IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th June 2016, 03:31 PM   #441
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Correct, FF. The tens (actually hundreds) of thousands of tons of cold, undamaged steel columns that had always been supporting the mass above were not going to lend their support, physical, moral or otherwise to the collapsing mass above them, for the simple reason that they were literally in no position to.

The collapsing mass destroyed the floor/truss connections which had only needed to support the static load of a single floor, not the whole upper building falling on it......

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag
I have to give you credit for this explanation. It's some good fraud - single malt, 150 proof, and finely aged. It fools most people who can't see through it because they either don't want to think or they can't think.
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Yet you didn't refute a single thing in his post. Is this how you get closer to your new investigation. LOLZ
Most armies, when they're surrounded and out of ammunition, surrender. Some will try a desperate bayonet charge. FF throws rocks.

Last edited by Redwood; 5th June 2016 at 03:32 PM. Reason: grammar
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 04:02 PM   #442
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? Nothing was going to stop the collapse? You mean nothing, like the tens of thousands of tons of cold, undamaged steel that had always been supporting the mass above?

I guess the collapsing mass exerted too much force for the structure below. Oh, wait...I guess you skeptics have never heard of apparent weight. I can't wait to see what nonsense you have to explain that away.
The collapsing floor... growing in mass as it fell down onto each floor DID NOT INVOLVE THE STONE COLD COLUMNS. It bypassed them. It did not and could not over load them.

When the floor collapse had reach the ground there were a lot of core columns remaining. The facade had peeled away... not over loaded and crush... but robbed of the lateral support the floor slabs/trusses provided. A fair number of core columns were jostled by the collapse floor mass and the column to column connections failed and those top column(s) dropped with the mass.

At the end the remaining by passed columns stood too tall and too thin to stand without bracing... the bracing that was part of the floor system and destroyed in the floor collapsed. Too thin columns will self buckle as per Euler's formula for slenderness. Different materials behave differntly. The steel at the WTC could not self support at the lengths/slenderness left behind by the floor collapse... they buckled and mostly broke at their column to column connection and dropped.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 06:46 AM   #443
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Well, if I was stationary when the brick impacted I am certain it would hurt quite a bit.

Now, if I was falling at the same rate as the brick I wouldn't feel a damn thing.

Now, let's think about this for a minute. If the upper mass of WTC1 fell on the lower stationary mass of WTC1, it stands to reason that the impact would do damage to the lower mass. Right? I mean if the brick would hurt my head, the upper mass of the tower would certainly do damage to (a small portion of) the lower mass.

But the lower mass was collapsing at the rate of the upper mass. How could the upper mass do so much damage when the apparent weight was less than it was when the upper mass was stationary?
The ONLY way for that to occur would be to take out EVER SINGLE COLUMN ON EVERY SINGLE FLOOR below the initial collapse, at the same time as collapse initiated. Since that was demonstrably NOT what occurred, you have once again illustrated that you know nothing about physics.

Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh, wait, I know it's coming. Skeptics claim I know nothing about physics. Sure I don't.
BINGO

Quote:
You know that feeling you get when you go down that first drop of a roller coaster? That feeling is your brain telling you that your government is lying to you, and the skeptics on this site are frauds.
No, I don't have that feeling when I ride roller coasters. Mostly I have the "I hope the midway people put this damn thing together properly. That's because I know a bit about physics and that only if this thing is designed correctly and put together as designed, that it will sufficiently handle the stresses involved. I suppose you believe that the coaster framework is under no stress at all when the coaster cars get to the bottom of that first hill.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th June 2016 at 06:47 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 06:48 AM   #444
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The collapsing floor... growing in mass as it fell down onto each floor DID NOT INVOLVE THE STONE COLD COLUMNS. It bypassed them. It did not and could not over load them.

......................
Of course, and if FF wants a lesson in the mechanism of the tower collapses all he need do is read the summary in post #413, which was prepared with input from myself, oz, you, Oystein and several others.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th June 2016 at 06:50 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 01:18 PM   #445
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Apparent weight?

Is that a physics term?

Is it like Ted Holdens 'Felt Weight of Gravity'

Last edited by Andy_Ross; 6th June 2016 at 01:23 PM.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 02:05 PM   #446
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_weight
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Apparent weight?

Is that a physics term?

Is it like Ted Holdens 'Felt Weight of Gravity'
Quote:
In physics, apparent weight is a property of objects that corresponds to how heavy an object is. The apparent weight of an object will differ from the weight of an object whenever the force of gravity acting on the object is not balanced by an equal but opposite normal force. By definition, the weight of an object is equal to the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on it. This means that even a "weightless" astronaut in low Earth orbit has almost the same weight as he would have while standing on the ground.
The problem arises when a mass is allowed to accelerate under gravity. It now is weightless within its own frame of reference but of course still has the same mass it always had. Now nothing falls forever near the Earth's surface (Douglas Adams' fine book not withstanding) so it will hit something. At impact yes it generates the same apparent weight it did before Mass times g) BUT it also generates an impulse force (mass times the change in velocity divided by the time of contact or time to reduce velocity to zero, whichever is less)
FF ignores the later.
Then one must also consider what the forces generated are acting upon.
In the case of the pristine as built structure, all forces are transferred to the columns. If you have a full file cabinet of the 95th floor, its weight rests on the floor pan, the floor pan transfers that force, via the trusses, truss seats and other connecting structures, to the columns.
One could keep loading a floor with filing cabinets filled with lead weights. Eventually one would see the floor bending under a load it, (the floor), was never designed to hold in normal operation. after that, eventually the floor trusses will tear away from or otherwise fail the connecting structures to the columns and all that mass will now fall down to.... the next floor.
So now a mass that the original floor failed under is on a similarily designed floor below. Just what expectation do we have that this second floor will be able to hold a mass that the original couldn't? No expectation that it could. In addition though, this mass is moving and when it hits the next floor it will be subject to a negative acceleration, a force that is in addition to the static force mg.
So the expectation is actually that the second floor will fail BEFORE the falling mass has all come to a halt(whereas Judy Wood assumed that each fall would see exactly that occur, all mass come to a halt, generating just enough force to break the floor, a special case of this that she never bothered to back up as reality)
What's the expectation on hitting a third floor,,, does it really have to be described?

Notice that none of this really affects the columns at all. Sure the forces do get transmitted to columns up until the connections fail, after which the columns are out of the picture entirely. The columns do however rely on the floor trusses to supply a lateral bracing that allows a long column to remain stable. But in the above we have already removed two floor's worth of those trusses with no expectation that the internal failure of floors will halt.
Now the columns buckle under load due to loss of lateral bracing.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 06:44 PM   #447
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The ONLY way for that to occur would be to take out EVER SINGLE COLUMN ON EVERY SINGLE FLOOR below the initial collapse, at the same time as collapse initiated. Since that was demonstrably NOT what occurred, you have once again illustrated that you know nothing about physics.
Proof?

Quote:
I suppose you believe that the coaster framework is under no stress at all when the coaster cars get to the bottom of that first hill.
Where did I post anything that would lead you to this conclusion? I'm sure I didn't, which is proof you make up **** and draw conclusions from it.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 06:51 PM   #448
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
BUT it also generates an impulse force (mass times the change in velocity divided by the time of contact or time to reduce velocity to zero, whichever is less)
FF ignores the later.
Please post the exact text where I ignore what you claim.

Now, let's use your words to formulate a question.

You claim, "it also generates an impulse force (mass times the change in velocity divided by the time of contact or time to reduce velocity to zero, whichever is less)".

What do you call it when velocity changes from non-zero to zero, or when it is reduced?

*Raises hand*

Oh, pick me, pick me! I know.

So does everyone with the ability to think. We call it deceleration. If something decelerates, shouldn't we be able to observe it (within reason, especially at a large scale)?

*Raises hand*

Oh, pick me, pick me! I know.

Yes, we should be able to observe it. Now, if we should be able to observe this deceleration that causes the impulse force, where is it (or where are they) during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh, wait...I can't be right because skeptics claim I know nothing about physics. Here's one more question. If skeptics keep committing fraud, do their claims about how I know nothing about physics have any credibility?

*Raises hand*

Oh, pick me, pick me! I know.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 07:40 PM   #449
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Proof?
It freakin physics man. If two objects are falling at the same rate and never impact each other then they had to start moving at the same time too.

You want the math?

Quote:
Where did I post anything that would lead you to this conclusion? I'm sure I didn't, which is proof you make up **** and draw conclusions from it.
I am sure you don't think you said anything to imply it but that because you don't comprehend the physical implications of what you say.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 07:45 PM   #450
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
"Deceleration " is an ambiguous term. Some make it a negative acceleration, others make it a lesser magnitude acceleration but not necessarily opposite sign vector.

Therefore I use the unambiguous "negative acceleration".
Your picking this out serves to underline that you are either incompetent in the realm of physics, or that you are grasping for nits to pick.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 07:51 PM   #451
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Quote:
Yes, we should be able to observe it. Now, if we should be able to observe this deceleration that causes the impulse force, where is it (or where are they) during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?
Where are you looking for this negative acceleration or reduction of acceleration? The exterior components of the towers? Why are you ignoring the bulk of my post and why are ignoring post 413?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th June 2016 at 07:52 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2016, 08:03 PM   #452
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please post the exact text where I ignore what you claim.
You want me to post a quote where you don't deal with impulse force?
You want me to post something that constitutes an empty set?
Post the passage where you do address impulse force.
IOW illustrate my error.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 05:41 AM   #453
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please post the exact text where I ignore what you claim.
Please post the text that you never posted because you're ignoring his claim.

That's a pretty good summary of what you people bring to the table.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 06:20 AM   #454
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Well, if I was stationary when the brick impacted I am certain it would hurt quite a bit.
yes, its called impulse force. In fact that's how Newton saw it when he first wrote out his laws of motion
F=delta(P)/delta(t)
Modern textbooks write it differently as
F=ma

Quote:
Now, if I was falling at the same rate as the brick I wouldn't feel a damn thing.
The only way you'd feel nothing is if it never impacts you. If it never impacts you then both you and the brick are falling at the same rate and began falling at the same time, with an original separation that never changes. If you began falling at different times, brick first, then it will always have a greater velocity than you and it will catch up and impact you, You will feel that.

Quote:
Now, let's think about this for a minute. If the upper mass of WTC1 fell on the lower stationary mass of WTC1, it stands to reason that the impact would do damage to the lower mass. Right? I mean if the brick would hurt my head, the upper mass of the tower would certainly do damage to (a small portion of) the lower mass.
Yes, and that did occur with most of that force impacting the floor pans of the lower section. You ignore that it occurred. In fact you actively say it didn't.

Quote:
But the lower mass was collapsing at the rate of the upper mass. How could the upper mass do so much damage when the apparent weight was less than it was when the upper mass was stationary?
Really? how's that happen? How does the lower portion begin collapsing before being impacted? How does it happen that it is doing so at the same rate as the upper mass? How does this arise, and how do you deduce it occurred?
IOW, what the H are you talking about?
Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh, wait, I know it's coming. Skeptics claim I know nothing about physics. Sure I don't.
Stop proving the point then.

Quote:
You know that feeling you get when you go down that first drop of a roller coaster? That feeling is your brain telling you that your government is lying to you, and the skeptics on this site are frauds.
Again, no I never get that feeling. Instead I hope that the midway mechanics put the thing together properly and that the design is sufficient to take the dynamic loading that will arise (in any of the three dimensions) from fully occupied coaster cars being forced to change direction/velocity.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th June 2016 at 06:28 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 08:56 AM   #455
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please post the exact text where I ignore what you claim.
You know, there's something very Terry Pratchett about that suggestion. I remember one of the rules at Unseen University was that nobody could have a new pencil unless they could prove they'd used the previous one up entirely. So, as proof, they had to present the definitive absence of a pencil. It was a perfect way to avoid giving anyone another pencil, just as this is a perfect way to avoid admitting to either a stupid mistake or deliberate dishonesty.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2016, 05:04 PM   #456
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You know, there's something very Terry Pratchett about that suggestion. I remember one of the rules at Unseen University was that nobody could have a new pencil unless they could prove they'd used the previous one up entirely. So, as proof, they had to present the definitive absence of a pencil. It was a perfect way to avoid giving anyone another pencil, just as this is a perfect way to avoid admitting to either a stupid mistake or deliberate dishonesty.

Dave

One of my favourite fun examples used in training over many years. Scenario is "shaking petty bureaucrats out of their detailed nit picking and micro management modes".

I used the hypothetical example of the junior clerk newly promoted to "Stationery Clerk"* and charged with improving economy of stationery usage.

He implements a new rule:
"No replacement pencils unless you provide the used stub of the old one AND all the shavings from sharpening it."




* Yes you could rely on someone suggesting "Stationary Clerk"

Last edited by ozeco41; 7th June 2016 at 05:05 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 04:19 PM   #457
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif
One of my favourite fun examples used in training over many years. Scenario is "shaking petty bureaucrats out of their detailed nit picking and micro management modes".

I used the hypothetical example of the junior clerk newly promoted to "Stationery Clerk"* and charged with improving economy of stationery usage.

He implements a new rule:
"No replacement pencils unless you provide the used stub of the old one AND all the shavings from sharpening it."




* Yes you could rely on someone suggesting "Stationary Clerk"
You must have met the PO in charge of the Engineering Stores On a Frigate I served in.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:07 PM   #458
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
You must have met the PO in charge of the Engineering Stores On a Frigate I served in.
You can be 100% certain I've met the archetype - many times. I was talking civvy street BUT the "Stores Corporal" comes to mind in the green suited branch of the AU Military.

More important for my training scenario the model examples always communicated well with 90% or more of the class. They had all met the micro-managing means end confused bureaucrat across many of their diverse experiences. They all had their own example of someone the "cap would fit".

...and that was why I used the example - giving the group of participants something I was confident they would all be able to relate to.

(And guess what types the 10% were who didn't want to relate.... ) (You got it in one!!! )

AND my statement should be readily adaptable to your remembered examples:

"Scenario is "shaking Petty Bureaucrats Officers out of their detailed nit picking and micro management modes".

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 06:54 PM   #459
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? Nothing was going to stop the collapse? You mean nothing, like the tens of thousands of tons of cold, undamaged steel that had always been supporting the mass above?

I guess the collapsing mass exerted too much force for the structure below. Oh, wait...I guess you skeptics have never heard of apparent weight. I can't wait to see what nonsense you have to explain that away.

We can see the same effect in this video of the Verinage demolition method, which does not require the use of explosives. Notice the dust plumes and how compressed air laterally ejects debris away from the building.

Verinage Demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 07:32 PM   #460
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
We can see the same effect in this video of the Verinage demolition method, which does not require the use of explosives. Notice the dust plumes and how compressed air laterally ejects debris away from the building.

Verinage Demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Comprehensive reasoned explanation became unfashionable on this forum (and most others) a few years back.

But if you are interested in the first stages of a reasoned explanation of why "Global Collapse Was Inevitable" for the WTC Twin Towers you might try this explanation of mine as posted on DebatePolitics. The original is on this forum but was somewhat more narrowly focused - I can dig up the link on this forum if you are interested. It was in response to one of those older style trolls* who occasionally asked sensible questions - and on even rarer occasions responded rationally to the answers. So a different class of troll to present incumbents. Despite the exponential growth in quantity of trolling the quality of trolling has been in rapid decline over the last 4-5 years.



As I said - comprehensive explanation is now unfashionable with "Whack-a-Mole" feeding of responses to trolls being the current dominant and preferred activity.

But the material at that link may help build your comprehension of the underlying WTC realities. If it is of no help - no problem simply ignore it.



* For the older hands it was Clayton Moore. And - before you jump on me - note my "cop out" strategic use of "occasionally" and "even rarer"

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th June 2016 at 07:40 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 07:38 PM   #461
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Comprehensive reasoned explanation became unfashionable on this forum (and most others) a few years back.

But if you are interested in the first stages of a reasoned explanation of why "Global Collapse Was Inevitable" for the WTC Twin Towers you might try this explanation of mine as posted on DebatePolitics. The original is on this forum but was somewhat more narrowly focused - I can dig up the link on this forum if you are interested. It was in response to one of those older style trolls who occasionally asked sensible questions - and on even rarer occasions responded rationally to the answers. So a different class of troll to present incumbents. The quality of trolling has been in rapid decline over the last 4-5 years.



As I said - comprehensive explanation is now unfashionable with "Whack-a-Mole" feeding of responses to trolls being the current dominant and preferred activity.

But the material at that link may help build your comprehension of the underlying WTC realities. If it is of no help - no problem simply ignore it.
I would like to take a look at your link.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 07:57 PM   #462
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I would like to take a look at your link.
It should "hot link" if you click on it in my post. Or do you mean the local version? Give me a few minutes to see if I can find it.

EDIT: Try this for the "local version" - the "meaty reasoning" stuff is identical. "http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9520930#post9520930"

If not the URL is "http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/174422-global-collapse-truly-inevitable.html"

It is fairly comprehensive/lengthy but take your time and go for it.

It is the "progression" stage of Twin towers collapse - what happend AFTER the Top Block started to fall. There is a more recent thread on this forum explaining Twin Towers "initiation" stage basic physics - i.e. why the Top Block did start to fall. The "progression" stage is easier to visualise. "initiation" is complicated 3D to properly visualise the load redistribution. Take a rain check on that one if you wish but this is the thread.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th June 2016 at 08:07 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 08:01 PM   #463
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It should "hot link" if you click on it in my post. Or do you mean the local version? Give me a few minutes to see if I can find it.

If not the URL is "http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/174422-global-collapse-truly-inevitable.html"

It is fairly comprehensive/lengthy but take your time and go for it.

It is the "progression" stage of Twin towers collapse - what happend AFTER the Top Block started to fall. There is a more recent thread on this forum explaining Twin Towers "initiation" stage basic physics - i.e. why the Top Block did start to fall. The "progression" stage is easier to visualise. "initiation" is complicated 3D to properly visualise the load redistribution. Take a rain check on that one if you wish but this is the thread.
Thanks for the link!
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.