How the "Holocaust" was faked (Page 17): ---------- You're partially right, carpenter patriot. Imagine a bunk bed that is 150 beds tall. Each mattress is supported and held in place by...

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

carpenter patriot wrote:

Hey that was beautiful.I am a structural concrete form carpenter forman and in my career I have done steel beam construction enough to half assed keep up with you. If I may I think what your saying is. A floor or floors support structure failed,as the shock load slam down on the ones below, because of the shock loads from the weight above, witch there is only so much you can do about(3 hour stand time after compromised)crushed each floor below speeding up as it came down. With the weights we are talking about how fast it came down would be dependent on the amount of floors above and the weight of each floor above the
impact. At the most basic form of explanation. It was like how to a certain weight a aluminum can will let you slowly stand on it and not ccollapse.But lift your foot and stomp down it can easily be crushed. Above the planes impact is like your foot. When the planes hit it compromised a floor or floors and it dropped like your foot on a aluminum can. Because of the damage at impact the heat WAS enough to start the fall at a shorter than normal time because of the speed the heat was dispersed. That explains the explosions the people heard slow at first and increasing to a rumble the further down the collapse got. The explosions where the individual floors collapsing on each other. Now as long as the debris backs up what you say. All that would show up in the debris. One thing that looked suspicious was how the planes hit to the side of center. Not compromising the structure perfectly even. I would have thought from the impact up would have fallen to the side of the most damage. I understand after a certain speed and weight a near vertical fall would have happened. But at the start wouldn't you see a more pronounced fall in the direction of impact. Also as the floors above fell making contact with the floor below wouldn't a huge amount of material be ground off between the two structures. Further exaggerating the affect of a off center impact point. Also slowing the rate of collapse considerably because of lost material weight and again exaggerating even more a collapse to the side of impact. In the egg crate design you mentioned that's what I would have expected to see. You know kinda like that can you don't step down on perfectly centered. I think it was tower two that the plane was horribly off center. I am just a carpenter so I'm probably wrong. Again signs of that would show up in the debris.

Hey that was beautiful.I am a structural concrete ... (show quote)

----------
You're partially right, carpenter patriot. Imagine a bunk bed that is 150 beds tall. Each mattress is supported and held in place by the lip of each mattresses' bed-rails. The inward-angling lip of the mattress frame is taking on the roll of the "angle clips" used in building the WTC to support each of its floors. The mattresses will represent the floor(s). The 4 corner posts of each bunk bed simply hold the bed rails in place.

Now, suppose there's a fire in bed 100 (from the bottom). As the temperature from the flames rise and the flames grow closer to the corner posts and bed frame, the metal bed frames and the bed posts begin to bow/bend outward and downward, away from the mattress. The weight of the 50 upper beds act to add pressure on the heated bed frames and the corner posts, causing even more bending/bowing.

Eventually, the bending/bowing of the bed frame extends so far as to allow the mattress to slip through the space between the bed frames holding up the mattress. The mattress falls through, onto the bed below. With the burning mattress no longer in place, acting as an outward force against the bed rails and corner posts, the bed frame and posts fall inward, toward the inside of the bed structure. This occurs because the heated metal is weakest near the flames and strongest near the top. As such, the outward bowing would occur closer to the bottom of the mattress; allowing it to slip from place.

The "action" here is the weakened posts and rails have bowed OUTWARD & DOWNWARD at the bottom. The "reaction" is that the unheated portions of the rails and posts, close to the bed above, are now INSIDE the vertical line that used to exist between the top and bottom of the posts and frames. They are now off-center and the posts and frames are further apart at the bottom. Hence the mattress slipping through and falling onto the bed below it.

The beds above, without the vertical support of the bed that caught fire and collapsed, now lose their support and collapse into the space that the burning bed had occupied. As each bed above falls, its force and inertia causes a chain-reaction of the beds above to collapse on top of each other; in a sort of domino effect. The weight and rate of fall of each bed and frame, above the bed that caught fire, simply adds to the mass and energy being dropped on each subsequent bed below.

This "collapse-characteristic" was designed into the WTC by using the modular design. Without any overpowering outside forces (even the airliner(s) hitting the building(s) wasn't enough to force an outward fall of the building), the building would collapse inward.

My apologies if I'm still not making myself clear. If I'm not, let me know and I'll try a different analogy.

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

rebob14 wrote:

You are of your father, the devil, who is the father of all lies. Lying spirit, we command you to silence and nullify the effect of your delusion.

PAYNE1000.........SHOULD BE "EXILED TO ISRAEL".....TO FACE MOUSSAD!............................. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

If Hitler said that, he was warning the Jewish fin... (show quote)

Careful Herr putz... you're letting your Nazi show again.... you need to practice more and come back when your schooled .... because you still suck at it putz

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

payne1000 wrote:

Is this the crematoria you are talking about?

Go back and read Sissymary's comment. Anyone who can think will see how absurd it is to think there could be that many cremations. Remeber, it takes about 7 hours to cremate one body--7 hours worth of fuel which was in short supply.

-------------
Your lack of knowledge about which you expound hasn't ceased to amaze me. You say it takes over 7 hours to cremate a body. That's WRONG! Even if you begin with a cold oven, it takes 2 to 2-½ hours to cremate a human body at 1,400-1,800 F. The "rule of thumb" is: 1 hour for every 100 pounds of body weight. Once the oven has warmed, the time drops to about 30 to 45 minutes per 100 pounds of body-weight. Now, re-figure the time and number of bodies cremated. I've just saved you a BUNCH of time.

Once the body was consumed, it's ashes fell below the grating it had been placed on. From there, the ashes were scrapped into a pail while another body was pushed in on top. German efficiency at its best! After the ashes cooled, they were sent to another oven for further burning or to a grinder where the left-over bone fragments were pulverized into powder. Then, off to the ash-pond for disposal. Also, coke was used as the fuel; not gasoline, oil or natural gas.

What's even more amazing is that a simple "Google" of the subject can bring you a wealth of info that proves you wrong. Maybe you should hone your computer skills. Or, are you required to "play the fool" by your handler?

I don't know where you get your info, but it's failed you terribly.

Rufus Loc: Deep South

Ronald Hatt wrote:

PAYNE1000.........SHOULD BE "EXILED TO ISRAEL".....TO FACE MOUSSAD!............................. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Amen. Exile Payne. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

alabuck wrote:

------------- br Your lack of knowledge about whic... (show quote)

Give it to the scum pig Nazi lover!............... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Payne, I dont mind a battle of wits. But, you are so un-armed that this is just way too easy. You should really think about withdrawing from the OPP. It's really going some when I find myself allied with people that I have battled fervently against in the past over other political matters.

It does make me glad that there is something or someone that my political adversaries and I can join forces and come together on.

Rufus Loc: Deep South

alabuck wrote:

------------- br Your lack of knowledge about whic... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

emarine

alabuck wrote:

Payne, I dont mind a battle of wits. But, you are so un-armed that this is just way too easy. You should really think about withdrawing from the OPP. It's really going some when I find myself allied with people that I have battled fervently against in the past over other political matters.

It does make me glad that there is something or someone that my political adversaries and I can join forces and come together on.

Well said Navy :thumbup: ... I find it refreshing that no matter how far split politically, Americans still come together to debase evil

payne1000

alabuck wrote:

----------
You're partially right, carpenter patriot. Imagine a bunk bed that is 150 beds tall. Each mattress is supported and held in place by the lip of each mattresses' bed-rails. The inward-angling lip of the mattress frame is taking on the roll of the "angle clips" used in building the WTC to support each of its floors. The mattresses will represent the floor(s). The 4 corner posts of each bunk bed simply hold the bed rails in place.

Now, suppose there's a fire in bed 100 (from the bottom). As the temperature from the flames rise and the flames grow closer to the corner posts and bed frame, the metal bed frames and the bed posts begin to bow/bend outward and downward, away from the mattress. The weight of the 50 upper beds act to add pressure on the heated bed frames and the corner posts, causing even more bending/bowing.

Eventually, the bending/bowing of the bed frame extends so far as to allow the mattress to slip through the space between the bed frames holding up the mattress. The mattress falls through, onto the bed below. With the burning mattress no longer in place, acting as an outward force against the bed rails and corner posts, the bed frame and posts fall inward, toward the inside of the bed structure. This occurs because the heated metal is weakest near the flames and strongest near the top. As such, the outward bowing would occur closer to the bottom of the mattress; allowing it to slip from place.

The "action" here is the weakened posts and rails have bowed OUTWARD & DOWNWARD at the bottom. The "reaction" is that the unheated portions of the rails and posts, close to the bed above, are now INSIDE the vertical line that used to exist between the top and bottom of the posts and frames. They are now off-center and the posts and frames are further apart at the bottom. Hence the mattress slipping through and falling onto the bed below it.

The beds above, without the vertical support of the bed that caught fire and collapsed, now lose their support and collapse into the space that the burning bed had occupied. As each bed above falls, its force and inertia causes a chain-reaction of the beds above to collapse on top of each other; in a sort of domino effect. The weight and rate of fall of each bed and frame, above the bed that caught fire, simply adds to the mass and energy being dropped on each subsequent bed below.

