Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Status
Not open for further replies.
John99 said:
he made a model out of toothpicks and washers, a model that has no relevance to this discussion because it is not even close to being an accurate representation. you can make that say anything you want. he should have taken a torch out and incorporated it into his model.
Click to expand...
.
So explain why Ryan Mackey's model diagrams were not an accurate representation. He had masses 'm' supported by columns 'h'. I used washers for masses. Mackey did not say what to use for mass. I used toothpicks in horizontal positions instead of columns but my falling masses still had to break the supports. I built a model that was easy to repeat in different configurations. Mackey never suggested such a possibility.

But in a scaled model the columns would have get stronger going down and my toothpicks are the same all of the way. So my model should be LESS LIKELY to stop the falling mass than a true scaled model. But the falling mass was stopped. And much faster with those washers you want to make fun of.

So you and Mackey have the problem of explaining why the physics does not cause the result you claim. Your only recourse is to say the model isn't valid. But you need to explain what is wrong with the physics. That is why I am so happy about Mackey doing that scaled model business on TV. It will at least be fun to see him attempt to pull his foot out of his mouth.

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

How can anyone build a scaled model without accurate data? Where is the steel and concrete distribution information? Why hasn't Mackey been screaming for that info for years?

psik
 
it is like me building a scaled version of psikeyhackr from things i find in a tool shed. i dont know what to tell you though. sure i can pacify you and tell you 'that was an excellent model you built there' but do you want me to be honest or dishonest?
 
John99 said:
it is like me building a scaled version of psikeyhackr from things i find in a tool shed. i dont know what to tell you though. sure i can pacify you and tell you 'that was an excellent model you built there' but do you want me to be honest or dishonest?
Click to expand...
.
You keep trying to resort to psychological bullshit. I don't give a damn what you tell me.

If you can't figure out the obvious that says all that is necessary about you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3C5sc8b3xM

Your talking about building a scaled model of a human being shows how ridiculous you are being. How much money did Sony spend making that Asimov robot? Do you think it can climb a chain link fence? You are just trying to make an analogy which only makes you look ridiculous. I don't know how many fences I climbed as a kid that were taller than I was. Do you think it could walk 200 feet balanced on top of a fence? When you make a scaled humanoid robot that can do that you will undoubtedly be famous. And have a really great tool shed of course.

psik
 
John99 said:
when all avenues of logic have been exhausted then it is what comes next. this is only natural.
Click to expand...
.
Like you explained something LOGICAL about what was wrong with the model.

ROFL

You said this:
sure i can pacify you and tell you 'that was an excellent model you built there'
Click to expand...
.
Pacify is psychological bullshit. Excellent is subjective.

You said NOTHING logical.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
Says what could not happen? Would you be more specific in your questions?

psik
Click to expand...
sorry.
okay, you construct your model from the released data from NIST.
you run a test or two and conclude that the collapse could not happen without some kind of explosive.
are you going to take the results at face value?

i have a very strong suspicion that those towers did indeed collapse under their own weight without any explosives.
the reason NIST isn't releasing the data is not because of bombs or explosives but because it will expose the shoddy workmanship that has been prevalent.
i still can't believe butt joints were used in the load bearing perimeter columns.
this fact alone is enough to prove the margin of safety of those towers wasn't as great as some people would have you believe.
 
leopold99 said:
sorry.
okay, you construct your model from the released data from NIST.
you run a test or two and conclude that the collapse could not happen without some kind of explosive.
are you going to take the results at face value?
Click to expand...
.
I am content that my current model demonstrates that mass slows the collapse down to a considerable degree.

The two problems with the current model are the way the washers tilt on the toothpicks and no noticeable reduction in fall occurred as mass was increased. They might be related.

I think using wire instead could solve the problem. I could drill two perpendicular holes and use two wires at right angles to hold the washers level. This would mean considerable testing with wire gauges to determine the energy requirements to bend the various thicknesses of wire.

I was expecting the mass to stop in significantly shorter distance with two washer than with one and even shorter with four. There was not a significant change. Considering how inconsistent the toothpicks were I would not trust them to give reliable results of that fine a distinction over such a small number of tests. Wire would be better because it should have much greater precision than chopped down toothpicks.

I am not upset about the butt joints. The perimeter columns were an extremely tight grid and it would take catastrophic force to sheer those bolts and get a significant number of columns out of alignment simultaneously. The staggered installation meant that only 1/3rd of the columns had were butt joints on any given level.

I don't talk about explosives since I don't know the subject but I am certain some other destructive force besides simply fire and gravity brought those buildings down. That tilt of the top of the south tower and the material hurled into the Winter Garden just cannot be explained by any gravitational collapse.

This 9/11 Psychosis should be a source for mass psychology papers for the next 1000 years.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
I am not upset about the butt joints. The perimeter columns were an extremely tight grid and it would take catastrophic force to sheer those bolts and get a significant number of columns out of alignment simultaneously. The staggered installation meant that only 1/3rd of the columns had were butt joints on any given level.
Click to expand...
but doesn't this imply that the margin of safety as far as the perimeter columns are concerned is also reduced by 1/3?
doesn't it also raise questions in your mind as to what other "cost cutting" measures were used?

