‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

using big words doesn't mean you understand them.

- - - Updated - - -

why do you think one floor would be stronger than 30 stories above it?

 

You know... I noticed that in the Intelligent Design thread too. Every time you find yourself over your head, you panic and start calling your opponent a liar.

But you never get around to actually making an argument against the alleged lie.

Be honest, you're a waiter. Right? Or you have a newspaper route?

Look... if you have no substantive response to my explanation of the actual physics involved (and you clearly don't) just say so. But slapping like a schoolgirl does not improve your earlier howlers.

They are still completely wrong.

 

So... what do you understand the failure of a load bearing column to be if not the "cessation" of a counterbalancing force?

Exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

On what planet and in what universe does a signature on a petition prove anything? My god man, get a grip.

What a whiner you are.

 

straight down huh?

thats not true even when they try to get them to come straight down they dont! LOL



as for the rest of what you said you need to fill in the gap, you know the miracle part.



since everything you said was so vague and general its meaningless.

 

But he does understand them. If the buildings didn't collapse symmetrically then they physically could not have reached the floor. At least, not in the time that they did. This short video shows that WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

Frankly, I fail to see the point of your contribution if you're just going to ignore absolutely vital information and attack people's understanding of English instead.

 

I don't even read its posts anymore. I'm sick of wasting time showing where it has deliberately abused language and outright lied.

 

but hirises do not consist of ONLY ONE load bearing column

 

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I spoke specifically (and did not choose the words by accident) about "a building of that size."

So you show us videos of two other buildings that are tiny in comparison to the WTC and imagine you have made a point?

What gap? You pointed out no gap.

I promise you, son. The fact that you don't understand it does not make it either general or meaningless. Anybody with the tiniest clue regarding physics and engineering will have mush less trouble than you keeping up.

 

thats what they do when they get butthurt

- - - Updated - - -

well then you better look again lol

If I were your son I would be serving time for murder, so suffice to say I am not your son.

 

Excuse me? That blurry fifteenth generation video shows essentially nothing.

A careful review of the clearer videos shows that that collapse was not symmetrical, but instead a progressive failure of the building from east to west.

 

I'm sorry, but you are too funny. In another thread I posted a number of scientific studies related to the events of 9/11 and you hand-waived them away, as being invalid. Now you want to cite a study as if it is all telling? You have some nerve. Doesn't do much good for you know, since you have just proven you are dishonest, and have zero credibility. Thanks for showing us you really don't know anything about what you speak.

 

Call the waaaaaaaambulance!!!!!

 

Because the failure of anything 93 floors up, including total structural failure (rather than the local failure you describe) is completely irrelevant when the thing which fails is sitting on top of an opposing force potentially over six times greater than itself.

Stop manipulating language to proliferate your stupid and pernicious lies, please.

 

Your point?

 

each floor of the WTC towers was built to hold up the static load of all floors above it.

they were NOT designed to hold the load of all floors above them moving downward.

if such a thing happened, every floor would instantly crush and collapse due to the MASSIVE force of all the above floors coming down at the same time.

this is what we saw on 9-11.

once you learn the difference between dynamic and static loads, you will understand what happened on 9-11.

 

Now you're either not even remembering what your own argument was, or you are really, really desperate to change the subject. Because that's not even in the same county as the point being discussed.

Go back, read your post to which I was responding to, then read my post again... and then try again.

- - - Updated - - -

This single failure on their part is unforgivable in anyone who pretends to understand physics. But the long list of equally idiotic howlers they've provided actually manages to equal that same level of ignorance in three or four other areas.

 

probly singing to the choir here but in order for a building to fall straight down there must be nearly simultaneous global symmetrical failure of all load bearing structure within a couple milliseconds. Otherwise they simply tip over.

- - - Updated - - -

now thats funny, you think the floors held up the floors above them? For real?

 

that you have no point. your arguments in the context you laid them out are completely frivolous

 

Please, for the love of God, stop using arguments which do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. If they were built to withstand the static load then the static load could not have started moving downward, could it? If the 93 floor section underneath is static, then the 17 floor section above can't be moving through it, can it?

You simply just do not even grasp high school mechanics and it makes this conversation absolutely exhausting.

 

Nothing in that statement is true. Not that it matters, since none of the WTC buildings experienced simultaneous global symmetrical failure in the first place.

 

you can see from their responses they have no clue what you are talking about

 

Too bad your post does not succeed in making that point.

 

really?

You are serious?

I bet you are!

Prove it.






Of course they did, there are no pics showing any of the wtc buildings exhibiting a slow floor sag which is what heat causes, much less globally.

 

This lie is so utterly blatant that I will take it as your concession that I am right and you are wrong.

 

aren't you the one who thinks there were no fires in the WTC towers?