Just foolin' with Blade Runner and emarine (Page 12): "Bait", it's called "bait." If you want to remain stupid all of your life, it's a free country.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Steve700 wrote:

I am not taking the bate only to be drawn in

"Bait", it's called "bait." If you want to remain stupid all of your life, it's a free country.

emarine

Blade_Runner wrote:

"Bait", it's called "bait." If you want to remain stupid all of your life, it's a free country.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

payne1000 wrote:

The differences between you and David Chandler are: (1) He is a physics professor. You are not. (2) David Chandler explains physics that make sense. You explain things that are physically impossible while denying the obvious truth. (3) David Chandler does not hide behind cowardly anonymity. You do.

Chandler is NOT a physics professor, he was a high school physics teacher, he is a scientific illiterate. I feel sorry for his students.

Steve700

Blade_Runner wrote:

"Bait", it's called "bait." If you want to remain stupid all of your life, it's a free country.

Thank you, I appreciate being a corrected when I am wrong. But I don't think my spelling bait wrong quite equates to remaining stupid all my life -- especially since my Dragon spells most of my words, but it might have been my doing. Iduno!

payne1000

emarine wrote:

Judging your judgment I would go by the design plan facts...here's my source... maybe you should read it for a change...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center ....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA did you hear explosion?

The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs

But construction photos show more steel in the twin towers than in conventional skyscraper construction.
I didn't hear the explosions, but these eyewitnesses certainly did: https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

payne1000

Blade_Runner wrote:

Chandler is NOT a physics professor, he was a high school physics teacher, he is a scientific illiterate. I feel sorry for his students.

Here is David Chandler's bio:
David has a BS from Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA (IPS major–independent program of studies with emphasis in physics and engineering); MA in education from Claremont Graduate University; MS in mathematics from Cal Poly, Pomona and has taught Physics/Mathematics/Astronomy at K-12 and Jr. college levels. He is also an author and served formerly on the editorial board of The Physics Teacher, an AAPT journal. David is also an active designer and inventor of educational materials emphasizing quantitative visualization.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20081215160329520
Supply your bio so readers can determine if you are to be believed more than David Chandler.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

But construction photos show more steel in the twin towers than in conventional skyscraper construction.
I didn't hear the explosions, but these eyewitnesses certainly did: https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

"But construction photos show more steel in the twin towers than in conventional skyscraper construction"

Nice comparison putz... man you are desperate to deceive now... I would hope the steel looked less in a maybe 50Ksqft small building compared to very large 5 million sqft tower... is that the best you can find?... or was that humor & I missed it?...there may be a good chance your tiny little building was steel & structural masonry...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

"But construction photos show more steel in the twin towers than in conventional skyscraper construction"

Nice comparison putz... man you are desperate to deceive now... I would hope the steel looked less in a maybe 50Ksqft small building compared to very large 5 million sqft tower... is that the best you can find?... or was that humor & I missed it?...there may be a good chance your tiny little building was steel & structural masonry...

Weren't you desperate to deceive when you posted the tiny photo below to represent the construction of the Twin Towers?

If you weren't a shill, you would have posted this photo.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Weren't you desperate to deceive when you posted the tiny photo below to represent the construction of the Twin Towers?

I posted the towers higher up...the size of my picture is not the issue ... you post the base... basic logic dictates the base carry's more weight... this must be another lack of the understanding of the "magnitude" of Gravity on your part... the towers collapsed from the top down from gravity putz...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

I posted the towers higher up...the size of my picture is not the issue ... you post the base... basic logic dictates the base carry's more weight... this must be another lack of the understanding of the "magnitude" of Gravity on your part... the towers collapsed from the top down from gravity putz...

Your tiny photo completely avoided showing the massive steel center core which extends the full length of the towers.
You do know the massive steel columns in the center core could not have collapsed from gravity, don't you?
The makers of a PBS documentary knew that. That's why they left the center core standing in their animation of the collapse of the towers.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Your tiny photo completely avoided showing the massive steel center core which extends the full length of the towers.
You do know the massive steel columns in the center core could not have collapsed from gravity, don't you?
The makers of a PBS documentary knew that. That's why they left the center core standing in their animation of the collapse of the towers.

How ignorant do you want to be?... your massive center core was still standing after the collapse... it fell last... I posted the videos & still pictures several times as proof already... you're on your own now putz...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

How ignorant do you want to be?... your massive center core was still standing after the collapse... it fell last... I posted the videos & still pictures several times as proof already... you're on your own now putz...

You pretend to be ignorant.
You know it was impossible for the massive steel center core to collapse in compression from any force other than controlled demolition.
You choose to lie because that's what cowardly anonymous cover-up shills do. It's your job. You work at it constantly.
Defending lies is an impossible task when the proof of your lies is there for everyone to see:

payne1000

emarine wrote:

How ignorant do you want to be?... your massive center core was still standing after the collapse... it fell last... I posted the videos & still pictures several times as proof already... you're on your own now putz...

Where is the center core still standing in this collapse sequence?
What caused all those massive explosive debris clouds?

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Where is the center core still standing in this collapse sequence?
What caused all those massive explosive debris clouds?

Understand now why I call you a putz... it is purely because of repetitive bullshit... I have provided you proof of the center core still clearly standing after the collapse for a few seconds with video & still photos countless times over 100s of pages so why would you still ask?... you pretend that the "massive core" would be free standing on it's own without the outer framework that provided the lateral support for the core... the core was designed as a compression post to support 60% of the load nothing more... it was not designed for "any" lateral loads and was not designed to be freestanding by itself... maybe you could learn about base to height ratios & figure out what's necessary for very tall very narrow structures to stand by themselves & quit making me call you a putz...putz...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

Understand now why I call you a putz... it is pure... (show quote)

The center core was designed to support vertical weight. It could not be crushed downward to the ground in less than fifteen seconds by the same weight which it had held up for over 50 years.
You claim the center core could not stand by itself. If that's the case why didn't it fall to one side?
I have constructed a 3D computer model of the North tower to scale. The image below shows how much of the center core should have been there at that stage in the collapse.
Where is it in the second photo?