9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 03:27 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 02:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It's a yes or no question: do you think the attack was an inside job?

Why are you afraid to answer that simple question?

I don't give a damn if you think it is a simple question or that you think you are intelligent and everyone is supposed to think like you.

The simple FACT is the humans cannot change the Laws of Physics. Arabs can't change them, the CIA can't change them and the Mossad can't change them. So anybody's favorite conspiracy is irrelevant until the physics is resolved.

The buildings had to hold themselves up so the designers had to distribute the steel so the lower portion supported more weight based on the distribution of concrete. So all discussion of who before resolving what is unintelligent bullshit.

What is wrong? Are you afraid the physics will prove a conspiracy you don't like?

psik

Assuming you had those numbers, what would you do with them? Consider

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
28-06-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Assuming you had those numbers, what would you do with them? Consider

I already told you that you can't compute the Potential Energy of the building without that information.

And I provided a link showing that mass distribution with the same mass could change the Potential Energy that I computed years ago. Not one person has claimed it was incorrect since that time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...tcount=316

Why are you people that believe in the idiotic collapse coming up with excuses for not providing complete information if you are so sure of yourselves.

That is the absurd thing about this scientific farce. People not being willing to PROVE such a simple issue with today's computing power.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
The loading distribution isn't necessary. All that's necessary is to establish that the column buckled at one point, and if it does that then the entire column follows suit.

Did it buckle at any point?

Um, yup.

So it follows that the column as a whole would follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 04:18 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 03:27 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  What is wrong? Are you afraid the physics will prove a conspiracy you don't like?

psik

This is why you fail. You do not understand it is you, not us, who is making an assertion regarding a conspiracy. As such the burden of proof falls upon you. Not us.

Now, as I have said before, show us your proof. It is as easy as that. Show us.

Don't attack our understanding of metal.

Don't attack our physics knowledge.

Simply show us the proof.

If you have it.

If not, if you have no proof whatsoever, what are you doing???

This is madness.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
29-06-2015, 01:27 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 04:18 PM)Banjo Wrote:  If not, if you have no proof whatsoever, what are you doing???

Jacking off furiously? That's what I assume he's doing. Potentiaaaal uhhhhhhh energyyyyy...

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
29-06-2015, 05:00 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 03:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Assuming you had those numbers, what would you do with them? Consider

I already told you that you can't compute the Potential Energy of the building without that information.

And I provided a link showing that mass distribution with the same mass could change the Potential Energy that I computed years ago. Not one person has claimed it was incorrect since that time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...tcount=316

Why are you people that believe in the idiotic collapse coming up with excuses for not providing complete information if you are so sure of yourselves.

That is the absurd thing about this scientific farce. People not being willing to PROVE such a simple issue with today's computing power.

psik

No, how would you use those numbers?
And precisely what numbers do you require for the calculations that you still haven't told us that you need to perform.

I suspect you have no clear idea. Drinking Beverage

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
29-06-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(29-06-2015 05:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, how would you use those numbers?
And precisely what numbers do you require for the calculations that you still haven't told us that you need to perform.

I suspect you have no clear idea. Drinking Beverage

No you just need to come up with some bullsh!t for a rebuttal.

The link I provided contained a link to the work by Frank Greening and explained I explained what was wrong with his Potential Energy calculation based on equal mass on every level.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2015 05:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(29-06-2015 04:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The link I provided contained a link to the work by Frank Greening and explained I explained what was wrong with his Potential Energy calculation based on equal mass on every level.

Once the planes hit the buildings it became all about kinetic energy. Why you so obsessed with potential energy?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(29-06-2015 04:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 05:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, how would you use those numbers?
And precisely what numbers do you require for the calculations that you still haven't told us that you need to perform.

I suspect you have no clear idea. Drinking Beverage

No you just need to come up with some bullsh!t for a rebuttal.

The link I provided contained a link to the work by Frank Greening and explained I explained what was wrong with his Potential Energy calculation based on equal mass on every level.

psik

No, you just continue to demonstrate that you have absolutely no expertise in any technical area and are just pathetically parroting pre-packaged paranoid pap. Drinking Beverage

You wouldn't know what to do with technical data. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-06-2015, 11:06 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-06-2015 03:27 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 02:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It's a yes or no question: do you think the attack was an inside job?

Why are you afraid to answer that simple question?

I don't give a damn if you think it is a simple question or that you think you are intelligent and everyone is supposed to think like you.

The simple FACT is the humans cannot change the Laws of Physics. Arabs can't change them, the CIA can't change them and the Mossad can't change them. So anybody's favorite conspiracy is irrelevant until the physics is resolved.

The buildings had to hold themselves up so the designers had to distribute the steel so the lower portion supported more weight based on the distribution of concrete. So all discussion of who before resolving what is unintelligent bullshit.

What is wrong? Are you afraid the physics will prove a conspiracy you don't like?

psik

I'm certainly not afraid of a disagreeable set of evidence, but that doesn't answer my question: do you think this attack arose as a result of a conspiracy, or not?

Why are you so shifty on this?

I think it's because you think it was a conspiracy, but are afraid to say that much.

I'll tell you right now -- it was indeed a conspiracy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: