World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    429
    Never! Did you really roll on the floor and laugh too? Wow, that must have made you laugh huh? Did your rear end drop off too and you missed off the "MAO" bit?

    False conclusion - build your strawman. I think your claims about it are unimportant - so does everyone else.

    Never mind, I'm sure there's some good stuff you can watch on the telly? Try letting go of this now, there's a good chap - it's been a while now and nobody wants to talk to Mr. Vague on "Vague duty".

    Horse water drink.

    Wait, what! Number 1 should be 0? Well why the hell didn't you say that before, call everyone back!

    Ah well. Go and get yourself a nice sandwich and a cup of tea or something. People have had enough of you circling the wagons with a Nerf gun. It's been a while. Twenty years. Move on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    I'm just happy I only know one person irl that might think psikey is on to something, and that guy usually gets pissed off when I debunk his shitty takes on the world.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    I calculated it for you. You immediately rejected it, since it contained math.

    People who can't do even basic math aren't generally taken seriously on science forums.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Sure, that is why Scientific American mentions Potential Energy.

    When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/

    Any calculation assuming uniform mass distribution is incorrect and unscientific.

    Bazant and MIT dish out the same BS.
     
  8. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    429
    No, really? They mention it? Wow.

    Righto, what do you want to do about it then?

    Go and find another hobby or make a case. I'm guessing you haven't got long here because you keep avoiding the OP and fail to say anything relating to what you think better explains things. It's all so very odd.
     
  9. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    https://byjus.com/physics/potential-energy/

    So YOU and Scientific American can't figure out the variations in mass and heights of the different levels of a 1360 ft skyscraper would significantly reduce the potential energy.
     
  10. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    429
    This is amazing stuff, tell me more, much more. Like urinate or get off the damn pot!

    1. Are you claiming some sort of explosive assistance for the collapses? Fully elaborate with evidence.
    2. Are you claiming anything unseen? Fully elaborate with evidence.
    3. Is your TV not good enough, have you not got any worthwhile hobbies?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,505
    psikeyhackr has been obsessing about this for 20 years now, apparently. But, as yet, he doesn't have any of his own ideas about what actually happened, if we are to believe him. All he has managed to work out so far is that there's something wrong with the "official" explanation. Apparently, qualified engineers and scientists can't do basic physics - that much seems clear. Beyond that, who knows? He's taken 20 years just to get this far. Give him a break!

    You know how it is. When you're laser focussed on showing how other people are wrong, there just isn't time left to do any work on what's right. It's exhausting. You need to be as dedicated as psikeyhackr to stick at it for 20 years, when the whole world is against you (apart from nutty conspiracy theorists who aren't the structural engineering/physics expert that psikeyhackr so obviously is).
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Neither can he, apparently. He can't do basic energy calculations, can't run simulations, and can't even explain where the problem is in other people's calculations.

    I have to wonder if his time would not be better spent learning physics, as opposed to making 1100 posts demonstrating that he does not understand physics.
     
    James R likes this.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    All of us can. I did that exact calculation for you several pages ago. You didn't understand it.
     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837

    you do relise bin-laden was schooled in industrial engineering supposedly
    & had done all his own figures
    the planes were flown with precision
    the hijackers had lots of practice
    & the us engineers agreed they had miscalculated the strength on multi piece short length steel framing
    which would have reduced strength of mass sheer
    it probably loads as it falls
    which gives it an INCREASING force as it gathers mass going down

    if u want to start getting properly technical

    it cant fall faster than gravity
    because obviously
    but with each floor it gathers energy instead of loosing it

    then once you have those basic figures
    you can then start to add the frequency impact waves running increased pressure loading on to the structure causing a probable harmonic vibration which then reduces the strength of the bolts as EVERYTHING sings at that pitch
    an increasing pitch
    as
    the fall continues
    it drops dense mass on to vibrating mass which doesn't like to be vibrated
    so the liquid(steel in its cold state being a cooled liquid)
    cant stand the sheer factor ripping its self apart

    just keeping it fairly simple
    im sure some of the more skilled people can get technical with figures for you
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,521
    I would be fairly certain ol' bin would not have known much about the design of the Twin Towers but was it not the newness features of the design which contributed to the collapse?

    Something about moving support columns to the outer regions allowing larger open areas in the inner regions

    Not to say the towers would not have collapsed with a earlier design. Even without the collapse the towers would have been demolished. The collapse vastly increased the death toll

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    bin-ladins family had construction companys
    he worked or ran some of them from rough memory
    he had access & some reports suggest had plans & examined them
    knew what he wanted
    how to achieve it

    2 factors assisted that ends

    as you say the moving of floor to floor supports

    the other is the construction of the main frame, which allowed a tower in the center instead of an exterior main structure(it was a bit of a new concept)

    the main structure was made instead of long steel supports cantilevering into long supports

    it was made of a main structure running up the center
    made of lots of short pieces requiring a vast amount of bolts

    so 4 factors assisted it

    1 knowledge of the structure & its weakness
    hard burn in a kiln from the jet fuel & office furniture being turned into a furnace up the center shaft super heating & melting the short pieces of main structure steel

    what was left was the critical height to get the maximum furnace effect & maximum weight to pack-cake all the floors
    the weight of the top floors was more than sufficient
    once that weight started moving nothing could stop it
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Like it is possible to accurately calculate the potential energy of the towers without knowing the mass in the 6 basement levels.
    LOL

    That would have been 5% of the height, was it 5% of the mass? 25,000 tons minimum?

    What report or article provides that data? I haven't found one. How many don't even mention the basements? Most of them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,521
    Would not basements, being in ground, and obviously subject to ground movement while weight bearing of the building, be constructed stronger than mere above ground levels?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Haven't you figured this out yet? IT DOESN'T MATTER to him. None of this does. All he wants to do is feel special because he knows something that he thinks no one else does.

    You could get the weight of the basement correct to the gram and he'd say "oh like it is possible to accurately calculate the potential energy of the towers without knowing the exact mass of the antennas on top of the buildings. They were not in the original plans you know! WHY aren't they there? Why are they trying to hide this? Only I know the truth!"
     
    DaveC426913 and exchemist like this.
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,381
    I agree, his opinion is not based on logic, so no amount of logic can dissuade him.
     
  21. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    By saying it had to be at least 5%, don't you think I was implying that it would be more since it had to support all of the above ground weight?
     
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Now this is funny.

    500,000 tons is 1,000,000,000 lbs.

    A kilogram is 2.2 lbs so a billion lbs is
    4.545 × 10**8 kg. So Scientific American begins by being off by 9%.

    WTC2 was 1362 ft and WTC1 was 1368, so they couldn't even get the heights correct.

    LOL
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    500,000 tons is 50,000,000 kilograms. (All metric units.) It even says so right in the article; you apparently missed that.

    LOL
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page