Lateral ejection of debris trash

Bell said:
Either that, or thye meant WTC1 is shown in the video...

Anyhow, about the 'Lateral ejection of debris trash', I made a post with ACII art a while ago, but can't find it. It was something like this:

Code: 
|        /        /        |        \        \
|       |        /        /        |        \
|       |       |        /       /         /
|       |       |       |       /       /
|       |       |       |      |      |
|       |       |       |      |      |
Click to expand...

I just thought that either the above, ot the next 'drawing' is what happened when the outer facade collpased...

Code: 
|        |        |       \       \
|        |        |        |         \
|        |        |        |          |
|        |        /       /          /
|        /       /       /        /
|       |       |       |       |
 
twinstead said:
BS!

You make it obvious that you have NO idea what real "SCIENCE" is all about nor have you obviously read the NIST report.

Oh yea, you can't read this because you have me on ignore.

Bummer ;)
Click to expand...
We'll fix that--I'm not on his/her/its ignore list yet
And 28IQ--
I know for a fact that steel structural members subjected to the load conditions existing in the twin towers on 9-11 will buckle and fail. I know this as surely as I know that Hydrogen fusion is responsible for the heat and luminosity of our Sun; that gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 meters/sec/second; that if the center of gravity of a simply supported object is placed outside the footprint of the supports it will fall over; that heated steel reaches plastic strength at much lower force than cold steel; and that you have not a clue as to what the scientific method is.
and for your edification:
Buckle=bow
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
What do they say? Explosives would have made a real big sound. I can not even think how explosives would be set up to eject anything like what happen.

Ask him how they put a 4 Ton girder cannon in the building? What will people fall for next.
Click to expand...

Here is the link to the discussion. You will immediately be able to pick out the nutter. Its quite obvious.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1253

Basically he seems to think that there were explosives planted in the buildings that caused lateral ejections. He says they were purposely designed to blow debris outward to make it look like less of a demolition. A coverup for the other explosives that took down the towers. Its absolute insanity.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Here is the link to the discussion. You will immediately be able to pick out the nutter. Its quite obvious.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1253

Basically he seems to think that there were explosives planted in the buildings that caused lateral ejections. He says they were purposely designed to blow debris outward to make it look like less of a demolition. A coverup for the other explosives that took down the towers. Its absolute insanity.
Click to expand...

You've got to pin him down on the initiation of the collapse. He thinks NIST was incomplete because it did not study post initiation events.

Does he think the building would have stopped collapsing, hence the need for the massive explosions?

Does he think undetected explosions initiated the collapse, then massive one's later on that would make it not look like CD?

That kind of a massive explosion would be clearly noticed. Instead we saw a slow (relatively) buildup into a huge debris formation.

This massive explosion would have been initiated well after the collapse started. How would the explosives be expected to remain intact and operable for such a long time? It's all so stupid and unnecessary. It takes very careful planning for a building to collapse into itself, so I don't think there should have been any worry that it would look like a traditional CD.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess. Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.
Click to expand...

So if a layperson guesses that the universe is a billion years old and an astronomer guesses that it's 13 billion years old, both guesses should be considered equally? If that's the case, why bother paying for a doctor? Just ask your dog what's wrong with you.

28th Kingdom said:
Trusses sagging is a guess. It cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Columns bowing is an assumption, it cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Therefore... these assertions hold no more water than a layman saying explosives brought down the towers. It's yer ego (elitist attitude) and prejudices that distort your viewpoint... by telling you that all opinions are not created equal.
Click to expand...

Trusses sagging is architecture. Columns bowing is engineering. And for your information, both disciplines are full of equations.

28th Kingdom said:
NIST's report is a whitewash. None of the theories in it, can be proven with science. You cannot prove that trusses actually sagged on both towers, or that they (trusses) caused the outer columns to bow... or that this bowing caused all four sides on each tower to fail simultaneous... These are all guesses... based out of a cornucopia of scientific improbabilities.
Click to expand...

If you believe this, then you should also entertain the idea that invisible fairies brought down the towers. After all, that theory is just as unprovable as any other, and should therefore be given equal consideration.

28th Kingdom said:
No, you are 100% wrong. Photographic evidence isn't scientific evidence. I have presented tons of video footage... and invariably I am asked to show the scientific proof behind my claims.

If NIST's report rests on nothing more than one video... than I can safely say their theory is not based in science.
Click to expand...

You don't believe photos constitute scientific evidence? So I guess that means that everything we've learned about the planet Mars in the last few years is complete bunk?
 
babazaroni said:
You've got to pin him down on the initiation of the collapse. He thinks NIST was incomplete because it did not study post initiation events.

Does he think the building would have stopped collapsing, hence the need for the massive explosions?

Does he think undetected explosions initiated the collapse, then massive one's later on that would make it not look like CD?

That kind of a massive explosion would be clearly noticed. Instead we saw a slow (relatively) buildup into a huge debris formation.

This massive explosion would have been initiated well after the collapse started. How would the explosives be expected to remain intact and operable for such a long time? It's all so stupid and unnecessary. It takes very careful planning for a building to collapse into itself, so I don't think there should have been any worry that it would look like a traditional CD.
Click to expand...

Yeah I am really pushing for him to explain to me what NIST got wrong and why. I will not get a straight answer though. I will ask him your other questions too. :)
 
Quad4_72 said:
A woowoo recently presented me with this video as to why debris could not have been ejected from the towers over great distances. What do you think?
Click to expand...

My response would be to ask him if he's ever seen an hourglass. Sand falls through a fine hole with almost no horizontal component to its velocity, and yet after the top has emptied, you can find sand that isn't directly below the hole.
 
I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but you can prove the lateral ejection of debris quite simply. Take a stiff object that you're willing to break, like a twig for instance. Stand it up with its end on a table and push down the other end. Notice that it bends outward, and watch where it flies when it breaks.

I could just save you the suspense and tell you that it breaks in a lateral direction. And yes, this comparison can also be made with steel beams. If it can't, you'd better tell that to my deformable body mechanics professor who often made demonstrations with pieces of chalk and compared that to the deformation of steel beams!
 
chippy said:
I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but you can prove the lateral ejection of debris quite simply. Take a stiff object that you're willing to break, like a twig for instance. Stand it up with its end on a table and push down the other end. Notice that it bends outward, and watch where it flies when it breaks.

I could just save you the suspense and tell you that it breaks in a lateral direction. And yes, this comparison can also be made with steel beams. If it can't, you'd better tell that to my deformable body mechanics professor who often made demonstrations with pieces of chalk and compared that to the deformation of steel beams!
Click to expand...
i gave a similar anaology to the guy quad is referring to, he didnt buy it, lol
 
i gave a similar anaology to the guy quad is referring to, he didnt buy it, lol
Click to expand...

I tried to get him to drop a coconut on his foot.......... he didn't buy that either :rolleyes:
 
Well I have to agree, he's graduated waaaay beyoned tumshie or eejit.

Personally, I think he's absoutely [rule8] doited.
 
Unless you're fae the east, in which case I suppose he's doytit or doyted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom