One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria? #2
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion was started in a previous topic. You can find it here.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
Page <<first <prev 81 of 99 next> last>>
 
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
 
May 29, 2017 17:58:48   #
Steve700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
This rerun is getting old. Got any new movies?

They are not reruns 2 U, U never watched them in the 1st place. The reposting is just to try & get through to your truth denying, truth suppressing ass.

Reply
May 29, 2017 18:03:57   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
payne1000 wrote:
The Dems vote in the same manner as the Repubs.
AIPAC scripts their votes.


Larry, it's almost sundown so you can eat again.

Reply
May 29, 2017 18:23:03   #
Steve700
 
payne1000 wrote:
I've shown before that your retouched photo was produced for a movie poster.
Here's what the towers really look like when the sun is behind them:
Actually, in all fairness (although as a general rule) you are FAR More Correct than these deniers, it is obvious that in that poster photo the buildings are at a stage of near completion with the construction crane still in place, No interior room dividing walls constructed yet allowing the sun to shine all the way through the building.

Reply
 
 
May 29, 2017 18:26:05   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
For a guy who claims to have worked with architects, you certainly are ignorant of the intricacies of building construction, not to mention your complete ignorance of Physics. What did you do for these architects? Were you just a gofer with a camera?

You can play this "No Fires Only Explosives" tune and you can continue to strum it with butchered scientific laws til hell freezes, but it is all just a trip through the Twilight Zone. Your theory and your beliefs are not even remotely close to the facts.
For a guy who claims to have worked with architect... (show quote)


You fail to explain how or why the steel columns failed from the small random fires which did not cover any floor entirely.
None of you shills have been able to explain how columns with 2200% reserve strength could be weakened enough to collapse catastrophically.
You are reduced to denial without rebuttal and insults. That's the behavior of a loser.

Reply
May 29, 2017 18:27:27   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
quote=payne1000 On the North Tower, the 90 undamaged floors underneath the 20 falling floors had 4-1/2 times the mass of the falling floors. So the floors below exerted 4-1/2 times as much force as the falling floors in a direction opposite to the direction the floors were falling. Hello! Anybody home? Since the total mass of the lower floors was static (A MASS AT REST) it is irrelevant. The only forces present during the collapse occurred at the point where the collapsing mass collided with the next floor below. IOW, the forces were present at the point of collision; anything below that exerted no force at all. The collapsing mass did not crush the entire lower mass instantaneously, it crashed through one floor at a time. IOW, all the collapsing mass encountered on the way down was the mass of one floor in sequence, not all of them at once.

In your analogy, the club head would represent the 90 undamaged floors below. The golf ball would represent the 20 floors which fell. The golf ball is propelled away from the club head. That would mean the 20 floor's mass would move upward instead of downward. The 90 undamaged floors were a mass at rest, just like a golf ball resting on a tee. The 20 collapsing floors were a MASS IN MOTION, just like the head of a moving golf club. Since your entire world is upside down, it is no surprise that you would turn that upside down also. That's one hell of an artificial world you live in.

Take six pool balls and line them up along a rail of the pool table. Roll a single ball along the rail hitting one end of the six balls. How many balls roll away at the other end? Take two balls and roll them into the 6 ball lineup. How many balls roll away on the other end? You'll find that the same number of balls will roll away at the other end as the number of balls which were rolled into them. This demonstrates the second part of Newton's Third Law . . . The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The mass of 20 floors would not have the force to demolish any more than 20 floors. Take away the explosives and there would have been at least 70 floors still standing. Did the invisible friends you play with tell you that? Or have you swallowed the horseshit that moron Chandler made up?

Your analogy here has the 20 falling floors represented as a bug. It has the 90 undamaged floors below represented as a 3000 pound car traveling at 60 mph. In this situation the 20 floors would have been propelled halfway to the moon. No, my analogy there has a bug hitting a windshield. It was just one of three different examples of the application of Newton's laws to collisions. I really didn't think that you would be able to grasp the concept and actually apply any of it to the tower collapse.

Take whatever time you need and ponder this concept. And apply it to the collapse of a WTC tower.

Consider the North Tower.

Here are some hints.
1) The mass above the point of collapse initiation weighed 67,500 tons. The undamaged floors below weighed 432,700 tons. Irrelevant. Again, the undamaged floors were not moving and they were not all crushed at once.

2) The 67,500 ton mass DID NOT collapse on all the floors below instantaneously. It hit ONE FLOOR at a time. (Each floor had a mass of approximately 4500 tons.)The 67,500 ton mass could not have collapsed at all since the fires did not cover any floor entirely. Any partial collapse would have been an uneven collapse and not straight down. However, the 67.500 ton mass DID IN FACT COLLAPSE onto the the lower building, TAKING OUT ONE FLOOR AT A TIME ON THE WAY DOWN.

3) Obviously, the 67,500 ton mass and the 4500 ton mass of the first floor hit WERE NOT of equal mass. The first floor hit was not a separate entity. It was firmly connected to the same structure which had supported the weight of the upper floors for over half a century. I already debunked this foolishness.

4) As the tower collapsed, the falling mass gained both mass and momentum. Newton's Third Law totally disagrees. You'll have to explain that.

5) As the collapsing tower gained more mass and momentum, the inequality of the opposing masses increased. It was almost like a bug hitting a windshield. You finally got something right. The 20 floors would be the bug and the 90 undamaged floors would be the windshield. The key phrase is "almost like". What you are not getting here is that the collapsing mass crushed ONLY ONE FLOOR AT A TIME ON ITS WAY DOWN. It did not crush ALL 90 FLOORS AT ONCE.

I know, you don't get it and you never will. You're not mentally capable of thinking outside the box you have created.

Reply
May 29, 2017 18:28:17   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
payne1000 wrote:
You're getting off track. Go back to finding ways the Israelis did it.
Check out the Israeli art students who were given free access to the Towers.
Check out the 5 dancing Israelis, one of whom admitted to being experienced in explosive ordnance.


We found the dancing Israelis!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylzJD9eFqhI

Reply
May 29, 2017 18:33:04   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
You fail to explain how or why the steel columns failed from the small random fires which did not cover any floor entirely.
None of you shills have been able to explain how columns with 2200% reserve strength could be weakened enough to collapse catastrophically.
You are reduced to denial without rebuttal and insults. That's the behavior of a loser.
No explanation is necessary. The steel columns DID IN FACT fail and the towers DID IN FACT collapse catastrophically, and, other than THE FACT that a bunch of suicidal maniacs crashed big jets into them, the towers came down without any human intervention whatsoever.

Reply
 
 
May 29, 2017 18:51:08   #
payne1000
 
Steve700 wrote:
Actually, in all fairness (although as a general rule) you are FAR More Correct than these deniers, it is obvious that in that poster photo the buildings are at a stage of near completion with the construction crane still in place, No interior room dividing walls constructed yet allowing the sun to shine all the way through the building.


There was obviously some see through in the original photo. Digital editing programs such as Photoshop make it very easy to enhance the see-thru effect.
I'm sure that's what was done in the photo used for the movie poster to make it appear more dramatic.
In the photos below, the top photo is unretouched. The lower photo has had the fire enhanced in Photoshop.
I suspect this is what has been done to the photos BR keeps posting where the flames are much brighter than on other photos.



Reply
May 29, 2017 19:00:46   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
No explanation is necessary. The steel columns DID IN FACT fail and the towers DID IN FACT collapse catastrophically, and, other than THE FACT that a bunch of suicidal maniacs crashed big jets into them, the towers came down without any human intervention whatsoever.


When you say no explanation is necessary, you're admitting you can't explain why the columns failed.
The only possible explanation involves explosives.
Skyscrapers don't fall from fire damage. The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of airliners . . . and they did.
Hundreds of skyscrapers have fallen from controlled demolition.
Three more fell from controlled demolition on 9/11.



Reply
May 29, 2017 19:06:23   #
emarine
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
quote=payne1000 On the North Tower, the 90 undamaged floors underneath the 20 falling floors had 4-1/2 times the mass of the falling floors. So the floors below exerted 4-1/2 times as much force as the falling floors in a direction opposite to the direction the floors were falling. Hello! Anybody home? Since the total mass of the lower floors was static (A MASS AT REST) it is irrelevant. The only forces present during the collapse occurred at the point where the collapsing mass collided with the next floor below. IOW, the forces were present at the point of collision; anything below that exerted no force at all. The collapsing mass did not crush the entire lower mass instantaneously, it crashed through one floor at a time. IOW, all the collapsing mass encountered on the way down was the mass of one floor in sequence, not all of them at once.

In your analogy, the club head would represent the 90 undamaged floors below. The golf ball would represent the 20 floors which fell. The golf ball is propelled away from the club head. That would mean the 20 floor's mass would move upward instead of downward. The 90 undamaged floors were a mass at rest, just like a golf ball resting on a tee. The 20 collapsing floors were a MASS IN MOTION, just like the head of a moving golf club. Since your entire world is upside down, it is no surprise that you would turn that upside down also. That's one hell of an artificial world you live in.

Take six pool balls and line them up along a rail of the pool table. Roll a single ball along the rail hitting one end of the six balls. How many balls roll away at the other end? Take two balls and roll them into the 6 ball lineup. How many balls roll away on the other end? You'll find that the same number of balls will roll away at the other end as the number of balls which were rolled into them. This demonstrates the second part of Newton's Third Law . . . The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The mass of 20 floors would not have the force to demolish any more than 20 floors. Take away the explosives and there would have been at least 70 floors still standing. Did the invisible friends you play with tell you that? Or have you swallowed the horseshit that moron Chandler made up?

Your analogy here has the 20 falling floors represented as a bug. It has the 90 undamaged floors below represented as a 3000 pound car traveling at 60 mph. In this situation the 20 floors would have been propelled halfway to the moon. No, my analogy there has a bug hitting a windshield. It was just one of three different examples of the application of Newton's laws to collisions. I really didn't think that you would be able to grasp the concept and actually apply any of it to the tower collapse.

Take whatever time you need and ponder this concept. And apply it to the collapse of a WTC tower.

Consider the North Tower.

Here are some hints.
1) The mass above the point of collapse initiation weighed 67,500 tons. The undamaged floors below weighed 432,700 tons. Irrelevant. Again, the undamaged floors were not moving and they were not all crushed at once.

2) The 67,500 ton mass DID NOT collapse on all the floors below instantaneously. It hit ONE FLOOR at a time. (Each floor had a mass of approximately 4500 tons.)The 67,500 ton mass could not have collapsed at all since the fires did not cover any floor entirely. Any partial collapse would have been an uneven collapse and not straight down. However, the 67.500 ton mass DID IN FACT COLLAPSE onto the the lower building, TAKING OUT ONE FLOOR AT A TIME ON THE WAY DOWN.

3) Obviously, the 67,500 ton mass and the 4500 ton mass of the first floor hit WERE NOT of equal mass. The first floor hit was not a separate entity. It was firmly connected to the same structure which had supported the weight of the upper floors for over half a century. I already debunked this foolishness.

4) As the tower collapsed, the falling mass gained both mass and momentum. Newton's Third Law totally disagrees. You'll have to explain that.

5) As the collapsing tower gained more mass and momentum, the inequality of the opposing masses increased. It was almost like a bug hitting a windshield. You finally got something right. The 20 floors would be the bug and the 90 undamaged floors would be the windshield. The key phrase is "almost like". What you are not getting here is that the collapsing mass crushed ONLY ONE FLOOR AT A TIME ON ITS WAY DOWN. It did not crush ALL 90 FLOORS AT ONCE.

I know, you don't get it and you never will. You're not mentally capable of thinking outside the box you have created.
quote=payne1000 color=red On the North Tower, the... (show quote)




He only understands the block theory... a 20 floor block cant crush a 90 floor block...



Reply
May 29, 2017 19:07:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
When you say no explanation is necessary, you're admitting you can't explain why the columns failed.
The only possible explanation involves explosives.
Skyscrapers don't fall from fire damage. The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of airliners . . . and they did.
Hundreds of skyscrapers have fallen from controlled demolition.
Three more fell from controlled demolition on 9/11.
I'm not admitting anything, you are. As long as you remain a prisoner of an artificial construct in which self-delusion is the driving force, the reason the towers collapsed is beyond your comprehension.

Reply
 
 
May 29, 2017 19:29:04   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
I didn't reinvent the laws of physics. I apply them as they exist.
You ask readers to assume that the steel column structures failed without explaining how or why they failed.
The outer wall columns were designed with 2200% reserve strength. The center core columns were designed with 400% reserve strength.
Small random fires which did not cover any floor entirely could not cause the columns to fail.
Both towers suffered catastrophic collapse accompanied by the sound of explosions and the formation of explosive debris clouds.
Only an idiot or a liar would think they fell for any reason other than controlled demolition.
I didn't reinvent the laws of physics. I apply the... (show quote)



No you just don't know how the laws of motion apply... you really blew any credibility as far as logic & reason goes with your sheetrock rant... your sheetrock wall failed like a soda can under the impact of a sledge hammer.... same as the individual floors under the impact zone... apply the 2nd law of motion to each floor one @ a time... not the 3rd law 20 floors @ a time... you will see a much different result...

Reply
May 29, 2017 19:57:20   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
When you say no explanation is necessary, you're admitting you can't explain why the columns failed.
The only possible explanation involves explosives.
Skyscrapers don't fall from fire damage. The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of airliners . . . and they did.
Hundreds of skyscrapers have fallen from controlled demolition.
Three more fell from controlled demolition on 9/11.


This mans opinion carries more weight than anyone at this point... and completely disagrees with you & all troofers... don't quit your day job...putz


Jon D. Magnusson, chairman-CEO of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., Seattle, structural engineer for the original World Trade Center, agrees: "From what I observed on TV, it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall."

When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says.
Hatred and intolerance are bred in ignorance....

Reply
May 30, 2017 00:47:24   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
emarine wrote:
He only understands the block theory... a 20 floor block cant crush a 90 floor block...
I don't think he even understands that. payne seems incapable of linear thought--usually we think of that as "connecting the dots", and he never does that. He goes around in circles, skipping critical points or reinventing them to fit his agenda. Stunning how he manages to constantly disregard the logic of scientific laws and molds them into something that cannot be possible in the real world.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Reply
May 30, 2017 03:08:58   #
America Only Loc: From the right hand of God
 
payne1000 wrote:
I'm going to conduct a test which will prove you and emarine to be totally wrong about the vertical strength of sheetrock.
It will take me a little time. Start worrying.


Put that sheet rock up in where you come from...Uranus!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 81 of 99 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.