an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jul 2, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    your attitude is showing......

    There is a HUGE problem here, the propaganda machine
    has been on a roll 24/7 for the past 12 + years and its going
    to be very difficult to get anybody to commit to anything that
    contradicts the official story.

    We still have bits, after all this time that are the subject of
    debate instead of having been put to rest by good science
    and proper investigation.

    My take on the whole fiasco is the perpetrators
    wanted to create a situation where divided factions
    would be battling each other, rather than uniting
    and having the real perpetrators busted.

    Divide & Conquer ......

    what?
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    because the amount of concrete is irrelevant
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WHY is it to be considered "irrelevant" ?
    its evidence!
     
  4. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh yeah, the steel had to support all of the weight which included the concrete so the designers had to decide how much steel to put on every level. So the amount of concrete on each level didn't matter.

    Brilliant!

    This is why 9/11 is such a joke. People claiming to be intelligent can ignore the obvious that 7th graders should have known in 2002.

    They could not even have done the cost estimates on the building before construction without knowing the amount of concrete.

    psik
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The concrete wasn't a real factor in the structure of the towers,all it was meant to be is work space free of obstruction


    The amount of concrete therefore is irrelevant,and is just one more truther red herring.
     
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The fact that the steel had to be distributed properly to support the weight of that concrete must be irrelevant also.

    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 1st level had to support?
    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 10th level had to support?
    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 30th level had to support?
    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 70th level had to support?
    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 90th level had to support?
    What what the weight of concrete that the steel on the 110th level had to support?

    If the weight of concrete affected the distribution of steel it had to be relevant.

    And then there is the matter of the Conservation of Momentum in any supposed collapse.

    I guess some people think they can order other people to be more stupid than themselves.

    Was the steel part of the STRUCTURE of the towers?

    psik
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Each floor was the same 10Cm of lightweight 60% concrete and rebar on a corrugated floor plan,placed on trusses,and resting on hangers welded to the outside wall and interior columns fastened by 5/8 bolts

    And the conservation of momentum hardly applies in a gravity fed collapse

    (insult ignored)
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please support that with facts.
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It was 84 floors and that was only what was outside of the core.

    I insulted somebody? I was just stating facts.

    The weight totals up down the building and the increasing weight of steel adds to the total.

    The NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches horizontally at the 70th floor due to the plane's impact. The Conservation of Momentum is not just about the collapse.

    psik
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please point out what isn't factual?
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You claimed the conservation of momentum was about the collapse,not the impact....
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    each time a physical object in motion contacts
    another physical object at rest, there is conservation
    of momentum to consider. The "collapse" is no exception.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ONLY if it srikes it head on,conservation of momentum had D*** to do with the collapse,since gravity was involved
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and this is because you say so?
    or is there some documented source that you can cite
    that demonstrates an exception for events that are
    gravity driven?

    and so "ONLY if it srikes it head on"
    indicates that non-head on collisions
    do not involve Conservation of Momentum?
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Use your common sense..that's the only source you need

    And no,they don't
     
  16. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Conservation of Momentum is about mass hitting mass. I did not say it was not about the impact.

    It does not turn on and off on the basis of what hits what from which direction. It is not my fault if your mind cannot encompass the event in its entirety.

    Are you saying mass did not hit mass when the aircraft hit the south tower? Even the NIST admitted that they needed to know the distribution of weight to analyse the result of the aircraft impact. I made a video about it SIX YEARS ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

    psik
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See post 91 in this thread.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Please explain how the Conservation of Momentum law applies to one complex structure impacting another complex and how it can be used to determine the outcome of such an impact?

    I'll wait here.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So throw a baseball (small mass) at a house (HUGE MASS) and hit a window. According to you and your interpretation, the WHOLE HOUSE should resist the baseball right?
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    SO your using a paper, Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-5D), to show that they could not determine if a jet could penetrate the facade?

    :roll:
     
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Read the NIST report.

    NIST NCSTAR 1-2
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
    Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of
    the World Trade Center Towers
    pdf page 143
    psik
     
  22. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Provide a link to where I ever said anything about a jet penetrating the facade.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That analogy is too moronic to respond to.

    psik
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's implied psikeyhackr. Don't you understand that? Do you get that the amount of sway will be different depending on if the jet penetrates the facade or not?



    Then explain how you use Conservation of Momentum to predict the outcome of an impact between two complex masses. You're claiming it's moronic does nothing for your explanation.
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah? And?

    Are you suggesting that since the buildings responded well to the initial impact force that they should have remained standing?
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LMAO!

    You BOUNCED something off your "tower facade" and expect that to simulate how the actual towers were supposed to react to an impact?!

    AHAHAHAHAH!!!!
     

Share This Page