9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 03:21 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is your point? A building is not a car.

What force is going to alter the center of gravity of a building?

"A building is not a car."

That is brilliant!

They usually don't collapse straight down either. But knowing location of the center of gravity would tend to indicate whether the top portion is lighter than the bottom portion and the chances of the top 13% destroying the bottom 85%.

With the top of the south tower tilting 20 degree there would have been two centers of gravity and then not wonder why the top did not fall down the side?

Yeah, what force could do that? Split a building in two?

150 ton plane versus 400,000 ton building. The plane should have been playing way out of its league, but we are supposed to believe it got a draw. Laugh out load

psik

Your statements do not make sense. You do not understand center of gravity, kinetic energy, building construction, or gravity.

You are way out of your depth here.

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
14-08-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I am completely sure that everything peskyhacker has to say about 911 is wrong, but I'm not giving any reasons or proof why. So there! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I was about to bump this thread to see if psycho had made any progress. Give us your numbers brother.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 07:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I was about to bump this thread to see if psycho had made any progress. Give us your numbers brother.

Numbers about what? My whole point has been that we don't have the numbers to do an analysis that might be called scientific. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Neither an accurate physical or virtual model can be made because we don't have the data.

So why don't people who claim the towers could collapse want it?

Where is there data on the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core? Did it vary down the towers? Where is there a diagram of how the beams were positioned? It is not in the blueprints even though they show the locations of the urinals.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:44 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 03:02 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:10 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I think this question quickly became irrelevant in the face of quite a lot of falling steel.

What No CONCRETE?

Very precise that! Potential Energy calculation? Kinetic Energy? Energy required to destroy 90 stories by force from above? Oh yeah, we can't even get data on the horizontal beams in the core all of the way down the building.

Oh right, that could affect Center of Gravity.

psik

Concrete is not strong. The Romans knew how to make concrete. The temple of Marcus Agrippa gets stronger every year and that is why it still stands. Modern concrete is piss weak.

The metal supports the concrete. When the metal became red hot it bent. Then that weight pushing on the bending red hot steel with the force of 1 G pulled the building straight down. Remember, the closest distance between two points is a straight line. That is why the buildings fell straight down.

Have you ever had a physical labour job? As a kid I worked demolition in a town called Tuncurry. Mate the buildings were weakened and collapsed. End of story.

Then your insane President squandered the world's sympathy and attacked Iraq, who had nothing to do with it! That is the conspiracy. Taking advantage of that attack to try to steal oil.

What a fuck up that was!

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
14-08-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 08:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  My whole point has been that we don't have the numbers to do an analysis that might be called scientific.

It has been done. The NIST report was exactly that. You reject the answer over trivial reasons that have little to no relevance, not because you actually have the expertise to question the results, but because you are deluded and determined to cling to your delusions.

(14-08-2015 08:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  So why don't people who claim the towers could collapse want it?

Because no one cares to spend the time, money, and effort attempting to appease a handful of obsessed, uneducated laymen who wouldn't accept the result anyway.

"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
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 08:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 08:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 07:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I was about to bump this thread to see if psycho had made any progress. Give us your numbers brother.

Numbers about what? My whole point has been that we don't have the numbers to do an analysis that might be called scientific.

The fuck you waiting for. Go out and find them and report back.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 08:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because no one cares to spend the time, money, and effort attempting to appease a handful of obsessed, uneducated laymen who wouldn't accept the result anyway.

BINGO!

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
14-08-2015, 11:21 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 08:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Where is there data on the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core? .....
psik

Wait? What "Cross beams"?

Weren't the floors connected directly to the supporting inner and outer steel structural tubes of the buildings?

The walls of steel were the things 'hold the building up'. Hence why all the replies are "The fuel filled fire weakened the steel in a localized area and the towers came down."

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(14-08-2015 11:21 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Where is there data on the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core? .....
psik

Wait? What "Cross beams"?

Weren't the floors connected directly to the supporting inner and outer steel structural tubes of the buildings?

I said, "IN THE CORE"! You are talking about OUTSIDE THE CORE to the Perimeter.

JEEZ!!!

Look at the video from Purdue.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: