9/11 No Longer Matters

There were 2800 perimeter panels on a tower from the 9th floor to the top. A good computer simulation involving the necessary thousands of components would cost more than a physical model weighing a few hundred pounds.

Purdue said their north tower impact simulation took around 1200 CPU hours to run and that was only the top 20 stories simulating half a second. So 110 stories simulating 25 seconds would be a bit more.

psik

 

What you repeatedly fail to understand is that you can't accurately model the physics of a building the size of the World Trade Center with a model weighing a few hundred pounds.

And what in the world are you basing your cost analysis of the computer model on?

 

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf

So you keep claiming that.

The buildings were designed in the 60s. Groundbreaking was in 1966. What kind of computers did they have in the 60s. What kind of computer was used to design the Empire State Building? It was completed in 1931 and ENIAC, the first general purpose electronic computer, was not operational until 1945. What about the design of the Golden Gate Bridge. That is more complicated than a skyscraper.

Of course the people who promote the idea that the buildings could come down in less than 26 seconds must also promote the idea that this entire business is complicated. There is no escaping the facts that they had to get heavier and stronger toward the bottom so how could the lighter weaker upper portion force everything below all of the way down?

The idea that analysing this collapse is so difficult is one of the world's biggest jokes. And then scientists can't point out that the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete, so a good scientific analysis can't be done anyway without the correct data. How bad can science get? Not even asking for the right data to do the science. The NIST does not even do collapse simulation on the twin towers and the one they provide on WTC7 does not match the videos.

psik

 

Anyone else wonder why psik can't respond to the issue of the square cube law in regards to scale models?

 

Holston, I think the part that you're missing is that patriot is saying that if there had been no plane impacts, but the fires had burned at the power they did, the towers would have collapsed. The damage from the fire would have caused the collapse.

That being said, the shell of the buildings are part of the support for the building. The damage from the plane didn't cause the collapse, the planes caused the fires, which caused weakening of the steel, which caused the collapse. No, that's not a step by step, but that's the broad overview. The damage from the plane weakened the structure, but both WTC buildings withstood more than they were designed. The initial damage was extreme, equivalent to more explosives than anything that could have been rigged inside.

 

Are there cost estimates relative to building a physical model in there somewhere?

Yes, I do wonder that.

Instead he responds with a bunch of irrelevant statistics on what computing power was available when different structures were built.

I have no idea how that is supposed to be relevant to analyzing a collapse of something that occurred in 2001?

But coming from someone who thinks paper loops and "the largest washers he could find at the hardware store" actually model anything of significance in regards to a 110 story office building I guess it's about par for the course.

 

I suppose the issue that will force these debunkers into run away into hiding is:

a weakened truss cannot apply more force on the column than one that is not weakened.

The column can withstand the force of trusses in good condition but not in a weak condition.

trusses in a weak condition are incapable of performing at their design load even if floors did pancake.

They originally claimed they pancaked. Nist said it did not.

Debunkers have so many issues to work out now days. Exploding transformers never confirmed, magic airplanes and majic trusses.

theres a whole lott magic going on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1JiH8ByVx8

 

I don't even understand what you're trying to say, I'm not even convinced it's English to be honest. I do know that the NIST never said there was a pancake collapse because they stopped their investigation when it was proven that global collapse was inevitable. They did say that pancake collapse didn't initiate the collapse, which is why it was discarded.

I don't understand anything else you're saying in this post so I am not going to try and refute it, it's nonsensical.

 

I understood perfectly well what he was saying and I don't believe it.

Clearly the damage alone was not enough to cause the collapse of either building. He admits this much himself.

Nor was the fire alone sufficient to have done the job, not unless that was a pathetic excuse for a design in the first place. That's not what they say. And the fire that occurred previously in one of the buildings was evidence in itself.

Prince Lulz Alot knows this. That is why he mentioned the speed of the airplanes at 500 mph.

That's the only way he can make the collapses plausible.

Why?

Because there had been a previous fire in one of the buildings prior to 9/11 which burned through several floors which obviously did not cause a collapse, not even of a single floor.

Also by Robertsons own words and Lulz's admission, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger plane of comparable size, or even of multiple such impacts. That is by the words of others involved with the design of the towers.

I am not so gullible as to believe that the towers were designed without consideration of what fires would do, even very large ones.



Since we can see from the above that neither fires alone nor impacts alone could cause the collapse, the only explanation left is to attribute the collapse to a combination of both damage AND fire.

You would come nearer selling your ideas if you took this approach. But that's not what you have done.

The result of this is that you have made your own selves look stupid because we have the words of the original designers that the buildings could have withstood multiple impacts alone and we know from actual experience that fire alone was not enough to bring the buildings down.

You cannot make an argument for collapse based on the known fires alone or the impacts alone.


We also have the evidence derived from numerous fire tests done on steel frames which indicate that the likelihood of a collapse is very small.

You might be able to get someone with no knowledge of these things to swallow the idea that a building such as one of the Trade Center towers could have collapsed due to both fire AND structural damage. I might have believed it myself at one time. But even at that, we would expect that certain conditions should be met, ie that select structural members be destroyed and that the fire be of sufficient intensity and in strategic locations.

One may conclude that damage in just any amount of any kind or fire in just any amount of any kind may or may not be sufficient to cause a collapse. In other words, there would be certain minimum requirements for either alone or a combination of the two.

For all of these conditions to have been met, not once, not twice, but three times, all in the same day in the same location is exceedingly unlikely. You have strained credulity passed the breaking point. Your cover story has collapsed.


There were no raging fires seen such as those which have been witnessed in other cases which did not result in collapses.

[video=youtube;hlMbA-Gy4_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hlMbA-Gy4_o[/video]

No no, friend. We are not all fooled.

There is just too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss. Too many people have too many reasons to not believe what we have been force fed. There are too many reasons to think that the only logical explanation for all of these anomalies was that some factions within the US knew in advance that the attacks were going to take place while others took measures to ensure the complete destruction of the buildings.

I know some such Zionists personally. I have known many people who are racially related to the Ashkenazim/Khazar variety. The accusation of "anti-Semitism" just isn't going to fly with me. The more you people carry on with it, the angrier it makes me to hear it and the less tolerant I am of those who make this accusation.

Unethical, immoral. or illegal behavior is going to have to be recognized for what it is, apart from racial or social considerations and dealt with accordingly. No one gets a free pass because of birth right or social status. One person is as obliged to behave as another. That includes telling the truth.

These mobsters can twist all the arms they want to, murder as many as they can get away with, and bribe, threaten or intimidate all the rest into submission. But God help me, I'll never accept them for anything other than what they truly are, a bunch of tyrannical, murdering, self serving, greedy, thugs.

The Lord has said, "EVERY knee shall bow". I'm placing all my bets they will!

 

Read up until it went anti semite, and tricky dicky gage got involved.

Sorry little anti-semite, I don't read your garbage. Come to me with science based, peer reviewed, factual information and I'll read it. I'm not going to condone your little boogy man search for the evil "zionist, and Jews."

Keep it up though, all the other truthers really respect you around here. You're the little anti-semite that could.

 

http://rense.com/general72/conect.htm

Of course all of that is suspicious, especially since the news people have advocated adopting Israeli methods of screening passengers at US airports.

Again, there is complete denial by US and Israeli intelligence operations that they had any prior knowledge of the presence of the alleged terrorists or suspected any plot. Anyone within the US intelligence frame work who said they did either got locked up without a hearing for a year or two or had their books burned. Can you think of any names? I can!

I believe that about as much as I believe that no one in the US could have imagined hijackers flying planes into buildings.

Ah building 7. Another steel structured building that fell straight down at free fall speeds that day.

All of those steel frames were supposed to have collapsed due to fire. And all fell straight down bearing an uncanny resemblance to controlled demolitions, ALL THREE mind you, in one day, within the space of hours.

You can't say that building 7 had the same shoddy design flaws that were incorporated into towers 1 and 2.
Engineers will never make that mistake again, will they?

I just can't get over how all three buildings collapsed just like they would if they were being deliberately brought down with demolitions and incendiaries.

What are the odds that all of this could happen and that a hand full of **********s could get by every US defense from the combined intelligence agencies of Israel and the US to US Air Defense, and penetrate all the way to the Pentagon no less?

It sure looks like there were a lot of stupid people in the Intelligence agencies and in the Pentagon right about then. Equally amazing is the fact of how many of them were actually promoted for the outstanding jobs they did! These are the people we have authorized to imprison and torture us if needs ever be. Doesn't that make you feel safe and secure?

