World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[psikeyhackr]

This is like pulling teeth. I'm not going to make your case for you.

You mean that you don't have a case.

Gravity can accelerate a mass giving it kinetic energy. If it then falls on another mass supported by breakable structures that must be overcome to collapse. It will lose kinetic energy, slowing down. So if there is another mass after that, and after that, and after that,...

Modeling & Testing

Gravity, Duh!

 

[DaveC426913]

You mean that you don't have a case.

I don't need a case. It happened. The onus is on you to support any claims you make.

So far, all you've done is post questions.
"I don't understand how it happened." is not the same as "It didn't happen."
And nothing you've presented so far changes that.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don't need a case. It happened. The onus is on you to support any claims you make.

So far, all you've done is post questions.
"I don't understand how it happened." is not the same as "It didn't happen."
And nothing you've presented so far changes that.

Ah, now I comprehend your nonthinking.

Airliners hit the buildings and started fires and the buildings were destroyed therefore that is all there is to it.

Collapsing straight down in less than triple freefall time does not need to be explained and "experts" don't even need to discuss, much less provide, distribution of steel and concrete data.

So why are you bothering to post?

 

[DaveC426913]

Ah, now I comprehend your nonthinking.

Airliners hit the buildings and started fires and the buildings were destroyed therefore that is all there is to it.

Collapsing straight down in less than triple freefall time does not need to be explained and "experts" don't even need to discuss, much less provide, distribution of steel and concrete data.

So why are you bothering to post?

So, is that the case you're making? Because that's still not a case.

Yes. Airliners hit the buildings, and started fires which softened the beams, causing the towers to fall. Got any evidence that says otherwise?

If you had the courage of your convictions, you'd put some out there for analysis.
You ask rhetorical questions and wonder why no one is taking the bait.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes. Airliners hit the buildings, and started fires which softened the beams, causing the towers to fall. Got any evidence that says otherwise?

What is your evidence that beams were softened? You can't even say how much steel was on levels hit by aircraft. The beams which the NCSTAR1 REPORT says were damaged in the core were only estimated guesses. Tell me where there is data on the thickness of the columns where the planes hit.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST in 2007. You are most likely parroting what you heard on television.

But,

Suppose we had an accurate computer model of the North Tower. We will suppose that because we can't make it without distribution of steel data. Remove levels 91 thru 95 leaving a 60 foot gap. Drop the top 15 stories on the bottom 90 and analyze what happens.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel. They didn't have computers.

But after 20 years we don't even have data to make an accurate model of the North Tower collapse. So we just have BELIEVERS.

I saw a video animation a few days ago with core columns glowing. Steel conducts though. How difficult is it to weaken a steel grid. There have been a lot of skyscraper fires bigger than the Smokey trivia in the WTC.

Tacoma video with model

Model motion @ 7:03, crappy sound

 

[DaveC426913]

What is your evidence that beams were softened? You can't even say how much steel was on levels hit by aircraft. The beams which the NCSTAR1 REPORT says were damaged in the core were only estimated guesses. Tell me where there is data on the thickness of the columns where the planes hit.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST in 2007. You are most likely parroting what you heard on television.

But,

Suppose we had an accurate computer model of the North Tower. We will suppose that because we can't make it without distribution of steel data. Remove levels 91 thru 95 leaving a 60 foot gap. Drop the top 15 stories on the bottom 90 and analyze what happens.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel. They didn't have computers.

So what?

You are lazy - you expect that all the thinking to be done by other people. You appear to have no convictions of your own.

"Hey all you brainiacs! So, one plus one simply equals two?? Just like that? What's that all about, eh?"

So we just have BELIEVERS.

The WTC towers fell. This is indisputable fact.

What is there to not believe? What's your point?

 

[billvon]

You mean that you don't have a case.

Gravity can accelerate a mass giving it kinetic energy. If it then falls on another mass supported by breakable structures that must be overcome to collapse. It will lose kinetic energy, slowing down.

Exactly. Which is why it collapsed at near freefall speeds, rather than freefall speeds. It required some of that kinetic energy to destroy the floor below it.

You make an excellent argument as to why the collapse happened exactly as explained.

 

[Michael 345]

Gravity eliminates the Conservation of Momentum and magically provides energy to bend steel and crack concrete?

And of course you and your band of geniuses are the only ones in the universe who knows this information

Well done

 

[psikeyhackr]

And of course you and your band of geniuses are the only ones in the universe who knows this information

Well done

Your sarcasm is so impressive compared to the failure of engineering schools to model the North Tower collapse in TWENTY YEARS.

 

[billvon]

But after 20 years we don't even have data to make an accurate model of the North Tower collapse.

We do have an accurate model. You just don't understand it.

 

[Q-reeus]

What has been expertly modeled, far more comprehensibly than the deeply flawed, simulation code unavailable for independent scrutiny, NIST report of 2008, is that of WTC 7 collapse.
Under the direction of University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Professor of Civil Engineering:
https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 (containing a large number of links to various articles and vids and including a link to the full open to all 632 GBs of simulation code).
An easily digestible independent review:
https://canada.constructconnect.com...-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

Needless to say, none of that was allowed any (at least any positive) play on MSM 9-11 20th anniversary mawkish hoopla specials, that concentrated on individual acts of heroism. And as expected, blaming Osama bin Laden + 19 Arabs with box-cutters. With Pakistani and a smattering of Saudi involvement thrown in. The absurd Official Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Q-reeus]

Correction to above post where "all 632 GBs of simulation code" should have read "all 632 GBs of input & output data and simulation code". Only a small fraction was simulation code.

 

[Michael 345]

Your sarcasm is so impressive compared to the failure of engineering schools to model the North Tower collapse in TWENTY YEARS.

But it appears given your fervent coverage you have

I the problem to your ego you are not being paid (offered) enough to go on a world wide tour and talk to the air heads still scratching same after 20 years

 

[Michael 345]

We do have an accurate model. You just don't understand it.

Exactly

 

[David C]

What has been expertly modeled, far more comprehensibly than the deeply flawed, simulation code unavailable for independent scrutiny, NIST report of 2008, is that of WTC 7 collapse. Under the direction of University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Professor of Civil Engineering:

Expertly Modelled? That seems like the cheerleading troofah call. The NIST report was more expertly modelled. Hulsey is a cold weather bridge specialist, that is not the area of expertise I would attribute accuracy to.

Metabunk tore this regurgitated report to bits last year.

Needless to say, none of that was allowed any (at least any positive) play on MSM 9-11 20th anniversary mawkish hoopla specials, that concentrated on individual acts of heroism.

If it was needless to say, why did you say it? Of course they aren't going to put in such a poor uncited report.

And as expected, blaming Osama bin Laden + 19 Arabs with box-cutters.

Why? I mean why, if all that didn't happen, would they say they only had box-cutters? Why not bombs, plastic designed guns, machetes etc.? It is this 20 years old appeal to incredulity that never goes away.

With Pakistani and a smattering of Saudi involvement thrown in. The absurd Official Conspiracy Theory.

Twenty years, no evidence, still loads of arm waving.

 

[psikeyhackr]

With Pakistani and a smattering of Saudi involvement thrown in. The absurd Official Conspiracy Theory.

Hot Damn! Physics is a conspiracy!

Designers don't have to figure out mass distribution in very tall structures .

The CN Tower is built with low center of gravity less then 61 m from the ground ( outside. )

The CN Tower materials include concrete, steel, and glass. The tower was built 553m tall, 43m wide, 22 feet in depth and uses 9,200 cubic yards of concrete.

https://prezi.com/rp-bj1cbdytk/forces-on-the-cn-tower/

Why did they switch from meters to feet?

Try finding the center of gravity or steel and concrete distribution data on any skyscrapers. The NIST report by the NIST does not even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers. They say for the steel but not the concrete. Funny that!

Metabunk!?

Yeah, anything Mick says is debunked is debunked because Mick says so.

 

[David C]

Hot Damn! Physics is a conspiracy!

Does it confuse you that much? I find it staggering that there are still people jumping up and down 20 years later with still not a single fragment of evidence.

Why did they switch from meters to feet?

Go ask them, take a course or something.

Try finding the center of gravity or steel and concrete distribution data on any skyscrapers. The NIST report by the NIST does not even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers. They say for the steel but not the concrete. Funny that!

Irrelevant that.

