9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Christ. Nothing will stop this bonehead. He'll be posting his fucking conspiracy theories when the fucking last battle starts.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-02-2016 03:22 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 11:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's the wonderful thing about idiots.

Yeah, they claim to answer things that can't be answered because nobody has the data.

The NIST admitted they needed the distribution of weight to analyze the impacts but then they don't specify the amount of concrete.

psik

Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, which way will it move?
A: Without the specific data, the question is unanswerable.

Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, what will happen to it?
A: It will fucking melt.

Do you see the difference?

The exact specifics are often irrelevant. But they do serve as a useful identifier for the JAQ-off: anomaly hunting and demands for perfection are not the same as real investigation.

EDIT: Incidentally - because we all know you're just spamming vapid copypasta - can you provide the precise citation as to where that occurs and in what documents? Let alone why that apparent "missing" piece of information invalidates anything else? It's okay, I'll wait.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-02-2016, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016 07:01 PM by natachan.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
The supporting superstructure wasn't made of concrete. It was mostly in the foundation. The support structure was steel.

Which, btw, is why it collapsed. Concrete towers wouldn't have done that.

I MIGHT be doing concrete homework ATM and my perspective on it might be skewed in its favour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-02-2016 06:54 PM)natachan Wrote:  The supporting superstructure wasn't made of concrete.

I never said it was. But the steel had to support the WEIGHT of the concrete, so the designers of the steel structure had to know what that weight was. In addition to what they presumed to be the live load.

Have I said the phrase "distribution of steel" before?

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 01:49 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(12-02-2016 12:08 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 06:54 PM)natachan Wrote:  The supporting superstructure wasn't made of concrete.

I never said it was. But the steel had to support the WEIGHT of the concrete, so the designers of the steel structure had to know what that weight was. In addition to what they presumed to be the live load.

Have I said the phrase "distribution of steel" before?

psik

Have you said the phrase "I am an expert on building collapse" before? 'Cos if not why the fuck should anyone listen to you?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
The steel didn't support the weight of concrete. That's not how reinforced concrete works. The concrete was located in the foundation, not in the superstructure. It was immaterial in the collapse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 09:18 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(13-02-2016 01:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  Have you said the phrase "I am an expert on building collapse" before?

Well, he is a conspiracy theorist without any actual grasp of physics or engineering.

So... almost definitely, yes.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-02-2016, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 05:17 PM by psikeyhackr.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-02-2016 03:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:22 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Yeah, they claim to answer things that can't be answered because nobody has the data.

The NIST admitted they needed the distribution of weight to analyze the impacts but then they don't specify the amount of concrete.

psik

Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, which way will it move?
A: Without the specific data, the question is unanswerable.

Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, what will happen to it?
A: It will fucking melt.

Do you see the difference?

But are those questions even comparable to what I have been talking about.

I have been pointing out that we do not have data. I said the NIST does not specify the total amount of concrete much less its distribution.

We know what direction the plane came from, its mass, velocity and where it hit the building. Your question about the the pan and ice cube contains no mass and vector data. The size of the cube and the temperature of the pan would be necessary to estimate how long it would take to melt.

Can you even comprehend the difference?

[47,154]
psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-02-2016 05:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 03:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, which way will it move?
A: Without the specific data, the question is unanswerable.

Q: If I put an ice cube in a hot pan, what will happen to it?
A: It will fucking melt.

Do you see the difference?

But are those questions even comparable to what I have been talking about.

I have been pointing out that we do not have data. I said the NIST does not specify the total amount of concrete much less its distribution.

We know what direction the plane came from, its mass, velocity and where it hit the building. Your question about the the pan and ice cube contains no mass and vector data. The size of the cube and the temperature of the pan would be necessary to estimate how long it would take to melt.

Can you even comprehend the difference?

[47,154]
psik

And you still don't comprehend that it was the fire that brought the buildings down.

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
15-02-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-02-2016 05:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you still don't comprehend that it was the fire that brought the buildings down.

No one has PROVEN that fire could make the buildings come down in less than 30 seconds. Wikipedia says 25.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: