Iran President is a 9/11 Truther...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You say the mass of the WTC doesn't increase toward the bottom but I'm the one that is dishonest? LOL

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your insistance that it's relevant in any way to the collapse of the WTC is being dishonest. When a support column is bent sideways by the floor brace attached to it, it lost its structural integrity regardless of what kind of mass it has.

You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

psik

If you're attempting to derail this topic with strawman arguments so you can "get me" in completely irrelevent topics, I must tell you I am immune to such games. I will repeat this so it finally sinks in- every floor was held up entirely by a horizontal brace connected to the inner core and the outer perimeter so ever floor had exactly the same load bearing capacity as every other floor regardless of its location in the building, so if one floor collapsed becuase it was overcome with too much weight, then all the floors would have collapsed. If you genuinely expect the core columns to remain standing like flagpoles after all the floors had been stripped off then you are certainly not anyone to be judging other people's intelligence here.

Incorporate the fact into whatever conspiracy agenda it is that you're pushing as you see fit.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

psik

If you're attempting to derail this topic with strawman arguments so you can "get me" in completely irrelevent topics, I must tell you I am immune to such games. I will repeat this so it finally sinks in- every floor was held up entirely by a horizontal brace connected to the inner core and the outer perimeter so ever floor had exactly the same load bearing capacity as every other floor regardless of its location in the building, so if one floor collapsed becuase it was overcome with too much weight, then all the floors would have collapsed. If you genuinely expect the core columns to remain standing like flagpoles after all the floors had been stripped off then you are certainly not anyone to be judging other people's intelligence here.

Incorporate the fact into whatever conspiracy agenda it is that you're pushing as you see fit.

You are also immune to intelligence and rationality.

I don't give a damn about any conspiracy. I don't care who did it.

I am simply saying that a NORMAL airliner could not bring the buildings down and the top 15% of the north tower could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.

You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

Which is nonsense because the way you describe the floors being supported means the core and the perimeter had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

It is not my fault that you contradict yourself.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I don't give a damn about any conspiracy. I don't care who did it.

I am simply saying that a NORMAL airliner could not bring the buildings down and the top 15% of the north tower could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.

Either you're a complete fool, or you're lying through your teeth. This is a board where conspiracies are being discussed, and this thread is a 9/11 conspiracy forum. Your simply being here and posting things like, "a normal airliner can't bring the buildings down" necessarily means you *do* give a damn about a conspiracy. You're insisting that there is one.

You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

Which is nonsense because the way you describe the floors being supported means the core and the perimeter had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

(Sigh) it's like talking to a mannequin. I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME...each floor was structurally exactly like every other floor so the fourth floor near the bottom had exactly the same strength and weakenesses as the 94th floor near the top. If the 94th floor collapsed becuase it was hit with a weight greater than it could support, then the fourth floor is going to collapse too as well as all the floors in between. This is an established fact and you cannot change it to your liking.

Your claims that "the upper 15% could not crush the rest" is nonsense becuase every video of the colllapse in existence shows the upper 15% DID crush the rest. Namely, it crushed each floor in turn. If you want to claim the towers shouldn't have collapsed, you shouldn't be arguing about details irrelevent to the physical mechanics of the collapse like the vertical columns becuase the photo I posted showed right away what happened to them. You need to argue that the initial floor that fell, shouldn't have fallen.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I don't give a damn about any conspiracy. I don't care who did it.

I am simply saying that a NORMAL airliner could not bring the buildings down and the top 15% of the north tower could crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.

Either you're a complete fool, or you're lying through your teeth. This is a board where conspiracies are being discussed, and this thread is a 9/11 conspiracy forum. Your simply being here and posting things like, "a normal airliner can't bring the buildings down" necessarily means you *do* give a damn about a conspiracy. You're insisting that there is one.

You said:

The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down".

Which is nonsense because the way you describe the floors being supported means the core and the perimeter had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down.

(Sigh) it's like talking to a mannequin. I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME...each floor was structurally exactly like every other floor so the fourth floor near the bottom had exactly the same strength and weakenesses as the 94th floor near the top. If the 94th floor collapsed becuase it was hit with a weight greater than it could support, then the fourth floor is going to collapse too as well as all the floors in between. This is an established fact and you cannot change it to your liking.

