waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
in-progress, appropriately named truther site
- Thread starter Bitca
- Start date
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
FYP
Re: the highlighted.
What explosives are those? Care to describe them? How many were used? Show your math. How were they placed? Where were they placed? How come not a scintilla of evidence has been found of these explosives that were supposed used that day? None was found at ground zero. None on the examined steel. None by the dogs trained to find explosives. None by the hundreds of law enforcement officers at the site. None by fire marshals or fire investigators.
You're batting a big fat zero, which is why the 15 years of failure will continue forever.
Why can't you do better?
Support a new investigation and you might get the answers you seek.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Why? Clearly, FF, you already have the answers, because you know explosives were used.
Why not simply tell us? You seem so eager to sway people to your own viewpoint, and you know how it works on this site: "Show us the evidence" is the mantra.
Share the evidence that convinced you that explosives were used, and then we can look at it ourselves. Perhaps you can open some eyes, and thus gain support for the investigation you want. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Just as a pre-emptive post, videos of the collapses, with some comment like "It's obvious except to all you skeptic BS merchants" does not constitute evidence.
Sure thing. Hush-A-Booms™
LMFAO.
I didn't take one single thing out of context.
Micah asked:
Beachnut answered him, accurately:
You immediately grabbed the Baton Of Stupid & ran off in some random direction, with this gem:
I answered your stupid comment concisely:
Then, being the helpful chap that I am, I directed you to the precise location that would help you clear up your stupidity:
If you’d taken the hint, if you'd ever bother to read the report that you clueless assert is fraudulent, you’d have found out that NIST’s engineers listed about 6 specific causes for the collapse of the building, none of which was “air & gravity”. Because “air” is irrelevant & “gravity” is obvious.
The causes being:
Local events
Design weaknesses in the building
Code weaknesses
It's hilarious that you adamantly refuse to read the NIST report, where you might learn some of this remedial stuff...- fires set on multiple floors by collapse of WTC1.
- lack of water for the sprinkler system on the bottom 20 floors, due to water mains fracture in Towers collapses.
- unfought fires, due to instability of the building (& exhaustion, destroyed equipment & lack of water)
Design weaknesses in the building
- too long beam spans
- weak connections that had no building code requirements for “lateral strength in a fire”
- inadequate shear studs
- inadequate girder seat design
- single sided beam tie-ins to girders, that produced asymmetric forces on the girder when the beams were heated.
- a building prone to progressive, disproportionate (i.e., total) collapse from a multi-story fire in any one of the 4 corners of the building.
Code weaknesses
- No requirement for lateral strength in connectors in fire conditions
- No requirement for building analysis for sensitivity to progressive collapse.
If by “pissed off that [you’re] kicking [my] ass”, you mean “laughing [my] ass off that [you’re] making an utter fool of [yourself] every time [you] post something this moronic”, then … yeah.
I don’t want you to “stop anything”.
There is no better advertisement for how totally clueless Twoofers are than you, FF.
When your opponent is a total, clueless moron, the LAST thing that you want him to do is to “stop talking”.
LoL.
You keep it up, FF.
You’re doing a FINE job.
Just not for the side that you think you are supporting.
(Especially the “I know physics” part. That is priceless…)
Last edited:
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
Yes C4 is air. Upon detonation a 1.25 pound stick of C4 turns into 1.25 pounds of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide and has a gas volume of about 12 cu ft. That is about the size of your average refrigerator.
Do you breath out air ?
If you put a plastic bag over your head in a few minuets you will have a mixture of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.
You are claiming that 12 cu ft of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can destroy steel. So prove It.
As a experiment may I suggest you and Cole get together, find a couple of old refrigerators, get inside and wait until they are completely filled with Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Lets see if they explode and how much damage they do.
Remember. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
No,,,, you don't.
Last edited:
Really? Still? Why does the government prevent me from buying air, then?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Slesinger's denial of physics
From his physics denial site.
Clearly Slesinger doesn't understand what action and reaction mean either.
(Emphasis mine.)
From his physics denial site.
Clearly Slesinger doesn't understand what action and reaction mean either.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Progressive collapse denial seems to be the latest big thing in trutherla-la-land. The argument used to be that the crushed rubble from the upper floors would all be ejected from the sides of the building, and anyone who pointed out any problems with this was a poopy head (well, not exactly, but it was about that intelligently put). The latest development is not even to bother making the argument that the rubble would be ejected, just to somehow pretend it ceases to exist, and back this up by handwaving and misquoting Newton's Third Law. I blame Jonathan Cole, who seems to be the leader of the made-up-laws-of-physics crew at the moment, but everyone else seems to be jumping on the bandwagon despite its obvious lack of any wheels.
Dave
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
I'm wondering how it is supposed to have been ejected. Don't the Truthers themselves tell us that it's suspicious that the top columns wound up hundreds of feet away from the center of collapse, instead of falling straight down? If anything, the debris from the top would have just piled up on top of one of the lower floors, if the collapse was arrested. Perhaps some of it would have slid down the forming heap and out of the building, but the rest of it would have just sat there. I don't see how it's so hard to comprehend: The floors just weren't made to hold that kind of weight. I don't think they could even hold that much statically, let alone with it falling from a height. That's why the weight was anchored to those big massive columns, which could support it.
ozeco41
Philosopher
There are a couple of related side effects I've noticed from the discussion of the Cole video. Plus commented on one of them and got ignored.
The first is that in his series of models (Five IIRC) - all but the first make the fundamental error of describing the Twin Towers collapses progression as "columns in line buckling" and not " "falling mass bypassing the columns". Most if not all discussion has focussed on Cole's detailed arguments and ignored the false premise. His models are wrong - there is no point discusing details.
The second is the implication that it is possible to initiate a "columns in line and crushing model" - I only recently woke up to that bit of reality myself - I've known it didn't happen for years as most members must be aware. So I knew "didn't" but hadn't realised "couldn't" - couldn't even do it by CD and it didn't happen naturally.
Both those have been at the heart of a lot of controversy on this forum - flowing to other forums. An clearly they are still not resolved - settled issues - for many debunkers. Even if we set aside the linguistic mental gymnastics and "no truther can ever be right on anything" nonsense derived animosity towards "ROOSD" and Major_Tom.
It should still be clear that the progressions mechanism bypassed the columns. AND that the "Top Block" never did "drop (through a gap) to impact".
If fact there are signs that many are regressing to the confusion of former years.
AND - to make it worse - one of Cole's examples he correctly IMO identifies that Bazant & Verdure's 2007 "crush down/crush up" does not apply to WTC Twins collapses. He is IMNSHO correct on the finding - his reasoning is nonsense so his claim is still wrong.
So why the difficulty on this and other forums of addressing where the real error lies with claims which are wrong in starting premises/scenario? And the preference for discussing details based on implicit agreement with the truthers false foundation?
One obvious response is that engineers and physicists prefer to discuss details and numbers. They easily forget the objective "drain the swamp" when "up to their arses in alligators".
The other one is that many seem to be as genuinely confused over the basics as the truthers they despise.
I don't think that situation will change fast - if ever.
Last edited:
And let's not forget that of over 1000 core column sections... there were no crushed columns found... but oodles of pretty much intact ones broken apart at the end connections.
So the only conclusion is that it wasn't the columns collapsing/crushing but the floors and they bypassed the columns!
So the only conclusion is that it wasn't the columns collapsing/crushing but the floors and they bypassed the columns!