# Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Status
Not open for further replies.
See post #586.

awfully quite there psikey.

.
How relevant do you think that is?

The plane was 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building.

What percentage of the plane do you think went all of the way through the building? Since the plane is such a small percentage in relation to the building mass, what went all of the way through can be totally ignored.

What do you think the word ACCURATE means?

In mathematics the number 1 is equal to 1.000000.

In engineering it is not.

1 means more than 0.5 and less than 1.5

1.000000 means more than 0.999995 and less than 1.000005

The limitations on the accuracy of the distribution of mass in the building are going to be so bad that thinking about what went all of the way through makes no sense.

But whether it was 10% or 50% of the kinetic energy of the plane that shook the building can make a considerable difference in the amount of structural damage that was done to the building by the impact. But to date I have not seen any official source discussing this issue. I have only seen one paragraph in the NCSTAR1 report that says the distribution of weight has something to do with analyzing the effect of the impact.

.
I say you are totally wrong about that. It is like the difference between having a basketball bounce off the rim and not go in and missing by ten feet. As far as getting a basketball score is concerned it makes no difference. But in figuring out whether or not a 200 ton plane can make a 400,000 ton building collapse that much variation matters. If the building moved 12 inches 130 feet below the point of impact then how much did it move at the point of impact? It must have been at least 14 inches. But that means it moved 12 inches 130 feet above the impact at the 92nd floor also. So at least 22 stories of the building moved a foot in less than 3 seconds and we don't know the tons of steel and concrete in that volume. So that is 22 floor slabs and their trusses and those were about 1100 tons each. And I don't know what the core columns and perimeter columns were. Not to mention all of the beams in the core.

But more important to me is that the EXPERTS haven't been pointing out stuff this obvious for SEVEN YEARS. Just hand the plebs any old BS. They will believe ANYTHING! So the people that don't understand the physics don't know when they have been handed a load of crap and act like there is something wrong with anyone that thinks it is crap.

Molten thermite? :roflmao:

psik

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

There are countries in the world that are unfriendly to the U.S., eager to undermine American credibility and derail American policy initiatives. These countries all have their share of structural engineers, physicists, and demolition experts.
WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF THESE EXPERTS STEPPED FORWARD TO PROTEST THE "BAD SCIENCE" IN THE NIST REPORTS?

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble. You waved your hands and professed not to care about this extraordinary anomaly. We get the idea that the question is terribly inconvenient for you.

Now, try it again: Engineers and scientists in countries unfriendly to the U.S.--people who know vastly more than you do--have not pointed out errors in the NIST Report. They seem not to care about matters you profess to find significant, although real engineers have told you that those matters are not significant at all. Again, these people understand physics far better than you do.

Explain for us the WORLDWIDE failure of the scientific and engineering community to "expose" NIST's shoddy methodolgy. What do you know that real scientists and engineers don't, and how did you learn it?

I haven't seen evidence that you have tried to understand enough to grasp what the physical evidence actually says.
i understand the chips that was discussed were not found on the girders at the pile and they were submitted to a single source well after 9/11.
this is not peer reviewed evidence.

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

There are countries in the world that are unfriendly to the U.S., eager to undermine American credibility and derail American policy initiatives. These countries all have their share of structural engineers, physicists, and demolition experts.
WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF THESE EXPERTS STEPPED FORWARD TO PROTEST THE "BAD SCIENCE" IN THE NIST REPORTS?

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble. You waved your hands and professed not to care about this extraordinary anomaly. We get the idea that the question is terribly inconvenient for you.

I've personally found that big letters isn't necessary to get a point addressed, only repetition. Anyway, psikey may not care, but I do. I also happen to know that the notion that other countries haven't disagreed with the U.S.'s official story is false. In the 'unfriendly' category, perhaps the most obvious example is Venezuela:
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation

Venezuela is not alone, however. Japan has also recently questioned the official story concerning 9/11:
Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament (Broadcast on Japanese public TV)

But you don't have to go to the international level to find academic disbelievers in the official story, although you may have to go to an international mainstream paper to hear about it. Here's a story from 2006:
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'

And ofcourse, there's always the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: 628 architectural and engineering professionals as of this writing and growing. There's also the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and 9/11 notable Jim Hoffman's well researched 9/11 Research site.

still doesn't address the fact that these chips wasn't found on the girders at the pile.
any court in the country would question the validity of these chips, especially since they were submitted long after the fact and submitted to a single source.

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!
.
What do some people have to get over?

Having to admit to themselves that they don't understand grade school physics?

psik

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!

why dont you call your uncle?

uncle hugo

'hello uncle hugo, can you do exorcism?'

mac,

have you ever seen psikey post in the physics forum, have you ever been dazzled by his brilliant posts in math or physics?

No? i have not either. He is an empty suit. That is my professional psychological opinion.
.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE?