Metabunk!?

Uhuh.

Yeah, anything Mick says is debunked is debunked because Mick says so.

Well no. He uses words, diagrams and well written responses, he doesn't say it is debunked, he just debunks it and lets others see this.

Why don't you urinate or get off the pot! In simple English, detail exactly what you actually think happened with preferably more than hot-air, ie. actual evidence.

Weakened floors below the impact point, where the building gave way, allowed for a whole lot of kinetic energy. Way more than each floor. As it dropped, each floor was not enough to counter the increasing kinetic energy from the fall, so it just got more and more.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Does it confuse you that much? I find it staggering that there are still people jumping up and down 20 years later with still not a single fragment of evidence.

Evidence for what!

Oh, you mean I am not allowed to use sarcasm?

I say the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers or the distribution of steel or the center of gravity of the top of the South Tower which they say tilted 20 to 25 degrees.

Did you download the report to study it?
Oh, I can't PROVE I did that in 2007.

No, maybe I can find forums where I quoted it years ago. Can you?

Found this, kind of interesting:
2014 - I emailed people at Purdue about their hilarious simulation.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...ysics-9-11-versus-conspiracy-theories-21.html

 

[David C]

Evidence for what!

Well either you are terminally confused or you suspect subterfuge. Evidence for the latter, because we already have it for the former.

Oh, you mean I am not allowed to use sarcasm?

Huh? You can say what you like, only it helps if it has a point and makes sense.

I say the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers or the distribution of steel or the center of gravity of the top of the South Tower which they say tilted 20 to 25 degrees.

Righto. And?

Did you download the report to study it?

Most of it.

Oh, I can't PROVE I did that in 2007.

Fourteen years and you still haven't got anywhere.

No, maybe I can find forums where I quoted it years ago. Can you?

That isn't a plus point dude, it is crazy obsession. Now, would you like me to explain this sentence below?

Why don't you urinate or get off the pot! In simple English, detail exactly what you actually think happened with preferably more than hot-air, ie. actual evidence.

 

[Q-reeus]

Expertly Modelled? That seems like the cheerleading troofah call. The NIST report was more expertly modelled. Hulsey is a cold weather bridge specialist, that is not the area of expertise I would attribute accuracy to.

Metabunk tore this regurgitated report to bits last year.



If it was needless to say, why did you say it? Of course they aren't going to put in such a poor uncited report.



Why? I mean why, if all that didn't happen, would they say they only had box-cutters? Why not bombs, plastic designed guns, machetes etc.? It is this 20 years old appeal to incredulity that never goes away.



Twenty years, no evidence, still loads of arm waving.

David C - super shill for the Official Conspiracy Theory? Initial reaction was to attribute your anti-'twoofer' piece to a genuinely held position. But on second thoughts, just too slick and formulaic for my liking. I'm guessing, quite possibly employed in a dedicated center in Tel Aviv (or various affiliates worldwide) among an Israeli government (and/or CIA) pay-rolled small army of trolls, well trained and resourced to scour the internet, attacking anyone questioning the Official Line:
https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-work-censor-internet/
https://www.reddit.com/r/israelexpo..._israeli_government_has_an_army_literally_of/

But enough of my twoofer wingnut suspicions.

Tell me Dave C - what is your personal explanation for why NIST has refused all requests to make public their computer simulation code underpinning the official collapse theory? That went no further than modelling ostensibly initiation of collapse only. NOT the free-fall period that followed. You think their claim 'in order to protect public safety' makes even a shred of sense? How rational do you think that excuse is Dave C? I would suggest either stark raving mad, or more likely a convenient though transparent attempt at a cover-up.

And why has it had to come to a lawsuit against NIST demanding a fully transparent reevaluation?:
https://www.ae911truth.org/nist
NIST's dragging of heels much? Signifying - you think full openness and confidence of their original story? Ha ha ha ha. I'd suggest NO!

If you can at least try to give a sensible response to these few pertinent points, I can maybe afford time to wade through 'EdwardCurrent' pro Official Conspiracy theory vid. Which conveniently is too fresh for the severely under-resourced qualified folks at AE911Truth.org to have possibly yet mounted a detailed point-by-point rebuff. Which is perhaps why you chose it now.