Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


Huh?

The poster just said exactly what I said, how is it any different?

How am I dense and they're not? I explained the exact same thing using know Newtonian physics. I didn't mention antennas falling off the side, but I focused on what the floors would do and why the top could not completely collapse through other floors.

Please explain how you understood that explanation better than mine, I'm really interested because maybe I need to dumb down my explanation a bit for people to understand or something?

Is Newton not taught in high school anymore?




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
Alright, I give up on you. There is something terribly wrong with your comprehension skills, and it's never going to be fixed.


ROFL

That from someone that goes to college for philosophy.

My Mensa membership card is in my wallet. I took their IQ test to get in. I could have used my SAT scores but I decided not to bother trying to find out how to order them.

Now how do you use those equation you claim to know about if you don't have accurate data on the buildings. Doesn't lack of data interfere with clarity. How can you determine if what you see makes sense without it? Don't certain things have to be assumed about 1000+ foot buildings?

Why is the CN Tower shaped like this?



psik



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
In other words, no matter what kind of evidence is found, or what investigation is done, it can be discounted because if it's not what you want it to be, then it has been faked or tampered with.

You can't just claim that everything that contradicts you isn't real. It's literally crazy to think that only the stuff that agrees with you is correct.


That is exactly the thinking of truthers - only they know the "truth", and it does not matter if they think:

the jews did it
it was a mini nuke
it was a beam weapon
it was a hologram
nanoo nanoo thermite was used
hush a boom explosives were used
the planes fired missiles at the WTC
explosives were installed in the WTC when they were built
cruise missiles were used
very few people actually died
Bush did it
thousands of people in the US defence forces did it
The Pentagon has secret air defence systems that should have shot down Flight 77
the hijacked planes were secretely landed and all the passengers were killed, then substitute planes were used
etc etc.

All these are silly conspiracy theories that truthers have made up and posted here as they refuse to accept reality



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Alright, I may have been a little too belligerent in here. What you said was not quite the same as what he said; he focused on the collapse itself, leaving what would be left afterwards as a footnote. You did exactly the inverse; only the ghost of the event itself appeared in what you said, while you focused on what would be left. And I was pretty much seriously an ass about that, and I'm sorry. I glazed over the fact that you did kind of answer my question due to the fact that you spent so much time answering questions I hadn't asked, which was a dick move on my part.

The fact remains that his answer was clearer and conciser an answer to my query, and that psik is having a completely different discussion that we are...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Why is the CN Tower shaped like this?


Because that's the way the architect wanted it to be shaped? Or let me guess, you think it had to be shaped like that because you still believe buildings have to be thicker at the bottom than at the top, right? You know there have been developments in design and construction theory since the Great Pyramid at Giza. They now have things called "foundations", you should do a little research sometime, its just fascinating stuff.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Why is the CN Tower shaped like this?


Because that's the way the architect wanted it to be shaped? Or let me guess, you think it had to be shaped like that because you still believe buildings have to be thicker at the bottom than at the top, right? You know there have been developments in design and construction theory since the Great Pyramid at Giza. They now have things called "foundations", you should do a little research sometime, its just fascinating stuff.


The CN Tower IS NOT A BUILDING!!!

It does not contain empty space and therefore it cannot hide the shape of its support structure.

You should do a little research some time.

psik



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The CN Tower IS NOT A BUILDING!!!

It does not contain empty space and therefore it cannot hide the shape of its support structure.

You should do a little research some time.


So, let me get this straight - every "building" structure is the same, all shaped like the CN tower, but you just don't see it because of the exterior construction.



So, in your mind if the CN tower were a uniform shape it would fall over?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The CN Tower IS NOT A BUILDING!!!

It does not contain empty space and therefore it cannot hide the shape of its support structure.

You should do a little research some time.


So, let me get this straight - every "building" structure is the same, all shaped like the CN tower, but you just don't see it because of the exterior construction.



So, in your mind if the CN tower were a uniform shape it would fall over?


Every very tall building must cope with gravity which works tha same way all over the world. If the CN Tower had a uniform cross sectional area of the same material all of the way down the weight of the upper portion would crush some of the lower portion and it would break at that point and the top would come down.

There are more than 200 buildings around the world that are over than 800 feet tall.

Because buildings have lots of empty space the distribution of support mass does not have to be visible from the outside. Consequently it is possible to have buildings that look like this:



en.wikipedia.org...

But just because an 800 foot building looks like it could be heavier toward the top does not mean it can be. There is the little problem of gravity and all mass above must be supported by mass immediately below all of the way down to bedrock for very tall buildings. Since the CN Tower is VERY TALL and has almost no empty space because it is not a building its mass distribution must be readily visible.

I have done a number of searches. I can't find the weights of steel and concrete level by level for any skyscraper in the world. I find it very interesting that skyscraper enthusiasts don't seem to be interested in such information.

psik









 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join