WTC Collapses

.
Stuff of really significant weight would be in the basements. There are rumors of gold bullion.

I can't even find the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels. That is totally ridiculous. But I can't find that type of mass distribution information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. Like it is a guild secret.

Actually I am more interested in getting people to understand the IMPORTANCE of the information than actually getting the information. I think accomplishing the first might tend to cause the second to fall into place. What sense does it make to send your kid to a $100,000+ engineering school that can't ask obvious questions?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey Scott, joined jref just a couple of days ago...are you or anyone else a member?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, I'm a member. I even made a few posts there a while back. The forum takes too long to load for me though. When you combine that with the fact that it's even -more- slanted towards the official story then this place, well, let's just say that it can wait

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(engage smart ass mode)

If your only interested in getting people to understand the importance of the data...and not getting actual data...Why are you still here? There's only about 5 people that post in this thread..and all of us have got the message..many fucking times...no need to keep repeating it 1000 fucking times!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(disengage smart ass mode)

btw...I thought your comment to Scott about the Matrix was funny.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

some would, some wouldn't.

it's called interpolation psikey.
you have to know the end points and length of what you are working with.
i'm not a structural engineer or i could explain it better.

 

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 1694 in this thread.

Sure. However, since most people have a poor understanding of physics in relation to buildings, I find it understandable...

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. To tell you the honest truth though, I think the Matrix series had a lot of good points concerning our society. I also -immensely- enjoyed the Animatrix. I also found another movie done by the Wachowski brothers, V for Vendetta, featuring Natalie Portman, to be very good. However, I disagree with V's idea that he had to do fool Evey (Natalie Portman for those not in the know) in order for her to learn how to be free. I find that life is a much better teacher personally.

I think Tova Gabrielle's The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial goes a good way to understanding it. I've seen another article that goes in a similar vein. At the end of her article, she quotes an article from ABC News from November 7, 2001:
NEW YORK, May 1: In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

 

I'd actually missed that; thanks for pointing it out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

.
I'm in smart ass mode all of the time. I can't get out. Sometimes I get a little drunk just to turn it off.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And do you know how many lurkers pas through this site or will in the next year?

Just a few days ago I found a site I had never been to where someone had copied most of a post of mine on this subject but not my name. And this was back in 2007. This has happened before on other subjects. So that is the funny thing about the internet, There is no telling how many people see what where and pass it on, it isn't just about how many people post. They may even pass stuff on in real space, mention an idea they read somewhere on the internet and not remember where.

I AM HERE TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

I'm just subtle about it.

psik

PS -

I'm also here to entertain you when I am not pissing you off.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Without a doubt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.
I know what interpolation is. I have used it plenty of times.

My point is that the WTC towers were a man made objects and well documented. The NIST can tell us the original design called for 14 different grades of wall panels but the manufacturer requested and got permission to upgrade two of them so only 12 were actually used on the buildings. But then they can't tell us the number and weights of each panel type and the only reason we know the weight of the heaviest is because of a 1970 article in an engineering magazine!!!

This is insanely ridiculous bullshit!!! The NIST needs to be jailed for incompetence over this crap. They don't even specify the total for the concrete. How are we supposed to interpolate that?

It is common to see figures from 90,000 tons per tower to 425,000 cubic yards for both towers. That cu. yd. figure would yield 280,000 tons per tower assuming it was only the lightweight 110 lb per cubic foot type. We know a normal 150 lb. per cubic foot concrete was also used. Should I do an interpolation to compute all of the possible weight combinations?

psik

 

didn't you say this "weight distribution" issue was a gray area throughout the high rise industry? so why single out NIST?

it's a lot of work apparently.

 

I didn't say "gray area". I said I could not find the distribution of steel and concrete on any skyscraper.

How many skyscrapers have collapsed since the Empire State Building was completed? If it were not for the what happened to the WTC I would not give a damn about weight distribution except on my gut.

The NIST claims to be world renowned experts and they spent 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages that don't tell us the quantity of concrete.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

What kind of ridiculous question is that??? They don't explain what happened but claim to be experts at it and don't even provide the obviously relevant information.

:wallbang: :wtf: :wallbang:

psik

 

Kevin Ryan

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 1298 in this thread.

Who's written several books on 9/11. From Wikipedia's entry on his first book, The New Pearl Harbor:
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide “overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable”, while calling for a new investigation.

Another founder of the Journal for 9/11 studies is physicist Steven Jones, who has also written a fair amount of compelling material regarding 9/11.

I believe I've already exposed one of his 'refutations' as nothing more then fluff, or fallacy rich material. Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, another notable for the 9/11 truth movement, have debunked much of his material.

 

.
Here is where we have problems with scholarly, peer reviewed, debating bullshit.

On page 202 there is: Appendix B: Simplified Tower Collapse Time vs. Energy

This goes into a lot of calculus goobble-de-gook about the vertical distribution of mass of the skyscraper and the collapse time.

But what people need to understand is that mathematics IS NOT PHYSICS. Mathematics is very useful to physics but it does not tell physics what to do. The mathematics was derived from the physics and then people have to figure out how to apply it correctly in different situations.

