 or so pages that I missed. Have fun guys!

 

Ooops! We saw that one. You'll have to get a better angle.

Yes, I join every serious researcher in the world in believing that the impact damage and the resultant fires led to global collapses in the twin towers.

You didn't understand much of what Mackey said, did you?

 

.
I already told you I agreed with everything Mackey said in those vids. Or at least I haven't looked hard enough to find any subtle errors. I am not focused on Mackey, only on the physics of the towers.

You accused me of saying something about explosives, have you found it yet?

But of course these serious researchers haven't been very specific about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers have they? The NIST can't be very serious since they can't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. LOL

Of course you know Tony isn't particularly serious. All of the serious people agree with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me know when serious Mackey comes up with data from which a scaled model can be made.

psik

 

No you've barely mentioned him at all....

 

I know you were on Richard Green's Clout last May, discussing the Pentagon issue. So okay. I'll go along with you being the moderator. I will trust that you will be a man of your word and not get in the way to benefit one side vs. the other. There is no reason to believe it should be anything but a civil discussion about an issue which we happen to disagree on at the moment.

I would still like there to be some form of agreed upon discussion topics.

Is there a white board that can be used on the set? If Ryan is on via webcam then he can have a white board at his disposal. Some things may need to be illustrated on the spot especially in an introductory way to an argument.

 

.
Didn't I mention his diagrams, 2-6 and 2-7, for scaling a collapse model?

Well that is the only thing about him that matters.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You asked about my model and I answered you here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2213179&postcount=469

But you haven't said anything about that. You went off on a psychological tangent about me, like you think you can figure out what is going on in my head. As long as you don't understand that I am focused on the physics, and that is HOW REALITY WORKS, then you don't have much chance of getting in my head.

Even if the planes brought the buildings down we can't be CERTAIN OF THAT without the distribution of mass. Now if the distribution of mass PROVES the planes could not bring the buildings down then....OOPS!

But you can't do scaled collapse models without data.

Did you hear that Ryan Mackey?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

PS - Looks like I didn't mention 2-6 and 2-7 in this thread. Just scaling and episode 3. Those diagrams were in episode 3 and were about scaling. Sorry!