The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

Sorry about all the double post, stations department here at Langley just got me a new mouse.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Good grief!! Did you read his post? Is that all you can say in response? You really are nothing more than a blind adherent to the OS.

I'm sorry, there really isn't much to say.

The whole premise is preposterous.

Lets say instead of paper rings he used metal rings, the structure would still be technically self-supporting, but even if you dropped 99% on the last 1% there would be no damage. Why - because self-supporting is a meaningless phrase. Self supporting by what margin? 1%?, 2%?, 3%, 7000%?. Like I said, based on his meaningless criteria I could build a model wherein there would be no damage at all, can you think of a real life building where you could lift 90% of it in the air, drop on the remaining 10% and have the remaining section suffer no damage?

Yeah, the usual rhetorical BS pretending that the problem isn't solved.

I already said this:

I tested the paper loops in relation to the washers to make the supports as weak as possible but still strong enough to support the static loads of the washers. But it still requires energy to crush the loops when the dynamic load exceeds the static load capacities.

Making the supports stronger than the minimum would reduce the chances of collapse and be totally pointless. But if the minimum won't collapse then the people claiming the WTC could collapse have a problem. All you can do is come up with spin to pretend the model is irrelevant.

psik

Originally posted by 54v!0r531f
reply to post by roboe

 

the beijing CCTV tower was built in 1992....

not after close scrutiny of 9/11.

Actually it wasnt even completed until 2009, when it caught fire.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Television Cultural Center (TVCC) (中央電視台新大樓北配樓) was due to open in mid-May 2009 containing a hotel, a theatre and several studios.

Originally posted by Danbones

6 of the 10 commissioners who held that enquiry have gone on record to say that the official story is a lie.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people.

here is some

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

here is some

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

here again

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

again

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest”.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.. This is not spin. This is not true.”

www.darkpolitricks.com...
[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

You do realize what the 9/11 Commision was about? It was to investigate and put together the intelligence that was compiled prior to 9/11 and who dropped the ball . It was not about the collapses of the WTCs or Pentagon, or anything technical. The 9/11 Commision was created to sort out all the data, intel, documents, the who's who in the terrorist world, who dropped the ball in passing along the information, why there was so much buerocratic red tape blocking efforts to keep tabs on the terrorists, etc etc etc. You guys really should keep a close check on whats what in this debate.

NIST and FEMA were for the technical part, the 9/11 Commision was for the investigation of the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.

reply to post by GenRadek


Even if it wasn't a technical report, they still didn't do a real investigation by their own admission, there were conflicts of interest and political stonewalls.

reply to post by AquariusDescending


But there is a difference between the reasons why or how the WTCs collapsed and the intelligence failures leading up to the events on 9/11.

what those on the 9/11 commission are complaining about is not about magic nanu nanu thermites, hushaboom explosives, and death rays.

Norman Mineta testifies to 'stand down' order given by Dick Cheney.

www.youtube.com...

Yeah jamba, always a tricky one, that video.....

Not so easy to brush under the carpet when its said "on camera"....

reply to post by benoni


Any luck with those "lies" yet?

As for Mineta, he's just covering his arse. Everyone knew he was incompetent.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
Norman Mineta testifies to 'stand down' order given by Dick Cheney.

This was in confirmation of the stand down order for all commercial and civil air traffic, which Mineta admits later on in the interview.

You're not attempting to take Mineta's quote out of context to make it sound like a military stand down, here, are you? You would be lying through your teeth if you were. You know that and so do I.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I tested the paper loops in relation to the washers to make the supports as weak as possible but still strong enough to support the static loads of the washers. But it still requires energy to crush the loops when the dynamic load exceeds the static load capacities.

Yeah, you said it. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

So exactly what was the loading capacity of the paper loops and what was their theortical loading and how does that relate to the design of the world trade center?

Don't bother, I know you don't have the anwer.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
Even if it wasn't a technical report, they still didn't do a real investigation by their own admission, there were conflicts of interest and political stonewalls.

I am quoting 9/11 committee chairman Lee Hamilton here when he says that his report is unquestionably a first draft attempt and there's no doubt lots more information they didn't know about that should have been included, but so far, his account has still shown to have more credibility than any of the alternative scenarios. We both know what he means by "alternative scenarios".

There certainly may be more to the story of what the gov't did or did not know, but the parts concerning Mohammed Atta and the hijackers have enough supporting evidence backing it up to show the 9/11 commission was able to get at least some things documented properly.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I tested the paper loops in relation to the washers to make the supports as weak as possible but still strong enough to support the static loads of the washers. But it still requires energy to crush the loops when the dynamic load exceeds the static load capacities.

