Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria?
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
May 6, 2017 17:19:44 #
payne1000 wrote:
I had more than one response for your narrow-minded interpretation of pyroclastic flow.
Do you have a response for why the alleged 19 hijackers didn't show up on the airport security videos on 9/11?
Do you have a response for why the alleged 19 hijackers didn't show up on the airport security videos on 9/11?
It is what it is, Larry. Pyroclastic flows come from volcanos. You're going to have to come up with another term, even if it isn't as sexy. The width of your mind makes no difference.
May 6, 2017 17:24:27 #
payne1000 wrote:
Seriously? You want us to accept a PBS simulation that shows the center core still standing after the buildings collapsed? Seriously, dude? You cowardly anonymous shills can't address the important questions I raise so you attempt to create a straw man argument.
Explain why PBS showed the center core still standing after the floors allegedly pancaked?
Isn't it because if the truss connections disconnected from the center core, there would be no force which could cause the center core to fall?
Explain why PBS showed the center core still standing after the floors allegedly pancaked?
Isn't it because if the truss connections disconnected from the center core, there would be no force which could cause the center core to fall?
Last time I looked at a photo or video of the actual event, everything eventually came down, even the center core. Whatever term you want to use to "allege" the towers collapsed is irrelevant, the fact remains that the towers collapsed.
May 6, 2017 17:49:45 #
payne1000 wrote:
Again you ignore the PBS documentary which shows the center core still standing after the floors pancake past it.
The strength of the center core was the reason NIST abandoned the pancake theory which you so desperately cling to.
Eighth grade mentality and spending too much time at IHOP has done you in again..
The strength of the center core was the reason NIST abandoned the pancake theory which you so desperately cling to.
Eighth grade mentality and spending too much time at IHOP has done you in again..
Your a pancake putz... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSzz-7ZrpoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYU0DS1mFZQ
May 6, 2017 19:08:28 #
emarine wrote:
I love IHOP... & you're still clueless on 8th ... (show quote)
You ignore so much of what proves your ridiculous theory to be pure hogwash.
First of all . . . small random fires burning at at 700 degrees F or less for less than an hour could not weaken any of the steel in the towers.
Even if small random fires could weaken the steel, it would be weakened only in the areas where the fires were. There were no floors on either tower
which were totally consumed in flames. So it is not even close to possible that the truss connections on any one floor could all fail at the same time.
The outer wall structure could not have been weakened by the fires. There were only a small number of windows where the fire even broke through the glass.
The 240 steel vertical columns of the outer wall structure were tied firmly together at each of the 110 floors by 54" deep steel spandrel. This formed a super strong
basketlike structure which could not have collapsed downward or allowed any of the floor slabs to fall downward.
1000s of tons of sheetrock, you say? Did you know that sheetrock walls add a lot of structural strength? Most likely sheetrock walls hold up the roof of the house you live in.
The sheetrock walls in the Towers by themselves would have supported the floors and prevented any truss connection failures.
There is so much wrong with your impossible theory that it's no wonder NIST abandoned it so quickly.
May 6, 2017 19:13:45 #
amadjuster wrote:
It is what it is, Larry. Pyroclastic flows come from volcanos. You're going to have to come up with another term, even if it isn't as sexy. The width of your mind makes no difference.
You cling desperately to the straw man argument and completely ignore my question about why the 19 alleged hijackers didn't show up on airport security videos on 9/11.
It's a tough question. BR and emarine haven't been able to explain that one either.
I have the answer . . . because the alleged hijackers didn't get on the planes.
May 6, 2017 19:17:03 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Seriously? You want us to accept a PBS simulation that shows the center core still standing after the buildings collapsed? Seriously, dude?
Last time I looked at a photo or video of the actual event, everything eventually came down, even the center core. Whatever term you want to use to "allege" the towers collapsed is irrelevant, the fact remains that the towers collapsed.
Last time I looked at a photo or video of the actual event, everything eventually came down, even the center core. Whatever term you want to use to "allege" the towers collapsed is irrelevant, the fact remains that the towers collapsed.
The PBS animators couldn't figure out what would cause the center core to fall so they had to leave it standing.
Since their documentary was in support of the Bush Administration conspiracy theory, they obviously couldn't show what really brought it down so they had to leave it up.
