Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 467768 Views
*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1170 on: February 25, 2017, 08:38:16 PM »
Quote from: Rayzor
hard core conspiracy loonies

I'd say shill harder, but this is clearly your limit.

Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 08:40:41 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1171 on: February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM »

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1172 on: February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1173 on: February 25, 2017, 10:28:01 PM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1174 on: February 25, 2017, 10:33:30 PM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."

Did you even read what Boots posted...

He said he believes the official story but the guys arguing for the official story couldn't put together a clear case.

Lurk moar,
Moran.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 10:37:39 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1175 on: February 25, 2017, 10:43:14 PM »
As for 2+2=4

Just to be 100% explicitly clear... again...

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail close to simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7's roofline stayes perfectly upright and level until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.


Just because it clearly bothers you.

Note there is no "logical fallacy" you are making that up.

This is what I believe and why I believe it. More than you have contributed to this thread.

Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.

Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.

Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force



Heiwa please keep arguments from incredulity in the other threads.
Quote
If we had the inputs and data we could make a model predicting which part/s of building 7 would fail first, then using the energy and location / direction of the initial failure make a model of what we predict would fail in which order and lay out exactly the damage we would predict would occur. Whether the building would collapse totally, if so, at what speed and manner or at what point we would expect the collapse to stop naturally due to structural resistance.

However this is impossible to do as NIST's unsubstantiated report has us in a stalemate.

I respect the right for everyone to have their own opinions.

I very much disapprove of Rayzor calling us "Nutters" or "Loonies"

It's lazy, repugnant, and indicative of an inferior mind.

Why not have a go onebigmonkey.

This isn't Apollohoax and I am not Heiwa.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1176 on: February 25, 2017, 10:58:05 PM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Do you really think I want to believe the official story is not accurate? No way....I would much rather terrorists attacked us and we went and wrecked shop for it.

Not US makes up a lie, kills millions and destabilizes the Middle East for their selfish reasons...It makes me ashamed to claim I am American, this isn't what America started as.

However, as I got older, wiser and more educated the impossibilities of the official story became impossible to ignore (I wanted to kill bin Laden at one point too)... This is only coming from areas I am qualified to speak. Then hearing trusted colleagues of different expertise have their issues, that only solidified my position.

There is a reason why there are 1000s upon 1000s of people like me and better who feel the same way. Who have dumped millions and millions towards this with 10s of thousands of years of education and 100,000s of experience...Not just a bunch of tin foil hat wearing slack jawed yokels.

I know I have been rude to a few here, but that is only after much patience. Only getting ad hominems, lies, diversion and twisted words...Not one single piece of actual "debunked" debate or whatever you want to call it. Especially when I always answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Example..

I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."

To fuck heads like this I tell them to continue to keep jerking..Something may work eventually.


The truth is easy...Lies are hard...Thus why people can't actually defend the official story.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1177 on: February 25, 2017, 11:13:37 PM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.:

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah. Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes.
And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defence system the slip.
Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.
The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.
Despite their dastardly cunning and superb planning, they give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the destruction of steel and concrete and fall to the ground where they are quickly discovered lying on top of the mass of debris.
Meanwhile in Washington
Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a jet airliner. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little. Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the Pentagon. Without ruining the nicely mowed lawn and at a speed just too fast to capture on video.
In the skies above Pennsylvania
Desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that would not be possible until several years later.
And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, the airliner crashes into a Pennsylvania field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorist bandana.
During these events
President Bush continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class of primary school children.
In New York
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.
In Washington
The Neoconservatives are overjoyed by the arrival of the "New Pearl Harbor," the necessary catalyst for launching their pre-planned wars.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1178 on: February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 PM »
It's actually really ironic (Rayzor still doesn't understand irony) that both Bhs' and Rayzor's sigs represent this entire debate.

Bhs' sig shows Rayzor not being able to put an argument into his own words.

And Rayzor's sig shows Rayzors desperate attempts to twist words in the hope of covering up his lack of arguments.

Zing.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1179 on: February 25, 2017, 11:21:41 PM »

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Sadly for you everything I wrote is true,  you can read back and check yourself.   

I'm sorry that you are a fraud and a know nothing blowhard.   Initially I thought you were at least honest,   not any more.   

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1180 on: February 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM »
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1181 on: February 25, 2017, 11:26:40 PM »
I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

I'll take that quote down,  if you admit that's exactly what you said.  And it was an honest mistake.   

If you look back through the thread,  I had already given you a pass,  but then you blew it.

You lied through your teeth and denied saying it.   Wrong choice.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1182 on: February 25, 2017, 11:27:02 PM »

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Sadly for you everything I wrote is true,  you can read back and check yourself.   

I'm sorry that you are a fraud and a know nothing blowhard.   Initially I thought you were at least honest,   not any more.   

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly.

I am a QNP and consider you ridiculous.

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1183 on: February 25, 2017, 11:29:10 PM »
I am a QNP and consider you ridiculous.

LOL,   I know you are,   and you are at least honest about it.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1184 on: February 25, 2017, 11:29:53 PM »
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

To be fair Heiwa has been entirely more rational on this thread than Rayzor.

I'm willing to bet we're not the only ones thinking it.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1185 on: February 25, 2017, 11:59:57 PM »


What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.

One of disputeone's top posts.

Yep.   Not an idiot,  just an ignorant sycophant   ...   Oh,  the wings were way back in the opposite direction.  LOL

Would you believe this was actually used on the cover of a 911 conspiracy book claiming it was caused by a missile,   the 911 truther, didn't see the aircraft wreckage in the picture

« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 12:02:42 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1186 on: February 26, 2017, 12:03:59 AM »
Shill, harder, Rayzor.

Ignore me again, stop quoting me out of context.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1187 on: February 26, 2017, 12:06:42 AM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Why don't you actually try presenting an argument, Rayzor, so the honest readers can feel better about the OS.

I could do a way better job if I had no integrity. What's your excuse?

Edit.

Here, have another one.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

The weight of your arguments does not accurately represent the arrogance of your tone.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 12:10:24 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1188 on: February 26, 2017, 12:22:06 AM »
Shill, harder, Rayzor.

Ignore me again, stop quoting me out of context.

LOL,  sorry,  yes I should have said,  the context was that you thought this was the impact point.    Pretty much says it all really.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1189 on: February 26, 2017, 12:25:15 AM »
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

I was comparing it to the planes that hit the towers.

Don't you dare try to twist that into holographic planes.

I am going to ignore you, please do the same to me.

Why not present an argument.



Shill harder, Rayzor, go, my son, you are an hero.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1190 on: February 26, 2017, 12:33:59 AM »
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

The majority of the thread has been devoted to debunking the various conspiracy theories, rather than supporting the official version directly.   If you read it in that context it will make more sense.

Taking WTC7 as an example,  no one on the ground that day was at all surprised it collapsed,  and there was a number of sources reported discussing that it would have to be brought down because it was teetering on the brink of collapse. 



disputeone has been pushing the conspiracy line that this was controlled demolition,  performed some 7 hours after the inital attack

Babyhighspeed claims that no aircraft hit either WTC1 and WTC2 or the pentagon.    I don't think that really needs to be debunked.

But the best evidence for the detail of the pentagon attack comes from a conspiracy theorist,  but one of the more rational ones.

You can watch the whole thing,  or you can skip to 56:00 for the summary of AA77 and the pentagon attack




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1191 on: February 26, 2017, 12:34:37 AM »
Good luck I hope you actually try to present an argument.

40 pages later.

We are very disappointed.

Here, have another one.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

The weight of your arguments does not accurately represent the arrogance of your tone.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1192 on: February 26, 2017, 05:07:01 AM »
Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.
None of the bolts experienced an increase in the load they can handle, they only experienced an increase the load they are subjected to (I assume you also mean that). But even if it's small, they are still subjected to double the load they were subjected to before: As you say yourself, it went from 1/16 of their shear strength to 1/8 of their shear strength, an increase factor of 2. Which means that I am right. If the bolts were only rated for 1/8th of a tonne, they would experience half their shear strength in load at 1 tonne total load, and shear if the load doubled. For some reason, BHS seems to suggest that If I doubled the load on the platform, the load on each bolt wouldn't double. Which wouldn't make sense due to newtons third law - each action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.
But it is proportional? If the load on the floor doubles, the load on each bolt doubles (assuming even distribution, so sum of all bolt-loads are doubled). The load on each bolt isn't equal to the load on the floor, that'd be outrageous. And it's something I've never claimed, and I hope neither you nor BHS thinks that or something similar.

Assuming equal load distribution on a bolted floor, the load on each bolt can be described as Loadbolts = Loadfloor/Amountbolts
That's a proportional relationship.
For an uneven load distribution, the sum of all indivudal bolt loads equals the load on the whole floor.

Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force


Thank you for giving a source.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1193 on: February 26, 2017, 05:46:05 AM »
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1194 on: February 26, 2017, 05:54:17 AM »
Building codes is one thing, there are many other certifications.. If you present an argument I would be glad to show you.

Though all signs you are wasting my time like the chicken shit rayzor.

Also, research?? What research? You sure haven't shown a damn thing yet besides shit post NIST material, say "no no no", argue semantics and other trivial nonsense..

Trivial nonsense like asking you to back up your claims, explaining what the term you were using means (since literally noone else could, and you weren't using an official term), backing my claims up using sources like pilotsfor911truth  ;), not using NIST's report as evidence of what happened at all, and calling you out on this kind of dishonesty.

Why are you expecting me to make an argument? You made claims, you back them up. For all your talk about personal accountability in other threads, you show absolutely no sign of letting yourself be held accountable for your own claims.

I have found the NYC buildind codes of 1968 in two volumes, but I'm having a hard time finding regulations for steel bolts. And the second volume won't load, so I really hope it isn't in there. If it's not too much trouble, do you think you could tell me where you found out the allowable load for steel bolts for the WTC? I'm not going to read through 500 pages for the sake of a random debate on the internet.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1195 on: February 26, 2017, 06:01:40 AM »
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.
If there's enough load to shear one of the bolts, it shears, but then that load is almost immediately shifted over to a neighbouring bolt whihc is already under high load, what do you think would happen? Would it shear slowly or quickly?

If we compare it to a wooden branch - it is made up of loads of fibers, that we can compare to the columns in a building. If we try to snap it, two things can happen:
It shears apart slowly as the fibers snap one after another, if it's a soft/flexible branch.
It snaps quickly as all the fibers give out at pretty much the same time, if it's a hard/rigid branch.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1196 on: February 26, 2017, 06:11:00 AM »
Sure but there's more than one branch.

Edit. You could imagine each joint as a branch.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1197 on: February 26, 2017, 06:39:25 AM »
Sure but there's more than one branch.

Edit. You could imagine each joint as a branch.
I can easily snap a few branches at the same time, if they are of the right wood.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1198 on: February 26, 2017, 07:31:46 AM »
A simple structural analysis of a skyscraper global collapse is at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm . I was invited to present at Chicago 2013!



It is a very simple model! Only 6 105 structural members (springs) to start with of which only 13 are suddenly broken so that the top drops down. The floors are just points with mass between the springs.

When the top 13 masses hits the 97 masses below held together by 6 014 spring, believe it or not, the 97 masses do not become dust and the 6 014 springs are not broken.

No. The 6 014 springs just deform and the 13 masses up top held together by 78 springs BOUNCES!

This paper of mine upset CIA/FBI that informed US diplomats that refused me a visa to visit USA. Imagine that!

Anyway - it is not easy to break 6 014 springs by dropping 13 masses held together by 78 springs on them! Maybe only the 78 springs break? And the 13 masses just drop at the side.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 08:26:54 AM by Heiwa »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1199 on: February 26, 2017, 08:18:44 AM »
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.

Wouldn't the floor load incorporate the load that the joints can take?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.