The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually NIST admitted they never analyzed the "collapses" of the twin towers. They merely stated without any supporting evidence that "global collapse ensued" in their report. That's not science, it's blatant fraud (or bullshit as you put it). And since we're on the subject of the 9/11 Commission Scam in this thread, the Commission never bothered with investigating the destruction of the twin towers and never even mentioned WTC7 anywhere in their report.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,597
    Likes Received:
    2,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Despite that NIST claimed on their own website in their FAQ:

    NIST never analyzed the total "collapse" of either of the twin towers, never mind determine why and how they collapsed. They merely claimed "global collapse ensued" without providing any supporting evidence that these were in fact "collapses" (as opposed to a complete destruction as in a controlled demolition). NIST relied on an error filled hypothesis written 2 days after 9/11 by Zdenek Bazant that explained that the top section (about 20%) of the falling tower crushed the much more massive lower section (about 80%) of the tower in its entirety. This allegedly happened at about 2/3 G acceleration with no discernible hesitation. Besides that physics and common sense makes such a hypothesis impossible, several papers have been written by experts outlining in detail why it's impossible. The German mathematician Ansgar Schneider proved in yet another paper that even if Bazant's hypothesis was taken as valid, the "collapse" would still have been arrested within 2 seconds.

    So now we have yet another engineer who has shown video proof why this hypothesis is utter nonsense from another perspective. First, the destruction of both twin towers were nearly identical. Second, one can visually see that the top section of the South Tower tilts significantly during its initial descent, yet according to Bazant, it is supposed to be crushing the lower section uniformly/symmetrically in the exact same manner as the North Tower.

    [​IMG]

    Start at about 26 minutes:

     
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That one is really brilliant Nutbar.
     
  4. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's clearly over your head. Too bad you didn't get past high school physics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2022
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An ant can resist pressures over 5000 times it's own weight. Double its size and that figure is cut to a quarter. If you keep growing the ant you'll reach a size that it can't withstand it's own weight and it will collapse.

    Why is that psy?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2022
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    1 cubic foot of iron versus 1000 cubic feet of iron. Why bother calculating the difference in velocity?

    You must blind yourself with your perceived brilliance every time you wake up.
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What traitor told you about the Square-Cube Law that Galileo figured out a few centuries ago. It's complexity had obviously given you brain damage.

    https://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does something weigh more than it's own weight?

    Are you still under the impression that the concrete floor slabs got thicker toward the bottom? Why would that be? Man. You've had so much time to figure this out. What's taking you so long?
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what happens to your model when it's 1000 feet tall and 208 feet wide? Same thing as your paper model?

    Nope.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2022
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1000 huh?

    Try again.
     
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll help you out. It's 1/2 mass * velocity²

    Which has a greater effect mass or velocity?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2022
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Do you think that deliberately being obtuse makes you seem intelligent?

    The Eiffel Tower is 10,000 tons of wrought iron according to most sources. Some say 7,300 tons plus 2.5 million rivets. No mention of concrete.

    Since the NIST says a total of 200,000 tons of steel for the towers we can presume 100,000 tons per tower, though the North Tower was 6 feet taller than the south. Never seen an explanation for that.

    Now the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers, but sources before 9/11 that agree on the steel say 425,000 cubic yards, so 212,500 per tower. That comes to 286,875 tons for the concrete at 100 lb per cubic foot. Of course that is wrong since the NIST says that the two types of concrete in the towers were 110 lb and 150 lb. But since the NIST nor anyone else tells us how much of each we cannot come up with a truly correct answer anyway.

    So my point was that the wrought iron which just about makes up all of the Eiffel Tower does not have to support concrete equivalent to or greater than its own weight.

    Whereas the steel in the Twin Towers had to support around three times it's own weight in concrete, plus glass, plumbing, elevators and related equipment, etc., etc.

    And the glorious NIST cannot tell us the distribution of steel down the towers in 21 years. So we will just have to wonder why the Eiffel Tower is so funny looking.

    It's French! What do they know about gravity?
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [momentum of a 10 foot square cube of iron from 10 feet?]

    10 foot square cube.

    Let's see: 10 ft wide, 10 ft long, 10 ft tall

    10*10*10

    That is 1000 at the grade school I attended. Even the nitwit nuns could figure it out.

    What number did you come up with in the problem YOU presented?
     
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said Momentum not KINETIC ENERGY!

    ROFLMBAO!
     
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah you're right, I wasn't concentrating when I watched it.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Upon watching again, I can see that he was talking about the first plane.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,133
    Likes Received:
    11,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you don't believe Rodriguez but you believe every talking head on TV telling the official lie. That makes you a typical American who avoids unpleasant truths.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup I did.

    On purpose even.

    What's the momentum of your tower when the collapse is complete?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  19. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ROFLMBAO

    Oh, so now you claim to be stupid on purpose.

    Did you get the heights of your 2 blocks, 1 cu ft vs 1000 cu ft, reversed on purpose also? Was the smaller block supposed to be higher so it would have more kinetic energy than the larger block? The scenario makes some degree of sense if it was supposed to be kinetic energy.
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. Stupid. Show me how stupid I am.

    What's the momentum of your structure when the collapse is complete?
     
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    When the collapse is complete there is no motion. 0 velocity therefore 0 momentum. I only answered that because it is so simple almost 0 mental effort was required. Why ask a question that dumb, or do you regard it as a trick question?

    Suddenly you don't want to talk about the cube problem that you created. Which cube had how much kinetic energy when it hit the ground?

    My video shows the physics. The falling mass arrested which was the point. The mathematics is useless idiotic busywork which is all you know how to do.

    You specified a 10 ft cube 10 ft up and a 1 ft cube 1 ft up. So tell us the kinetic energy or momentum or both, whatever you prefer.

    Show us that you are smart enough to do the calculations for the problems YOU Create. You don't have a video I presume. Raising a 10 foot cube of iron would certainly be interesting especially if you were under it.
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That can't be. Momentum must be conserved. How can there be some momentum and then no momentum?

    Hopefully we can talk about it soon. I mean, I can't have a conversation about the stupid math with someone who doesn't know what math is. It's been what some 20 years and you're still trying to figure it out? You expect me to teach it to you in a day?
     
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So momentum is all that matters according to YOU?

    What happened to Kenetic Energy? That energy got used up crushing some of the paper loops. The falling portion ran out of energy before most of them were damaged. The collapse STOPPED!

    That was the point of the physics demonstration.

    Where are your calculations on your cubes?

    When are you going to stop confusing your ego with your intellect or are you nothing but ego with delusions of intellectual adequacy?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,888
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Focus, friend.

    Momentum doesn't get used up. That's what conserved means.

    Momentum has a magnitude and a direction. The direction of the falling mass is down. Where did it go?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    https://lambdageeks.com/is-momentum-conserved-in-an-inelastic-collision/

    If you want to try to make a big deal of momentum being transferred to atoms in the floor knock yourself out.
     

Share This Page