9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 05:00 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Oh no! My reputation has gone back up to -13.

I am SO upset! Liars claiming my link doesn't work and people not smart enough to comprehend how skyscrapers hold themselves up say I am OWNED.

ROFLMAO

Boo Hoo!!!

psik

I'm curious why you continue to come back here ever so often.

You often skirt away from any attempt that would ever work if your intent is to inform or learn. You just rail on and focus on irrelevant bickering instead of answering direct questions or following a straight line of reasoning.

Do you have struggles with communication elsewhere in your life, it may do you well to get some help upon that. Do you think you're going to "inform" other people about your clear understanding of flaws? If you honestly do, you're horrible at communicating and expressing a way to demonstrate such ideas.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 05:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 05:00 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Oh no! My reputation has gone back up to -13.

I am SO upset! Liars claiming my link doesn't work and people not smart enough to comprehend how skyscrapers hold themselves up say I am OWNED.

ROFLMAO

Boo Hoo!!!

psik

I'm curious why you continue to come back here ever so often.

You often skirt away from any attempt that would ever work if your intent is to inform or learn. You just rail on and focus on irrelevant bickering instead of answering direct questions or following a straight line of reasoning.

Do you have struggles with communication elsewhere in your life, it may do you well to get some help upon that. Do you think you're going to "inform" other people about your clear understanding of flaws? If you honestly do, you're horrible at communicating and expressing a way to demonstrate such ideas.
Aspergers almost certainly, I have been trying to work out what's up with him and you jogged my memory. I'm convinced its Aspergers or some other high functioning condition within the autistic spectrum disorders, cos lets be honest he's not quite right is he Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 05:00 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Oh no! My reputation has gone back up to -13.

I am SO upset! Liars claiming my link doesn't work and people not smart enough to comprehend how skyscrapers hold themselves up say I am OWNED.

ROFLMAO

Boo Hoo!!!

psik

Dafaq mate? Blink

Your link? It does NOT WORK!

Post a new one and we'll see what the site says.

How those two particular buildings were made has been repeatedly shown/demonstrated to you.

Please, share your thoughts on what you think happened on that day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 05:45 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Dafaq mate? Blink

Your link? It does NOT WORK!

If it is this link, it works for me. What device/browser are you using?

The text is pretty clear though...
Quote:Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Quote:As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Quote:Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

They do dismiss the "pancake theory" but only in respect to what initiated the main collapse.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 07:15 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 07:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If it is this link, it works for me. What device/browser are you using?

The text is pretty clear though...
Quote:Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Quote:As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Quote:Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

They do dismiss the "pancake theory" but only in respect to what initiated the main collapse.

Hmm... Consider Okay, so what ever the link is it doesn't like 'Firefox' as a browser. Tongue

So, basically... it's agreeing with what pretty much every one has been saying? Planes impacted buildings? Fires, mayhem, catastrophe ensued. Buildings structure couldn't cope. Buildings came down?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 07:22 PM
9/11 EXPOSED
Bush knew about the attack before it happened and lied about it.
http://youtu.be/Sm73wOuPL60
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 07:28 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 07:15 PM)Peebothuhul
Hmm... :consider: Okay, so what ever the link is it doesn't like 'Firefox' as a browser. :P[/quote' Wrote:  
I was using Firefox 40.0.3 on a windows 6 laptop

[quote]So, basically... it's agreeing with what pretty much every one has been saying? Planes impacted buildings? Fires, mayhem, catastrophe ensued. Buildings structure couldn't cope. Buildings came down?

Yep.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(29-10-2015 11:36 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  When the floors started pancaking they damaged the structural system so that it was no longer self-supporting.

ROFLMAO

Well it is so curious that the NIST says this:

Quote:NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/w...towers.cfm

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

psik

Except that is exactly the sequence they do support. The pancaking didn't initiate the collapse - it was the collapse.

Your reading comprehension really sucks.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 07:22 PM)KUSA Wrote:  Bush knew about the attack before it happened and lied about it.
http://youtu.be/Sm73wOuPL60

The guy is dumb as a brick. He was almost certainly not consciously lying, just mis-remembering.

Memory isn't a recording.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2015, 04:33 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-10-2015 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 07:22 PM)KUSA Wrote:  Bush knew about the attack before it happened and lied about it.
http://youtu.be/Sm73wOuPL60

The guy is dumb as a brick. He was almost certainly not consciously lying, just mis-remembering.

Memory isn't a recording.

Thousands of people you ask will say they remember seeing the 1st plane crash and give false reports.

People will also tell you they saw Bugs Bunny at Disney World if you ask if they did. Facepalm

Memory is reconstructive and stupid.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: