Why I hate 9-11 Truthers

[psikeyhackr]

I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01.

The NIST has never explained the collapses of the twin towers. The report only says "collapse was inevitable".

NISTs official report says global collapse is inevitable following the establishment of the conditions for the initiation of collapse. This is dependent on a 2002 paper proposing a mechanism for progressive collapse of a steel structured building. However the 2002 paper also clearly states that it is based on a hypothesis that the upper section is rigid at the instant of impact with the lower section and makes assumptions of the mass of the upper section, the design load capacity of the lower section and the stiffness of the structure to calculate the overload ratio. Using data in NISTs report and information available online it can be shown that there were major errors in these assumptions and in fact the overload ratio was less than 1 for both the north and south towers. As every explanation of how the supporting structure collapsed relies on this overload ratio then collapse was not inevitable, as NIST state, rather it was unlikely without some extra action or system to remove the supporting structure, or extra mass to overload the supporting structure.

http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scott-jones-nist-assumptions-analysis.pdf

psik

 

[SAYIT]

I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01.

The NIST has never explained the collapses of the twin towers. The report only says "collapse was inevitable".

NISTs official report says global collapse is inevitable following the establishment of the conditions for the initiation of collapse. This is dependent on a 2002 paper proposing a mechanism for progressive collapse of a steel structured building. However the 2002 paper also clearly states that it is based on a hypothesis that the upper section is rigid at the instant of impact with the lower section and makes assumptions of the mass of the upper section, the design load capacity of the lower section and the stiffness of the structure to calculate the overload ratio. Using data in NISTs report and information available online it can be shown that there were major errors in these assumptions and in fact the overload ratio was less than 1 for both the north and south towers. As every explanation of how the supporting structure collapsed relies on this overload ratio then collapse was not inevitable, as NIST state, rather it was unlikely without some extra action or system to remove the supporting structure, or extra mass to overload the supporting structure.

http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scott-jones-nist-assumptions-analysis.pdf

psik

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[psikeyhackr]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

 

[daws101]

I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01.

The NIST has never explained the collapses of the twin towers. The report only says "collapse was inevitable".

NISTs official report says global collapse is inevitable following the establishment of the conditions for the initiation of collapse. This is dependent on a 2002 paper proposing a mechanism for progressive collapse of a steel structured building. However the 2002 paper also clearly states that it is based on a hypothesis that the upper section is rigid at the instant of impact with the lower section and makes assumptions of the mass of the upper section, the design load capacity of the lower section and the stiffness of the structure to calculate the overload ratio. Using data in NISTs report and information available online it can be shown that there were major errors in these assumptions and in fact the overload ratio was less than 1 for both the north and south towers. As every explanation of how the supporting structure collapsed relies on this overload ratio then collapse was not inevitable, as NIST state, rather it was unlikely without some extra action or system to remove the supporting structure, or extra mass to overload the supporting structure.

http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scott-jones-nist-assumptions-analysis.pdf

psik

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

sorry I should have warned you about psik too.

 

[daws101]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

" Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics", if that were true than why don't you post some actual physics and not twoofer trash ?

 

[Capstone]

Speaking of "trash", how funny is it that the standard-bearer for the duh-bwunkers for several years was the pseudoscience rag, Popular Mechanics, the typical content of which includes NASCAR paraphernalia, monster trucks, and lawn tractors? This highly credible source continues to reap the profits from its 2006 book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, despite the fact that its scientific explanation for the destruction of the towers - the so-called "pancake theory" - was experimentally disproven by Underwriters Laboratories in fucking 2004 and had therefore been abandoned by NIST prior to its 2005 report on the "collapses" of Buildings 1 and 2. Yep, nine years and running of pushing a theory that had been disproven and discarded two years prior to the initial publication of the book. Get your brand new copy today at Amazon.com for only $14.74!

Other notable "facts" listed in PM's book that were themselves later debunked as myths involved the severity of the structural damage caused by fallen debris from Tower 1, the role played by the Con-Edison substation, and the postulated diesel fuel fires inside of Building 7, all of which were dispelled by none other than NIST in its 2008 report on the "collapse" of Building 7.

Of course, the PM propaganda book was also exposed as having largely been the work of shills, with 3/4 of the actual "Structural Engineering / Building Collapse experts" listed in the book's appendix being contributors to other 'official reports' on the WTC.

 

[Capstone]

As for NIST's stellar contribution...

 

[Capstone]

That's Kevin Ryan talking in those two videos. He's one of several "9/11 whistleblowers" the duh-bwunkers claim don't exist. The man was fired from his supervisory position at the environmental testing division of Underwriters Laboratories, when, in the course of carrying out the testing his company was contracted to perform by the NIST group, he refused to play along with the scientific fraud they were apparently trying to perpetrate.

Several other high-profile whistleblowers are listed here, in a 2010 article by James Corbett.

The fact that nobody who was directly involved in either the planning or in any of the 'hands-on' aspects of the 9/11 black operation...should come as no surprise. Think about it. These "people" (if it's even proper to call them that) are guilty of mass murder (with an indirect death toll at 1.3 million and rising) and a whole slew of other crimes against humanity. Those psychopaths would be among the last individuals in the universe to step forward and publicly take responsibility for their actions. They simply don't have the moral fiber or courage to 'man up' like that. This, along with their complete lack of empathy, just goes to show how much less-than-human they really are.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

" Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics", if that were true than why don't you post some actual physics and not twoofer trash ?

Oh right, pointing out that the Potential Energy of a skyscraper can't be accurately computed without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is twoofer trash.

psik

 

[daws101]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

" Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics", if that were true than why don't you post some actual physics and not twoofer trash ?

Oh right, pointing out that the Potential Energy of a skyscraper can't be accurately computed without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is twoofer trash.

psik

Since its not relevant it's twoofer trash.

 

[SAYIT]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

" Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics", if that were true than why don't you post some actual physics and not twoofer trash ?

Oh right, pointing out that the Potential Energy of a skyscraper can't be accurately computed without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is twoofer trash.

You certainly can waste your time arguing what the definition of "is" is if you like but what we know about 9/11 is that fires initiated by tons of jet fuel weakened enough support for the upper portion of the Towers to cause them to dislodge and crush the floors below. Nearly 14 years later there is still not a lick of evidence which supports any of the foil-hatted CTs generated by the "Truther" Movement. Not a lick.

 

[daws101]

So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

I am so impressed by name calling. Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics. If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model. But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik

" Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics", if that were true than why don't you post some actual physics and not twoofer trash ?

Oh right, pointing out that the Potential Energy of a skyscraper can't be accurately computed without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is twoofer trash.

You certainly can waste your time arguing what the definition of "is" is if you like but what we know about 9/11 is that fires initiated by tons of jet fuel weakened enough support for the upper portion of the Towers to cause them to dislodge and crush the floors below. Nearly 14 years later there is still not a lick of evidence which supports any of the foil-hatted CTs generated by the "Truther" Movement. Not a lick.

 

[Capstone]

More like...

 

[daws101]

More like...

with you guys it have to be this