World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[psikeyhackr]

It is curious that most people don't have any need to doubt things. The Twin Towers were more than twice as tall as WTC7. Was the steel distribution down the bottom half of the North Tower the same as WTC7 or its own top half.

So I decided not to discuss WTC7 and focus on the Twin Towers. More on the North because as soon as I mention the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South, which the NCSTAR1 report admits was "20 to 25 degrees" suddenly no one has anything to say. Do people on science forums know what a center of gravity is?

I searched NCSTAR1 for "center of gravity" and "center of mass", both terms are in the report. Whenever center of mass is used it is about the aircraft. Whenever center of gravity is used it is about some simulated structural component like a beam or a perimeter panel.

Who cares about a tilted mass that may have weighed more that 100,000 tons about 900 ft up? Does anyplace even give a number for that weight?

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[DaveC426913]

...as I mention the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South, which the NCSTAR1 report admits was "20 to 25 degrees"

Here's the top section of the tower tilted 22.5 degrees.




Notice its CoG is well within the perimeter of the outer load-bearing walls.


Furthermore, the towers failed from centre beam collapse - IOW the centre beams failed, while the outer load-bearing structure stood up. That means the top dozen floors were directed back toward the centre as it fell, like a basketball into a hoop.



You re so busy looking for zebras, you are getting trampled by all the horses surrounding you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Notice its CoG is well within the perimeter of the outer load-bearing walls.

ROFL

You know, someone claiming to be a structural engineer told me that exact same thing.

But then I pointed out that the NIST said that the core supported 53% of the building's weight. So where was the center of gravity relative to the core? And there was the hat truss and mechanical floors and elevator motors and probably air conditioning equipment at the top.

Of course the structural engineer didn't say anything after that.

The center of gravity was not necessarily at the geometric center. I am asking where it was and do not think it should be ignored.

Wait, are you saying the core was a zebra?
I didn't think of that.

 

[psikeyhackr]

By the way:

The tilted top portion was not a cube.

The fuselage hit the South Tower at the 81st level and the building was 200 ft wide. So the tilted portion was about 1.74 times as tall as it was wide.

Otherwise the graphic wasn't too bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

But then I pointed out that the NIST said that the core supported 53% of the building's weight. So where was the center of gravity relative to the core?

Same place.
Distributing weight laterally doesn't change the CoG.
The CoG of a hula hoop, for example, is still at the centre.



You still haven't made a case.

So far, your entire argument has been "I don't see how x happened, therefore ..."
well, therefore nothing.

You entire argument is "I don't see how x happened." Full stop.

OK, no one here disagrees with that. You don't see how it happened.


Why don't you have the conviction to tell us what your hypothesis is - and show us evidence to support it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Distributing weight laterally doesn't change the CoG.

I'm not talking about laterally. I'm talking about vertically. How high up was the CoG in the block? Rectangular structure, not cube.

So pretend the core is irrelevant all you want. Keep your zebras.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not talking about laterally. I'm talking about vertically. How high up was the CoG in the block? Rectangular structure, not cube.

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.



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

 

[DaveC426913]

It is curious that most people don't have any need to doubt things.

This is a telling comment. I think you are projecting here.

You read these conspiracy articles and feel no need to doubt them.

You sure didn't do the simplest of diagrams - that took me 2 minutes - to show that a tilt of 25 degrees is not enough to prevent the tower from falling into its own footprint.
You are being hoodwinked because you don't know enough science to be skeptical of these conspiracists.

 

[James R]

David C - super shill for the Official Conspiracy Theory?

You should not make personal accusations that you cannot support. Please apologise to David C. Thank you.

I'm guessing, quite possibly employed in a dedicated center in Tel Aviv (or various affiliates worldwide) among an Israeli government...

Careful! Your anti-semitism is showing again. What on earth do you think Israel has to do with 9/11?

You really ought to get off the conspiracy peddling websites and start reading more reliable sources.

But enough of my twoofer wingnut suspicions.

Yes. Enough.

 

[Q-reeus]

You should not make personal accusations that you cannot support. Please apologise to David C. Thank you.

