What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Why no comment ANOK after all you said no pancaked floors?

Because that is not what I'm talking about. I said IF the collapse happened as you claim the collapse would have arrested before it was complete. There would be stacks of complete floors in the footprint, and intact core columns, not stacks of crushed wafer thin floors. Where did the core go? Did it all step over the crushed floors to end up outside the footprint?

As I've said many times the collapse should not have even started, let alone been complete. There is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse to both break connections, and crush floors beyond recognition. The towers collapses should not have been complete due to loss of Ke due to deformation, friction, sound, heat etc. You keep ignoring Newtons 3rd law and conservation of momentum as usual.

So floors crushed to that extent is an even bigger problem for the OS to explain.

When are you going to demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Because with out that stacks of floors is irrelevant.

When are you going to address the contradictions of the connections being stronger than core columns during the "pull in"?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah, holding up skyscrapers is irrelevant.

dismiss information that does not support your position.

Where is a video that shows these connections breaking? How can they be seen from outside of the building?

psik

edit on 1-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

Are you trolling or something? They are meant to hold themselves up while the floors above are not FALLING. Does that even register in your brain?

Falling is different than stationary.

As for the connections breaking, since you can see the debris passing through the floor, I think it's pretty damn simple to deduce that the connection broke, unless you mean to suggest that the connections either weren't there at all, or somehow got blown out the millisecond that the falling floors hit them.

I don't even understand how you're putting this together, logically. It's like talking to a different species.

Originally posted by ANOK
When are you going to demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Because with out that stacks of floors is irrelevant.

Any suggested mediums for "demonstrating" this? You keep saying you want a demonstration, but you never explain what type you'll even accept as proof.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah, holding up skyscrapers is irrelevant.

dismiss information that does not support your position.

Where is a video that shows these connections breaking? How can they be seen from outside of the building?

psik

edit on 1-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

Are you trolling or something? They are meant to hold themselves up while the floors above are not FALLING. Does that even register in your brain?.

We are getting back to that FLOORS versus LEVELS again.

Are you talking about the FLOORS outside the core that are held up by being attached to the core and perimeter.

When you talk about the top 14 stories falling are you saying the weight from the core is falling on the FLOORS outside the core?

That LEVELS versus FLOORS distinction is important. The building is held up by the LEVELS not the FLOORS. But then some people want that confusion maintained.

psik

I did a little checking and calculating.

One of my washers weighs almost exactly TEN TIMES as much as that little bag of rice. And then people complain about scaling problems with my model.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We are getting back to that FLOORS versus LEVELS again.

Are you talking about the FLOORS outside the core that are held up by being attached to the core and perimeter.

When you talk about the top 14 stories falling are you saying the weight from the core is falling on the FLOORS outside the core?

That LEVELS versus FLOORS distinction is important. The building is held up by the LEVELS not the FLOORS. But then some people want that confusion maintained.

psik

The weight of the core with the floors above the impact zone was part of the falling mass, while the majority of the falling added weight after that was the floors outside the core, as evidenced by the standing core columns after the collapse completed.

That's what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We are getting back to that FLOORS versus LEVELS again.

Are you talking about the FLOORS outside the core that are held up by being attached to the core and perimeter.

When you talk about the top 14 stories falling are you saying the weight from the core is falling on the FLOORS outside the core?

That LEVELS versus FLOORS distinction is important. The building is held up by the LEVELS not the FLOORS. But then some people want that confusion maintained.

psik

The weight of the core with the floors above the impact zone was part of the falling mass, while the majority of the falling added weight after that was the floors outside the core, as evidenced by the standing core columns after the collapse completed.

That's what I'm talking about.

But that mass had to come down on the stationary core below.

How could it do otherwise?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But that mass had to come down on the stationary core below.

How could it do otherwise?

psik

It wasn't a big, unbreakable block, so it most likely broke into pieces around the stationary core, which was much stronger than the surrounding trusses. More than likely, the debris took the path of least resistance and collapsed around the core instead of crushing through it for no reason.

That's why I always contest your model. It is only useful if you think the core columns are crushing against each other, and nothing else. Considering that bolts and welds can bend and break, I don't see why the debris would do that. The truss seats are far weaker, and provide a wide area for the debris to add weight to and break and fall.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But that mass had to come down on the stationary core below.

How could it do otherwise?

psik

It wasn't a big, unbreakable block, so it most likely broke into pieces around the stationary core, which was much stronger than the surrounding trusses. More than likely, the debris took the path of least resistance and collapsed around the core instead of crushing through it for no reason.

That's why I always contest your model. It is only useful if you think the core columns are crushing against each other, and nothing else. Considering that bolts and welds can bend and break, I don't see why the debris would do that. The truss seats are far weaker, and provide a wide area for the debris to add weight to and break and fall.

But everyone knows that the core collapsed first on the north tower because of the fall of the antenna.

s1.zetaboards.com...

psik

Didn't know this, but it seems even FEMA said the antenna fell first...

Review of video tape recordings of the collapse TAKEN FROM VARIOUS ANGLES indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that the collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. PDF page 27.

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But everyone knows that the core collapsed first on the north tower because of the fall of the antenna.

s1.zetaboards.com...

psik

Thanks for avoiding referencing anything else I said. Do you know what happens when the core collapsed at the impact point? (I'm going to try to tell you this like you were 5 years old)

The core material didn't just vanish and then crush down on the other core columns. No, teehee, that would be silly! The bolts and connections bent and broke, collapsing it next to the core columns for the most part. When the trusses started landing on other trusses, the collapse really took off. That's why you can still see the core columns STANDING after the collapse. Will you ever admit that the core survived the collapse?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But everyone knows that the core collapsed first on the north tower because of the fall of the antenna.

s1.zetaboards.com...

psik

Thanks for avoiding referencing anything else I said. Do you know what happens when the core collapsed at the impact point? (I'm going to try to tell you this like you were 5 years old)

The core material didn't just vanish and then crush down on the other core columns. No, teehee, that would be silly! The bolts and connections bent and broke, collapsing it next to the core columns for the most part. When the trusses started landing on other trusses, the collapse really took off. That's why you can still see the core columns STANDING after the collapse. Will you ever admit that the core survived the collapse?

You have this on video? What happened to all of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns?

So you can make stuff up and imply I said things I didn't. I am impressed.

I said the core came down on the core. I did not say columns came down on columns. teehee

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You have this on video? What happened to all of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns?

So you can make stuff up and imply I said things I didn't. I am impressed.

I said the core came down on the core. I did not say columns came down on columns. teehee

psik

You do know where the core is. You know it is in the center of the towers. The debris was not entirely focused on the core. The collapse mainly proliferated from outside the core. The breaking of horizontal beams is merely a result of the weight and energy. The point is that you cannot use a vertical-on-vertical collapse theory, because it is just plain wrong.

I just don't understand your point here. Are you saying that the core will stop the collapse? The majority of the core survived the collapse! It was the trusses that mainly destroyed the tower.

Originally posted by Varemia
The point is that you cannot use a vertical-on-vertical collapse theory

You are the one who made up that bullsh# whatever it means.

psik

reply to post by ANOK


Well what do we have here.



Looks like bits of the core can be seen in picture above again did YOU actually bother to look

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But everyone knows that the core collapsed first on the north tower because of the fall of the antenna.

s1.zetaboards.com...

psik

Well lets see it was HIT mid elevation AND mid core high up were the core steel was thinner so YES!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
The point is that you cannot use a vertical-on-vertical collapse theory

You are the one who made up that bullsh# whatever it means.

psik

You didn't even mention anything I talked about in my post. Why do you even post here if you don't add anything to the discussion?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
The point is that you cannot use a vertical-on-vertical collapse theory

You are the one who made up that bullsh# whatever it means.

psik

You didn't even mention anything I talked about in my post. Why do you even post here if you don't add anything to the discussion?

You talked about BOLTS. Now in all of the time I have paid attention to WTC stuff I have not seen detailed descriptions of the connections between the horizontal beams and the columns in the core and have not seen pictures close up pictures either. I have had people tell me they were welded, but I don't know. You may notice I have never specified how they were connected.

I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW.

So why should I give a damn about your talking about bolts when it is something out of your head. Just like vertical on vertical collapse. You talk nonsense and then expect a response like it was intelligent.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why should I give a damn about your talking about bolts when it is something out of your head. Just like vertical on vertical collapse. You talk nonsense and then expect a response like it was intelligent.

So isn't your model completely pointless, then? If you are complaining that no one even knows the exact construction of the towers, then should we all just give up on debating what happened? You seem to have come to some kind of conclusion, or else you wouldn't constantly be riffing with others on this site.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Because that's obviously how you cover up a conspiracy, by lying. Not much of a secret conspiracy, if they let all the people they set up to see it tell truth. So obviously many of the people who are being reported by the MSM-banker owned media, are actually bought and paid for to just read a script. Example : They wouldn't interview someone who said he saw a missile hit the Pentagon; They'd interview somebody who agreed it was a plane. Not saying "everyone and their grandma is a liar, but you can't get away with it if you allow the truth to be told either. If you compare many 'local' stories across states, you can often find the same people over and over in news interviews..

How did they get away with the JFK conspiracy?

By having a lot of crooked jackasses lie..