Yeah, you said it. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

So exactly what was the loading capacity of the paper loops and what was their theortical loading and how does that relate to the design of the world trade center?

Don't bother, I know you don't have the anwer.

Hooper, do you ever give it a rest? Or isn't that allowed by your contract?

Apparently, psikeyhackr's rather simple though elegant point is way over your head.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by dubiousone]

reply to post by jambatrumpet


First, Thanks for your input and reply to this thread. With that out of the way, I don't see anything in that testimony to suggest that Cheney and the "young man" were referring to a stand-down order. They could have just as easily been talking about a shoot-down order, the theme of the question in the first place.

Shooting down a commmercial airliner with hundreds of people on board would boost the anxiety of the even the most heartless among us, which would explain the nerves emphasized in his testimony.


--airspoon

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I tested the paper loops in relation to the washers to make the supports as weak as possible but still strong enough to support the static loads of the washers. But it still requires energy to crush the loops when the dynamic load exceeds the static load capacities.

Yeah, you said it. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

So exactly what was the loading capacity of the paper loops and what was their theortical loading and how does that relate to the design of the world trade center?

Don't bother, I know you don't have the anwer.

I said I tested the loops. Due to unavoidable variations a single paper will collapse under a static load of anywhere from 12 to 17 washers.

The first time I built a complete tower I only had 3 triple loops at the bottom. But I noticed the next day that the bottom two double loops had collapsed. The configuration I used in the video had been standing for 3 days.

So all you can do is make idiotic assumptions to defend what you've decided to BELIEVE.

Very religious of you.

There is the minor detail that my experiment is very chaep and anyone can test it for themselves. LOL

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
There is the minor detail that my experiment is very chaep and anyone can test it for themselves. LOL

psik

...but you have not shown how the test has any relevancy to the collapse of the WTC. There were no solid tubular structures supporting the floors, so you can test this all you'd like but it's still entirely immaterial to the events of 9/11.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
There is the minor detail that my experiment is very chaep and anyone can test it for themselves. LOL

psik

...but you have not shown how the test has any relevancy to the collapse of the WTC. There were no solid tubular structures supporting the floors, so you can test this all you'd like but it's still entirely immaterial to the events of 9/11.

You could also say that it is irrelevant because the columns in the WTC were not made of paper.

If I folded the paper into squares would that increase the relevance?

ROFLMAO

The point is that the crushable supports can support the static load but even though the dynamic load exceeds the supports at the top and crushes them the loss of energy by the falling mass in doing the crushing brings it to a halt. The core columns of the WTC should have done the same thing. Since the WTC was TOTALLY DESTROYED something else had to be involved.

psik

[edit on 6-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If I folded the paper into squares would that increase the relevance?

Just for giggles now, I have to ask - did you try and corrugate the loops? Also, why something monolithic like a piece of paper? Why not just add sections of, I don't know, say matchsticks until you installed just enough to support the weight?

What this is all going to is you really didn't conduct an experiment or build a model. You knew the outcome you were looking for ergo you purposely build a bias model that would perform in such a manner so as to give you the results you were looking for.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If I folded the paper into squares would that increase the relevance?

Just for giggles now, I have to ask - did you try and corrugate the loops? Also, why something monolithic like a piece of paper? Why not just add sections of, I don't know, say matchsticks until you installed just enough to support the weight?

What this is all going to is you really didn't conduct an experiment or build a model. You knew the outcome you were looking for ergo you purposely build a bias model that would perform in such a manner so as to give you the results you were looking for.

Actually I did fold up a piece like a accordian it was a bit difficult to make it fit and stay under a washer. But it ended up being TOO STRONG for my purposes. If the objective is to get a collapse stronger is not better.

The point is that making it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still strong enough to support itself

IT WON"T COLLAPSE

So the Official Conspiracy Theory is horse manure.

So people like Richard Gage who don't emphasize the importance of knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level but just want people to BELIEVE there was a CD are full of crap too.

The objective is to UNDERSTAND not Believe.

It's called PHYSICS!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The objective is to UNDERSTAND not Believe.

It's called PHYSICS!

No, its called pseudoscience. Looks real techincal, sounds real techincal but in the end, its just parlor tricks.

Building the model should be your last step, not your first. You should be able to prove your propsed findings on paper first as a mathematical model. You don't build models to see what will happen because then all that proves is what happens to that model.

Another for instance - I see in your little youtube video you lifted the top pieces and then dropped them on the lower ones. What was the mathematical bases for the distance you dropped them? Right now all your model proves is what happens to that particular model under those particular circumstances.