9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 02:34 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Each level of a skyscraper needing to support all of the weight above is not a difficult concept. So not having data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level is what is so absurd after 14 years. The "experts" can't talk about the obvious. Not even Richard Gage.

psik


And no matter how many times you repeat that it is still wrong. Your fundamental problem is that you do not understand physics or architecture and have drawn wildly wrong conclusions because of that. Skyscrapers are built on a frame each level is hung from that frame they do not support anything but the weight on that floor.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
21-08-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 02:34 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 01:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, but where did I claim what as BS?

If you want to spend your time and energy on this, you go right ahead. I think it is a colossal waste of time.
You could turn your hand to something useful and productive.

I meant that your claiming that the information is "out there" is BS.

Each level of a skyscraper needing to support all of the weight above is not a difficult concept.

Not difficult, just incorrect. You don't understand the structure.

Quote:So not having data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level is what is so absurd after 14 years. The "experts" can't talk about the obvious. Not even Richard Gage.

psik

The precise amount is unimportant.

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
21-08-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 02:34 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  ....... Each level of a skyscraper needing to support all of the weight above is not a difficult concept.........

psik

You've been told that this is wrong before... possibly multiple times here.

Heck, here's a link with video again showing that you're wrong.





So.. now that it has been shown that your premise is wrong. Will you be revising your hypothesis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
22-08-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 02:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 02:34 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Each level of a skyscraper needing to support all of the weight above is not a difficult concept. So not having data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level is what is so absurd after 14 years. The "experts" can't talk about the obvious. Not even Richard Gage.

psik


And no matter how many times you repeat that it is still wrong. Your fundamental problem is that you do not understand physics or architecture and have drawn wildly wrong conclusions because of that. Skyscrapers are built on a frame each level is hung from that frame they do not support anything but the weight on that floor.

And you are trying to play semantic games. The frame as you call it was just as much part of THAT LEVEL as the glass that was not supporting any weight. How much steel was in the frame on the 5th level versus how much on the 105th level?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(21-08-2015 03:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  The precise amount is unimportant.

Oh right, the Potential Energy and Conservation of Momentum aren't important.

Don't both of those have something to do with mass? DUH

Like I said, You just CLAIM things and they must be true because you said them.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-08-2015 07:37 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 02:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And no matter how many times you repeat that it is still wrong. Your fundamental problem is that you do not understand physics or architecture and have drawn wildly wrong conclusions because of that. Skyscrapers are built on a frame each level is hung from that frame they do not support anything but the weight on that floor.

And you are trying to play semantic games. The frame as you call it was just as much part of THAT LEVEL as the glass that was not supporting any weight. How much steel was in the frame on the 5th level versus how much on the 105th level?

psik

You are an idiot, this has been explained many many times including a video just posted. You are so invested in your conspiracy you continue to deny reality. Why is that? What does it matter? There was a conspiracy on 9/11/2001 it was 13 Al qaeda agents conspiring to bring down an iconic building in NY that they had targeted before and failed to destroy as well as the pentagon and the white house.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-08-2015 07:40 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 03:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  The precise amount is unimportant.

Oh right, the Potential Energy and Conservation of Momentum aren't important.

Don't both of those have something to do with mass? DUH

Like I said, You just CLAIM things and they must be true because you said them.

psik

Do you even English? "The precise amount is unimportant." We have good enough data.

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
22-08-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
71 pages of bullshit and counting.

Impressive.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-08-2015 07:49 PM)Free Wrote:  71 pages of bullshit and counting.

Impressive.

Drinking Beverage

Not that impressive.

"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
23-08-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-08-2015 10:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do you even English? "The precise amount is unimportant." We have good enough data.

What is PRECISE? How big an error?

Your usual tactic of just CLAIMING things.

An article from 1970 says that the heaviest perimeter panel was 22 tons. But Gregory Urich used a linear interpolation of the panels and had to use 19 tons at the bottom because 22 tons gave a negative result at the top. This means that the distribution was probably not linear.

So Urich has a 15% error on his spreadsheet of WTC data. So what is your evidence for sufficient precision?

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich...PeWtc1.htm

Quote:In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guar...record.htm

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