Your 9/11 truth?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

 

Hmmm. Are you one of those "tactical nukes in the basement" people?

I was referring to Edward Teller. He wanted to make a channel into the north american desert, or a northwest passage, or a perfect harbor with nuclear/hydrogen detonations.

Come now, you're starting to be absurd here. The bug sprays of yesteryear were a hell of a lot more dangerous than what we've got now, like DDT and arsenic based pesticides. Back in the middle ages they even used mercury.

You say that you know the nerve gas came first, before the bug spray. You know alot about nerve gas.

Close. I'm saying that when "custom built" becomes profitable the laws of economics says it becomes "mass produced".

This is relevant because...

no new invention functions unless it is build for mass prodution?

His project didn't come from the military. The news story he released said the windows on his boat are made from a form of pyrex, which has been used to make kitchenware for over a hundred years.

What does any of this have to do with trying to find the truth of the 9/11 attack?

I said it was a new technology, only one in the world, and you said it comes from the military because nothing new is made except that which is from the military, and we always know all about it.

So what is the possibility that something gets invented without you knowing about it?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

None of them has built a model that can completely collapse either. If it was possible then why not just do it?

They find no reason to do it. They understand the physics involved.
You on the other hand, don't understand the physics.
Perhaps you should attend the proper schools and bring up the subject. Make it your class project.

You haven't addressed my contention that if there was something amiss one of the thousands of students in the past ten years would have written papers on it. If you include the entire world there has to be tens of thousands of students that don't seem to find anything wrong with the collapse.
They have the balls to sleep in a park outside Wall Street but they don't have what it takes to fire off a paper the Wikileaks?

Oh sure they are doing physics without data. So everybody is supposed to believe the official story because so many supposed experts SAY NOTHING.

www.youtube.com...

Just like the entire economics profession can forget to compute and report the depreciation of all of the automobiles on the planet for the last 50 years. Do the banks that give car loans know that cars depreciate? Interesting that.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It was a very interesting read, except I belive you made a slight error that may effect your formula. You wrote in your reply to 'Lucid Larry' that:

'Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above'

But the structual plans say:

The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.

reply to post by Alfie1


There are billions of people in the world, so by definition of genius (1 in 50) there are hundreds of millions of geniuses. If one in a hundred are criminal that leaves millions of geniuses in the world to choose from.

Every nation on Earth has killed innocent civilians (men, women, children, infants, new borns) with explosives, for the perceived to be greater good. And if the political agenda was loony back then, remember it is still the one we are following now. Provided it is an inside or covered up job.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Reason TWA 800 was salvaged and reconstructed was that investigators needed to find out why aircraft crashed

Didn't need to reconstruct 911 aircraft for simple reason that ALREADY KNEW WHY CRASHED

Just in case FBI recovered all the pieces to verify came from hijacked aircraft

reply to post by Semicollegiate

You say that you know the nerve gas came first, before the bug spray. You know alot about nerve gas.

Nerve gas came out of research in the 1930's Germany looking for new forms of pesticides

Nerve agents been called pesticides for humans....

Many common pesticides work on same principal as nreve agents - interfer with nerve transmission

My uncle was a crop duster her in NJ = almost killed himself one day when spilled stuff on skin, wound up
in hospital when got violently ill from it

Also in 1930's german sceientists invented new forms of chemical agents called Nitrogen Mustards - caused
blistering of skin

Later found could be used to treat certain forms of cancers - lymphoma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I know you have issues with the formula I posted created by Dr Frank Greening on how the towers came down, but what if the first floor to collapse was rubble fell directly onto the supporting restraints when it hit the next floor down, componded with the fact of the weakend structure, would this not still have enough momentum to bring down the rest of the tower?

Nice how you turn a supposition into a fact.

I crossed swords with Frank Greening years ago.

His Potential Energy suppositions were absurd.

forums.randi.org...

psik

I understood your explaination at the link. I wish I had thought of that.

Also the total downward force doesn't increase because no weight is added during the "collapse". Actually the total weight on the foundation should decrease during the 'collapse'. The resistance to motion of the lower building to the falling upper part would tend to move material away from the center and thus no longer be pressing on the lower part of the building.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

You say that you know the nerve gas came first, before the bug spray. You know alot about nerve gas.

Nerve gas came out of research in the 1930's Germany looking for new forms of pesticides

Nerve agents been called pesticides for humans....