Now I have been talking about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the tower. This is because steel and concrete do not always behave the same way under the same conditions. It is the steel that gives a skyscraper the springiness to make it sway back and forth in the wind not the concrete. But the combined mass of the steel and the concrete will provide the inertia that will affect the resonant frequency. Steel in 489 pounds per cubic foot. Concrete used in the WTC was 150 and 110 pounds per cubic foot. So even if you know there was 1000 tons of steel and concrete on a particular level of a building do you really think it doesn't matter how much is steel versus how much is concrete? But that is what the complicated math in that appendix does. MacKey makes an ASSUMPTION about the distribution of mass but the words "steel" and "concrete" don't even appear in that appendix.

So I don't know what kind of peer review that paper went through. I would have to bone up on my math to check if it is correct. But do you think steel and concrete behave the same way when crushed from the top? Because if you don't then why do you think just knowing the distribution of mass without knowing the relative quantities of materials is worth anything? And of course he is making an assumption about the distribution of mass which is convenient to his calculation. If the distribution in the real building is not linear then his math is worthless crap anyway. ROFLMAO

Or at least it is only good for impressing people that probably can't follow it. :shrug:

You don't want people applying common sense when you are trying to razzle-dazzle them with calculus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

PS - But if MacKey is so smart why couldn't he figure that out in the first place? Are some scholars trying to lead some LAYMEN by the nose? Why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You just don't get it. The 'peer review' of another crackpot conspiracy theorist is worth nothing. More laughable is the fact that his field of expertise is religion.

Really?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Has he?

Seriously, do you have mental health issues scott? You are describing this to me like we have never discussed Jones.

lol. You are not capable of doing more than posting text from conspiracy sites.

They made a feeble attempt at a rebuttal, with some pathetic excuses as to why it was so weak. Mackey has addressed their claims. This has been pointed out to you but you are a 911 fanatic.

You cannot actually respond to Mackey's points yourself so all you can do is claim that someone debunked him at some time and that is your dodge.

 

.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2161251&postcount=1714

So you BELIEVE what you don't understand. That is better? You have already decided what you want to believe so you listen to someone that tells you what you want to hear.

Why don't you demand something as simple as accurate data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC? Why shouldn't we expect such simple information after SEVEN YEARS. On JREF MacKey has told me to read the entire NIST report after I have pointed out that it does not even specify the total amount of CONCRETE in the towers. I have downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and searched it dozens of times but I am not about to read 10,000 pages that don't contain simple and obviously important information. When I ask about accurate info on the distribution of steel and concrete he claims it is irrelevant.

psik

 

Greats of the 9/11 truth movement and Ryan Mackey

You can howl at the moon that experts on 9/11 like David Griffin and Steven Jones are 'crackpots'. It won't change what they really are. David Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. You seem to forget the 'philosophy' bit- as wikipedia states:
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

I'm describing Steven Jones the way I see him. How you see him is your affair.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whatever shaman. I'm the one who realized that one of his alleged refutations was nothing more then fluff and did nothing to refute what he was allegedly rebuffing.

They rebutted him handily. After taking a look at some of his materials, it seems clear to me that his comebacks were simply more fluff. I debunked one of his 'comebacks' and all you could say was that I used the material he was rebutting. I was able to do so because his supposed 'comeback' was nothing but fluff that was destroyed by the very material he was allegedly rebutting.

 

Calculations have been done as to the weight of the steel and the concrete in the towers. Perhaps this hasn't been done in terms of the distribution. However, it seems to me that all the greats of the 9/11 truth movement find that this information isn't necessary to determine that the WTC collapses couldn't have occurred the way they did if indeed they could have occurred at all without controlled demolitions.

 

Seeing the WTC Collapses thread as a whole

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 1304 in this thread.

Actually, I started typing out the reply structure. If I typed up the whole thing and posted it online, anyone would be able to see it. However, I stopped because I was having trouble simply keeping up in my notebook. Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finally getting both the reply structure and my flowcharts up to post 1712.

Nods

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. For me, I rather like being able to get to the post a certain post is responding to.. and sometimes posts before that one as well. One thing I personally find to be invaluable when responding to old posts is knowing that I or someone else hasn't already responded to it. This is the main reason I started doing the flowcharts.

 

The goal- no good post left behind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This post is in response to MacGyver's post 1354 in this thread.

If I responded to those 'old posts later', as you say, they would probably never be responded to at all, laugh ;-). Anyway, I'll have you know that the old post response thing usually only has about a 400 post gap between then and now.

However, I've been thinking recently that perhaps they can wait, if there's something interesting going on in the present. I originally decided to respond to all of shaman_'s posts because he frequently seemed to think that I wasn't paying attention to what he was saying- and in a sense he may have been partially right as I simply couldn't even read, let alone respond to everyone's posts addressing me. So I decided to not skip a single important post. shaman_ however, hasn't responded to many of my old posts; I believe the main difference between us is that I don't mind repeatedly trying to teach him the same things over and over again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

On the subject of time delays when responding to messages, did anyone see "The Lake House" with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock? I loved it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!