May 6, 2017 19:22:00 #
emarine wrote:
Your a pancake putz... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSzz-7ZrpoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYU0DS1mFZQ
Notice on the first video how the exploded remnants of the lower center core gives way quickly as more explosives bring it down.
May 6, 2017 20:39:01 #
payne1000 wrote:
You ignore so much of what proves your ridiculous ... (show quote)
So now you must prove you're an idiot...You quote..."The sheetrock walls in the Towers by themselves would have supported the floors and prevented any truss connection failures"... structural sheetrock putz...you are now impressing me with pure stupidity... I never realized someone so dumb could live as long as you... load bearing stud walls hold up my house & most likely yours too... no one ever said the floor truss system was effected by heat ... it failed from the welded tabs shearing off from overload... you have no proof of the temps inside the towers from the fuel explosion or fires... however inferred readings from NYFD showed 1800F + in places...I will believe them & not you because you are nuts... sheet rock holding up the floors of a skyscraper... man I'm impressed you have hit a whole new level of dumb putz...
Troofer logic
May 6, 2017 21:46:17 #
payne1000 wrote:
Another repeated chapter in payne's ongoing fiction. Apparently this is intended to be pure fantasy since there is no hint of factual data included. According to this fantasy comic book passage, the WTC twin towers did not collapse. Weird, huh? Truly bizarre imagination you have there, payne.You ignore so much of what proves your ridiculous ... (show quote)
May 6, 2017 21:58:54 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Another repeated chapter in payne's ongoing fiction. Apparently this is intended to be pure fantasy since there is no hint of factual data included. According to this fantasy comic book passage, the WTC twin towers did not collapse. Weird, huh? Truly bizarre imagination you have there, payne.
What actually happened is Zionist took over the HARP gun, fired it off and hit a spaceship with shape shifting space lizards. That pissed them off so they teleported the Muslims into the planes and the rest is history. I'll bet there is a UTube video, too.
May 6, 2017 22:08:41 #
amadjuster wrote:
September 11: Were the Twin Towers brought down by ALIENS? (Videos)What actually happened is Zionist took over the HARP gun, fired it off and hit a spaceship with shape shifting space lizards. That pissed them off so they teleported the Muslims into the planes and the rest is history. I'll bet there is a UTube video, too.
May 6, 2017 22:19:55 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Dam those UFO's... they can be worse than Nazis...
May 6, 2017 22:57:35 #
payne1000 wrote:
What does your doctor tell you when he looks in your ear with an otoscope and sees the light shining on the opposite wall?Notice on the first video how the exploded remnants of the lower center core gives way quickly as more explosives bring it down.
May 7, 2017 00:33:19 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
What does your doctor tell you when he looks in your ear with an otoscope and sees the light shining on the opposite wall?
The putz has linked this video 100s of times now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXox8MwlD7U
May 7, 2017 06:45:09 #
payne1000 wrote:
You ignore so much of what proves your ridiculous ... (show quote)
No, no, no!! First of all...there is no such thing as structural sheetrock, the sheetrock walls do not hold up anything, in anyones house goober....what you have are structural walls ( all outside walls, some interior walls which are determined by the size of the spans in certain rooms, which in return determines the size of wood needed to span a certain footage by code) the roof will be supported by these walls only, sheetrock is a finishing component, nothing more, the strength of sheetrock is actually the paper on both sides, a simple razor knife cut on one side will allow this product to easily be snapped to any shape required.........please see any how to video on sheetrock installation for a quick class on that.
Most high rises do not run drywall to the upper deck ( the age of the buolding would indicate original walls were lath and plaster) only shafts and rooms requiring a 2 hr fire rating will receive this...elec rooms, kitchens...etc. in the interior rooms the rock stops just above the ceiling, these spaces are remodeled every time a new tennant takes over......so wrong again on that account........we are not even going to cover the mechanical rooms and common R/A as you would never get it.
The exterior columns in any high rise are designed to carry the load, the interior beams transfer the load to the outer columns, each is rated for a certain load in kips, exceed this and we have a failure in structure as the design load at this point will be putting stress in other areas not rated for that load. I would also suggest you look into what a spandrel is and does.....your knowledge in these matters would not allow you to build a birdhouse without a lawsuit.......Punk!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.