I don't talk about explosives since I don't know the subject but I am certain some other destructive force besides simply fire and gravity brought those buildings down. That tilt of the top of the south tower and the material hurled into the Winter Garden just cannot be explained by any gravitational collapse.
Click to expand...
haven't you ever heard a physicist say "it should not be, but there it is none the less"?

This 9/11 Psychosis should be a source for mass psychology papers for the next 1000 years.

psik
Click to expand...
as ive said before, i'm perfectly willing to concede that explosives was used but until i see some evidence, real evidence, then i'm going to support the so called official story.
 
haven't you ever heard a physicist say "it should not be, but there it is none the less"?
Click to expand...
.
Maybe, but how often do the physicists say the non-physicists don't know what the hell they are talking about?

This business of Mackey being a NASA SCIENTIST is kind of funny. Doesn't Ryan have lots of NASA SCIENTIST buddies? Why don't we have videos of LOTS OF NASA SCIENTISTS agreeing with him? Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik
 
leopold99 said:
as ive said before, i'm perfectly willing to concede that explosives was used but until i see some evidence, real evidence, then i'm going to support the so called official story.
Click to expand...

Judging by the way the buildings came down (one and two), explosives cannot even be logically considered. On a scale of 0-10 it would be at zero. the reason is because of the way every floor came down evenly. In some ways we can look at this as a natural failure on every floor, precipitated by an unnatural event.

Now if there were a major undertaking and coordination and days of preparation THEN it could have been done because every single floor, at their supports, would have needed to be rigged. I dont know of any witnesses who say that workers were busting through sheetrock and planting explosives.
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik
Click to expand...
i don't watch TV.
i do know i don't hear anything about it on the radio or read anything about it in the newspapers.
no, i don't find it peculiar. why haggle over something that's obvious?
frankly i find this bomb business laughable.
that pile was open to anyone and everyone that had a desire to help.
none of them, zero, nada, zip, ever reported any evidence of explosives.
 
leopold99 said:
Headspin said:
New paper published -
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62
Click to expand...

uh, what paper?
Click to expand...

I gave you a clue in the above link.

This paper here:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62

The paper is called -
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

It appears you also missed that 'clue' where I said "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

or here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
.
You don't think it is obvious?

He called me a conspiracy liar!

When have I ever talked about conspiracies? He has not specified what I supposedly lied about or provided evidence.

He think in terms of groups. He has put me in a group and accuses everyone in that group of the same stuff. He just needs what he regards as scientific support for what he has decided to believe. Ryan Mackey is his scientific AUTHORITY.

Talking about a skyscraper collapsing without having the distribution of steel and concrete data is scientific nonsense.

Doing it SEVEN YEARS after the fact is insanely hilarious. LOL

psik
Click to expand...


You don't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. I asked you a pertinent question, and you ducked it. I'll try again: Countries unfriendly to the U.S. and eager to derail any perceived American efforts at empire-building have their share of engineers, physicists, architects, and demolition experts. NOBODY from any of these countries--Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea--has pointed out any errors in the NIST Report. Are you suggesting that the tentacles of your imaginary conspiracy reach into parts of the world where neocons dare not tread? Are the scientists and engineers of those countries too dumb to notice things an internet denizen with no background in any technical field can see at a glance? Explain the silence.

Your current hobbyhorse is the distribution of steel and concrete. The real engineers regard your new passion as so much empty blather. Why do they dismiss your obsession so disdainfully? As always, we want to know what you know that working scientists and engineers don't. How did you learn it?
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
Maybe, but how often do the physicists say the non-physicists don't know what the hell they are talking about?

This business of Mackey being a NASA SCIENTIST is kind of funny. Doesn't Ryan have lots of NASA SCIENTIST buddies? Why don't we have videos of LOTS OF NASA SCIENTISTS agreeing with him? Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik
Click to expand...

Strawman alert! There is no conceivable reason why scientists at the NASA Jet Propulsion labs should be making videos about the collapse of the twin towers. Naturally, it would be a big deal if a real live scientist suddenly announced that he bought the insane drivel fabricated by dunces such as Gage and Griffin. If someone at NASA lost his mind and became a twoofer, we'd hear about it.
 
but doesn't this imply that the margin of safety as far as the perimeter columns are concerned is also reduced by 1/3?
Click to expand...

That isn't correct. Tony already said the butt joints had 70% the strength of solid metal so it is a 10% reduction not a 33% reduction compared to solid metal all of the way up which is impossible to build. FEMA said the perimeter columns were at 20% load capacity, so they were 5 times as strong as they needed to be. That 10% is irrelevant.

why haggle over something that's obvious?
Click to expand...
.
Surprisingly I agree with that. But to me it is obvious that we should have had info on the distribution of steel LONG AGO.

psik
 
Headspin said:
I gave you a clue in the above link.

This paper here:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62

The paper is called -
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

It appears you also missed that 'clue' where I said "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

or here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Click to expand...
ah yes, the infamous red/grey chips that was found everywhere except on the pile.

the difference between these chips and paint is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top