Many common pesticides work on same principal as nreve agents - interfer with nerve transmission

My uncle was a crop duster her in NJ = almost killed himself one day when spilled stuff on skin, wound up
in hospital when got violently ill from it

Also in 1930's german sceientists invented new forms of chemical agents called Nitrogen Mustards - caused
blistering of skin

Later found could be used to treat certain forms of cancers - lymphoma

interesting

In the Army I was told that nicotine addiction gives a little bit of resistance to nerve agent.

If there is enough nerve agent to see then you didn't see it because your dead.

Your only chance is to spot the symptoms early enough to inject yourself with antidote and get away.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It was a very interesting read, except I belive you made a slight error that may effect your formula. You wrote in your reply to 'Lucid Larry' that:

'Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above'

But the structual plans say:

The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.

I wrote that response before I began being sure to use LEVEL versus FLOOR. The word FLOOR has two different meanings. Sometimes people mean the horizontal structure that people walk on and sometimes they mean the entire ten or twelve foot height of that LEVEL of any building. In that case I meant LEVEL but that was written in 2008. I had not encountered many people who, I think, deliberately confuse FLOOR and LEVEL. The LEVEL includes the 12 foot height of columns in the core and on the perimeter which is what actually provides the support to all of the FLOORS above.

It is those columns which become thicker along with the horizontal beams in the core which would increase the weight of steel on each LEVEL going down the building.

psik

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I know you have issues with the formula I posted created by Dr Frank Greening on how the towers came down, but what if the first floor to collapse was rubble fell directly onto the supporting restraints when it hit the next floor down, componded with the fact of the weakend structure, would this not still have enough momentum to bring down the rest of the tower?

Nice how you turn a supposition into a fact.

I crossed swords with Frank Greening years ago.

His Potential Energy suppositions were absurd.

forums.randi.org...

psik

I understood your explaination at the link. I wish I had thought of that.

Well it is certainly curious that the physics profession was not discussing and explaining things that simple in 2002.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Thanks for for reply, I would like to ask a question though. Why dont you submit a paper of you're forumla to the scientific community, get it published and see if they can dispute what you have found out. if they cannot then surley this will lead to further academic studies by those who have more experince and qualifications than the good folk on this site.

reply to post by Canned2na


I agree with you.

"Your 9/11 truth"

3 skyscrapers damaged and falling straight down due to fire is more than just a little curious.

Interceptor jets flying out over the Atlantic ocean because no one told them what their mission was (they had no idea what was going on while the rest of the world did) is more than a little curious.

A guy who couldn't fly a Cessna managed to land a 757 into the ground floor of the side of the Pentagon that was under construction and thus spared the lives of hundreds inside the building is more than just a little curious.

A president and vice president that initially refused to have the crime investigated then refused to testify under oath or separately (criminal behavior) is also more than just a little curious.

There's more oddities I could list but those are some of the main ones that have convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by Apocalypse1

A guy who couldn't fly a Cessna managed to land a 757 into the ground floor of the side of the Pentagon

Except that Hani Hanjour the pilot of AA 77 took lessons at Jet Tech in Mesa Arizona in a Boeing 737
simulator. His instructor signed off "TIGHT TURNS" in his log book, no thing was listed for taxiing or
landing.....

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Thanks for for reply, I would like to ask a question though. Why dont you submit a paper of you're forumla to the scientific community, get it published and see if they can dispute what you have found out. if they cannot then surley this will lead to further academic studies by those who have more experince and qualifications than the good folk on this site.

It should be obvious after TEN YEARS that the problem is THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. But Niel DeGrasse Tyson who was a witness to 9/11 and took videos and had to abandon his home because of the dust can't discuss something as simple as the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers. And yet he published a book about Black Holes in 2007. So he is claiming to understand something about gravity.

9/11 is not the problem anymore. I don't care who did it.

But after TEN YEARS 90% of scientists and engineers should have agreed on and explained this by now but it is more like 90% of them SAY NOTHING. I do not know of TYSON EVER SAYING ANYTHING about whether or not he thinks an airliner could destroy a building that big. So the real problem is the veracity of scientists not 9/11.

Tyson has a high profile job and a TV show and a family. You ask him why he says nothing about an event he admits to having witnessed in an email the very next day.

I am not responsible about your delusions about science and scientists.

The problem is getting NORMAL PEOPLE to comprehend the simplicity of skyscrapers. Then they would realise how full of crap the scientists must be.

