What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 51
20
<< 48  49  50   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why should I give a damn about your talking about bolts when it is something out of your head. Just like vertical on vertical collapse. You talk nonsense and then expect a response like it was intelligent.


So isn't your model completely pointless, then? If you are complaining that no one even knows the exact construction of the towers, then should we all just give up on debating what happened? You seem to have come to some kind of conclusion, or else you wouldn't constantly be riffing with others on this site.


You can regard my model as pointless all you want. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

I have communicated with plenty of people who disagree with you. Every skyscraper must hold itself up. That means the designers had to figure out the distribution of strength which affected the distribution of steel which affected the distribution of mass. Mass had to be moved and connections had to be broken for the north tower to come down.

So how could only a gravitational collapse make that happen mostly within 18 seconds, which is only double free fall time. The remains of the core took another 7 seconds.

But I sorted my washers to be bottom heavy and I had to double and triple the loops toward the bottom to hold the accumulated weight under static load. So energy was required to crush those loop so that slowed the falling mass. The speed of the so called collapse, supposedly by gravity only, has NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED.

What has stopped any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse? What is stopping you? All you can do is talk and then act like I am under some obligation to take you seriously. I don't care if you believe your own talk. At least I have models which cannot defy the Laws of Physics.

psik




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well lets see it was HIT mid elevation AND mid core high up were the core steel was thinner so YES!


You will say anything it seems, even if it contradicts what you've said before. Just make it up as you go eh?

If the core fell first because it was hit mid elevation where there core was thinner, then why did NIST make up the sagging truss hypothesis? And how did the top manage to crush the bottom where the core was thicker?

Are you saying NIST was wrong now?

But of course the antenna falling first is only half the story, the whole top section starts collapsing bottom up before the bottom section even moves. This shows that their were two separate collapses, the top section and bottom section were independent collapses. Which also explains the tilt of tower 2, where the plane impact was lower down and the core columns thicker.




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You can regard my model as pointless all you want. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

Sure you do. All these years and you can't find one other human being that thinks anything you did is in the least bit relevant.

I have communicated with plenty of people who disagree with you.

No you haven't.

Every skyscraper must hold itself up.

Nope, they have to hold themselves together. "Up" is a byproduct of that application.

That means the designers had to figure out the distribution of strength which affected the distribution of steel which affected the distribution of mass.

No, they just had to figure out how to get the reactions of those masses transfered to the foundations.

Mass had to be moved and connections had to be broken for the north tower to come down.

Nope, just the connections had to have their maximum capacities exceeded, gravity did the rest.

So how could only a gravitational collapse make that happen mostly within 18 seconds, which is only double free fall time. The remains of the core took another 7 seconds.

Because once a connections capacity is exceeded the failure occurs within fractions of a second.

But I sorted my washers to be bottom heavy and I had to double and triple the loops toward the bottom to hold the accumulated weight under static load. So energy was required to crush those loop so that slowed the falling mass.

You're building a model that displays compression of a monolithic element. Completely irrelevant.

The speed of the so called collapse, supposedly by gravity only, has NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED.

You just don't understand the explanation.

What has stopped any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?

Because models are only needed to explain things to people who don't understand basic science and math. They don't need to model something they understand.

What is stopping you?

Boatloads of common sense.

All you can do is talk and then act like I am under some obligation to take you seriously. I don't care if you believe your own talk. At least I have models which cannot defy the Laws of Physics.

So do I. So does everyone else. Its just what laws are being displayed that is in question.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Boatloads of common sense.


You mean the common sense that he knows he can't do it but not enough to know that a 1300 foot building could not do it either.

psik



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, just the connections had to have their maximum capacities exceeded, gravity did the rest.


Good point, which begs a question...

Do you think the connections were stronger than the columns?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well lets see it was HIT mid elevation AND mid core high up were the core steel was thinner so YES!


You will say anything it seems, even if it contradicts what you've said before. Just make it up as you go eh?



You one to talk MR 4" thick steel
did I say that was the only thing that caused the collapse, also as you see there is no large amount of material ejected in the first few seconds of collapse SO the floorslab and columns get a real pounding, so why dont you come back when you have so REAL experience of construction!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Right your model should be like the towers so since you LOVE it so much do the rebuild

1) Washers inside the paper tubes

2) Washers held in position with the equivalent of angle cleats

THEN see what happens



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Right your model should be like the towers so since you LOVE it so much do the rebuild

1) Washers inside the paper tubes

2) Washers held in position with the equivalent of angle cleats

THEN see what happens


I have stated multiple times that if we do not know the strength of the connections holding the floors relative to the weight of the floor assembly then a tube in tube model cannot be constructed. I have also said that I have never even seen the weight of the trusses and corrugated floor pans specified. And even though it is easy to compute the weight of the concrete slab to be 614 tons, when do you ever see it specified? That is one of the most curious things. Information that is easy to figure out is never seen.

That is why 9/11 is such a scientific FARCE even if the buildings were destroyed by only the airliners. The experts who are supposed to know enough to ask for the necessary information have not been demanding it. So we have had ten years of nonsense for a problem that should have been solved in a year.

My washers are so light that not making the connections too strong would be extremely difficult. They are less than two ounces. What kind of glue would not be too strong?

So it is certainly curious that none of our expensive engineering schools have tried doing a demonstration with a model weighing at least ten tons. But it would have to be strong enough to support its own static load so it would take a lot of energy to break the connections. Of course they would look like fools if they tried and could not do it. There have been too many decades of engineering experience and computer technology has gotten much better in just the ten years since 9/11. As time goes by this whole thing just looks more and more STUPID.

psik



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Good point, which begs a question...

Do you think the connections were stronger than the columns?

Definitely not.

Do you think the performance of steel is measured in a single 'strength' parameter? Have you read the paper you requested and I provided 6 times so far? Do you now understand how sagging flooring exerts inward force?





top topics
 
20
<< 48  49  50   >>

log in

join