9/11

The funny thing is when it comes to conspiracy theories I still find a butterfly flapping it’s wings more plausible than Alex Jones flapping his tongue..lol..

 

No, that is simply not correct

You are just contradicting yourself there, must be accompnaied by a decrease in speed....falls right through as if it werent there

No, you need to do it, gives us at least some rough figures, numbers to for what you are referring to with the "upper block" "lower block". The lower block was totally intact up to what height? it wasnt 15 floors, the plane hit 93rd to 99 floors. that "intact core structure" was intact for up to what height are you saying,the 93 rd floor, the 73 rd floor??? why cant you say it.....because YOU DONT KNOW

What load can the rest of the building handle?
Have you given a single number the last 20 pages of replies?

NO!, it doesnt!!! changes the velocity, not the acceleration

Errr, above the subatomic nothing is going to change acceleration due to gravity

Anyone with the least little bit of understanding of physics is going to understand what on earth you are talking about with cause with/without an effect? Intentionally vague so you dont have to actually answer any questions

 

Voyager 1 is 13.36 billion miles from earth now BTW, I got side tracked on Youtube

 

I didn't contradict myself, and you know it . . . unless you're really confused. Anyone reading what I've written knows full well that when I said "must be accompanied by a decrease in speed", I was stating what happens when one body collides with another body of the same composition. You're pretending to not remember that. You're also pretending to not remember that my statement that the upper block falls right through the Tower below as if it weren't there was in reference to what you must believe in order for your theory to be plausible.

You are also pretending to not understand that I was calling you on your theory that, while the falling upper block is a cause with an effect, the rest of the Tower below it is a cause without an effect. You understand exactly what I was saying.

But back to my point. Given your understanding of air resistance concerning falling objects, how far should the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it? I'm guessing that you have no intention of answering that since you know exactly what comes next. Is that correct?

 

Um, no, that's not a time mark. Did you not understand the question?

 

I dont see any numbers, come on just one little calculation, just one

The height of these "intact core structures" of the "lower block"

I'll just keep asking that for the next 20 pages

Ya dont know

 

Um, you seem to be genuinely unaware that you've just exposed your lack of knowledge concerning the core structure, and have shown that you didn't let that stop you from formulating your implausible theories concerning the collapse. You actually asked me what "the height of these 'intact core structures of the 'lower block' were. In the first place, the Tower did not have core structures; it had a core structure. And that core was a continuous structure from ground to roof. And here you've been arguing about something which you didn't even know the details of. In case you don't get the gist of what I've just said, you've lost your credibility here.

So let's get back to where we were:

I didn't contradict myself, and you know it . . . unless you're really confused. Anyone reading what I've written knows full well that when I said "must be accompanied by a decrease in speed", I was stating what happens when one body collides with another body of the same composition. You're pretending to not remember that. You're also pretending to not remember that my statement that the upper block falls right through the Tower below as if it weren't there was in reference to what you must believe in order for your theory to be plausible.

You are also pretending to not understand that I was calling you on your theory that, while the falling upper block is a cause with an effect, the rest of the Tower below it is a cause without an effect. You understand exactly what I was saying.

So, given your understanding of air resistance concerning falling objects, and your very, very recent revelation about the core structure, how far should the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it?

 

Ok, so you are saying those core columns were intact throughout all 110 floors after American 11 crashed into the tower?

 

First you expose your lack of understanding about the very thing you're debating. Then you just keep refusing to answer the questions in the post right above you . . . for the umpteenth time. And now you're hoping that I'll forget about all that and just answer any ole little thing you can come up with in the hope that you might distract readers from the fact that you didn't even know what the core structure was until a minute ago, and that you also took my comments out of context in order to give the appearance that I contradicted myself. Is there anything else you'd like everyone to know?

 

Yes, the height you think those intact core columns of the lower block were

 

I don't know which of you is correct and it's stressing me out man

 

We'll forget for the moment that you are refusing to own up to your attempt to put two statements of mine in the wrong context for the purpose of giving readers the impression that I contradicted myself. We'll also forget about the fact that you simply will not answer the question of how far the upper block would have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower in place to impede it, given your little lesson concerning the issue of air resistance. We'll also forget that you asked me what "the height of these 'intact core structures of the 'lower block' were, and what that means about your understanding of the core structure.

Forgetting all that for the moment, you now sound like you're about ready to open up about something you know about the situation with the core columns below the impact zone. So, what can you tell us about that? How many columns that made up the core structure were damaged?

 

You get it yet? Its the argument itself. Talk of upper block vs lower block, implies seperation of the two.

If your audience is the layman whos not going to want to bother with any math. Maybe difficult to get them to understand how the whole building collapsed.

But getting them to understand how those top 11 floors at least fell the height of that big giant hole left by the plane.....easy, theres a big fuckin hole there

So how high was your "intact core stucture" of the "lower block", That is, where do the upper and lower blocks start? Either side of that big hole? You can never answer that question.

I apparently have a poor understanding of the centre structure of that tower? Its takes all of ten seconds to pull that photo of the cross section off the wikipedia page.

And I will post it here for their benefit



That middle section, elevators, the 3 stairwells that all got cut off trapping 1300 people, 47 steel columns.

What height from the ground did all that remain intact for? The entire 110 floors? Between the 93rd to 99th floor where the plane hit, where that big freakin hole is? And i will keep asking the question for the next 20 pages. Because I know you cant answer that, because then you are in la la land with even that casual audience or the layman that doesnt want to bother with any math.

How fast it did or didnt fall, they wont give a shit, thetes a big giant hole there.

Why did the 99th to 110th floor fall at least down to the 93rd floor, thats obvious to everyone, theres a big giant hole there.

So i will ask the question again, 110 floors were 417m high before the attack. 47 steel columns in the centre of the buliding. Up to what height did all those 47 steel columns in the centre of the buliding remain intact for. Where does your "lower block" start?

 

The upper block is the section of the Tower above the impact zone. So there goes your belief that no one can ever answer that. Now let's talk about things in terms of reality. According to FEMA, 31 of the 240 perimeter columns were destroyed. Also according to FEMA, the number of core columns destroyed is unknown. Now you're going to have to explain why you believe that the core structure below the upper block would be any other height than the height of the impact zone. And I will keep asking that question for the next 20 pages because I know that your only source for that information is your own imagination.

And I have no idea why you posted an image of the elevator system of the Tower. You say you posted it for the benefit of the layman. But I believe that the layman will be insulted by your presumption that they have a problem with the idea that the Tower had elevators.

 

So you are admiting you have no idea how intact your "intact core structure" of the "lower block" is

 

Your mindset is preventing you from interpreting what anyone is saying about the subject of the core structure. I didn't say that FEMA was of the opinion that the core structure was not intact. I said that they said that the damage to the core columns is unknown. You seem to think that there is reason to believe that the height of the core structure below the impact zone is in question. Are you going to explain your reasoning on that issue?

 

And that would be the same FEMA report that actually says the trigger for the collapse of wtc 1 was the structural damage caused to wtc 1 by the collapse of wtc2. That is, that would be the same FEMA report that says the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2. You mean THAT report?

 

I'd be interested in seeing the report that confirms that all of the core columns of the North Tower were compromised by the collapse of the South Tower. That contradicts the NIST's statement that "The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."