9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2016 12:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  No one has PROVEN that fire could make the buildings come down in less than 30 seconds.

Have you bothered to come up with an actual alternative yet, or are you still just babbling pointlessly?

"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
15-02-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2016 12:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(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

It wasn't 30 seconds, you moron. The fires burned for 56 minutes and 102 minutes.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-02-2016, 03:42 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

Yeah, we know where the plane hit, and its mass, velocity, etc...

But do we know the exact wind forces being applied to each face of the buildings from the time of impact, to the time of collapse? Do we know how the transfer of mass from the panicked occupants might affect things? We also definitely need to consider the Coriolis effect...

I'm joking, but I really don't think a plane took down the towers. It was global warming... And gravity.

Edit: I meant local warming, from the fires. One thing I always found interesting is how coal ignites at like 400-500°C, but some how when it's enclosed in a forge it can burn upto almost 2000°C. Must be magic. I wonder if a large enclosed structure with proper air drafts could act similarly to a forge (of course until it collapses I mean)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
16-02-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2016 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 12:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  No one has PROVEN that fire could make the buildings come down in less than 30 seconds. Wikipedia says 25.

psik

It wasn't 30 seconds, you moron. The fires burned for 56 minutes and 102 minutes.

The COLLAPSES were less than 30 seconds. We all know the impact times to the collapse start times for each building.

How much damage could the planes and fires have done to the buildings more than 5 stories below the impact points?

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
16-02-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2016 03:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  But do we know the exact wind forces being applied to each face of the buildings from the time of impact, to the time of collapse?

The wind was 15 to 20 mph that day. You don't suppose the smoke would give us an idea of the direction, do you?

The building was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone told me it withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions but I have not confirmed it.

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
16-02-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-02-2016 11:09 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  It wasn't 30 seconds, you moron. The fires burned for 56 minutes and 102 minutes.

The COLLAPSES were less than 30 seconds. We all know the impact times to the collapse start times for each building.

How much damage could the planes and fires have done to the buildings more than 5 stories below the impact points?

psik

They didn't need to do any. The weight of the collapsing floors ripped each subsequent floor from its supports in a progressive collapse.

But this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. No floor is designed to support the mass of several floors.

And bvefore you go off on your absurd rant about them holding up all of the building, THEY DIDN'T. This has been explained to you ad nauseum.

You are a delusional, conspiracy-fixated, ignorant moron. It is long past time for you to fuck off.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-02-2016, 11:25 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-02-2016 11:21 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(15-02-2016 03:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  But do we know the exact wind forces being applied to each face of the buildings from the time of impact, to the time of collapse?

The wind was 15 to 20 mph that day. You don't suppose the smoke would give us an idea of the direction, do you?

The building was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone told me it withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions but I have not confirmed it.

psik

He was mocking you. Facepalm

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
16-02-2016, 11:35 AM
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? 'Cos if not why the fuck should anyone listen to you?

Please give me the email address of the person holding the gun to your head and making you read my posts.

I will tell him to leave you alone. It has to be a man, right?

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

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
16-02-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-02-2016 11:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  He was mocking you. Facepalm

I know.

I have a different style of mocking.

It does not surprise me that you can't figure that out. Laugh out load

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
16-02-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-02-2016 11:36 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 11:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  He was mocking you. Facepalm

I know.

I have a different style of mocking.

It does not surprise me that you can't figure that out. Laugh out load

psik

You are no better at mocking than you are at engineering.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: