.
ROFLMAO
Talk about strawmen! Can't you read Ron? I didn't say anything about their making videos of the collapse. I just mentioned them being on camera with Ryan and agreeing with him.
psik
Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
ROFLMAO
Talk about strawmen! Can't you read Ron? I didn't say anything about their making videos of the collapse. I just mentioned them being on camera with Ryan and agreeing with him.
psik
From the linked article, starting from the end of the 1st page:
Initially, it was suspected that these might be dried paint chips, but after close inspection, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/grey chips in an attempt to ascertain their composition and properties. The authors also obtained and examined additional samplesof WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by RJ Lee Company [14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in this study have apparently not been discussed in previously published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up operations [17].
He might think that the site you're putting up is a 'conspiracy' site and therefore he wouldn't want to give them any hits. In this particular case, I believe that the journal publishes things of various natures, not only issues concerning 9/11. Anyway, I decided I'd just quote the relevant section to his query.
So, you think that a real scientist could be found who would publicly disagree with Mackey? What would he say? C'mon, don't be shy. Point out those "errors" for us.
Mackey explained how scientists work. You didn't get much out of his lecture, did you?
Last edited:
.
1. There are these buildings called skyscrapers.
2. These building are very tall. That might be why they are called skyscrapers.
3. Like all buildings they must hold themselves up.
4. Therefore every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above.
5. Since these skyscrapers are man-made objects the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.
6. So to analyze the results of a 150 ton airliner impacting a skyscraper at 540 miles per hour it only makes sense to want to know the distribution of steel. I mean, we would need to know how much steel was in the impact zone to estimate impact damage. How much kinetic energy was absorbed by the structure in displacement and consequently did not do damage. How much steel was available to absorb and redistribute the heat of the resulting fire.
7. WHAT!?!? We don't have the distribution of steel after SEVEN YEARS? What kind of stupid bullshit is that? What kind of NITWIT masquerading as a scientist would discuss the subject without that information or be demanding it?
8. ROFLMAO
You are into AUTHORITARIAN where people are supposed to think what some authority tells them Ron. REAL SCIENCE is about understanding things for yourself no letting some pseudo-intellectual clown convince you that certain things are true. Even if you want to believe them.
That is why this scaling business is so important. You can't make a properly scaled collapse model without accurate information on the building. So let's see Mackey come up with it. I didn't force him to start talking about scaling a model.
psik
this gets old after awhile psiky.
do you really get down on the floor and roll around on it when discussing matters of this magnitude?
.
I already told you that I concluded in TWO WEEKS that an airliner could not bring down a skyscraper that size in that time. What kind of reaction do you expect after SEVEN YEARS? Are those models I built too complex and expensive for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for 4 years?
Have you seen what MIT built and put on television in 2002?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6633534908581013879
What kind of reaction do you expect about this LONE NASA SCIENTIST that can't get fellow scientists on screen with him and can't give us or request from the NIST a simple table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing.
Why do you think I have MIT in the titles of my videos? I won a National Merit Scholarship. So I decided to apply to MIT since it was mentioned so often in the sci-fi books I read so many of. I got an interview. It lasted 20 minutes. 3 minutes into the interview I knew I didn't have a chance of getting accepted. This man just went on and on about the kinds of kids that went there, sons of doctors and lawyers etc. etc. And they produce that video telling us that is how the buildings collapsed. ROFLMAO
Would crying be more productive?
Is this better?
:roflmao:
psik
PS - Is there something stopping you from ignoring my posts?
Last edited:
I could not find any industrial coating that was:
1. Composed of intimately mixed thermitic materials- iron oxide and elemental aluminium.
2. Only resolves at the nanometer scale with an electron microscope.
3. Ignites at 420 Celcius.
4. Generates a reaction temperature of 1,500 Celcius capable of melting steel.
I'm sure you'll agree that such an invention to be used as a steel "protective" coating would be a very stupid idea.
have you read the paper?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Last edited:
.
The 911 Psychosis is truly amazing.
If you can't get people to think about something as obvious as the distribution of steel in a skyscraper when every skyscraper MUST hold itself up then how do you expect them to take microscopic particles seriously when they have to take other people's word for all of that stuff?
Oh that's right! They have to take someone's word that steel is used to hold skyscrapers up. I keep forgetting.
psik
apparently you didn't look hard enough headspin.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6764969.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pk126771832j1j24/
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2244&DID=81659&action=detail
FYI elemental aluminum can not exist in nature, it immediately combines with oxygen when exposed to air.
A guy who pretends that we don't have some imaginary "distribution" of the steel, after NIST published 10,000 pages NONE of which he bothered to glance at, wants to be ridiculed. It's not clear why anyone should indulge your masochism. Most of us really do get the idea that, as Mackey pointed out on the JREF, it's quite easy to obtain the information you claim to seek.
You've been caught lying again. Nobody believes that Mackey can't get his fellow scientists to appear on screen with him. There is no reason for him to make such a request of them. You want the math departments of major universities to issue a statement repudiating the belief that 2+2=17. Sorry, the belief is too stupid to pay attention to.
I strongly doubt that you won a National Merit Scholarship. You are, after all, unintelligent, as evidenced by your conspicuous inability to process information. You don't read and you can't understand the spoken words of a real scientist.
headspin,
these red/ grey chips must be some type of protective coating.
there are 2 primary reasons i say this.
first is why did no one one the pile report any type of cut edges on the girders and second tony himself confirmed that the girders were broken not cut.
these red/ grey chips must be some type of protective coating.
there are 2 primary reasons i say this.
first is why did no one one the pile report any type of cut edges on the girders and second tony himself confirmed that the girders were broken not cut.
I assume that the people here fall into the usual two categories: rationalists and twoofers. Twoofers are ineducable know-nothings, for most part indistinguishable from one another. Rationalists come in different sizes and shapes, ranging from bright people who lack technical backgrounds to working scientists and engineers.
Psikeyhackr is making an astounding claim--that he can't find information on the "distribution" of the steel in the twin towers. The twoofers can't comment because, as always, they don't know anything and couldn't begin to evaluate the validity of his claim. Rationalists split sharply. There are some whose critical thinking skills permit them to conclude that his claim is nonsense. Almost eight years have passed since jihadists crashed planes into the towers. Someone might have noticed if we didn't know how the steel in the buildings was"distributed." But these rationalists equipped with accurate BS-detectors haven't done much reading themselves. Mackey and others KNOW precisely where PsiKeyhackr can get his answers.
The reason Mackey and the other engineers on the JREF regard Psikeyhackr as a joke is that they understand that he is either the third most outrageous fraud in the fantasy movement (David Ray Grifter and Richard Gage have the top two spots locked up) or he just might be dumb enough not to be aware of the existence of the NIST reports that contain the information he professes to want. He isn't being disingenuous if he really is totally clueless. Which is it?
For the record, both of the following reports are available, and have been for years, from nist.gov:
NIST NCSTAR 1-6
Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
NIST NCSTAR 1-3
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
An extremely uninformed young guy brays continually about what he thinks about the collapses of the towers, BUT HE WOULD NOT DREAM OF LOOKING AT ANALYSIS PRODUCED BY 1,000 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, METALLURGISTS, FIRE SAFETY EXPERTS, ARCHITECTS, AND PHYSICISTS.
No, he argues that all the professionals overlooked things that he perceives instantly. And people wonder why rationalists regard twoofers as idiots.
This is what Popular Mechanics says "for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"
So, why are you assumming these nanothermite chips would have cut the beams and columns? Do you think a film of nanothermite coating on the beams and columns, generating temperatures of some thousands of degrees celcius, would have weakened/softened the steel structure?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Last edited:
.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
The astounding Wieck, "Brain" Ron swings and misses again.
He comes in here calling me a "conspiracy liar" knowing nothing about me but falls all over himself making stupid accusations. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report two years ago.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=412992#p412992
I am sure I have not read much more than 200 pages of it but it is mostly not worth reading. I just search on what I regard as important to understanding and solving the REAL PROBLEM. I don't rely on the NIST or the Great Ryan Mackey to tell me what to think about a grade school physics problem.
I have searched the report for lots of things that I know should be important on the basis of my understanding of physics. I have searched it for "center of mass" and "center of gravity" in order to learn about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. To my amazement it was not there, "center of mass" appears four times in a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. I don't understand why they did it but I am glad the report is there. They only refer to the "center of mass" of the aircraft. But that report does say:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5D Ceilings.pdf page 74
They only use center of gravity when talking about the creation of the simulated structural components for the SAP2000 program for their computer simulation.
Now that report also says that the original WTC design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but the manufacturer had two of them upgraded so only 12 types were actually used on the building. But the NIST does not tell us the number and weights of each of those 12 types. So Gregory Urich does a linear interpolation on the distribution of mass of the perimeter panels and his data is the most detailed that I know of but he is basically admitting it is wrong. However the NIST does say that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.
Now Adobe will search all of the NCSTAR1 files for whatever you want but it will not copy information from it. I have found that the Evince program in Linux will do that but it will only search one file at a time.
So now you can explain to everyone here how I knew all of that without having glanced at the NCSTAR1 report. ROFL
psik
Last edited:
again, why wasn't any of this noticed by the cops and firemen on the scene?
i believe we have been over this at least 5 times already.
really amazing isn't it?
first explosives, then thermite, and now we come to weakened steel.
i believe this last is virtually indistinguishable from the official story.
nice move headspin, but speculation on your part.
i believe we have been over this at least 5 times already.
really amazing isn't it?
first explosives, then thermite, and now we come to weakened steel.
i believe this last is virtually indistinguishable from the official story.
nice move headspin, but speculation on your part.
This is a oxymoronic statement. In order to react with oxygen in the air, it has to exist in nature, right? It seems you are not grasping the nature of basic matter as much as you are not grapsing the basic matters of nature.
If you believe elemental aluminium cannot exist in nature, then you must believe that thermite cannot exist in nature since it contains elemental aluminium.
Similarly iron will react with the moisture in air to produce surface rust, to then make the claim that iron does not exist in nature would be equally absurd.
- Status