Interesting 9/11 video

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Kittamaru, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    So all you have is BELIEVE WHAT AUTHORITY TELLS YOU when they can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

    Conspiracies are irrelevant. This is just about physics. Expecting everyone to accept skyscrapers collapsing completely due to a small percentage at the top without explaining about how mass had to be distributed to hold itself up is ridiculous. You are simply advocating a pseudo-science religion. Everyone is supposed to worship those who claim to know but do not have to PROVE their claims.

    The engineering school I attended now charges $20,000 per semester. But they don't comment on 9/11. The 9/11 Affair is scientific bullshit. Any supposed collapse should be completely explainable with nearly complete data.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    No, they shouldn't be able to do that - as has already been explained to you, repeatedly, why that is.

    Let me give you a story: My uncle built a to-scale model of the Hindenburg, its landing tower, and the site for a school project. He built it with as close to scale strength and material types as possible, and filled it with hydrogen, just like the real thing.

    Guess what though - even though it was, mathematically, to scale, it could not float on its own power.

    I'll leave it to you to figure out how/why this is relevant and what it means.

    Put your money where your mouth is - interview your professors, on film, and ask them their thoughts on it and make the arguments you have been making. If you are so confident in it, then they should back your hypothesis, right?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Arne, many of your posts are informative and/or entertaining, so on the balance I appreciate having you here. But geeze, you can be a real asshole sometimes. I happen to know Trippy rather well and your characterization of him is completely off base. I would suggest that you apologize to him and come back when you're feeling less fragile. He is one of the few actual professional scientists on SciForums!

    9/11 was a singular event. The civilian government, the military, the press, business, academia, the churches, the citizenry, even the entertainment industry... 13 years later no one has really assimilated it. We'll be arguing about it for decades and not getting any closer to the truth.

    I drive past the Pentagon every once in a while. Simply being there makes me cry, but no cogent thoughts pop into my head.

    A K-9 guard was off duty that day. He and his partner showed up for work the next morning feeling terrible for not having been there to do something, anything for their people. Civilians saw them and started wandering over, just to pet the dog. Now well-trained military guard dogs just don't do that when they're on duty. But on that one day, that dog understood that letting people take some comfort from him WAS his duty.

    They probably appreciated the company of someone who cared... but couldn't talk.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    One of the factors was the city government deciding to ban asbestos insulation when the towers were already about halfway finished. Other materials are much heavier, so the building would not be able to support them. So the engineers simply put in as much as they could and crossed their fingers.

    They obviously would have known where the "sweet spot" for a suicide attack would be, considering that the Saudis figured it out.

    It's been estimated actuarially that the asbestos ban will save about ten people who would otherwise die from lung disease... in an entire century!

    Doncha just love bureaucracies?
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    For the record - now that it's the weekend (as I said I probably would), and I no longer have the stress of trying to finalize an 80 page report that falls into the grey area where law enforcement, environmental science, and environmental policy meet, and now that I'm no longer trying to get 5 days worth of work (according to the manager of the resource science unit anyway - mostly just changing the order things are presented in) done in three (I'm on annual leave for a week and it goes to the politicians on the 3rd of september) I've had the opportunity this morning to sit down and watch the video from start to finish.

    Having done so has not changed my opinion of it, nor does it change the questions I asked of Arne. They still remain, they still remain unanswered, and they're as pertitnent now as they were when I asked them.
  9. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Physics is incapable of giving a damn about money, talk or degrees.

    It just works. Where is the physical model that can completely collapse?

    I have used more than my mouth. People talk BS to claim there is something wrong with it.

    Shouldn't engineering schools be able to use 3D printers to make good tube-in-tube models if that is supposed to collapse?

    Why hasn't any engineering school done a model to prove anything yet? But in fact the schools are saying NOTHING. The collapse believers are just implying that most experts are on their side. The peculiar thing is that nearly all engineering schools have not made public statements and proven whatever they assert.

  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    What prey tell would be the purpose in generating a model?
    Is it going to bring back the deceased? Is it going to repair the economy or international climate? Is it going to remove any hastily created laws to deal with "terrorist" threats? Is it going to win a person a nobel prize or have significance at the level of a Higgs Boson?

    All a model is to you and people like you is some sort of symbolism, for what exactly I can't fathom. Perhaps you should nail someone to your model and start singing songs around it and quoting from an Engineers handbook in numbered paragraphs.

    In any effect as I stated, it's a pointless waste of human resources to try and prove or disprove something that happened.
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    The dead are only useful as a distraction from the physics.

    More Americans are killed in traffic accidents every two months than were killed by the special events of 9/11.

    No matter what the truth of the physics is our engineering schools should have explained it before the NCSTAR1 report was even published. So this lack of explanation is a bigger issue than the dead in this global event that is nothing but middle school physics.

    If it is proven that total collapse due to aircraft impact, explosion and fire was impossible then a lot of people portraying themselves as intelligent and scientific would look awfully stupid. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about the bad science in the movie Gravity but never saying anything about the physics of two skyscrapers hit by aircraft 4 blocks from his home. I would always have the excuse of never having been given accurate data on the towers. So why should the supposedly smart people have any objection to the release of complete and accurate information on the twin towers?

    Like building the model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was symbolism. It is like people want the 9/11 problem buried when it is nothing but simple physics that 7th and 8th graders could understand. But instead kids that started kindergarten in 2001 will be starting college this September but they have been told all of these years that airliners could make skyscrapers 2,000 times their own mass collapse. If they understood the physics and figured out skyscrapers could not collapse then that would be something for and entire generation to get pissed off about.

  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you are STILL failing to account for a weakened structure below the collapse.
    you know for a fact that the perimeter columns had 1/3 of its joints as butt joints.
    i've given you video evidence of butt joints in the core columns.
    your model does not take these things into consideration.
    even though WTC 1&2 LOOKED like a CD, i'm reasonably convinced they weren't.
    WTC 7, in my opinion, is the real anomaly, but explainable.
  13. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    What are you saying weakened the structure of the north tower below the impact zone. You are just claiming something you can't find evidence for. Or are you saying there were explosives?

    I do not know or care what your complaint about but joints is.

  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    And with this statement, you have shown that you either do not understand, or are blatantly ignoring, basic structural design... and thus you should withdraw from the argument until you do understand.
  15. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    The top of the south tower did not tilt 22 degrees because of but joints.

    That has not been explained.

    Like everyone is supposed to be impressed because you are the only person making a big deal of but joints. The can withstand downward force as long as they are kept aligned. So what are you claiming misaligned them in the north tower.

    The horizontal beams in the core would still have to impact each other regardless of the but joints.

  16. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    I thought we had agreed to let this rest, but you have had two other moderators publicly chastise me, one calling me an 'asshole' and another saying I would appear to be a "9/11 truther" if I went on the way I am. I've never heard the term 9/11 truther before. And I think I should remind anyone who is following this "discussion" once more that I did not originate the OP question of whether this video is valuable, and I do not even necessarily agree with the videos conclusions - my only beef is with you, Trippy, a moderator and supposedly 'scientifically' minded person dismissing it out of hand.

    Now you say you have watched the video, but as we both predicted watching it would in no way change your mind. All right. You're entitled to an opinion, but really isn't that a bit thick? Seventy minutes of new information and you have not budged a centimeter? Strikes me as rather hard-headed really.

    Again then, you say:
    So I have reviewed this entire thread and here are all of the questions you have asked me (pertinent and otherwise).

    You asked me if I "was serious (three question marks) because I had asked:

    You and Fraggle have already given your take on the meaning of theory and it appears above, and here you see mine, so let's not go over all that again. Notice, however, my question in bold at the end of the quote. If we're exhaustively answering unanswered questions, here's one of mine you haven't addressed.

    Oh, and to answer yours: Yes!!! I am serious!!!

    Your next two questions about evolution and gravity are rhetorical, but yes, I agree they are theories.

    Your next question is,"What win?" This is badly phrased somehow, but I guess I get what you mean. You are asking how I (or someone) could have won the lottery if we didn't play. So again, a rhetorical question really. So your whole monolog on gravity, evolution and lottery tickets are what I mean about you being condescending. You over-explain and do it in a rather tedious manner.

    Next question:
    Read your question carefully. You don't ask who is responsible for 9/11 (who carried the attacks out). You merely ask: "who executed the hypothesis?" Either way, of course my answer is that I don't know. Why all this endless talk in the world if anyone knew the answer? I suppose the actual perpetrators know, but they're not saying.

    Your next question is:
    Another rhetorical question apparently, but I'll answer: No, never. Can't imagine why you would suddenly become so hostile.

    Next: "
    Rhetorical, and just plain dumb, and I have answered this already earlier. You can scroll back and search if you like. I am not going to do everything for you.

    We discussed this. I do understand, and you seemed to have backed down from the aggressive tone I originally sensed in it. So, enough said.

    At last a real question! My answer is all over the ground and in the building, of course, and tons of it. Now, the presenter in the video says there was an entire film made in France about this, and his own group's investigation thought the French must be wrong about their conclusion that there isn't enough debris if what the government and mainstream media claimed had happened on 9/11 actually occurred. However, when they looked at all the publicly available photos, they tended to agree with the French.

