Towers Of Lies

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Then why do you keep using it in your arguments? You make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I am not in the least bit surprised. People who expect PROOF are really dumb. Reality is not like mathematics. Why do so many innocent people end up in prison? Too many people can't think.

Why hasn't any engineering schools built a physical model that can completely collapse? Wouldn't that be PROOF? What school has announced they would do it? Of course if they tried and failed...

That still would not be PROOF. How do you PROVE a negative? How do you PROVE what could not happen? Especially when experts don't even demand accurate data on the structure. When has Richard Gage mentioned needing accurate data on the buildings? There is not supposed to be PROOF. People are supposed to just BELIEVE. It's the 9/11 RELIGION.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Too many people can't think.

Is the problem that too many people don't think (whatever that means) or is the problem that you have yet to find one other human being that agrees with you and are just trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion that you are wrong about everything?

Really, you've been posting the same nonsense "no accurate data", "no models", everyone with a degree in physics is stupid and you know better than everyone else.

Just for fun, did you ever put that concrete and steel data from that guy in Denmark or Sweden or wherever he was from into your "python" program and prove the plane didn't hit the building, or the building wasn't there or whatever it is that your trying to prove?

By the way, what are you trying to prove?

I hope those skeptics have a nice sound system hooked up for this real demolition of a skyscraper roughly less than a third of the mass of one twin tower. IMO it is so loud it cannot be confused with falling steel girders, in fact you can't even hear the building itself collapse in this recording hardly. Gives one a little comparison control group.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would...

Nice claim but a straight pin is far stronger than my paper loop.

psik

Notice that you didn't address the issue. for one thing, there shouldn't be any question that a column, or "straight pin", as you call it,, could be designed that failed under the same loading as your paper loop. So it's not right to say that a straight pin is stronger than a paper loop categorically. It depends upon the pin.

But nevermind. The point is not what construction is stronger, but whether the failure mode of the paper loops is a critical flaw in the design of your model... When a column fails in buckling, it very quickly provides almost no resistance at all to further deformation. Your paper loops, however, continue to provide almost the same resistance throughought the distance of their deformation. All of this is absorbing the kinetic energy of the falling bit more than it could in a buckling failure mode.

Try building the model again with tall thin supports instead of short, fat ones, and there should be a big difference.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would...

Nice claim but a straight pin is far stronger than my paper loop.

psik

Notice that you didn't address the issue. for one thing, there shouldn't be any question that a column, or "straight pin", as you call it,, could be designed that failed under the same loading as your paper loop. So it's not right to say that a straight pin is stronger than a paper loop categorically. It depends upon the pin.

But all you can do is claim that the buckling difference would matter in a test versus my paper loops. You have NO EVIDENCE. But buildings are not constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

Build another WTC tower, is the short answer. I'm almost compelled to back track this thread progression to note flaws. You don't want that.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Then why do you keep using it in your arguments? You make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I am not in the least bit surprised. People who expect PROOF are really dumb. Reality is not like mathematics. Why do so many innocent people end up in prison? Too many people can't think.

Why hasn't any engineering schools built a physical model that can completely collapse? Wouldn't that be PROOF?

What school has announced they would do it? Of course if they tried and failed...

That still would not be PROOF. How do you PROVE a negative? How do you PROVE what could not happen? Especially when experts don't even demand accurate data on the structure. When has Richard Gage mentioned needing accurate data on the buildings? There is not supposed to be PROOF. People are supposed to just BELIEVE. It's the 9/11 RELIGION.

psik

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you keep using your model in your arguments if it proves nothing?

reply to post by Illustronic


You dont seem to understand physics.

If an eight story building is hammered by rubble , torn apart by the sheer force of concrete and steel smashing through concrete and steel a high speed , and the building does not collapse.

How can a 47 story building be hit by VERY LITTLE rubble , and collapse into its own footprint at near free fall speed..... ?

Are you even thinking about this ?

I mean , its not like some really crazy top secret agencies were based in those buildings or anything .... is it ?

..... and no , i must not have been looking hard enough , can you please provide me with the footage which shows extensive damage from the debri , compromising the structural integrity of tower 7 ?

I think the whole world would like to see that footage.

reply to post by RockLobster


Honestly, it depends on your definition of "very little" debris. The firefighters reported as much as a 20 story gash/chunk taken out of the building. That doesn't sound superficial to me, but maybe I'm just the odd-one-out here.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by RockLobster

 

Honestly, it depends on your definition of "very little" debris. The firefighters reported as much as a 20 story gash/chunk taken out of the building. That doesn't sound superficial to me, but maybe I'm just the odd-one-out here.

But there`s no footage of anything like that -V- , there was alot of people there on that horrifying day , and most of them took pictures and video footage of the aftermath , now i`m sorry but i dont beleive anyone would have missed a 20 story gash in tower 7.

That being said , i might be wrong , and i`d love to be wrong , i would love to get to the bottom of it all and find out that Bin Laden WAS behind "9/11" , and that S.S 6 DID kill Bin Laden , i would love to be wrong..... But i doubt i am , as you doubt you are , so i suppose neither yourself and i , or anyone else who is fighting from oppisite corners on this subject , will ever agree on the same theory.

The problem with the disasters that occured on September 11th 2001 , is the sheer ignorance and blatant lies that are being thrown around by the government and anyone else involved. And all we want from them is a full investigation , they spent more on investigating Clinton than they did the "911" attacks.

I also beleive that everyone saying "911" is evidence of constant brainwashing. But i`d love to be wrong

reply to post by RockLobster


Brainwashing isn't producing this smoke:



Brainwashing didn't make this hole in the building:



By my reckoning, you're the brainwashed one here.

reply to post by Varemia


What i mean is ...... "9/11" is what people say when they are talking about one of the most horrific attacks in our lifetime , i dont beleive this is normal , here in England we dont say "7/7" infact we rarely talk about it.

The pictures you provided were proof of what exactly ? proof it happened

I`d like to point out that i am not saying you are brainwashed , i am saying that the constant use of the saying >"9/11"< is alarming in its self..... because to me , it seems rather odd to hang a little tag on such a disaster.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

What i mean is ...... "9/11" is what people say when they are talking about one of the most horrific attacks in our lifetime , i dont beleive this is normal , here in England we dont say "7/7" infact we rarely talk about it.

The pictures you provided were proof of what exactly ? proof it happened

I`d like to point out that i am not saying you are brainwashed , i am saying that the constant use of the saying >"9/11"< is alarming in its self..... because to me , it seems rather odd to hang a little tag on such a disaster.

I didn't even use "9/11" in my last post, and if I did, it wouldn't have made a difference, because the pictures speak for themselves. Wish I could find one I had in my archives a year or so ago. It had a ground level perspective of Building 7 before it was completely engrossed with smoke.

Anyway, if you refuse to see what's in the pictures, the first one shows the extent of the fire in the building, and subsequently, it outlines a bit where the damage was. The second one shows a veritable chunk taken out of the corner. Maybe that's a very small amount of debris damage to you, but to me it's proof that the building was damaged fairly severely by the debris. Each of those double-windows is about as wide as a car, don't you know?

reply to post by Varemia


So , please explain to me how that much damage can make the building fall as it did ?
Because from what I understand , that was not enough to bring down the whole tower in one go.

And before you ask me to explain how that much damage could not have made the building fall as it did , i`m asking you first

And i did not bring up "9/11" to have a pop at you, as i have already said , i`m just saying what i beleive ..... just putting it out there.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

So , please explain to me how that much damage can make the building fall as it did ?
Because from what I understand , that was not enough to bring down the whole tower in one go.

And before you ask me to explain how that much damage could not have made the building fall as it did , i`m asking you first

And i did not bring up "9/11" to have a pop at you, as i have already said , i`m just saying what i beleive ..... just putting it out there.

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Your fatal flaw was when you made the statement, "from what I understand, that was not enough to bring down the whole tower in one go." You made a declaration, so you must back up that declaration with some kind of evidence, you know, facts or something.

So, gonna serve 'em up, or are you just going to keep saying "There was almost no damage! ... uh... There wasn't enough damage! ... uh... The damage wouldn't make the building fall like that!"

You're just making excuse after excuse with no sauce. Where's the meat of your argument? I'm tired of the claims.

reply to post by Varemia


i knew you would say something like that , i think i`ll put the lottery on and bet on a couple of horses.

Hey , just out of curiosity , have you studied the blueprints of tower 7 ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

i knew you would say something like that , i think i`ll put the lottery on and bet on a couple of horses.

Hey , just out of curiosity , have you studied the blueprints of tower 7 ?

Not extensively, no. Perhaps if I decide to try out architecture I'll give it a go-over, but that's not really related to the topic at hand.

reply to post by Varemia


So you dont even need to know how it was built for you to know weather or not the damage was enough to compromise the structural integrity ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

So you dont even need to know how it was built for you to know weather or not the damage was enough to compromise the structural integrity ?

Do you? Just curious, because you seem to be making the opposite assumption that I am. The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic.

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Cassius666
I think it has to do with the angle. if you are about level with the floors you can see the empty office spaces, if you look at the bottom and top part of the buildings, then the floors do not allowy you anymore to see through the building.

So many 'benefit of the doubts' asked for when it comes to 9/11.
Have you seen the other photographs from the link I posted earlier?

Have you seen this thread?
letsrollforums.com...

Anyone seriously looking into 9/11 should have already come across this information.

But many have been sent to deceive.

rip anok.

(My mistake for giving the date of the photo in the OP as 1978 and not 1972
-but no floors then=no floors later, something the link above goes a long way
towards confirming.)

9/11 was faked.

Hi.

I was reading from link and was thinking (original conspiracy) that the towers were supposed to come down in '93---???

because there would have been less corpses'...???

But since the towers didn't crumble then, might as well move-in a bunch of fictitious 'benefactors' for 01'???

That's not out of normal is it?

It's all a crazy mess by design