9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I went to the construction job, stepped out of my truck and slid on the mud and fell down breaking my ankle. A co-worked took me to the emergency room there in W Palm Beach FL. and I was being admitted when the entire staff went to watch something on the TV. What kind of program has them so engrossed they walk away form the patients I wondered, with a broken leg I couldn't walk over to see. Then a nurse walked in crying, "Did you see that?" She asked me. "No what?
"The twins." she replied to my wonderment. It was another maybe 20 minutes before I was aware of what was going on on 9/11
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-02-2016 01:59 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  But how much brains does it take to figure out that skyscrapers must have more steel toward the bottom and that the distribution of concrete must affect the distribution of steel.

And again you have been shown multiple times why this thinking is WRONG.

The towers were pretty much nothing more than two steel tubes. One inside the other with thin 'cross membranes' of steel and concrete to act as 'stiffeners' (Again, much like Bamboo grows)

Here's a physical experiment you can go and do.

Go and find two long, large industrial cardboard tubes. One of smaller diameter than the other. I've seen them in lengths of about 1/2 a meter.

Get a couple of each length so that when you fix the same sized tubes 'end to end' you get a descent length (Or height, when you stand them/fix them to the ground) with one tube inside the other.

Now, to keep your tubes from wobbling within each other take some more... oh the material a 'Manila folder' is made of, and cut them into cirvular 'washers' that act as 'spacers' between the inner and pouter tube. Hold them in place with... masking tape (Possibly the cheapest brand you can find to help keep costs down)

I'd say that this set up is a good/better representation of the towers construction than anything you've put forwards so far (Professionals, please help me out here)

One that you can happily squirt lighter fluid or even just plain water (Or both!) onto and you'll get interesting and possibly similar failure types as seen in the towers.

( Your time to experiment is NOW! Thumbsup )

*Bows*

(21-02-2016 01:59 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  So anyone with two competent brain cells to knock together should find it peculiar that the NIST could not specify the amount of concrete in the towers. But then the mainstream media has not told everyone that.

Because, again, the concrete IN the towers wasn't doing anything more than giving people something to stand on. The concrete IN the towers did NOT help hold the building up. This has been explained to you multiple times!

(21-02-2016 01:59 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  I expect 8th graders to understand things that obvious. That is what I find so amusing about the believers in the 9/11 Religion who do not find the collapse time of the north tower peculiar.

9/11 is an intelligence test that only morons can fail.

psik

Facepalm

You're not doing yourself any favors spouting epithets like this when you repeatedly seem incapable of actually understanding the 'HOW' of the structure of the towers.

I'm a goram Window fixer by trade and what you keep harping on about just sounds daft to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
21-02-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-02-2016 04:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  The towers were pretty much nothing more than two steel tubes. One inside the other with thin 'cross membranes' of steel and concrete to act as 'stiffeners' (Again, much like Bamboo grows)

Here's a physical experiment you can go and do.

Go and find two long, large industrial cardboard tubes. One of smaller diameter than the other. I've seen them in lengths of about 1/2 a meter.

That is BULLSHiT!

The towers are called a tube-in-tube design but the Core was not a Tube.

At every level there were horizontal beams connecting the 47 columns. The columns were in a 6 by 8 minus 1 array. 24 columns made up the outer portion of the core but 23 columns were inside the core, so it was not empty space like a tube. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be about 2.5 times as much as the vertical steel. I have never seen data on any changes in the thickness of the horizontal beams as they were installed further up the buildings. So the horizontal beams could significantly affect the distribution of mass of the steel.

That is why I think a 3D printer is the only way to make a good model that can make accurate components for repeated collapse tests.

This is why I am totally unimpressed by people who BELIEVE in the collapse without even checking the simplest information.

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
21-02-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-02-2016 02:38 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  “I have no qualifications or expertise in any of the areas I am giving opinions on, having said that, all of you should really listen to me because my opinions on the matter (for which I have no background on or qualifications for) is right and true.”

What qualifications do you think you need to comprehend the Conservation of Momentum?

That is one of the curious things about the 9/11Affair. When has any "expert" or the mainstream media discussed how the bottom heavy aspects of any skyscraper would affect collapse time.

A computer program can be written to see how mass distribution would affect collapse time.

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p...stcount=34

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
21-02-2016, 08:36 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-02-2016 08:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  That is BULLSHiT!

The towers are called a tube-in-tube design but the Core was not a Tube.

Okay, that's your assertion. Pleases, link through to the engineering drawings... or a youtube vidio that shows why/how your declaration of the design is right.

(21-02-2016 08:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  At every level there were horizontal beams connecting the 47 columns. The columns were in a 6 by 8 minus 1 array. 24 columns made up the outer portion of the core but 23 columns were inside the core, so it was not empty space like a tube. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be about 2.5 times as much as the vertical steel.

And it is only your assertion that these horizontal members did anything other than be something to put a floor on.

Again, Pleases, link through to the engineering drawings... or a youtube video that shows why/how your declaration of the design is right.

(21-02-2016 08:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  I have never seen data on any changes in the thickness of the horizontal beams as they were installed further up the buildings. So the horizontal beams could significantly affect the distribution of mass of the steel.

You are the only one asserting that there even needs to be any variation in these horizontal members. Mainly because you seem fixated on the idea that these horizontal members held the building up when myself and others have, time and time again, shown you that they did not.

(21-02-2016 08:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  That is why I think a 3D printer is the only way to make a good model that can make accurate components for repeated collapse tests.

Well.. 3D printers and such are getting bigger and cheaper all the time so you've got lots of possibility to work on a model Thumbsup

(21-02-2016 08:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  This is why I am totally unimpressed by people who BELIEVE in the collapse without even checking the simplest information.

psik

I do not 'believe' the towers collapsed. I SAW them (One of them) collapse in REAL time via the wonders of electronic media. THAT the towers collapsed is NOT the debate. You seem to be using this as another way of obfuscating your actual points/beliefs/ideas as to THE CAUSE of the collapse.

You also do not seem impressed with my 'cheap' method of making a model. Nor did you give it any sort of mention as to how yoy think it matches the reality of the tower's construction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
22-02-2016, 05:13 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 05:46 AM by WOPR.)
WTC7 Demolished on 9/11
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific
Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and
Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination


[Image: Capturetower.jpg]

"Analogical models are a method of representing
a phenomenon of the world, often called the 'target system',
by another, more understandable or analysable system. They
are also called dynamical analogies." - Wikipedia


The exceptionless condition required for gravitational acceleration
to occur has been known for centuries....

[Image: 9383be58c2196650abf48981db503779.gif]

....the condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence
of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration....

[Image: 78fe757793d30a322732edd16cff4bde.gif]

The Control, or source system, that appears to the right of the
Scenario, or target system, in many of the animations is intended as
a reminder of that, and also signals the beginning of a comparison....

[Image: ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif]

We can still know with certainty what condition exists beneath
an object as it falls....

[Image: 255b5e6b0f1f20b0bd95d84a94ef1386.gif]

....even though we may not be able to see into the space
beneath it as it does....

[Image: 1036ed956866bb76e5e518d9c4e7a69c.gif]

Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time
or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100%
to 0% when they buckle, they'll gradually decrease in strength
while they buckle and that takes time....

[Image: f2176b9174d6af03e8c18ccb0ac38867.gif]

The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive
structural failure), whether caused by heat....

[Image: 171da9bd639a474f93f75416474f53ce.gif]

....or by overloading....

[Image: a338ba3cef6cdac0cc13fe19a7c5c2bc.gif]

....or by other modes of natural progressive structural failure
such as impact induced fracturing....

[Image: 189367ead1f1173ae0821bc21a4cb949.gif]

....or fracturing caused by overloading....

[Image: 491b34f1ef51fec27a6311f7b36e362d.gif]

Continued....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 05:21 AM by WOPR.)
RE: WTC7 Demolished on 9/11....
Continued....

....or any other mode or combination of modes of natural
progressive structural failure absolutely cannot match or
create the exceptionless condition required for gravitational
acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible (except for bridges
and other structures that pass through air wherein the condition
required for free fall to occur exists inherently as a structural
feature). There is no such thing as structural
gravitational acceleration
....

[Image: d5dbd5d68ab7326804067a722fe8bc06.gif]

The progressive collapse of the building (NIST probable
collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....

[Image: 06c559cd5c8a1df0aa4d57e1ed06ff51.gif]

....that essentially happens all at once....

[Image: 9c68e547d22a337a9448b8c21d55fe12.gif]

....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we
empirically know of natural progressive structural failure
(defined as a time consuming process of individual, sequential
or simultaneous failure involving one or a number of related
structural components). It's a physical impossibility for the
lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building
(reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter
columns) to have naturally progressively collapsed
in any way that could result in the upper part of
the building symmetrically descending as a single
unit straight down through itself....

[Image: wtc7.gif]

....at anything near gravitational acceleration (NIST
probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled
below) for any period of time....

[Image: oie_animation.gif]

A building collapse like that seen below resulting from any
natural progressive structural failure of a steel frame building
including a 105 foot 2.25 second period of gravitational
acceleration of the upper part of the building as a single
unit is an absolute physical impossibility....

[Image: wtc7channel9ve7_gif_wtc.gif]

....as nowhere in the course of any such collapse or
structural failure is the exceptionless condition required
for gravitational acceleration to occur seen to arise beneath
the upper part of the building as the scenario
plays out to completion....

[Image: oie_animation.gif]

There is absolutely no mode or combination of modes
of natural progressive structural failure driven solely
by gravity that can ever match or give rise to the
exceptionless condition required for free fall to have
occurred at any point during it's descent....

[Image: 8db27a83092f9cb1be47bba39ea92628.gif]

The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical
impossibility. Just as there is no such thing as structural
gravitational acceleration
, nor is there any structural failure
mode known as natural progressive structural
gravitational acceleration
....

