It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 demolition theory debunkers

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
I don't believe that you care about factual information.

Either you don't care enough to find the information yourself.



Hang on, this is completely ridiculous. How can I find the research that you personally have carried out without you telling me what it is?



Or you ignore any information presented to you.


But you haven't presented me with any information! That's the point.

Really, you're either willfully misunderstanding me, or you're obtuse. I'm not looking for a crash course in which Truther sites I should visit, but I'm referring specifically to the research that you claim you have carried out and that has revealed the truth to you.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



If they admit the information is important now then why weren't they asking for it NINE YEARS ago. So now they need to keep people from comprehending Newtonian physics because it is obviously important.


Uh, obviously not. You just computed it. So did they. But it is still irrelevant. Really, you are the only person in nine years, going on ten, who thinks this imaginary data is somehow related to why the towers collapsed on 9/11.

The weight of the floors had to vary from floor to floor depending on waht was on each floor.


I just computed what? I told you the weight of a floor slab but I didn't just compute it. I only estimated they weight of the steel.

I was just talking about the floor assembly. I didn't say anything about the weight of steel and concrete in the core or the weight of steel in the perimeter columns.

That EXCUSE of not knowing the LIVE LOAD on each LEVEL as a rationale for pretending that the weight of steel on each level is unknowable is idiotic crap. I distinguish between LEVEL and FLOOR. When I say FLOOR I'm talking about the portion that gets walked on. By LEVEL I mean the 12 foot vertical height including the Portions of the Building with the steel and concrete in the core and perimeter columns. I am not counting the live load the tenants brought in. The building designers had to design for some maximum live load but they couldn't know what the tenants would bring in.

THAT DID NOT STOP THEM FROM DESIGNING THE BUILDING.

84 floors in each building had the same standard design and the same weight.

So once we have accurate data on the building live loads can be estimated and added.

So the people claiming to know physics that haven't been demanding the info are full of crap. It won't be NINE YEARS until 9/11/2010. Then the 10th year will begin.

psik



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That EXCUSE of not knowing the LIVE LOAD on each LEVEL as a rationale for pretending that the weight of steel on each level is unknowable is idiotic crap. I distinguish between LEVEL and FLOOR. When I say FLOOR I'm talking about the portion that gets walked on. By LEVEL I mean the 12 foot vertical height including the Portions of the Building with the steel and concrete in the core and perimeter columns. I am not counting the live load the tenants brought in. The building designers had to design for some maximum live load but they couldn't know what the tenants would bring in.


"Live Load" does not include what the tenants brought in - that would be additional dead load. People walking and machines moving around would be the live load.

Actually designers consider maximum live and dead loads and actually design to those limits. You are kind of putting the cart in front of the horse there, design wise. People don't design buildings and then figure out what they can hold, they first ascertain the clients needs and then design accordingly. Once done the owner is then responsible to communicate these limitations to their clients or tenants. For instance, lets say a floor is designed to a dead loading of 50 pounds per sqare foot. I would then communicate this to any potential tenant when we were discussing terms. If the tenant proposed bringing in anything that would challenge that design we would need to discuss it.

You obviously are a little challenged with regards to the process of building and structural design. This may be contributing to your general confusion regarding "distibutions".



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That EXCUSE of not knowing the LIVE LOAD on each LEVEL as a rationale for pretending that the weight of steel on each level is unknowable is idiotic crap. I distinguish between LEVEL and FLOOR. When I say FLOOR I'm talking about the portion that gets walked on. By LEVEL I mean the 12 foot vertical height including the Portions of the Building with the steel and concrete in the core and perimeter columns. I am not counting the live load the tenants brought in. The building designers had to design for some maximum live load but they couldn't know what the tenants would bring in.


"Live Load" does not include what the tenants brought in - that would be additional dead load. People walking and machines moving around would be the live load.


It's called the internet dude. It is easy to do a search on DEFINITIONS.


Live Loads

The live load is variable, and consists of the weight of people, furniture, stocks of goods, machinery, etc. The amount of this load, which should be added to the dead load, depends upon the use to which the building is to be put. Where the floor is required to support a considerable live load, concentrated at a particular place, such as a heavy safe or piece of machinery, special provision should be made in the floor construction for it. Table V gives the live loads per square foot recommended as good practice in conservative building construction.

chestofbooks.com...

Furniture is LIVE LOAD. The building designers cannot predict where they will put it or how often they will move it around. One of my frat brothers rearranged his room every month.

psik



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Sorry, dude. You are wrong. You've got to be careful when attending Google university. You should try actually building things.

Dead load is "dead", doesn't move. Live load moves. Moving in dead load (furnitire, machinery, equipment, materials) is considered live until it reaches its final resting place.

Plus the fact that you had to look up the definitions of loads on the internet is a sure-fire indicator that you are full of it. Thanks for confirming.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The sheer strength of the bolts is irrelevant.

The steel columns in the core had mass too and they had to be bent and dislocated to cease supporting the mass above to allow its acceleration. Grade school physics is so EASY!

psik


The shear strength of the bolts is much less than the strength of the columns in compression. If the bolts shear, the columns don't have to bend. If you watch the videos of the collapse, you will see the outer columns peeling away as the floors collapsed and the core remaining standing for seconds after the collpase, indicatng that the failure mode was shearing of the bolts at either end of the floor trusses.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Anytime someone calls you out for your lack of evidence, you dodge the question, so maybe you aren't the best spokesperson for critical thinking.


I never dodged anything.

I repeatedly said that I am not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that won't take the time to do some research and use some critical thinking.

This debate has been done OVER and OVER again MANY MANY times.

If you don't comprehend it by now it must be a personal issue.
You know, you could've just said you have no evidence to back up anything you say. I don't blame you, it would probably take forever making up evidence and sources to back up your irrational claims. Just because you repeat the words critical thinking doesn't mean you're doing that at all. All you seem to do is just accuse anyone disagreeing with your nonsense of supporting the official story, or dodging people who question your obvious lack of evidence to back up anything you say.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Still nothing?

Probably busy "researching".



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
In Germany it is not allowed to debate Holocaust because people try to debunk that still today. Pride is hurt and minds are small. It should not always be legal to be ignorant as it is dangerous to the countries attacked using these lies. Millions of people that everyone agrees had nothing to do with the attacks die from them and you are still bloodthirsty for more.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Germany]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Germany
 


That's ironic. Because quite a significant minority of 9/11 Truthers seem also to be holocaust deniers.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
You know, you could've just said you have no evidence to back up anything you say. I don't blame you, it would probably take forever making up evidence and sources to back up your irrational claims.


You know, you could've just said you don't care enough to do your own research because you would rather believe the "official story" blindly.

It would probably take forever to do some reading and critical thinking.

The only thing that is irrational is someone that is intelligent enough to operate a computer but still doesn't understand the truth about September 11th.

I don't care to debate someone like you. I'm sorry if that annoys you.

The truth is so blatantly obvious, this debate has been done OVER and OVER again.

If you don't comprehend it by now, it is a personal issue...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Germany
In Germany it is not allowed to debate Holocaust because people try to debunk that still today. Pride is hurt and minds are small. It should not always be legal to be ignorant as it is dangerous to the countries attacked using these lies. Millions of people that everyone agrees had nothing to do with the attacks die from them and you are still bloodthirsty for more.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Germany]
The problem is if we make it illegal to be ignorant, then the truth movement will interpret it in their heads as the government being onto them or something like that, which will probably result in the movement growing even stronger I think the best solution would be education, but then again they will most likely assume the government is brainwashing them into believe the "official story", so I guess it really is a lose-lose situation.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


You know, you could've just said you don't care enough to do your own research because you would rather believe the "official story" blindly.


I don't think I've ever come across such... well, basic hypocrisy.

Telling us you've done your own research, but failing to produce a single example. Then castigating someone else for not doing their own research! Unbelievable.

Face it, the reason you look a bit silly in this thread is because what you thought was "research" was actually just nodding along to a few pages from 911blogger and sticking a comment under the latest "smoking gun" youtube video.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Sorry, dude. You are wrong. You've got to be careful when attending Google university. You should try actually building things.

Dead load is "dead", doesn't move. Live load moves. Moving in dead load (furnitire, machinery, equipment, materials) is considered live until it reaches its final resting place.

Plus the fact that you had to look up the definitions of loads on the internet is a sure-fire indicator that you are full of it. Thanks for confirming.


So you can't read either.

www.bobvila.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I don't think I've ever come across such... well, basic ignorance.

Face it, the reason you look a bit silly in this thread is because you assumed the official story was true without doing any research or critical thinking.

Stop waiting for someone to prove it to you and prove it to yourself.

It really shouldn't take much time because it is PAINFULLY obvious.

It's been 9 years, what are you waiting for?



[edit on 24-8-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I have read significant amounts of information about 9/11. I remain unconvinced.

What I'm asking for, and you're pretending not to understand, is the "original research" that you claim to have done.

You are unable to even allude to it, to what it might be. The most obvious conclusion is that you were making it up.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Bob Villa? Really? Still, I don't care what you find at internet college. Furniture, equipment and anything else doesn't move is "dead load". Things that move are "live load". Furniture and equipment that are not permanently affixed may become live, but when stationary they are dead. They may not be part of the structure but the loading effect is the same. Unlike a something that moves. Live loads have the potential of altering their loading profile. Think about walking. As you walk you are constantly changing the amount of pressure or loading that you are subjecting the structure to, start running and it changes again. Start hopping and now we have a different load profile plus an impact load.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The most obvious conclusion is that you were making it up.




Yes, just assume I am making it up...

That is a lot easier than actually doing some research and critical thinking...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The most obvious conclusion is that you were making it up.




Yes, just assume I am making it up...

That is a lot easier than actually doing some research and critical thinking...


Well, prove me wrong.

Show me the original research that you've done. Just a few sentences should be enough to delineate its main points.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Well, prove me wrong.


You could prove yourself wrong with the slightest bit of effort.

The fact that you don't proves you have no interest in comprehending the truth.

This is exactly why I have no interest in getting into a concrete debate with you about the details.

It wouldn't matter what evidence I show you...it's all around you already.




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join