Your claims that "the upper 15% could not crush the rest" is nonsense becuase every video of the colllapse in existence shows the upper 15% DID crush the rest. Namely, it crushed each floor in turn. If you want to claim the towers shouldn't have collapsed, you shouldn't be arguing about details irrelevent to the physical mechanics of the collapse like the vertical columns becuase the photo I posted showed right away what happened to them. You need to argue that the initial floor that fell, shouldn't have fallen.

I know the floors were the same but you said STRUCTURE. The core and the perimeter columns were part of the STRUCTURE.

You just take for granted that you can be as sloppy with languge as you want and people are supposed to know what you mean. But being sloppy means you can CLAIM to have meant anything you want after the fact.

So you can say stupid sh!t and still convince yourself that you are intelligent.

If the OCT is true then there was an Islamic conspiracy.

If the OCT is not true then there was some other conspiracy.

So no matter what happened there was a conspiracy. But no matter what the conspiracists cannot change the laws of physics. So I can discuss the physics without giving a damn who was responsible for which conspiracy. Since I am saying a NORMAL airliner could not bring the building down that fast then obviously I am saying that the OCT is wrong. By I don't care who was responsible for whatever conspiracy is true.

I am just mad at the nitwits running the educational system that can't get everybody on the same page of a Newtonian physics book.

www.youtube.com...

The Official Conspiracy Theory is Cartoon Physics.

www.youtube.com...

psik

[edit on 11-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I know the floors were the same but you said STRUCTURE. The core and the perimeter columns were part of the STRUCTURE.

I know, which is why my FULL quote said-

"The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down". We've posted that already and I know you've seen it. Each floor was supported entirely by a horizontal brace running from the inner fore to the outer perimeter. No floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor, so each floor was exactly equal in strength, weight, and load capacity."

-so it was immediately obvious I was referring to the floor components of the structure and not the core column components of the structure. If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly.

So you can say stupid sh!t and still convince yourself that you are intelligent.

...OR, it's really the case your attempt at bamboozling others here with your pretend expertise on WTC "upper 15%"mechanics blew up in your face so you're trying to weasel out of it by changing the subject. I've already explained how the floors collapsed so you know you're wrong there, and I posted a photo of what happened to the support columns when the towers collapsed so you know you're wrong there too. Instead of addressing your mistakes you try to invent these strawman arguments over stupid sh*t like what the definitions of "structure" is.

I don't particularly care if you call me stupid, or if you accuse me of kicking pregnant dogs, or whatever. All I care about is if you can show a single thing I posted here on how the towers fell is incorrect, and it's obvious you can't do it. I defy you to prove me wrong- explain how that support girder got so horribly bent according to your "upper 15%' physics.

I am just mad at the nitwits running the educational system that can't get everybody on the same page of a Newtonian physics book.

Now there we agree. Somewhere along the line some jerk is putting out foolishness like "upper 15%" as if the building was one solid block of steel rather than built out of of millions of little pieces and billions of separate weak points, and then you come along and get suckered into it. I know you didn't come up with this bit yourself. You had to have read it on some damned fool conspiracy website somewhere.

This guy is a nut job. He wants the world under a global caliphet, he threatens isreal all the time, and hes a leader of one of the most oppressive countries on earth. I think according to evidences that 9-11 was more than simple terror attacks. But this guy...geez.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now there we agree. Somewhere along the line some jerk is putting out foolishness like "upper 15%" as if the building was one solid block of steel rather than built out of of millions of little pieces and billions of separate weak points, and then you come along and get suckered into it. I know you didn't come up with this bit yourself. You had to have read it on some damned fool conspiracy website somewhere.

It sounds like you are paying attention to Ryan Mackey. His conceptual model treats the upper block as a solid mass but that is what Bazant has been saying for years.

www.youtube.com...

I NEVER said anything about the upper block being solid. The top 15% of a 1360 foot building will be 204 feet. But because a skyscraper must be heavier toward the bottom that top 15% by height would not be 15% by mass.

You are engaged in projection if you are accusing me of thinking as the falling portion as a solid mass. The model I built demonstrates that I do not think anything of the kind.

www.youtube.com...

psik

[edit on 13-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

for you to be a 911 truther you just need to be able to read

since the own 911 comission members that were assigned to investigate said that there is something very wrong with the official history