Careful! Your anti-semitism is showing again. What on earth do you think Israel has to do with 9/11?

You really ought to get off the conspiracy peddling websites and start reading more reliable sources.

Yes. Enough.

Feigning idiocy again? In case you need reminding - there was a '?' at the end of the supposed 'accusation'. Making it NOT an accusation! Duh.
The rest of your chest beating is entirely askew, but I have no intention of taking the bait into an interminable back-and-forth jousting competition beloved of you. I bid you adieu.

PS - I'm good and mad at the way you unfairly, perennially exploit your asymmetrical button-pusher power advantage.
Anyway - you did ask a question in #510:
"What on earth do you think Israel has to do with 9/11?"

Again feigning either extremely poor memory or non compus mentus? Quite a number of times already, I have posted the (except for an easily refuted single-post attempt) entirely uncontested:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
Israel had EVERYTHING to do with and has immensely profited by premeditated, pre-planned design from 9-11! To claim that FACT here is automatically 'antisemitic'? No - actually proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
But here's the challenge for you James R. As you know there is a very infrequently used sub-forum 'Formal Debates'. Which notionally requires adherence to objectively debating facts. Not emotive assertions and rhetoric.

So - I'm ready to take you on in that arena, regarding that article's meticulously detailed, referenced to primary sources where available, arguments indicting Israel, and mostly US Zionist billionaire Zionist supporters, as primary culprits re 9-11. The so-called 'war on terror' destructive invasions that followed is intimately linked, but a separate topic best left out.

Your choice! Which I'm well aware could include the easy option - brand me as an out-and-out 'antisemitic hater', for which a life ban is the only 'responsible' response. Your choice!

 

[James R]

Feigning idiocy again?

Your should not insult other members. You ought to apologise to me for your lack of civility. Didn't your mother teach you manners?

In case you need reminding - there was a '?' at the end of the supposed 'accusation'. Making it NOT an accusation! Duh.

The problem you face, Q-reeus, is that I'm a smart guy. That kind of nonsense might succeed at pulling the wool over some people's eyes, but not mine. An insult phrased as a question is an insult nonetheless, as is an accusation phrased as a question. The addition of a question mark doesn't absolve you. It doesn't even create plausible deniability, as you no doubt hoped it might. You have a posting history here, remember. You're not an unknown quantity, nor a newbie.

[snip] but I have no intention of taking the bait into an interminable back-and-forth jousting competition [snip]

Great! Then just apologise to the parties you have accused/insulted and we can move on.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

This is why you're so hopelessly lost in the conspiracy bullshit. Is this the kind of thing that holds your attention? How much of your time do you waste on that kind of rubbish?

Israel had EVERYTHING to do with and has immensely profited by premeditated, pre-planned design from 9-11!

And that idea fits in so nicely with your own pre-existing antisemitic leanings. Fancy that! How conveniently neat.

But here's the challenge for you James R. As you know there is a very infrequently used sub-forum 'Formal Debates'. Which notionally requires adherence to objectively debating facts. Not emotive assertions and rhetoric.

So - I'm ready to take you on in that arena, regarding that article's meticulously detailed, referenced to primary sources where available, arguments indicting Israel, and mostly US Zionist billionaire Zionist supporters, as primary culprits re 9-11. The so-called 'war on terror' destructive invasions that followed is intimately linked, but a separate topic best left out.

You're free to start a Proposal thread in the Formal Debates subforum any time you like. Make sure you read the rules of that subforum if you want to propose a Formal Debate (with me or anybody else).

I can't guarantee that I'll have time to spend refuting your nonsense, though. Besides, engaging with you on such a topic would probably only lend you a legitimacy that you haven't earned.

Your choice! Which I'm well aware could include the easy option - brand me as an out-and-out 'antisemitic hater', for which a life ban is the only 'responsible' response. Your choice!

But you are an anti-semitic hater, are you not?

Do feel free to tell us what you think of Jewish people and Israel, if you are not.

