World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[Q-reeus]

Repeating that last line in #519:
"Actually - further extend that offer to anyone here at SF. Let's see where the BS really resides."

It wasn't an invite to mindless, sheer prejudiced scoffing. Anyone can cheaply engage in that. It was an invite to present an intelligent, well thought out counterargument. Not so easy a task.
WARNING - there may be no likes received for undertaking such a risky, attempted non-PC refutation effort!

PS - My bad - picked up the mistake late. Linked to the Metabunk post containing clearly flawed NIST simulations of WTC 7 collapse in #519, rather than the Wikispooks article as per #515:
[link removed]

 

[David C]

Here's an easy way to short circuit your whole MO, David C.

I don't have any MO. Looking at speculation on collapses will never give a 100% accurate picture because with fires raging in virtually the whole building, 100% of the data relating to the mechanics of the collapse cannot be ascertained.

Over to you - David C. My advice - just walk away and avoid further embarrassment.

Right. So far, your opinions are crap, your suggestions are crap, your posts are crap and now we see that your advice is also crap. Full house.

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that? Then we have the breathtakingly obvious - what was the actual point of bringing down the building when it was pretty much going to be a burnt out husk anyway - with almost 100% guaranteed need for it to be demolished anyway?

Detailed answer please, preferably one that doesn't involve splattering paper all over Manhattan. Please don't embarrass yourself by talking about confidential documents needing destroying (the fire - duh) or some idiotic nonsense about insurance claims (building was burnt out anyway).

 

[David C]

Besides, engaging with you on such a topic would probably only lend you a legitimacy that you haven't earned.

That's one of the big problems. If you actually engage with these people, they start calling you shills, or accusing you of being in on it with the jooos. Sadly though, any argument with them makes them think they are right, otherwise "why would anybody bother" they'll tell you. It's all part of the crazy.

 

[billvon]

Here's an easy way to short circuit your whole MO, David C. Just watch the two NIST approved, 'high quality' simulations of WTC 7 collapse, provided courtesy of your fav anti-twoofer icon Mick West:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ng-7-collapse-is-inaccurate.11977/post-256510
Notice that even the second 'more realistic' sim is clearly showing, at the conveniently early terminated end-of-simulation, an accelerating chaotic onset crumpling.

You've answered your own question. You cannot accurately predict chaotic events. Once chaos dominates, no simulation is accurate.

The collapse of WTC7, as explained by the NIST, matches reality when you look at it closely. From the damage by the debris to the collapse of the penthouse to the fuel for the fires - it all adds up. There is no need to invent any additional conspiracies to explain the collapse.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Let's make it a 1.74:1 rectangle.

And let's put the CoG waaaaay up near the top. This simulates half the entire mass of the upper structure in the top quarter of the floors. IOW, the top quarter - including all open air cavities, is three times as dense as the lower three quarters. An absurd overestimate, to make the point.

View attachment 4430

Still like a basketball into a hoop.
Still falls with the footprint of the building.

The core is still missing and there is nothing in any videos of the perimeter spreading outward like that.

You are just making shit up.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That's one of the big problems. If you actually engage with these people, they start calling you shills, or accusing you of being in on it with the jooos. Sadly though, any argument with them makes them think they are right, otherwise "why would anybody bother" they'll tell you. It's all part of the crazy.

You mean being accused of not knowing physics for pointing out the lack of data on the distributions of steel and concrete down a 1360 building and that the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete is OK?

Should I list the insults?

I provided data and a link about the CN Tower and nobody said squat, but I get an idiotic diagram with the perimeter bulging out which obviously did not happen in the 9/11 videos.

It is just curious that center of gravity and mass distribution data cannot be found on so many tall structures around the world.

 

[billvon]

You mean being accused of not knowing physics for pointing out the lack of data on the distributions of steel and concrete down a 1360 building and that the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete is OK?

Not at all. You got accused of not knowing physics because you don't understand physics - as your posts here amply demonstrate.

 

[David C]

The core is still missing and there is nothing in any videos of the perimeter spreading outward like that.

You are just making shit up.

Explain completely what your problem is and what you think actually happened. You are one of the Mr. Men characters - Mr Vague!
So many posts about the centre of gravity???

Here's the deal. The building broke, it fell down. If you think the COG was outside the line through the building after the tilt, then explain what force in the damn universe stops it falling outside the line. If you don't, again, what's the problem. Urinate or get off the pot you have been hogging for 20 years.

 

[David C]

It is just curious that center of gravity and mass distribution data cannot be found on so many tall structures around the world.

Send an email to the designer and ask them to explain it to you. Contact a high-rise building firm and get their opinions. Jumping up and down in a huff on numerous forums is just absurd.

 

[DaveC426913]

The core is still missing and there is nothing in any videos of the perimeter spreading outward like that.

No?

But sure, let's pretend the facts don't show spreading of the outer load-bearing walls.
AND
let's pretend that the top quarter of the top section (m1) weighs as much as the entire lower three quarters (again a preposterous overkill).



It's still well within the footprint of the main tower.



Let's see what it would require...

To get the CoG to fall outside the perimeter of the main structure requires that 100% of the weight is right at roof level - and the 30 or so floors below so are made of - what? - thoughts and prayers?

 

[DaveC426913]

Explain completely what your problem is and what you think actually happened.

He won't.

If you think the COG was outside the line through the building after the tilt, then explain what force in the damn universe stops it falling outside the line.

He won't.

Conspiracy theories do best when wreathed in a fog of mystery and unanswered questions. Shedding any analytical light on them is the last thing any CT wants.

Not to mention the fact that he'd have to put his science-and-engineering money where his mouth is, and then have to admit he doesn't have any.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Missing core in upper and lower portion.

 

[DaveC426913]

The core is still missing from the stationary portion and the tilted portion.

What's missing is your point.

What is it exactly that you're claiming? Why are we analyzing this at all?
I'm guessing it has to do with where the portion would land, but you've said nothing about your beliefs. I'm not going to make your argument for you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think claiming points are missing is just a mental shutdown and you can just stay shut down.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think claiming points are missing is just a mental shutdown and you can just stay shut down.

Gotcha!

I knew - we all knew, having asked enough times what your argument actually is, you'd never actually state it. You have no convictions on the WTC disaster. You're not interested in answers, you're interested in keeping the pot stirred. That's the textbook definition of a troll.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Gotcha!

I knew - we all knew, having asked enough times what your argument actually is, you'd never actually state it. You have no convictions on the WTC disaster. You're not interested in answers, you're interested in keeping the pot stirred. That's the textbook definition of a troll.

WOW!

My are you impressed with yourself.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of caring about human beings and human beings are incapable of changing them. The Twin Towers were designed within the limitations of Physics and strength of materials and whatever destroyed them had to deal with that.

If airliners and fire could do it then detailed analysis should be possible with complete information on initial conditions.

An accurate simulation of the North Tower shouldn't be that difficult with accurate data but I have never seen info on the wheatchexs on the perimeter.

How many different weights were there and quantity of each type?

So just lifting the top 20 stories 60 ft and dropping them would be informative. So if every variation of simulated drop left 30 or more levels standing that would be a problem. Of course we could throw in some jet fuel for the purists.

At this point I hardly care who did it. What I call the Twin Towers Affair is just about the failure to solve such a simple problem in 5 years.

 

[DaveC426913]

WOW!

Busted. As soon as the questions you asked are answered, you shut up and try another tack. At what we don't know, because you don't ever say.

The tilting of the top section of the towers is perfectly inline with the established well-documented account of the fall of the towers. And there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

You're not discussing; you're just trolling.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Busted. As soon as the questions you asked are answered, you shut up and try another tack. At what we don't know, because you don't ever say.

The tilting of the top section of the towers is perfectly inline with the established well-documented account of the fall of the towers. And there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

You're not discussing; you're just trolling.

And that explains why you make a drawing without a core and pretend it explains something?

 

[DaveC426913]

And that explains why you make a drawing without a core and pretend it explains something?

You are as bad at reading diagrams as you are at sciencing. The structural elements can be treated as if uniform average density - at a sufficiently coarse resolution - unless otherwise specified where it might matter.

Now, explain why you think it matters.

 

[billvon]

The Laws of Physics are incapable of caring about human beings and human beings are incapable of changing them. The Twin Towers were designed within the limitations of Physics and strength of materials and whatever destroyed them had to deal with that.

If airliners and fire could do it then detailed analysis should be possible with complete information on initial conditions.

An accurate simulation of the North Tower shouldn't be that difficult with accurate data

So do it or shut the f*ck up.

The failure here is not in the analysis that has or hasn't been done. The failure is in your complete inability to understand basic physics.