It's 43 years after the Moon landing. Are we supposed to believe that scientists don't have a clue if planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles? Have you seen any writhe a paper about that?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


'The problem is getting NORMAL PEOPLE to comprehend the simplicity of skyscrapers. Then they would realise how full of crap the scientists must be'.

If you have total faith in what you say why dont you go to the press? if the evidence you are presenting is as irafutable as you think why are you not going out to the NORMAL PEOPLE and showing them what you have? instead of hiding on this site and brow beating every one who doesnt agree, or understand, what you are suggesting.

If everyone has missed the fact that there is something wrong in an event in which thousands died and you know what it is, dont you think you have a civic duty to go out there and shout from the roof tops, 'LISTEN TO ME , I HAVE PROOF!'

And please dont reply thats it's not you're fault if no one else spotted what you did so it's not your responsability to get the message out there. You are the one claiming that every one is wrong and you are right,you are the one saying that we dont understand the physics, it's time to stand by your convictions, because if you do have irafutable proof and do nothing then you are a (fill in this with what ever expletive you can think of) and should hang your head in shame.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If you have total faith in what you say why dont you go to the press? if the evidence you are presenting is as irafutable as you think why are you not going out to the NORMAL PEOPLE and showing them what you have? instead of hiding on this site and brow beating every one who doesnt agree, or understand, what you are suggesting.

I don't care about your trying to turn this into some kind of personal issue but lots of people have material all over the Internet. I have no control over the fact that people in the media cannot think of asking questions as simple as the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers.

If you have any brains why didn't you think of it. This is a problem of mass stupidity and people needing AUTHORITY to tell them what to think. I saw it as a kid. I went to Catholic schools. But I concluded that the adults were idiots and decided I was an agnostic at 12.

9/11 is just another religion.

But the physics cannot care and cannot change. So actually it is only the scientists and engineers who can influence the media so they will have to be embarrassed by lots of normal people coming to understand simple physics. Hence a simple model that grade school kids can build.



So I get idiotic ridicule about a broom handle which I find amusing since anyone that I can get to actually think about the physics will see how stupid that comment is. Why do you think I am hiding out here?

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

I was banned from JREF.

www.debatepolitics.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


'I don't care about your trying to turn this into some kind of personal issue'

I am not turning this into a personal issue,you are the one that said that normal people dont understand.....well educate them,not everyone in the world has the grasp of physics that is needed to understand your formula, if no one will go out there and show them how they are wrong how will they understand.

They say knowledge is power, and if you have the knowledge to prove that something was amiss on that day then you have the power to do something about it.

And it's not personal issue against you I got caught up in events that came after 9-11 and spent a long time far from home in a very hot country, so if someone has irrefutable evidence that something was wrong with the evidence that sent me and my friends away I would want that person to get out and tell the world , not just you, but anyone who says they can positively prove what happend that day was not the truth, and then do nothing about it.....

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

'I don't care about your trying to turn this into some kind of personal issue'

I am not turning this into a personal issue,you are the one that said that normal people dont understand.....well educate them,not everyone in the world has the grasp of physics that is needed to understand your formula, if no one will go out there and show them how they are wrong how will they understand.

I made a video and provided a link. I provided enough information for anyone to duplicate it for themselves.

WHAT IS STOPPING YOU?

You talk about math and formulas but I already pointed out that we don't have the data on the buildings. What good is the right formula without the correct data to plug into the variables? Didn't you talk about the trusses and the corrugated pans that the concrete was poured on?

So why don't you tell us the weight of all of the trusses and pans that went into a single floor?

Why haven't these scientists that you talk about come up with that information?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


What is stopping me is that I proposed 2 theorys about about the trusses and the corrugated pans and the concrete as questions and was informed that by other posters why it wouldnt work, these were also de-bunked by enginners and technicians attached to us who looked into them as favor and said 'nice try,but no' so I wouldnt go public with something that has already been proven to be wrong....If they said I was right then yes I would have put this out in the public domain.

I havent shown them you're work as of yet, but would you like me to? (honest question)

If you are right about what you say, why does practially everyone who respondes to your postings do so in such a negative way? there seems to be more support for CGI planes (total rubbish by the way) on this site than for what you are saying(even when what you said about the concrete and steel to be missing is totally true) are they all wrong?

sorry about the spelling, the pub has a lot to answer for.