 

[Q-reeus]

...The problem you face, Q-reeus, is that I'm a smart guy. That kind of nonsense might succeed at pulling the wool over some people's eyes, but not mine. An insult phrased as a question is an insult nonetheless, as is an accusation phrased as a question. The addition of a question mark doesn't absolve you....

You are indeed a fool not smart. Contrast the above with just the latest of very many self-incriminating examples you provide. Right here in the same post:

"But you are an anti-semitic hater, are you not?"

Can't see the obvious irony? Sure you can. Your tactic - just bury such obvious contradictions under a fresh avalanche of innuendo. Guaranteed acceptance here at leftist dominated SF. Simples!

I care not to refute all the rest, except.... Ironically , as any proper survey will reveal, it's YOU and fellow mods that obviously have oodles of spare time to write looong series of looong posts in a multitude of threads. Go ahead, compare to my cumulative post/word count!

Anyway, YOU asked re Israel (and 'friends') involvement in 9-11. YOU therefore start a thread in Formal Debates, critiquing that Wikispooks expose article . And face certain annihilation.

 

[James R]

You are indeed a fool not smart.

Takes one to know one, eh?

"But you are an anti-semitic hater, are you not?"
Can't see the obvious irony? Sure you can.

Are you saying that you're not an anti-semitic hater? Just so we're clear. Because from where I'm standing right now, given your recent record of anti-semitic posts to the forum, it's sure looking like you are. And I'm a smart guy, remember?

I notice that you declined the invitation in my previous post. Why is that, if I am wrong about you?

Your tactic - just bury such obvious contradictions under a fresh avalanche of innuendo.

My calling you an anti-semitic hater is not innuendo. I'm calling you out, clearly.

Please, by all means, correct me if I am mistaken. I will be very pleased to discover that you actually have lots of close Jewish friends and a fondness for all things Israeli, if that's actually the case, for instance. Because your recent posts point in exactly the opposite direction.

Anyway, YOU asked re Israel (and 'friends') involvement in 9-11. YOU therefore start a thread in Formal Debates, critiquing that Wikispooks expose article . And face certain annihilation.

Hehe. You do make me laugh. You challenge me, then as soon as it looks like there's a possibility I might actually accept your challenge, you run a mile.

Stop tying yourself in knots. At one level, it's funny to watch, but do yourself a favour and stop beating yourself up.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Hehe. You do make me laugh. You challenge me, then as soon as it looks like there's a possibility I might actually accept your challenge, you run a mile....

Is that really so? Call my bluff, and start a thread under formal Debate. Where you are free to attempt to refute even ONE key point raised in the till now SF unchallenged article:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

YOU are the SF overlord James R. Branding me as an irrational hate-filled 'antisemite'. Prove that via showing above linked has no case to offer. Take the 'responsible' initiative and start the 'easy to refute' thread under Formal Debates! And let's see just how 'easy' your task really is!

 

[James R]

Call my bluff, and start a thread under formal Debate.

Don't be silly. If you want a debate, you set it up. Don't try to give me homework.

Branding me as an irrational hate-filled 'antisemite'.

That's twice now that you have declined my invitation to set the record straight. I will leave your readers to draw the obvious conclusion. If it looks like a duck etc. etc.

 

[David C]

David C - super shill for the Official Conspiracy Theory?

No. Where do I apply? Are you part of the Clown troop in Billy Smart's Circus? Just asking of course.

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 have a question. Do you do personality analysis as a hobby? (don't give up your day job).

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:

Your guesses are just as crappy as your opinion. Where the two diverge is the hard part to determine.

But enough of my twoofer wingnut suspicions.

Let me be quite clear. In advance and in retrospect I would be amazed if you had one single fragment of any post that I was interested in, or agreed upon, let alone gave a monkey's about.

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?

I have no opinion and I don't actually care.

That went no further than modelling ostensibly initiation of collapse only. NOT the free-fall period that followed.

What freefall period that followed? (You mean WTC7? See video posted.)

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.

Wow, your suggestions are just as bad as your guesses.

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!

Quit the suggestions, they are really dumb. "Ae911truth" is an oxymoron. This response gives perfect reasons:
NIST Response 2020-001.pdf (ae911truth.org)

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.

As you almost certainly have a distorted view on what amounts to sensible, I can only conclude that you wish to avoid watching the video. Assume I couldn't care less what you do.

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.

You wish to raise the ae911truf to an area of "qualified"? I posted the video because it was relevant - it's pretty good and shows how the 911truf movement are full of the proverbial.

 

[Q-reeus]

No. Where do I apply? Are you part of the Clown troop in Billy Smart's Circus? Just asking of course.



I have a question. Do you do personality analysis as a hobby? (don't give up your day job).



Your guesses are just as crappy as your opinion. Where the two diverge is the hard part to determine.



Let me be quite clear. In advance and in retrospect I would be amazed if you had one single fragment of any post that I was interested in, or agreed upon, let alone gave a monkey's about.



I have no opinion and I don't actually care.



What freefall period that followed? (You mean WTC7? See video posted.)



Wow, your suggestions are just as bad as your guesses.



Quit the suggestions, they are really dumb. "Ae911truth" is an oxymoron. This response gives perfect reasons:
NIST Response 2020-001.pdf (ae911truth.org)



As you almost certainly have a distorted view on what amounts to sensible, I can only conclude that you wish to avoid watching the video. Assume I couldn't care less what you do.



You wish to raise the ae911truf to an area of "qualified"? I posted the video because it was relevant - it's pretty good and shows how the 911truf movement are full of the proverbial.

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. That IF continued past initial collapse, would make an absolute mockery of NIST's obviously wrong effort at accounting for the recorded collapse event. Doubtless fudged to the max to begin with. But not enough to hide the stark contrast with what actually happened. Hence the refusal to comply with repeated FOI requests to reveal their obviously contrived simulation.

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

 

[Q-reeus]

Don't be silly. If you want a debate, you set it up. Don't try to give me homework.

That's twice now that you have declined my invitation to set the record straight. I will leave your readers to draw the obvious conclusion. If it looks like a duck etc. etc.

Like with David C, it's not hard to call your bluff. I will admit that, based on a sorry track record, entering such a formal debate with you runs the risk of clever stalling and obfuscation from a practiced exponent that you are. Still, here's an easy way to determine if a formal debate is worth trying. As is obvious, the excellent, so far here unchallenged article:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ng-7-collapse-is-inaccurate.11977/post-256510
is nicely set out in a mostly time sequential itemized format. So - feel free to pick out ANY (non-trivial) claim there that in your opinion is weak and readily refuted. Explain why - in some sensible, coherent detail. If i cannot refute it - Game Over!You will have one!

I can't make it any easier AND potentially less time & effort wasting than that. And btw, that easy-as offer is extended to the other mods who have basically shouted and screamed and shrieked their disapproval of my supposed antisemitic hate mongering. Actually - further extend that offer to anyone here at SF. Let's see where the BS really resides.

 

[exchemist]

No. Where do I apply? Are you part of the Clown troop in Billy Smart's Circus? Just asking of course.



I have a question. Do you do personality analysis as a hobby? (don't give up your day job).



Your guesses are just as crappy as your opinion. Where the two diverge is the hard part to determine.



Let me be quite clear. In advance and in retrospect I would be amazed if you had one single fragment of any post that I was interested in, or agreed upon, let alone gave a monkey's about.



I have no opinion and I don't actually care.



What freefall period that followed? (You mean WTC7? See video posted.)



Wow, your suggestions are just as bad as your guesses.



Quit the suggestions, they are really dumb. "Ae911truth" is an oxymoron. This response gives perfect reasons:
NIST Response 2020-001.pdf (ae911truth.org)



As you almost certainly have a distorted view on what amounts to sensible, I can only conclude that you wish to avoid watching the video. Assume I couldn't care less what you do.



You wish to raise the ae911truf to an area of "qualified"? I posted the video because it was relevant - it's pretty good and shows how the 911truf movement are full of the proverbial.

But, but, but.....what about the Duke of Edinburgh driving the white Fiat Uno, eh? The one on the grassy knoll in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle.

All we need now is David Icke and his Lizard People for a full house.