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.
Nov 30, 2017 17:05:50 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
static and dynamic loading definitely applies to the collapse of the twin towers. What is the difference. If you have to, look it up.
The reason dynamic loading has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers is because the upper floors of the towers could never have been in motion if not for explosives.
A hundred years of skyscraper fires has proven this to be the case. For your continuing education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
Nov 30, 2017 17:09:15 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Of course you don't see them, you don't want to see them. You already foolishly believe that all the floor trusses in the towers simply disappeared off the face of the earth along with over 50% of the entire buildings, so how could you possibly ever be convinced that you are wrong?
You can't point out any of the items you claimed to be in the photo.
Even your crony, emarine, doesn't see them.
Why did you lie . . .again?
Nov 30, 2017 17:09:35 #
payne1000 wrote:
You claimed the center core was made unstable. If the center core was unstable, it would fall over like the building I posted. The center core could not have possibly crushed itself straight down in compression. That is against all the laws of physics used in modern skyscraper structural design.
Go to the 3:10 mark on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
Go to the 3:10 mark on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
you link provides ignorance ... the forces on the core were pushing & pulling laterally & diagonally from all directions at all different times as well as straight down as everything broke apart... the floors were thin flexible diaphragm's... your PBS presentation is just stupid... you think the collapse was orderly?... very stupid...it was very disorderly & violent... the core was anchored into rock not dirt... there was over 700ft of damaged core still standing after the outer frame & floors collapsed... been through this 20 times or more & you argue the same exact BS... the core was designed for straight down compressive force only not lateral or diagonal...that was the job of the outer frame & floor system... The Kinetic energy released in each tower was equivalent to 400000Tons of TNT in less that 15 seconds... & that's a lot of bang for the buck ... F=ma exactly how Newton wrote the law... I know it isn't as exciting as the new world order death rays & Alien Lizard Jews... just basic physics & engineering science which is sometimes boring to the clandestine crowd...
Nov 30, 2017 17:11:45 #
Nov 30, 2017 17:16:23 #
payne1000 wrote:
The reason dynamic loading has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers is because the upper floors of the towers could never have been in motion if not for explosives.
A hundred years of skyscraper fires has proven this to be the case. For your continuing education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
A hundred years of skyscraper fires has proven this to be the case. For your continuing education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
So you're basically stating the plane impact damage & massive explosion had nothing to do with anything & the resulting office fires... How convenient for your argument...
Nov 30, 2017 17:19:46 #
emarine wrote:
you link provides ignorance ... the forces on the ... (show quote)
When you ramp up your babbling of false science and nonsense, it's a sure sign you know you are losing the debate.
News anchor Aaron Brown who was an eyewitness as the towers fell described what you claim to be the "damaged core still standing" as part of the outer wall structure.
Since part of the outer wall structure was still standing after everything had fallen, I suspect Brown was right and you are lying.
Nov 30, 2017 17:22:23 #
emarine wrote:
So you're basically stating the plane impact damage & massive explosion had nothing to do with anything & the resulting office fires... How convenient for your argument...
The Towers were designed to survive an airliner crash and the fires were small, short duration and random.
WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. How inconvenient for your argument.
Nov 30, 2017 17:40:18 #
emarine wrote:
In this photo we see an example of the magnitude of floor compressions that occurred during the collapse of the towers. In this remnant taken from the rubble, we see evidence of at least 3 floors compressed into a chunk less than 3 feet in depth.I see steel reinforcing & floor pan in that photo of several floors compressed... What do you think you see... a tower fur ball?...
The red arrows indicate the remains of concrete floor slabs. The blue arrows indicate truss rods, mostly likely the triangular support rods, and the orange arrows indicate remains of the metal floor pans and support flanges. The bottom orange arrow points to a main truss beam.
Nov 30, 2017 17:49:20 #
payne1000 wrote:
When you ramp up your babbling of false science and nonsense, it's a sure sign you know you are losing the debate.
News anchor Aaron Brown who was an eyewitness as the towers fell described what you claim to be the "damaged core still standing" as part of the outer wall structure.
Since part of the outer wall structure was still standing after everything had fallen, I suspect Brown was right and you are lying.
News anchor Aaron Brown who was an eyewitness as the towers fell described what you claim to be the "damaged core still standing" as part of the outer wall structure.
Since part of the outer wall structure was still standing after everything had fallen, I suspect Brown was right and you are lying.
So you state the core standing alone videos & photos are in fact the outer frame... you said that you were observant from your field of expertise?... you are influenced by what one reporter states... you're painting yourself into another corner of lies & pure ignorance again...& you think you're winning... winning what?... the ability to lie & misinform readers... you won that battle on day one. I hope your proud of yourself...
Nov 30, 2017 17:49:45 #
payne1000 wrote:
News anchor Aaron Brown is one of those Zionists you keep screaming about so his reporting has no credibility. Moreover, Aaron Brown is not a structural engineer or a scientist. And if so much of the outer wall structure was still standing then you can shitcan your theory that explosives blew the towers into little tiny pieces.When you ramp up your babbling of false science and nonsense, it's a sure sign you know you are losing the debate.
News anchor Aaron Brown who was an eyewitness as the towers fell described what you claim to be the "damaged core still standing" as part of the outer wall structure.
Since part of the outer wall structure was still standing after everything had fallen, I suspect Brown was right and you are lying.
News anchor Aaron Brown who was an eyewitness as the towers fell described what you claim to be the "damaged core still standing" as part of the outer wall structure.
Since part of the outer wall structure was still standing after everything had fallen, I suspect Brown was right and you are lying.
Nov 30, 2017 17:58:50 #
payne1000 wrote:
The Towers were designed to survive an airliner crash and the fires were small, short duration and random.
WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. How inconvenient for your argument.
WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. How inconvenient for your argument.
The towers were theoretically designed to withstand a plane impact...they did the best they could given the technology of the time... it was proven incorrect... do you think they built sample towers & crashed jet planes into them for real data?... your inability to focus on one issue at a time proves you have no real argument...
Nov 30, 2017 18:51:09 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
In this photo we see an example of the magnitude o... (show quote)
For someone who didn't know what concrete rebar was, you have suddenly become an expert on materials in an extremely unsharp photo.
You fail again . . . miserably.
Nov 30, 2017 18:55:43 #
emarine wrote:
So you state the core standing alone videos & photos are in fact the outer frame... you said that you were observant from your field of expertise?... you are influenced by what one reporter states... you're painting yourself into another corner of lies & pure ignorance again...& you think you're winning... winning what?... the ability to lie & misinform readers... you won that battle on day one. I hope your proud of yourself...
There is no force in the false scenario you're attempting to sell which could take down the massive steel center core.
PBS animators knew this so they left the center core standing in their video.
Nov 30, 2017 18:59:44 #
emarine wrote:
The towers were theoretically designed to withstand a plane impact...they did the best they could given the technology of the time... it was proven incorrect... do you think they built sample towers & crashed jet planes into them for real data?... your inability to focus on one issue at a time proves you have no real argument...
The structural designers of the Twin Towers were successful in making the towers stand up to airliner collisions. The towers didn't collapse until the cutting charges and explosives were detonated.
All the photos and videos show this very clearly.
Nov 30, 2017 19:04:58 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
News anchor Aaron Brown is one of those Zionists you keep screaming about so his reporting has no credibility. Moreover, Aaron Brown is not a structural engineer or a scientist. And if so much of the outer wall structure was still standing then you can shitcan your theory that explosives blew the towers into little tiny pieces.
Aaron Brown had not been rehearsed in what not to say on 9/11.
His comments were removed from the news videos after the original broadcast.
You're not a structural engineer or a scientist either. You can't even recognize concrete rebar in a photo.
Aaron Brown has an identity. You don't.
So who is lacking in credibility?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.