This "collapse-characteristic" was designed into the WTC by using the modular design. Without any overpowering outside forces (even the airliner(s) hitting the building(s) wasn't enough to force an outward fall of the building), the building would collapse inward.

My apologies if I'm still not making myself clear. If I'm not, let me know and I'll try a different analogy.

---------- br You're partially right, carpenter pa... (show quote)

Does this look like the tower is collapsing "inward"?

payne1000

alabuck wrote:

Payne, I dont mind a battle of wits. But, you are so un-armed that this is just way too easy. You should really think about withdrawing from the OPP. It's really going some when I find myself allied with people that I have battled fervently against in the past over other political matters.

It does make me glad that there is something or someone that my political adversaries and I can join forces and come together on.

Isn't it interesting that you say I am unarmed but I have taken on every one of you truth deniers and you haven't proved me wrong yet.

Spankem Loc: NJ

payne1000 wrote:

If we're ever loaded into a boxcar, it'll be by Zionists who are the new Nazis.

You win, you are the dumbest fukin numbskull ever.
You have got to be a fuked up, hate mongering Muslim, all hate, not even shit for brains.
Your right and the world is wrong ? You are just too stupid.

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Isn't it interesting that you say I am unarmed but I have taken on every one of you truth deniers and you haven't proved me wrong yet.

Herr putz... payne 1000
Herr putz... payne 1000...

Rufus Loc: Deep South

Spankem wrote:

You win, you are the dumbest fukin numbskull ever.
You have got to be a fuked up, hate mongering Muslim, all hate, not even shit for brains.
Your right and the world is wrong ? You are just too stupid.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Muslims are all insane. They do not have the ability to think using logic or reasoning. Same as liberals which science has determined is a mental disorder. I think with muslims it is a curse.

carpenter patriot

alabuck wrote:

----------
You're partially right, carpenter patriot. Imagine a bunk bed that is 150 beds tall. Each mattress is supported and held in place by the lip of each mattresses' bed-rails. The inward-angling lip of the mattress frame is taking on the roll of the "angle clips" used in building the WTC to support each of its floors. The mattresses will represent the floor(s). The 4 corner posts of each bunk bed simply hold the bed rails in place.

Now, suppose there's a fire in bed 100 (from the bottom). As the temperature from the flames rise and the flames grow closer to the corner posts and bed frame, the metal bed frames and the bed posts begin to bow/bend outward and downward, away from the mattress. The weight of the 50 upper beds act to add pressure on the heated bed frames and the corner posts, causing even more bending/bowing.

Eventually, the bending/bowing of the bed frame extends so far as to allow the mattress to slip through the space between the bed frames holding up the mattress. The mattress falls through, onto the bed below. With the burning mattress no longer in place, acting as an outward force against the bed rails and corner posts, the bed frame and posts fall inward, toward the inside of the bed structure. This occurs because the heated metal is weakest near the flames and strongest near the top. As such, the outward bowing would occur closer to the bottom of the mattress; allowing it to slip from place.

The "action" here is the weakened posts and rails have bowed OUTWARD & DOWNWARD at the bottom. The "reaction" is that the unheated portions of the rails and posts, close to the bed above, are now INSIDE the vertical line that used to exist between the top and bottom of the posts and frames. They are now off-center and the posts and frames are further apart at the bottom. Hence the mattress slipping through and falling onto the bed below it.

The beds above, without the vertical support of the bed that caught fire and collapsed, now lose their support and collapse into the space that the burning bed had occupied. As each bed above falls, its force and inertia causes a chain-reaction of the beds above to collapse on top of each other; in a sort of domino effect. The weight and rate of fall of each bed and frame, above the bed that caught fire, simply adds to the mass and energy being dropped on each subsequent bed below.

This "collapse-characteristic" was designed into the WTC by using the modular design. Without any overpowering outside forces (even the airliner(s) hitting the building(s) wasn't enough to force an outward fall of the building), the building would collapse inward.

My apologies if I'm still not making myself clear. If I'm not, let me know and I'll try a different analogy.

---------- br You're partially right, carpenter pa... (show quote)

No. I think I get what your saying. I gotta think a bit . But it does make sense. It collapsed (for lack of how to describe it)from the inside. While the pulling the outside back in on its self. Getting faster as the collapse proceeded actually pulling the out side in more efficiently as the speed accelerated. Kinda like if a cans top was strong enough and crushing it with a broom handle. A tall enough can(the towers)the sides would curl back in on themselves. Close?