[Image: 9fda7447ab53a056ff5f02c28634ecb3.gif]

There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity
driven collapse of any modern steel frame skyscraper
where one could realistically say....

"Hold it.... right there! That's the point past which all
the welded and bolted together steel columns and
structural components
that were supporting the building
just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of
a football field) will undoubtedly be observed beginning
and then continuing to behave in a manner indistinguishable
from air
(below left) for at least the next eight stories,
or 105 feet
of its descent (below right). It would take very
careful calculation
to tell apart the fall times shown below
during this free fall period of the ongoing natural
progressive structural failure
"....


[Image: a0cb7908dee38177e36e60b0cc7d95f6.gif]

For the 105 foot 2.25 second period of time that we know
the upper part of the building literally fell as a single unit at
gravitational acceleration we know it can not have been
using any of it's potential energy to crush the building
contents, columns and other structural components
beneath it and undergo gravitational acceleration
at the same time (as illustrated by this
frangible impedance scenario)....

[Image: 25bd5d8b9f31bb7a59bb3a25fd6f15bd.gif]

Continued....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 05:23 AM by WOPR.)
RE: WTC7 Demolished on 9/11....
Continued....

It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically
damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively
collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the
building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically
straight down through itself as a single unit through the path
of maximum resistance (below right), and then, driven on solely
by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so nearly to
gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very
careful calculation
for any difference between the
two to be detected....

[Image: 8153c195a283e9e70a635e977539318e.gif]

Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all
support
from beneath the upper part of the building as it
descended must be introduced to explain the observed
rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational
acceleration. For the 2.25 seconds that the building literally fell
at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to
quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the
building was seen to be introduced from outside the building,
and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all
support
from beneath the upper part of the building is known
to have existed inside the building as an element or normal
function of it's infrastructure. For a load supported by a column
to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be
quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be
knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized etc.
Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling
through Manhatten that day that could have
quickly knocked out all support....

[Image: 1663de40a7bf83c865aa619bbf382767.gif]

....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging
for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night
before that could have quickly pulled out all support....

[Image: c0ac91b333f1ecf2e9ef8388b2182648.gif]

....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired
at it that could have quickly blown out all support....

[Image: a17b1090eba7c867e754cfe3373b5e71.gif]

....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were
being tested in the area that could have quickly
vaporized all support....

[Image: 4d49c47077517a8ea2302b24659a1e00.gif]

....and no other force capable of quickly removing all
support from beneath the upper part of the building existed
in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....

[Image: 34be463aa4a4083e6b76ff206a5545d4.gif]

....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was
that must be introduced to explain the observed 105 foot 2.25
second period of gravitional acceleration of the upper part of the
building as a single unit, it must have been introduced some time
before the event, and unless it can be shown how the other
force
that must be introduced either during or just before
the collapse of the building was introduced from outside
the building, or that it was already existing inside the
building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the
process of elimination really leaves only one possible
explanation for the building's behaviour. Some energetic
material powerful enough to quickly remove all support
from beneath the upper part of the building during the 105
foot 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must
have been physically transported inside the building some
time before the event, it had to be brought in. The
explosion model is the only one....

[Image: d09871fcde64ba30384a87220d9837b4.gif]

....that can realistically match and empirically be
expected to create the exceptionless condition that
we know must have existed....

[Image: 8db27a83092f9cb1be47bba39ea92628.gif]

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of
the building as a single unit during its observed largely
symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for
approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....

[Image: 0d8f489c42d14f50777e0d8e90059b6a.gif]

The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers
alike agree) observation of a significant well defined period of
gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the
building as a single unit....

[Image: 6c7cd2005f1c75d081a720e434c5c713.gif]

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than
that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational
acceleration (free fall).
During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially
(displaying all the absolutely necessary, extremely important
features)
in free fall (any motion of a body where gravity
is the only force acting upon it)
, indicating negligible (so
small or unimportant as to be not worth considering,
insignificant)
support from the structure below.


Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again
less than that of gravity.

[Image: oie_animation.gif]

....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must
have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all
support
from beneath the upper part of the building (below right),
either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent,
permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration as a
single unit for the observed period and under the
exceptionless condition required (below left) for
gravitational acceleration to occur....

[Image: ef4a740c36efe88f565475ebbbbf3887.gif]

The building was brought down by explosives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:24 AM
RE: WTC7 Demolished on 9/11....
Does WOPR mean you have a big dick, or are you talking about a hamburger?




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
22-02-2016, 05:45 AM
RE: WTC7 Demolished on 9/11
For all your theories or "facts"... it didn't prevent the building from falling down when it did, now did it? Instead of wasting your time on the past with a subject the US government will NEVER release the full details of, try protesting the idea of yet another invasion in the middle-east, the domino effect of 9/11; you might actually accomplish something.

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: