86 of 91
86
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 17 February 2014 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1276 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
CuthbertJ - 16 February 2014 08:09 PM

Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom.

We could just as easily PRETEND that one of the perps came out and exposed the scheme.

Talking on the basis of pretend crap is silly.

Deal with the physics!  Or is that too hard?

psik

[ Edited: 17 February 2014 10:42 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1277 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
CuthbertJ - 16 February 2014 08:09 PM

You guys are still at it. But let me ask both sides something. Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom. Their results surface tomorrow and they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no explosives planted in the buildings, nothing other than normal buildings. And therefore the results prove there was no foul play. The crash of the two planes are the cause.

My question is, so what? Do you honestly think everything about 911 being an inside job, or possibly being allowed to occur, boils down to the collapse of the twin towers? Everything else is irrelevant?

I think there are serious question still unanswered around why the response to the genuine Al qaeda threat was so ineffective and the legality and morality of the subsequent actions of the Bush administration in violating Constitutional rights of American citizens and initiating an aggressive war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and probably presented very little actual threat to Americans.

One of the problems created by the “Loose Change” movement is it tends to discredit those who would like the genuine questions answered. The debate gets taken down roads that dead end in a fog of meaningless questions like, “How much did the airliners deflect the towers” and “How could WTC 7 collapse when it wasn’t really damaged and no other skyscraper has collapsed due to fire damage.”

In the case of WTC 7 it took significant damage on its south face from high speed debris from the collapse of the northern tower that fire fighters described as being about a third of the length of the building in extent and up to 25% the depth. Plus the documented fires that burned in the building for hours. The claims are that the building fell with no warning, but in actuality fire fighters had noticed bulging in the building structure plus creaking sounds and evacuated the area about an hour before it collapsed…and yet it’s still a major talking point on the issue and makes it hard to get answers to legitimate questions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1278 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 17 February 2014 12:07 PM

fog of meaningless questions like, “How much did the airliners deflect the towers”

That question was never asked.

I TOLD you how much it was.

Some people are just to dumb to comprehend the relevance of the physics.

Oh yeah, sky scrapers have to be designed to cope with the shear force of the wind so an airliner is just another shear force.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 10:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1279 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  730
Joined  2012-04-25
psikeyhackr - 17 February 2014 07:33 AM
CuthbertJ - 16 February 2014 08:09 PM

Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom.

We could just as easily PRETEND that one of the perps came out and exposed the scheme.

Talking on the basis of pretend crap is silly.

Deal with the physics!  Or is that too hard?

psik

Dude, if you can’t even figure out how to answer my question seriously, realizing the pretend part was just an analogy, then you shouldn’t be participating in discussions of physics or engineering, or this topic at all. Wow. 

Here I’ll leave out all the fancy pretending: do you honestly think the entire controversy surrounding 911 boils down to what happened to the twin towers? Or flip it around: do you believe that if you personally completely proved your point about the twin towers beyond a shadow of a doubt, that then the entire 911 controversy would go away and could be considered solved?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1280 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  730
Joined  2012-04-25
Fuzzy Logic - 17 February 2014 12:07 PM
CuthbertJ - 16 February 2014 08:09 PM

You guys are still at it. But let me ask both sides something. Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom. Their results surface tomorrow and they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no explosives planted in the buildings, nothing other than normal buildings. And therefore the results prove there was no foul play. The crash of the two planes are the cause.

My question is, so what? Do you honestly think everything about 911 being an inside job, or possibly being allowed to occur, boils down to the collapse of the twin towers? Everything else is irrelevant?

I think there are serious question still unanswered around why the response to the genuine Al qaeda threat was so ineffective and the legality and morality of the subsequent actions of the Bush administration in violating Constitutional rights of American citizens and initiating an aggressive war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and probably presented very little actual threat to Americans.

One of the problems created by the “Loose Change” movement is it tends to discredit those who would like the genuine questions answered. The debate gets taken down roads that dead end in a fog of meaningless questions like, “How much did the airliners deflect the towers” and “How could WTC 7 collapse when it wasn’t really damaged and no other skyscraper has collapsed due to fire damage.”

In the case of WTC 7 it took significant damage on its south face from high speed debris from the collapse of the northern tower that fire fighters described as being about a third of the length of the building in extent and up to 25% the depth. Plus the documented fires that burned in the building for hours. The claims are that the building fell with no warning, but in actuality fire fighters had noticed bulging in the building structure plus creaking sounds and evacuated the area about an hour before it collapsed…and yet it’s still a major talking point on the issue and makes it hard to get answers to legitimate questions.

Thank you for answering the question honestly. You win. psihackey guy loses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1281 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
CuthbertJ - 18 February 2014 10:57 AM
psikeyhackr - 17 February 2014 07:33 AM
CuthbertJ - 16 February 2014 08:09 PM

Let’s pretend a company had come in weeks before 911 and did a full and total structural xray of both towers, top to bottom.

We could just as easily PRETEND that one of the perps came out and exposed the scheme.

Talking on the basis of pretend crap is silly.

Deal with the physics!  Or is that too hard?

psik

Dude, if you can’t even figure out how to answer my question seriously, realizing the pretend part was just an analogy, then you shouldn’t be participating in discussions of physics or engineering, or this topic at all. Wow. 

Here I’ll leave out all the fancy pretending: do you honestly think the entire controversy surrounding 911 boils down to what happened to the twin towers? Or flip it around: do you believe that if you personally completely proved your point about the twin towers beyond a shadow of a doubt, that then the entire 911 controversy would go away and could be considered solved?

You are talking about PRETENDING something about human behavior then trying to say it has something to do with physics and engineering.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1282 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 18 February 2014 10:09 AM
Fuzzy Logic - 17 February 2014 12:07 PM

fog of meaningless questions like, “How much did the airliners deflect the towers”

That question was never asked.

I TOLD you how much it was.

Some people are just to dumb to comprehend the relevance of the physics.

Oh yeah, sky scrapers have to be designed to cope with the shear force of the wind so an airliner is just another shear force.

psik

You brought it up as part of this discussion, it certainly isn’t something that I think is at all relevant to it.

And if you think that a 200 ton airliner, travelling at high sub-sonic speed and carrying thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquid is on the same scale as typical wind when it comes to potential damage to a skyscraper, then there’s really no point in trying to discuss physics with you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1283 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 18 February 2014 04:04 PM

You brought it up as part of this discussion, it certainly isn’t something that I think is at all relevant to it.

And if you think that a 200 ton airliner, travelling at high sub-sonic speed and carrying thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquid is on the same scale as typical wind when it comes to potential damage to a skyscraper, then there’s really no point in trying to discuss physics with you.

I brought it up, but it was not a QUESTION!

The deflection of the south tower due to the impact is a FACT!

Not everything is open to DEBATE.

Physics is not IRRELEVANT because YOU SAY SO.

I never said anything about Al Queda.  I don’t give a damn about them.  Neither they nor the CIA can change the Laws of Physics.

psik

[ Edited: 19 February 2014 07:13 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1284 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  2006-12-20
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 07:10 AM

I never said anything about Al Queda.  I don’t give a damn about them.  Neither they nor the CIA can change the Laws of Physics.

 

And this is what it boils down to, you think you have evidence that what appears to be the best explanation was in fact physically impossible.

The problem is your evidence is flimsy and physicists don’t tend to agree with you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1285 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
StephenLawrence - 19 February 2014 09:18 AM
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 07:10 AM

I never said anything about Al Queda.  I don’t give a damn about them.  Neither they nor the CIA can change the Laws of Physics.

 

And this is what it boils down to, you think you have evidence that what appears to be the best explanation was in fact physically impossible.

The problem is your evidence is flimsy and physicists don’t tend to agree with you.

How many physicists do not even discuss the subject?  Aren’t skyscrapers a simple subject for physicists?

This should have been resolved in 2002. 

Al Queda is not an explanation of how the top 15% of a skyscraper can fall and destroy the rest if the physicists do not even talk about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

Physics is not about PEOPLE.

You just want to BELIEVE in the responsibility of people.  Even if Al Queda flew the planes that does not explain how the top of the north tower could destroy the rest.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1286 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  2006-12-20
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 10:29 AM

Even if Al Queda flew the planes that does not explain how the top of the north tower could destroy the rest.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way around. Almost anything is physically possible.

You seem to think that if we don’t know exactly how it could happen that gives us good reason to believe it’s physically impossible.

This really is the fundamental issue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1287 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
StephenLawrence - 19 February 2014 10:50 AM

Almost anything is physically possible.

So one of us is stupid!

Oh yeah, and the north tower came down in 25 seconds.  The Conservation of Momentum can become irrelevant because almost anything is physically possible.

Can you specify the equation off the top of your head?

Here is a program for showing mass distribution affecting collapse time:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306#64306

The Conservation of Momentum is pretty fundamental.  Some things are not physically possible unless there are some more Laws of Physics we have not found yet.  But if that is the case then the physics profession should be all over 9/11 data.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1288 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1225
Joined  2009-10-21
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 10:29 AM

This should have been resolved in 2002. 

psik

Kinda like this thread that should have been resolved in 2012.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1289 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2405
Joined  2007-07-05
Lausten - 19 February 2014 04:57 PM
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 10:29 AM

This should have been resolved in 2002. 

psik

Kinda like this thread that should have been resolved in 2012.

You are free to show us some place that specifies and explains the distribution of steel down a 1000+ foot skyscraper any time.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2014 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1290 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2014 07:10 AM
Fuzzy Logic - 18 February 2014 04:04 PM

You brought it up as part of this discussion, it certainly isn’t something that I think is at all relevant to it.

And if you think that a 200 ton airliner, travelling at high sub-sonic speed and carrying thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquid is on the same scale as typical wind when it comes to potential damage to a skyscraper, then there’s really no point in trying to discuss physics with you.

I brought it up, but it was not a QUESTION!

The deflection of the south tower due to the impact is a FACT!

Not everything is open to DEBATE.

Physics is not IRRELEVANT because YOU SAY SO.

I never said anything about Al Queda.  I don’t give a damn about them.  Neither they nor the CIA can change the Laws of Physics.

psik

No, it was part of your argument for the towers not being brought down as the result of the impact of huge aircraft followed by intense fires fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel from those aircraft. Which questions the mainstream explanation on the collapse.

I didn’t say physics was irrelevant, I said your interpretation of the physics is in this case.

It simply doesn’t matter how far the buildings were forced out of the vertical by the impact of the airliners when the most likely failure mechanism was the large gashes created in the outer structure of the towers, the removal of fireproofing from the horizontal steel floor beams that tied the outer columns into the core structure and the intense fires that burned for over an hour afterwards softening the steel and allowing for a local structural failure that proceeded to a total collapse as the immense weight of the part of the tower above the impact site came crashing down on the floors below.

No skyscraper is designed to handle that kind of damage and loading.

[ Edited: 20 February 2014 01:21 PM by Fuzzy Logic ]
Profile
 
 
   
86 of 91
86