I wish I had such fortune. If I did, maybe I could have avoided all the ostracism and discrimination I have experienced at the hands of US Khazars and their shicksa servants. It's amazing what money can do; everything but raise the dead. And there's no doubt that some of the Fortune 500 club are holding out hope that it will some day.

Yes indeed. Very difficult, if it weren't for the enormous amount of incompetency that they have alleged among themselves.

Are these the same people to whom we are asked to give our unquestioning trust to handle national security?

Are these the people who have asked us to surrender our Constitutional rights and our Bill of Rights to in order that we might feel "secure"?

Never mind that Prez has never worked a real job in his life or has even served in the military as so much as a private.
The blacks trust him. He's black. What else do you need, except maybe he's the Socialist Party guy. It's a good thing that only white people can be prejudiced. Otherwise, what with the Jews and their black puppets running everything, some of us might have a hard row to hoe ahead.

We are still asked to give him our unswerving devotion, just as we are to trust the privately owned consortium of banks called the Federal Reserve to "save us" from financial ruin. No incompetency there! How could there be, with a JEW Bernanke at the wheel? Why to think otherwise would be ANTI-SEMITIC. Never mind the 16 trillion dollar debt and QE to the universe and beyond.

And what was a truck full of gold doing in a tunnel under the Trade Centers?

Just wait. Prince Lulz Alot is going to tell us.


Oh HELL NO. There's nothing suspicious about any of the sh!T that happened about 9/11.

It all makes perfect sense. And common sense at that.

It just so happens that no one in the US has any d@mned common sense, especially all those engineers and architects and chemists and doctors and pilots and firemen that signed the 9/11 petition. Nor do half the people in the rest of the world who've raised such a stink about it.

In fact, it seems that NO ONE has any common sense except for Prince Lulz Alot and his merry band of Zionists!

 

Sounds like someone went off his anti-semitic meds. Either that or drinking way too much.

I would hate to live in the world of the skinhead anti-semite where everything evil in this world is either Jewish or scheming against the white man. The levels of paranoid delusions necessary to carry on the illusion of massive persecution despite reality is hard to comprehend.

 

The Lord Jesus? He was a Jew. Thought you were against them, now you're calling one 'Lord'?

 

Hey, Anti-Semite, building 7 was also fallen upon by another huge building. Also, your little note about "what was held on these floors" is completely irrelevant. Why, you ask? Because companies didn't just keep hard copies of stuff anymore, it was backed up on servers. Destroying the building may have lost some notes taken on paper, but it didn't destroy everything that was related to everything in the world. Just because you don't understand things, doesn't mean that the conspiracy is true. It just means that there is, apparently, a lot of things in this world you don't understand.

You better hide though, the all powerful Jews own the interwebz too. They're coming for you.

Wait, nevermind, that's your mom. She needs your laundry.

 

Why would people not listen to what you have to say? It totally doesn't come across like you're a racists, biased, anti-semite. I mean, people should definitely take you at your word. Did I see you pull out the 2 trillion dollar meme too? Nice...

 

You seem to have a problem differentiating between what is called the spirit and the flesh.

I can see why a person who is strictly materialistic would have this hang up. I don't.

The reason why is because I am not so conceded that I think everything can be explained by tiny little billiards balls bouncing around.

An atheist thinks he sees all there is to see and therefore knows all there is to know.

Don't jump the rails here. It is at this juncture that a lot of people do. Whereas the atheist, materialist, humanist crowd can't imagine that the ultimate reality of nature lies beyond anything they can imagine is real, others who don't think this way may decide that anything they can imagine can be real.

Personally I don't subscribe to either of these extremes. I tend to think that there is much more to reality than we are presently able to comprehend. This should be plain enough for anyone who doesn't think too highly of his own intellect. At the same time I believe that even in these unknown regions there are natural laws which are followed, not the kind that man can repeal.

In other words, while there is probably more to reality than we may imagine, not all that we may imagine is necessarily real.

You people place too much emphasis on the flesh. It is natural for people to do so because of the value we place on appearances and the tendency to view them as commodities on a market. At the same time we must contend with our own vanity. That part which does not allow us to blind ourselves with pride, we may seek to compensate for by other means.

"The soul lusteth to envy". For many people this is an intractable disease.


The physical composition of the body of Christ is incidental although it was no mistake on the part of God the Father where, when, and how the Son was revealed. One of the most odious things about modern Judaism to me is the habit of it's disciples to claim the work of God as their own. Can you not see why this is more than a little presumptuous on their part?

Not only that, it's rather stupid for a people to make such a claim and then proclaim themselves the smartest people on the planet, for the claim that it was they who gave us the Old Testament and a monotheistic God negates the basis for the whole religion of Judaism from the outset. Why? Because it reduces the entire religion to a mere product of some mans imagination. And how can some mans imagination make my soul immortal? (What's good for the Jews doesn't amount to beans to me; not that I care only for myself, but that they care only for themselves!)

People who have such a fit trying to make the Old and the New jibe owe much of their problem to the fact that the corner stone they are rejecting was responsible for all of it. If they would just once allow themselves to consider possibility of a living God , if only for the sake of the logical syllogism, they might be able to see how this works.

At any rate, it is the Word which was made manifest. This is what we are supposed to hear. It is spiritually discerned. The "sheep" recognize the voice of their own shepherd.

And YOU people call ME a racist! Ha Ha Ha

 

Your argument is based on a false dichotomy. Calculating loads in the design of a structure and modeling the mechanism of collapse of the WTC towers are not equivalent. Additionally, your assumption that the 'strength' of a structure at any given point is proportional to the structural load is false.

The mathamatics involved in the design of structures is different from the mathamatics required for modeling the collapse of the WTC towers. The design of a building or bridge involves structural math (linear algebra/vector spaces) and spatial mathamatics (geometry). The modeling of the WTC tower collapse involves structural math, spatial math and change math. Modeling the impact of the jet into the tower and the resulting damage is a dynamical system that involves chaos theory. As such, modeling of the mechanism of collapse requires tremendous computing power as well as simplifying assumptions. The links you provided in your own post corroborate this unequivocally.

Your argument that the base or lower part of the WTC tower is 'stronger' than the upper part of the building is flawed. You argue that it is 'heavier and stronger' at the bottom and 'lighter and weaker' at the top is only true if your assumption that the structural loads at any given point in the building are directly proportional to the actual physical strength of the structure at that same point. By your logic, if I took ten identical sugar cubes and stacked them vertically one atop another the cube at the bottom of the stack is stronger than the cube on the top because it is bearing a greater structural load when in reality the strength or capacity of each sugar cube is identical. While I don't have the blue prints in front of me, I suspect that the design of the WTC towers above ground is relatively uniform. While the loads across the structure may be heterogeneous the design may be homogenous- analogous to a stack of sugar cubes.

The WTC towers mechanisms of collapse has been published on extensively. As I have pointed out there are numerous publications which analyze the empirical information pertinent to the WTC towers and 9/11. The links you have provided would be a good place for you to start. I would suggest your read the links to the computer models you provided in depth.

 

You preach hatred and then try to get all spiritual when called out on a logical flaw. Typical 'christian'. Lower case c.

 

If you don't think I'm a "christian" then you should have no problem with me since you're not either.

The way you people want to define Christian is someone who is a like a wet noodle that you can bend to suit your own needs. You're barking up the wrong tree.

A persons sins have nothing to do with their race or ethnic identity. A lie is a lie regardless of who tells it and all the Kol Nidre in the world is no more excuse for you then it is for me.

The people you are trying to protect are nothing less than criminals.

 

I didn't say anything about the strength being proportional load though that is probably what is done in real buildings. But how could a building be constructed if any level was weaker than the load?

Accuse your opponent of saying what he didn't say and then argue against that. HOW BRILLIANT!

But the strength cannot be weaker than the structural load or it would collapse from the beginning.

I could rebuild my model using two washers between each paper loop. But that would mean using 5 single loops at the top instead of 11. Probably 8 double loops instead of 17. But the bottom half would have to be strengthened to support double the weight.

Why don't you people just build a physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%?

psik

 

The structural damage done to 7 was no where as severe as the damage done to other buildings which did NOT fall.

The only blazing infernos in any of these buildings were due to the thermate burned through the steel support columns.

There is no way that all three WTC buildings fell in the exact manner of controlled demolitions at near free fall speeds by pure chance.

Since most people are unfamiliar with demolitions it was easy enough to fool them into believing anything. Until I began to study this thing I also accepted what the media and government spokesmen were telling us. I trusted them. No more.



But when one is aware of all the espionage that was concurrent before, during, and since 9/11, and learns even a little about what they saw, the official cover-up becomes impossible to believe.

It is too late to persuade those of us who already know.



I know that controlled demolitions were used to bring the buildings down. So do a lot of other prominent people and so do you!

You also know as well as I do that Zionist/Jews had to figure foremost in allowing the attacks to happen and planting the explosive/incendiary material in buildings to make certain they came down. This is why you so earnestly desire to smear anyone who mentions it.

The only reason why the leading people in the 9/11 Truth movement don't come right out and say so is because of the difficulty they would have in convincing the ignorant public of the truth and because the Zionist Jews control everything right now.

The reason that Zionist Jews control everything is basically because they have been allowed to. This silent coup could never have taken place in a country which is as rife with "anti-Semitism" as you let on. Most of the fools in this country wouldn't know one if they slapped them in the face, which they frequently do! Anytime anyone resists the Jews you people scream anti-Semitism.

Go right ahead and mouth it all you want. Go ahead and lie and cover up. I have eyes in my head. I see what's happening and for the most part I recognize who you people are.

As long as I am able I will spread the truth about you and resist your encroachments. A pack of lying infidels has no business calling anyone a hypocrite.

 

Because you refuse to acknowledge you will stop your incessant nonsense about the model if one is shown. What is the point of doing ANYTHING if the person it is built to convince is too blind to accept the fact his premise is fatally flawed?

 

The trouble is real physical models cannot defy the Laws of Physics despite all of the idiotic blather people criticising models dish out. And then people can duplicate physical models and see what happens for themselves.

So if some people cannot make a real physical model collapse then ...

psik

 

Only a truthtard of epic proportions would ignore the fact a sub 15 story building covering a lot of area (WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6) has almost no chance of collapse while a 47 story building with a small footprint has a much higher chance of collapse.

Except thermate can't cut horizontally.

Except all three buildings didn't fall in the same manner. The towers fell from the top down. The WTC 7 fell from the bottom.

Except the experts in controlled demolition know for a fact the towers were not brought down by controlled demolitions. I've shown you one such expert. You ran like a scared white supremicist from a bunch of black jews.

Paranoid delusions should never be the basis for a belief system.

We know. Truthtards can't be convinced of anything. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't write to convince you. I write to convince whoever reads your crap that your claims are indeed crap.

Frankly, as demonstrated repeatedly by your posts, you know very little. Thermite or any of its derivatives are not used in controlled demolitions by ANYONE. Why? Because they cannot be timed, they do not ignite or function reliably, it takes a massive amount of thermite to cut much of anything, and it can only cut down.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The only reason anyone is smearing what you write is because, while it might make some skinhead piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) happy, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination true. So according to you, the attacks were real, but the Jews planted the explosives/incindiaries. Why? And why would anyone cover up for the Jews? Thousands of people were in on the cleanup / investigation of the towers and WTC 7. Are they ALL under the control of the Jews? Man, you really don't live anywhere near the real world, do you.

Another example of paranoid delusions run rampant in order to come up with decidedly lameassed excuses for the complete ineptitude of the 9/11 truther movement. Want a better reason why truthtards can get absolutely zero traction? None of you can even agree on who did what, how they did it, when they did it, why they did it, or what they did. Many of you believe in conflicting theories that only make the entire movement look like a bunch of jackasses out to push an agenda vs. look for the truth which is exactly right.

And here you go whining about the big bad Jews. Man, when are you going to grow up and grow a pair? Listening to you cry on a daily basis is rather pathetic.

Yeah. We've seen what you think we are. It's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) funny too! Just another blatant example of your dishonesty and just how warped and twisted your "reality" is.

Infidels? Hmmm. So now you're a Muslim? Doesn't surprise me. But since I have not lied and I reject your Muslim belief that I am an Infidel, I must have business pointing out your blatant hypocricy, right? You lose. Again.

 

You will ignore it. That is why you refuse to put it in writing what you will do when someone builds such a model. You running scared from the truth shows everyone you know the truth and refuse to be cornered by it.