9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 08:02 PM by Banjo.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-08-2015 07:36 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 05:43 PM)Banjo Wrote:  understand what it is you want from us. Surely that is not too much to ask?

Who said I wanted anything from you?

Maybe I only care about the passing lurkers who might have some brains.

14 years and no engineering school has done any experimentation to resolve this issue??? Maybe some bright 14 year old that wanders by might find that peculiar.

Like doesn't the bottom of a skyscraper have to be strong enough to support more weight than the top. But experts can't discuss the tons of steel on each and every level.

Like since I provided a link specifying the CoG of the CN Tower in this thread none of the brilliant individuals here have said anything about it.

psik


I shall rephrase. My brain is slow today.

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
16-08-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Seeing as most of us have read the NIST and other reports and after 66 pages, why do you continue to argue, without presenting sufficient evidence to support your case, with a bunch of atheists on an atheist website?

I am NOT trying to make fun of you. Nor am I trying to insult you. I am simply curious.

Also, why do you want to influence 14 year old children?

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
16-08-2015, 10:44 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-08-2015 07:36 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Maybe I only care about the passing lurkers who might have some brains.

Actually, I think that you are doing quite well on that front. I applaud you in your ability to present an accurate view of the 9/11 truth movement to those who have never been exposed to it before.

(16-08-2015 07:36 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  14 years and no engineering school has done any experimentation to resolve this issue???

The issue was resolved the moment that thousands of eyewitnesses saw the planes impact the World Trade Center towers.

It was then further resolved when terrorists took credit for the act, and still further resolved when the NIST report told everyone that, yes, if you hit a building hard enough and then set it on fire, it is quite likely to fall down.

Nothing any of the "truth movement" members has ever done has cast even the slightest doubt on that conclusion. All they do - all they can do, and all they have ever done - is to quibble with irrelevant details, demonstrate that they understand nothing of engineering or physics, and screech that, because no one cares to satisfy their immature, paranoid demands for evidence that has already been provided, it must be a conspiracy.

No one cares to investigate the events of September 11th any longer because the conclusion has already been made and the proof furnished. The world has moved on.

No one cares about your denialism.

(16-08-2015 07:36 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Like doesn't the bottom of a skyscraper have to be strong enough to support more weight than the top.

A glass table can support quite a heavy brick, but if you pick up the brick and throw it downwards, the table will shatter.

Honestly, this is an elementary-level physics problem.

"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
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-08-2015, 10:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Good ol' Psikey. Don't you think if you were at all competent, if you *had* exposed a grand conspiracy, that the same immoral people who cared not a fig for the lives of thousands of people in the towers would be paying you a visit?

Or maybe the fact that you are so laughable is what's keeping you alive? Consider

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
17-08-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-08-2015 08:01 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Seeing as most of us have read the NIST

Oh really? You read all of 10,000 pages?

I didn't. I downloaded it and burned it to DVD. I then did hundreds of searches for various terms.

They use the term "Center of Mass".

They use the term "Center of Gravity".

The total use is less then 50. Whenever they say "Center of Mass" they are talking about the aircraft. Whenever they say "Center of Gravity" they are talking about some computer simulated component of the building. They never use those terms about the entire building or the tilted top portion of the south tower.

I searched for "concrete".

They use that more than 3,000 times. I read every sentence with that word. Fortunately it usually occurred lots of time in paragraphs. They never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

I searched for "steel".

In three place they specify a total of "roughly 200,000 tons".

Why a total for steel and not concrete?

Did you notice that in your READING?

And then I can't find centers of mass and gravity used about any specific skyscraper on the Internet.

But in three places the NIST admitted that they needed to know the weight on each level to analyse the buildings' motion due to the aircraft impacts but then they never provide that data. But without it the Potential Energy of the towers cannot be accurately computed.

Another funny thing that turns up doing searches is that the same sentences and even entire paragraphs turn up again and again like it is a fluffy snow job to impress people that are not going to read it.

But with all of that you expect me to BELIEVE you read the entire NIST NCSTAR1 report. If the planes could cause the collapses they should be able to explain it in fewer than 200 pages. Who has done that?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 07:06 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 06:48 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The total use is less then 50. Whenever they say "Center of Mass" they are talking about the aircraft. Whenever they say "Center of Gravity" they are talking about some computer simulated component of the building. They never use those terms about the entire building or the tilted top portion of the south tower.

Do you understand that it could have rotated about its center of gravity?
Do you understand that with this small 'tilt', the center of gravity would have remained not only within the footprint of the building, but very close to the center?

Quote:I searched for "concrete".

They use that more than 3,000 times. I read every sentence with that word. Fortunately it usually occurred lots of time in paragraphs. They never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

I searched for "steel".

In three place they specify a total of "roughly 200,000 tons".

Why a total for steel and not concrete?

Did you notice that in your READING?

And then I can't find centers of mass and gravity used about any specific skyscraper on the Internet.

But in three places the NIST admitted that they needed to know the weight on each level to analyse the buildings' motion due to the aircraft impacts but then they never provide that data. But without it the Potential Energy of the towers cannot be accurately computed.

Another funny thing that turns up doing searches is that the same sentences and even entire paragraphs turn up again and again like it is a fluffy snow job to impress people that are not going to read it.

But with all of that you expect me to BELIEVE you read the entire NIST NCSTAR1 report. If the planes could cause the collapses they should be able to explain it in fewer than 200 pages. Who has done that?

psik

So, instead of actually understanding the report in its entirety, you cherry pick random terms and fabricate a conspiracy. Consider
How very compelling. 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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-08-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 07:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  How very compelling. Drinking Beverage

He knows the TRUTH! He is IMPORTANT! Rolleyes

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
17-08-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 07:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do you understand that it could have rotated about its center of gravity?
Do you understand that with this small 'tilt', the center of gravity would have remained not only within the footprint of the building, but very close to the center?

Do you understand ANYTHING?

"small 'tilt'" The NIST says it was 20 to 25 degrees. With every concrete floor slab weighing 600 tons How is that a SMALL TILT? AND THAT ISN'T COUNTING ALL OF THE STEEL.

What do you mean COULD HAVE? Don't you think that should have been resolved by now?

This is from 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

The issue is the OFFICIAL EXPERTS who should have done this long before NOW, haven't done it. But you think you sound intelligent with "it could have rotated about its center of gravity". But you don't know where that was and haven't asked, so you are just making up crap.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 08:06 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 07:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do you understand that it could have rotated about its center of gravity?
Do you understand that with this small 'tilt', the center of gravity would have remained not only within the footprint of the building, but very close to the center?

Do you understand ANYTHING?

"small 'tilt'" The NIST says it was 20 to 25 degrees. With every concrete floor slab weighing 600 tons How is that a SMALL TILT? AND THAT ISN'T COUNTING ALL OF THE STEEL.

What do you mean COULD HAVE? Don't you think that should have been resolved by now?

This is from 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

The issue is the OFFICIAL EXPERTS who should have done this long before NOW, haven't done it. But you think you sound intelligent with "it could have rotated about its center of gravity". But you don't know where that was and haven't asked, so you are just making up crap.

psik

[Image: 1665]

When are you going to tell us what your actual fucking point is?

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
17-08-2015, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 08:23 AM by psikeyhackr.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-08-2015 07:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  He knows the TRUTH! He is IMPORTANT! Rolleyes

I have noticed that morons confuse their egos with their intellects.

But shouldn't experiments narrow down the TRUTH pretty precisely?

So what experiments have you been suggesting?

[18,734]
psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: