One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: "We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11" #3
This discussion was started in a previous topic. You can find it here.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 69 next> last>>
Oct 21, 2017 18:33:42   #
emarine
 
whole2th wrote:
Maintenance workers aren't here to seek the truth. Their tactic is to lie, deceive and mislead.

When lies, deception and misdirection don't persuade, they also project their own failings on their adversaries.

Still can't explain me but you created me
Still can't explain me  but you created me...

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 18:43:42   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
I have presented the same exact facts from day one... while you have changed your theory's many times ... the top section of structure mass consisted of the entire structure not just the floors ... outer frame, inner core, hat truss system & floor system plus all the junk inside fell all at once impacting the first floor below it not the 90 floors below just the first one ...pushing the outer frame outward as the floor trusses below failed one @ a time peeling the structure outward into thin air...there comes a point time where you must stop asking the same questions... you claim to clearly understand The English language so what's so hard to understand about this... is this a grammar problem?
I have presented the same exact facts from day one... (show quote)


I keep asking the same questions because you keep posting the same impossible collapse theory. The top section of both towers could not fall symmetrically because the damage to both towers was asymmetrical. Not one floor on either tower or WTC7 was completely consumed in flame. The parts of the floors which were not burning would not collapse at the same rate as the burning areas.
If the towers fell from airliner damage, they would have fallen in the direction of the damage. Three towers do not fall straight down at free-fall and near free-fall speed on the same day without being what has caused all skyscrapers throughout history to fall in that manner . . . controlled demolition.

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 18:49:54   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
Seems that I'm not the one stating over & over the towers were solid block masses ... it takes a very special type of person not to understand this... the towers were very flexible with a lot of air space... almost 110 square acres of nothing but air space or 88% air whichever way you can understand it...


The massive steel center core took up at least a quarter of the acre of floor space you claim for each floor. Why do you lie about this?
Air has little power to crush steel. It takes a very deceptive type of person to claim that it does.

.

The floor shown here is an acre. How much of that acre is taken up by the steel center core?
The floor shown here is an acre. How much of that ...

Reply
 
 
Oct 21, 2017 19:16:15   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
The massive steel center core took up at least a quarter of the acre of floor space you claim for each floor. Why do you lie about this?
Air has little power to crush steel. It takes a very deceptive type of person to claim that it does.

.




So the core was a solid block not hollow?... so the core had no concrete flooring or floor space?... I stated "almost" a square acre or almost 110 square acres to be exact... I thought you prided yourself in understanding the English language?... would you understand any better if I stated not quite instead of almost Herr grammar Nazi?...I'm having some difficulty understanding how your claim of mastering the English language & how it makes you a clear thinker & writer when you don't understand plain English... I don't think that I'm involved here... this is clearly a personal issue...

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 19:39:57   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
The second law of motion is subject to the third law of motion which calls for an equal and opposite reaction when a falling mass strikes a solid mass below. This equal and opposite reaction prevents the falling mass from gaining the momentum you claim for the second law of motion. Absent momentum, the gravitational collapse could not occur.
According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 20:39:43   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
I keep asking the same questions because you keep posting the same impossible collapse theory. The top section of both towers could not fall symmetrically because the damage to both towers was asymmetrical. Not one floor on either tower or WTC7 was completely consumed in flame. The parts of the floors which were not burning would not collapse at the same rate as the burning areas.
If the towers fell from airliner damage, they would have fallen in the direction of the damage. Three towers do not fall straight down at free-fall and near free-fall speed on the same day without being what has caused all skyscrapers throughout history to fall in that manner . . . controlled demolition.
I keep asking the same questions because you keep ... (show quote)




You clearly don't understand the concept of load transfer... the remaining undamaged support columns had to bear the entire load of the weight above the impact zone...It was heat not fire that allowed the remaining support columns to distort & fail... this was a very massive & fast failure once the movement started... you can clearly observe in video the initial tilt of the upper sections as the main support columns failed... the tilt favored the direction of least resistance or less support either way its the same...

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 20:54:00   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
The massive steel center core took up at least a quarter of the acre of floor space you claim for each floor. Why do you lie about this?
Air has little power to crush steel. It takes a very deceptive type of person to claim that it does.

.



You must now redo your massively deceptive center core in accordance to my drawing... you also must explain why the horizontal cross members don't all line up while you're @ it... Its a shame that George Carlin is gone & not here to help you out ...



Reply
 
 
Oct 22, 2017 01:37:53   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
emarine wrote:
You must now redo your massively deceptive center core in accordance to my drawing... you also must explain why the horizontal cross members don't all line up while you're @ it... Its a shame that George Carlin is gone & not here to help you out ...
The photo of the core structure payne posted is that of the base of the tower where the structural steel was heaviest--4 to 5 inches thick. The core support columns were progressively lighter as the construction moved up. About half way up, the core box columns were of 2 inch steel, and above the 78th floor sky lobbies, the core steel became much lighter. From the 85th floor up, the core columns were of 1/4 inch steel.

The following are high res scans of tower blueprints. Here is a selection of the core floor plans to illustrate the varying sizes of core steel at selected heights.

1st Floor core plan
45th Floor core plan
78th Floor core plan (sky lobby)
80th Floor core plan (aircraft impact zone)
89th to 93rd Floor core plan (aircraft impact zone)
109th Floor core plan

Bottom line here is that the support steel in the floors struck by the jets and exposed to the heat in the ensuing fires was much lighter than the steel down below.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 09:59:42   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
So the core was a solid block not hollow?... so the core had no concrete flooring or floor space?... I stated "almost" a square acre or almost 110 square acres to be exact... I thought you prided yourself in understanding the English language?... would you understand any better if I stated not quite instead of almost Herr grammar Nazi?...I'm having some difficulty understanding how your claim of mastering the English language & how it makes you a clear thinker & writer when you don't understand plain English... I don't think that I'm involved here... this is clearly a personal issue...
So the core was a solid block not hollow?... so th... (show quote)



If you were a clear thinker, you would know that in a commercial building, elevators, restrooms and stairwell space is not considered floor space.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 10:08:42   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.


The 95 undamaged floors were still a solid structure when the top section of floors started to come down. The top section comprised only 15 floors. 15 damaged floors cannot crush 95 undamaged floors to earth in less than 15 seconds. The most obvious "unequal mass" is the 15 floors vs 95 floors. Which would defeat the other . . . without explosives being involved?

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 10:13:57   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
You must now redo your massively deceptive center core in accordance to my drawing... you also must explain why the horizontal cross members don't all line up while you're @ it... Its a shame that George Carlin is gone & not here to help you out ...


The plan you've posted does not appear to be any sort of accurate drawing.
What would it prove to go by that simplified arrangement?
My current computer model is close enough to get the point across.
Compare my model to the real center core. It's close enough.





Reply
 
 
Oct 22, 2017 10:17:19   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The photo of the core structure payne posted is that of the base of the tower where the structural steel was heaviest--4 to 5 inches thick. The core support columns were progressively lighter as the construction moved up. About half way up, the core box columns were of 2 inch steel, and above the 78th floor sky lobbies, the core steel became much lighter. From the 85th floor up, the core columns were of 1/4 inch steel.

The following are high res scans of tower blueprints. Here is a selection of the core floor plans to illustrate the varying sizes of core steel at selected heights.

1st Floor core plan
45th Floor core plan
78th Floor core plan (sky lobby)
80th Floor core plan (aircraft impact zone)
89th to 93rd Floor core plan (aircraft impact zone)
109th Floor core plan

Bottom line here is that the support steel in the floors struck by the jets and exposed to the heat in the ensuing fires was much lighter than the steel down below.
The photo of the core structure payne posted is th... (show quote)


So . . . once again . . . how could the lighter weight steel on the upper floors crush the much heavier steel on the lower floors at 2/3rds free-fall speed?

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 10:29:05   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
You clearly don't understand the concept of load transfer... the remaining undamaged support columns had to bear the entire load of the weight above the impact zone...It was heat not fire that allowed the remaining support columns to distort & fail... this was a very massive & fast failure once the movement started... you can clearly observe in video the initial tilt of the upper sections as the main support columns failed... the tilt favored the direction of least resistance or less support either way its the same...
You clearly don't understand the concept of load t... (show quote)


You've admitted that your engineering knowledge is in nautical engineering and not skyscraper design and construction, yet you now claim to have knowledge of load transfer in skyscraper collapse.
Skyscrapers are designed not to have massive and fast failures. If skyscrapers could fall from small, random short duration fires, all skyscrapers would have to be condemned as unsafe.

Only the upper section of the South Tower tilted as it started to come down. This may have been caused by a slight mis-timing of the cutting charges. Powerful explosives removed all the lower floor resistance which caused the top section to tilt, allowing it to fall straight down instead of toppling off.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 11:01:05   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
You've admitted that your engineering knowledge is in nautical engineering and not skyscraper design and construction, yet you now claim to have knowledge of load transfer in skyscraper collapse.
Skyscrapers are designed not to have massive and fast failures. If skyscrapers could fall from small, random short duration fires, all skyscrapers would have to be condemned as unsafe.

Only the upper section of the South Tower tilted as it started to come down. This may have been caused by a slight mis-timing of the cutting charges. Powerful explosives removed all the lower floor resistance which caused the top section to tilt, allowing it to fall straight down instead of toppling off.
You've admitted that your engineering knowledge is... (show quote)




loads are loads they come from all directions in different applications ....load transfer is exactly what it sounds like... If you have 100 structural columns designed for vertical compressive loads & 33 fail or are destroyed... that only leaves 77 to "transfer" all the compressive load to... an increase of 33% to the remaining columns...or the remaining steel structure has to carry 1/3 more weight... the heat had a effect on the remaining columns that were already overloaded on 911... are we "almost" there yet?...

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 11:30:56   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
So . . . once again . . . how could the lighter weight steel on the upper floors crush the much heavier steel on the lower floors at 2/3rds free-fall speed?




the force of gravity pulls down... The steel was of similar weight & size @ the start of the failure impacting & collecting mass & gaining speed as it fell... F=M*A fully answers all your questions in accordance to the second law of motion...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 69 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.