    What do I think? I think two teams of investigator that I know of (I suppose there were other teams) find strangely little debris. In the Plane Site video we are discussing, they suggested it was a missile or some government conspiracy ordered 'other' plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't think it was in this video, but some other article that perhaps YOU led me to, mentions that on 9/10 the news out of the Pentagon that 2.5 billion dollars had gone missing. The source though t it rather 'convenient' that something occurred the very next day to distract the public from that news. So two teams of investigators have their suspicions. I think I have few as well then.

    We've discussed this. Brilliant waffling on your part there.

    Tsk tsk. Temper, temper. And Fraggle wants me to apologize to you?

    And finally:
    Which comes from:

    This is really not worth discussing. It's you getting all confused. I was talking to Russ W and you got confused and thought I was talking to you. You actually mixed up a post I wrote to you with another to Russ. No big deal. You must have been tired.

    To conclude, you actually had very few questions that you asked me, and only one of them something like pertinent, but actually not since I admit that I can't know more than two teams of investigators (when I haven't even seen their complete conclusion). I only know what I saw on TV like every one else.

    Now that we have reviewed your false perception that you had asked me many pertinent questions, I have to say that all this supports my view that your not much of a moderator. You certainly are not a very objective or fair-minded man. I can't find it now, but I seem to recall you or your little friend Russ calling me a liar. I do not care to review his questions to me because among other things he accused me of having not read the links you and he posted to refute me. I have explained that he made this accusations so quickly after the postings that I simply had not seen them yet because I was writing to defend myself from earlier nonsense. He hasn't yet admitted that he was wrong to do that. So, whatever...

    You have called me a whiner, a liar and a troll simply because I have said you should watch a film before commenting on it. I was rather aggressive, but that's because you are right when you say I "don't like the color of your name." (Hmm. I have never heard that expression before) but yes. In the past I often have found your posts overbearing, short-tempered and self-satisfied - you often assume that you know everything before you have even really investigated it properly.

    Apparently you agreed that you should have because now you have watched it. We both knew you wouldnt change your mind, and you have said nothing since watching it to explain why you think it is a bad film with wrong conclusions. But really, don't bother. I'm not interested in your opinion anymore.

    Our disagreement was never about if the film is correct in its assertions or not. It was never about what really happened on 9/11/2001. The video's producers, you or me or anyone we know is likely to find out the real and complete truth about 9/11/. Our 'discussion' has been about you jumping to conclusions, and then getting mad about it when I call you out. Everything you have written has been long-winded explanations of your opinions that I never asked about, or refutations of opinions that you only assumed I had without ever bothering to find out what my opinions, if I had any on this topic, were. You just talked and talked about 9/11 and talked down to me because you thought you knew what a video you hadn't seen was all about, and you thought you know who and what I was based on nothing in particular.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2014
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    I don't know how you managed to watch that video.
    I admire your strength of purpose.
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    that is the crux of the problem psiky.
    how are you going to keep the core aligned when you slam a 747 into the building?
    i'm amazed the buildings stood as long as they did.
    oh i dunno, maybe a 747 slamming full bore into the building and the resulting jet fuel explosion.

    get a grip psiky, seriously.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    *headdesk* Just... just stop. Seriously. I would explain to you, again, why the butt joints are important... but you would just ignore it, again, because it flies in the face of whatever fanciful "truth" you so desperately want to believe.
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    You should consider that the conspiracy about why the towers fell isn't as important as the potential concern in regards to Asbestos during their collapse. First responders not using Hazmat suits might well have been in high concentrations of the airborn material. It apparently takes 15 or so years for people to find out if their exposure to asbestos will effect their health. It could mean a whole host of people that potentially need medical care "after the fact" and obviously that costs money.
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I agreed to no such thing.

    Actually, no I didn't. No PM's were exchanged, no requests were made in the moderator subbforum. They have 'simply' chosen to express their opinion of your behaviour. You reap what you sow I guess/

    You still don't get it do you?

    Well, for one thing, none of it was new to me. They're all arguments I've seen presented and discredited in the last decade.
  22. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    What's the point of discussing anything with one such as you?
  23. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    I haven't said anything about any conspiracies because I don't give a damn.

    But "scientists" not clearly resolving a simple physics problem in 13 years is certainly curious. All you offer are distractions.

    50 buildings over 1,000 feet tall have been completed since 9/11 and the mass distribution of skyscrapers doesn't come up in discussions of the supposed "collapses". It is not difficult to write a computer program demonstrating that mass distribution affects collapse time. So how could the north tower come down in 25 seconds?

    This raises the question of how much "simple science" is supposed to be understood by THE MASSES.


Share This Page