Where did the towers go?

reply to post by snowcrash911


Nah, nah. I stick by my findings and recordings. A lot of stuff was inserted way after the fact and predated.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Nah, nah. I stick by my findings and recordings. A lot of stuff was inserted way after the fact and predated.

I think that's a cop-out.

You can't reason with faith.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

*Grin* Yes, I know what was written, but a lot of it was written after the fact.

Should the press be clairvoyant? That's an unusually high standard to adhere to. I'll pick up a newspaper now, and look up the sports pages. I'm not a betting man, but this is too easy.

The press should understand grade school Newtonian Physics.

They should understand that skyscrapers must get stronger toward the bottom therefore more steel is required therefore skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. The should understand there should be a lot of weight at the bottom so the building does not tip in the wind. The WTC had to withstand 100 mph winds. So they should expect to be told how steel and concrete were distributed down the buildings and wonder why not if they were not given the information.

9/11 Mysteries is about the best movie on the subject so far.



The 9/11 decade is the pinnacle of stupidity of European culture.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The press should understand grade school Newtonian Physics.

They don't. And as far as I know, grade schools don't teach Newtonian physics.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They should understand that skyscrapers must get stronger toward the bottom therefore more steel is required therefore skyscrapers must be bottom heavy.

Yes. You're like a broken record though on this issue. It's fatiguing. I heard you and acknowledge your point.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
9/11 Mysteries is about the best movie on the subject so far.

Oh come on. Couldn't you at least have mentioned "Improbable Collapse" or something?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The 9/11 decade is the pinnacle of stupidity of European culture.

I didn't know the United States was exempt, unless it's part of European culture.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Yes. You're like a broken record though on this issue. It's fatiguing. I heard you and acknowledge your point.

I didn't know the United States was exempt, unless it's part of European culture.

You need to exercise those brain muscles more so you can figure out the obvious.

I wasn't aware that you were the only person I was communicating with on the site. And there does seem to be people who do not regard it as important. And of course you have the option of ignoring all my posts. I assure you I will not mind. In fact I won't even notice.

The United States is the result of an invasion by Europeans. It is part of European culture. Nationalism is totally irrelevant to physics.

Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. The Empire State Building is 80 years old and was completed before the discovery of the neutron. It was designed without the use of electronic computers.

The Physics Profession has allowed 9/11 to become the greatest scientific farce in history.

Far worse than the Piltdown Man incident.

Newtonian Physics should be taught in grade school. I was building and launching model rockets then though it had nothing to do with my school. The nuns could not teach math worth a damn and never taught science at all. It is taught in SOME grade schools.

www.zipshut.com...

Running a body of knowledge on lies does not seem unusual for European culture though. How can the entire Economics Profession forget to talk about the depreciation of all of the cars that are not capital goods world wide and then pretend they are talking about how the economy works?

There were 200,000,000 cars in the US alone in 1995. At $1,500 per car per year that is $300,000,000,000 in depreciation PER YEAR. That is far more than the cost of the World Trade Center. 9/11 is unimportant by comparison.

psik

Right. America was once colonized by Brits so its culture is decidedly European. Nothing has happened since then. And because some (very few) grade school might have some physics in their curriculum, grade schools teach physics.

I'm not the only one exposed to your tapering hobbyhorse, so let's not pretend I'm framing it as such, because I'm not.

It's American culture which went morally bankrupt. And you claim you don't dwell on nationalism. Bollocks. Don't blame this solely on us Europeans because we went along with it like most nations. We don't have a choice. Ever heard of ASPA?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The should understand there should be a lot of weight at the bottom so the building does not tip in the wind.

You are thinking grade school engineering.
Now I understand why you do not understand 911.

Please explain these:












Your engineering knowledge is way below par. This likely why you keep asking for the distribution of steel and concrete.
The experts (you are not among them) keep saying that the fires alone were enough to destroy the buildings. The insulation on the steel is a major factor on how long the buildings could withstand unfought fires.
Maybe when you grasp this concept you might be able to progress beyond this silly conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by samkent
Please explain these:












Your engineering knowledge is way below par. This likely why you keep asking for the distribution of steel and concrete.
The experts (you are not among them) keep saying that the fires alone were enough to destroy the buildings. The insulation on the steel is a major factor on how long the buildings could withstand unfought fires.
Maybe when you grasp this concept you might be able to progress beyond this silly conspiracy theory.

People you regard as experts can say all they want. That does not affect the specific heat of steel. The quantity of steel affect the amount of energy required to raise the temperature enough to weaken. They tested floor sections in furnaces and they did not fail. So why haven't they done it without fireproofing. Because if they do it and they still don't fail in two hours then their argument goes out the window.

Just because a building looks top heavy DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that it is top heavy. Buildings are mostly empty space. You cannot tell from looking at the outside how much steel and concrete is where. And buildings less that 20 stories are totally irrelevant compared to the WTC. How much torque is applied to the base by a 100 mph wind with a building more than 1000 feet tall?

Yeah, this culture tries to program emotional responses to the word ENGINEER. Physics does not have any.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Just because a building looks top heavy DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that it is top heavy. Buildings are mostly empty space. You cannot tell from looking at the outside how much steel and concrete is where. And buildings less that 20 stories are totally irrelevant compared to the WTC. How much torque is applied to the base by a 100 mph wind with a building more than 1000 feet tall?

Yes, the WTC was akin to a cantilever beam. Interesting way to raise the engineering issue of lateral wind loads. One side tension, the other side compression, too. Anyways...What does this have to do with floor connection strength? You've already admitted it doesn't taper like the columns.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why haven't they done it without fireproofing. Because if they do it and they still don't fail in two hours then their argument goes out the window.

So all the other building that have insulation on their steel is merely a ploy to cover up for the WTC??

You have a lot to learn about construction.

Here is a nice link.

It's an Excel spread sheet you can use to predict the fire survival time of steel beams.
If you care to note the times are given in seconds not hours.
It was produced by engineers for the NRC. But I guess you will say that they are in on it too. I guess they rushed to change all the reference material just for 911.

Everybody is keeping things from psk. Just so he cannot calculate the distribution.

Originally posted by samkent
Here is a nice link.

It's an Excel spread sheet you can use to predict the fire survival time of steel beams.
If you care to note the times are given in seconds not hours.
It was produced by engineers for the NRC. But I guess you will say that they are in on it too. I guess they rushed to change all the reference material just for 911.

Everybody is keeping things from psk. Just so he cannot calculate the distribution.

Why don't you try finding a post where I said anybody was in on anything? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

Curious how they talk about the failure of the beam but I don't see any mention of the LOAD on the beam.

psik

Originally posted by KillShotMi
Now, I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination. I am also not an engineer, but I am going to take a shot at this dead horse.

1) 2 Planes hit the buildings.
2) The fire and damage caused the buildings to fall.
3) They then used heavy machinery to remove the debris.
4) The steel would have been recycled, and the debris would have been taken to a landfill.

Answer: Hit, Fell, Recycled and Reused

Before hitting enter, I checked my "check stub" and looked in the mirror. I assure you, I do not get paid by the govt. and I do not have a wool coat...

Edit to add: In case someone was worried about the physical position of my eyelids, I assure you they are open. I would hate to have someone waste their oh so precious breath by telling me to open my "Paid shill, sheeple eyes.

As you say you're not a genius! Dazzled by the tv fairy tale that all the sheeple bought that day.

Repost of the video because the OP video is down:

blip.tv...