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

I've personally found that big letters isn't necessary to get a point addressed, only repetition. Anyway, psikey may not care, but I do. I also happen to know that the notion that other countries haven't disagreed with the U.S.'s official story is false. In the 'unfriendly' category, perhaps the most obvious example is Venezuela:
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation

Venezuela is not alone, however. Japan has also recently questioned the official story concerning 9/11:
Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament (Broadcast on Japanese public TV)

But you don't have to go to the international level to find academic disbelievers in the official story, although you may have to go to an international mainstream paper to hear about it. Here's a story from 2006:
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'

And ofcourse, there's always the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth: 628 architectural and engineering professionals as of this writing and growing. There's also the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and 9/11 notable Jim Hoffman's well researched 9/11 Research site.

You're not addressing my point. Anyone can round up a slew of "academics" to oppose, well, anything that portrays America in a favorable light. In the seventies, during Brezhnev's unprecedented peacetime arms build-up, thousands of lefties on American campuses would dutifully affix their names to all sorts of drivel condemning AMERICAN militarism.

I am asking why no members of the international scientific and engineering community produce well reasoned, scientifically valid critiques of the NIST reports. The loudest of the conspiracy liars, Hoffman, Gage and his stooges, and other frauds, bray constantly, but nothing they say can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. I'm asking who has found real errors in the NIST reports. What are those errors?

.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE?

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

You are aware that real engineers and physicists don't consider the collapse of the towers a mystery. It is a problem for you because you are flogging a political agenda and you are incapable of understanding the physics involved. You can't learn from people who understand the subject. Is that their fault?

.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE?

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

Mackey invited people to comment on his lecture. We provided his address. To date, he's received compliments from rationalists, and nothing but mindless
name-calling from fantasists. If you can frame an intelligent question, why don't you send it to him? If you think you've spotted a mistake he's made, send it along. You have a habit, typical of fantasists, of sticking your fingers in your ears.

You are aware that real engineers and physicists don't consider the collapse of the towers a mystery. It is a problem for you because you are flogging a political agenda and you are incapable of understanding the physics involved. You can't learn from people who understand the subject. Is that their fault?
.
Here we are back to obvious lying again.

And you are constantly demonstrating your lack of knowledge about physics with your constant talk about "real engineers and physicists". You need someone to tell you what to think.

psik

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble.

Now, try it again: Engineers and scientists in countries unfriendly to the U.S.--people who know vastly more than you do--have not pointed out errors in the NIST Report.

Explain for us the WORLDWIDE failure of the scientific and engineering community to "expose" NIST's shoddy methodolgy. What do you know that real scientists and engineers don't, and how did you learn it?
.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Ron,

You provided a link to a portion of the NIST report that was 166 pages long. I already had it burned to DVD so I didn't need the link but just the name of the report. I searched it for "wall panel". It turned up DOZENS of times. The number and weights of each of the 12 types of wall panels were not there.

I know Gregory Urich can't find the info and he's A LOT smarter then you.

Now you can search the NCSTAR1 report all you want. If you can't find that data then you worry about why the scientists and engineers in unfriendly countries don't say anything about it. I don't give a damn!

But if you can't comprehend the importance of that information that is your problem but I certainly won't be surprised. Physics ain't about international politics. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not give a damn and that is exactly my attitude about the politics relative to the physics of 9/11.

psik

.
JEEZ! I wish I had a dollar for every idiot I have communicated with on the internet that resorted to that analogy.
People use analogies when they feel the need to draw a parallel to get a point across, particularly when they feel the need to dumb it down to assist with comprehension.

I’m trying to demonstrate to you that saying “a plane weighs this much and the building weighed this much therefore a plane cannot cause a building to collapse” is mind-numbingly simplistic.

.
In talking about an airliner hitting a building we are discussing and INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT. But you come up with an inanimate object hitting an ANIMATE ONE and want to pretend that the comparison is valid.

Buildings do not have knees. Buildings do not have hearts. Buildings do not breath, at least not for themselves. The have ventilation systems for the people. You can make a horse collapse by putting a plastic bag over its head causing it to sufficate. If you could have put a giant plastic bag over one of the WTC towers do you think it would collapse?

Suppose you got an 8 foot piece of telephone pole and dug a 2 foot hole in the ground and buried one end so it stood straight up. If you then shot it with a rifle from a few feet away do you think it would fall down? That would be an INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT and more like what happened on 9/11.
Your analogy is no better!! Do you really need me to explain why?

The impact and weight of the plane did not cause the collapse. You don’t appear to understand this. You are not taking into account the jet fuel, the design of the WTC, the gradual bowing observed minutes before collapse. You are not taking into account the susceptibility of unprotected steel to fire. You seem to have little grounding in reality at all.

