‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Huh? Did you not notice that there were a couple of plane crashes there followed by fires? Did you manage to miss that part?

If the structure has failed between those two sections, there is no other possibility.

 

in order for a study to be legitimate you need to ask the proper questions. yours did not, they were worthless.

 

No... it's your demonstration that you are unable to keep up with your own arguments. Don't worry to much about that, though. They were never very good in the first place. You're not missing much by forgetting what they were.

 

Do you have an official damage assessment that I can review or are you just doing a lot of shuck n jive guess work?

Well there is always demolition as a possiblity.

- - - Updated - - -

from what I have seen so far he is talking 10 miles over everyones head, not surprizing no one gets it.

 

never say never, of course I would not say "NO" fires, someone might have used a bic to light a cigarette

 

so you admit there were large fires in the WTC towers.

good to hear.

 

Really.

I am serious.

It must really suck to be you.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Observe the bow in the perimeter columns on the right had side here



Or here:



Or here:

 

well the first pic is after they partly blew the upper section core, with all that weight on the outer skeleton of course you will get a pulling in, its impossible for the floors to pull in the exo wihtout breaking first.

ok so you have one floor thats not even touching the floor below, no danger of that causing a collapse

 

At this point, you're just waving your hands and sputtering. You claimed there were no photographs showing exactly what I provided photographs to show.

Be a mensch. Suck it up.

You said there were no photographs showing that. I proved that there were. And it further proves exactly that what you said should have been happening in a fire actually was happening.

I'm pretty happy with how that worked out.

 

blew the core?

my ass.

the core remained standing for a bit after the outer shell and floors collapsed.

 

Sorry, you do not have the authority to decide what's proper and what isn't in this case. The peer-reviewed, published papers stand. The proper questions were asked and answered. The fact that you didn't read a single one, yet have the nerve to say they didn't ask the proper questions, completely renders your 'study' wrong. It displays the utter ignorance of the truther mindset at face value, and the cowardice of the truther heart. Good show, you just destroyed your own OP.

 

haha

try to shut me up because you came up with one photo that while showing sag does not show anything that will cause the building to collapse. Yeh I suppose if I came out here with something that weak I would want my opponent to shut up too! LOL

Well since there was no fire in your sag pic it would have stopped sagging there now wouldnt it! Hmm more problems you need to deal with.

Me too, you showed the sag theory is trash.

- - - Updated - - -

sure I do, what makes you think I dont? Well the earth was flat theory was peer reviewed too, so what?

no fact was presented to that effect. do you have a fact you wish to present? Oh wait dont present it here, just give me the link and present it in your own thread, thanks

 

Let's not even get wrapped up by your desperate attempt to move the goal posts.

You made a stupid claim. I proved it to be false.

That's pretty much the entire story of that exchange.

 

I said there were not any pics, you found one congratulations, unfortunately for you as far as hugging the official story is concerned you can use it to wipe your ass with as I have shown it could not have contributed to any official collapse theory.

yep the end as far as your argument is concerned.

 

yeh I said UPPER SECTION core not the mid to lower that you have shown

and if you clip all the core columns on that floor so instead of being load bearing they hang in mid air, then I would expect to see what his picture shows.



yep exactly what I would expect to see.

floors heated to the point of failure do not have their original strength and if they cant pull in the sides with all their strength they certainly cant when its reduced by heat.



being bent and being sucked in are 2 different things, the floors would not suck it in as you can see. above the floor would be bent in below the floor would be bent out. we dont see any bent out in his photo. we see a couple floors sucked in.

just another red herring merry go round ride that the debunkers took every one on.



have to pay attention to detail.

 

Hog wash. The floors, once heated beyond parameters, would be unable too push out. The weight of the concrete slabs would pull them down, drawing in.

At the temps we are discussing, the perimeter columns were already no longer able to maintain their rigidity.

You have to pay attention to detail.

 

Hmm.... Interesting.

You dont even comprehend the problem.

better stick to cooking, you really screwed this one.

hope this helps

 

Here is a good read that disputes Chandlers numbers:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm

In a paper called The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti argue that the "jolts" of the impact should be obvious on velocity charts like this one. But, just like Chandler with his 5 samples per second, MacQueen and Szamboti, using just 6 samples per second, have a big "Mr. Magoo" problem. Their time step is so large, they can't possibly see the jolts. By the end of the 4-second fall, the jolts are coming in more often than Chandler's or Szamboti's samples! In the gravitational collapse model (blue curve), the sample resolution of 30 frames per second is enough to see the jolts, one for each impact. While the ideal model model shows jolts clearly, in real life, they will be much harder to observe, because of noise (atmospheric fluctuations, camera shaking, digitization noise), as well as having to take time derivatives of positions to extract velocity and acceleration.



In conclusion, David Chandler's physics underestimates the dynamic impacts by a factor of 100. If the first impact alone were represented by a 100-story skyscraper, Chandler's estimate of that force would be a one-story house. And it gets even worse for subsequent impacts.

The top "9/11 Truth Physicist" severely underestimates the forces of the actual impacts.
The most important calculation of "9/11 Truth Physics" is invalidated by a fundamental error that would earn a typical freshman physics student a failing grade.



But, it's important to realize that David Chandler's careful measurements actually validate the gravitational-collapse model discussed in these pages.

 

Yes. That simple act proves that you do not objectively know what you are talking about. Regularly in these threads, you make assertions that are so blindingly false that it challenges not just your understanding of the issues being discussed, but also your most simple command of the facts.

It proves that a lot of the time when you argue, you are just making up stuff out of thin air.

Since you are so willing to lie about the most basic, simple stuff why do you hallucinate anybody takes you seriously regarding the more complex stuff?

Nonsense. You have shown again and again that you're not competent to draw that conclusion.

You have shown nothing more than that you are credulous sucker with no competence whatsoever in even the most basic concepts of physics or engineering. You are dazzled by fake "experts" who you think are smarter than you are, but you are not even smart enough to be able to actually tell who is smarter than you and who is not.

You are a minor clown trying desperately to climb onto a wagon that you do not realize is being driven by bigger clowns.

You made an objective statement. It was proved false. You are now desperately trying to backpedal away from your demonstrated ignorance.

Its rather fun to watch you squirm so.

 

No. You said nothing about an "UPPER SECTION" core. Your paper trail remains. So you certainly must realize that a lie like that is pointless.

But lets go back to this new lie... that you said upper section. Anybody with any experience in controlled demolition would have spit out their dentures when they heard it. It is another of the idiotic, contradictory truther ad hoc add-ons that make the whole demolition theory so idiotic as to flirt with brain death.

How pray tell would 1) the conspirators manage to set those "upper core" charges at precisely the floor levels where the planes would later strike, and 2) since a demolitions infrastructure is a complex, sensitive system how would it have possible even survived the impacts and still be able to function?

If it wasn't for complete ignorance, truthers would have nothing going for them at all.

You have repeatedly proven that you are not competent to have any expectations that anybody should take seriously.

Another demonstration of engineering ignorance so profound as to induce hoots of laughter. Undeformed floor structures do not "pull in the sides" at all, doofus. They do the exact opposite.

A sagging floor cannot push out the perimeter columns below, they can only pull in the ones they have contact with. This is both elemental engineering and simple geometry.

We can now add another field of mathematics to the other fields in which you demonstrate clueless buffoonery.

 

Standard operating procedure to debunk the truth is ridicule. Nice teamwork Ronstar.

- - - Updated - - -

For real. That is what she believes.

 

Someday, a truther will post an insult that is not ironic, and I will throw a party. With hats and party favors.

 

Absolutely. He has no idea what he is talking about and he posts over and over again. It's comedy gold.

 

Let's look again at another example of how you just makes stuff up out of whole cloth and then pretend like its true.

Ignoring that none of the three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were "simultaneous global symmetrical" failures, notice that rather than "milliseconds" there are at least three seconds (more than 3,000 milliseconds) between the first and last demolition blast in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Notice that there are more than ten seconds between them in this one (that's more than 10,000 milliseconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

There are more than nine seconds (more that 9,000 milliseconds) between the first explosion and the commencement of collapse (which requires another round of explosions) in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

As usual, you are just pulling fake "facts" out of your rectum and pretending they support your literally insane theory of controlled demolitions, when anybody who takes 30 seconds to google what an actual controlled demolition looks and sounds like can prove that you have no idea what the hell you are even talking about. There has never been a controlled demolition in the history of the planet that has required anything to happen "within a couple of milliseconds." And this is a good thing since anyone who also has experience with demolitions systems can tell you such perfect timing is impossible.

Be honest with us; You're a shoe salesman IRL, Right?

 

And the judge's scores are in for that post:

Substance: 0

Yawns: 8