That is the DEBATING GAME CRAP that people play. DEBATING GRADE SCHOOL NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is idiotic. People either understand it or they don't. If people that understand it disagree then somebody is probably lying.
All the engineers who worked on the investigation are lying? Really?

Now I could deal with more of your points but since that analogy you provided adequately demonstrates the quality of your thought I won't waste any more time responding.

We can just agree to regard each other as incompetents that are not worth the time.
psik

So you can't tell the difference between the diagrams and the man?
What?

Maybe you didn't understand the diagrams?
Haven’t watched his video or yours yet. I was making the point that you claim not to be focused on Mackey, yet you keep talking about him.. in fact instead of understanding this point you just continue to rant about him. If you have a chip on your shoulder because he has embarrassed you a few times, take it to the jref where he may actually read your comments…

This place is like a clubhouse for troothers to safely talk about their supposed ‘victories’ over the more devoted skeptics at the jref.

Maybe you didn't even watch the video but want to play psychological bullshit games because that is all you know how to do?
As you popped into the other 911 threads every now and then you are well aware that I have discussed much more than the psychology of conspiracy theories. All you’ve brought to the discussion is fanatical rants about the tons of steel and concrete (and poor analogies).

Your analogy is no better!! Do you really need me to explain why?
.
YEAH!

The impact and weight of the plane did not cause the collapse. You don’t appear to understand this. You are not taking into account the jet fuel, the design of the WTC, the gradual bowing observed minutes before collapse. You are not taking into account the susceptibility of unprotected steel to fire. You seem to have little grounding in reality at all.
.
I NEVER said the weight of the plane caused the collapse. It is partly because the building is so much bigger that the collapse never should have happened.

It is because of the QUANTITY OF STEEL that there is no way the fire could have weakened enough steel for the collapse to occur in such a short time.
So why don't we know how much steel there was in the impact and fire zone?

All the engineers who worked on the investigation are lying? Really?
.
When did I say anybody was lying? Besides Wieck "Brain" Ron? I just say information is left out. I do not concern myself with the psychological bullshit of why some people did or did not do whatever. I leave that to geniuses like yourself. It is beyond my intellectual capacity.

{there is something for you to use in your word games.}

That is the funny thing about that report on the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. It is the only one that talks about the weight distribution being important to the analysis. It is the only one that uses the phrase "center of mass". But I could not understand why they bothered to make such a report on ceilings. But on the videos I have seen, the only place anyone talked about ceilings falling was in the basement. But the word basement does not appear in that report. So to me it looks like the competent people with integrity got shoved into irrelevant tasks. But they left a few gems in their particular work areas anyway.

Why don't you stop concentrating on people and concentrate on the physics for yourself. It is just plane old grade school stuff. Some people on another site said so. Of course they probably intended it as an insult. I must have messed them up by agreeing with them :roflmao:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,8361.210.html

psik

Alright, to some degree you're right. You asked for foreign experts, but instead I gave you foreign nations and local experts. I think it stands to reason that if the government of a country, such as Venezuela, believes that 9/11 was an inside job, it stands to reason that experts in said country are investigating the case, but in issues such as this, perhaps it's best not to assume even this. However, I know of one foreign expert who did disbelieve part of the official 9/11 story. The expert I'm referring to is Dutch demolition expert Danny Jawenko. Some reporters got him to see the video of the collapse of WTC 7 without telling him that it also happened on 9/11. When asked what had occurred to the building, he was sure that it was a controlled demolition and was quite surprised to find out that it had also collapsed on 9/11. You can see for yourself here; it includes english subtitles:

RonWieck said:
Anyone can round up a slew of "academics" to oppose, well, anything that portrays America in a favorable light.

RonWieck said:
In the seventies, during Brezhnev's unprecedented peacetime arms build-up, thousands of lefties on American campuses would dutifully affix their names to all sorts of drivel condemning AMERICAN militarism.

Just because you disagree with their motives doesn't mean their motives were mistaken; certainly you don't have to insult them. Many now believe that the Vietnam War, for instance, was a mistake. Not only that, but that War was also greatly aided by a false flag operation, The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is arguably what 9/11 was as well.

Another example is Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Most people know that Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was more a government/mainstream media Weapons of Mass Delusion blitz. You're part of the mainstream media establishment, aren't you? I don't know what role you played during that time, but I'm certainly interested in finding out.

RonWieck said:
I am asking why no members of the international scientific and engineering community produce well reasoned, scientifically valid critiques of the NIST reports.

I think they have. Why don't you think so?

RonWieck said:
The loudest of the conspiracy liars, Hoffman, Gage and his stooges, and other frauds, bray constantly, but nothing they say can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Have you read much of what they've said? I have and find their points to be quite well thought out.

RonWieck said:
I'm asking who has found real errors in the NIST reports. What are those errors?

I would contend that Hoffman, Gage, Steven Jones and others, such as Tony Szamboti, have found such errors.

Status
Not open for further replies.