9/11 Conspiracy

[daws101]

...the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" is meaningless you have no evidence of cause ...

What a coincidence; neither did NIST. They couldn't even muster a possible explanation for it.

false! might want to look up the word meaningless

Yeah, I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you might want to look up the word "possible".

what's possible and what occurred are to separate things
put another way the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable

Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.

yes it would be, but that's not what happened.
that's another played out twoofer talking point.
ever heard the term dynamic load?

 

[Jackinthebox]

The weakening of a steel section does not cause global collapse of a steel structure. Your own previous video showed that, when the overpass collpased onto the underpass, and when there were partial collpases in burning buildings, where the buildings were actually burning.

I never said anything about missiles either so your second video there is irrelevant.

not yet you haven't

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

 

[daws101]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash into or in close proximity to that building?
if not it's meaningless..

 

[Gamolon]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You're dodging because you don't know.

 

[daws101]

false! might want to look up the word meaningless

Yeah, I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you might want to look up the word "possible".

what's possible and what occurred are to separate things
put another way the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable

Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.

3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

 

[Jackinthebox]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

 

[Gamolon]

The weakening of a steel section does not cause global collapse of a steel structure. Your own previous video showed that, when the overpass collpased onto the underpass, and when there were partial collpases in burning buildings, where the buildings were actually burning.

I never said anything about missiles either so your second video there is irrelevant.

not yet you haven't

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

Kind of like you and the location of the jet engine right?

You kept pushing your crap until it was shown you and your information were completely wrong.

 

[Jackinthebox]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You dodging because you don't know.

It's not how I think it happened. Steel buildings do not collapse under their own load without eliminating many, many key structure points throughout the structure.

 

[daws101]

The weakening of a steel section does not cause global collapse of a steel structure. Your own previous video showed that, when the overpass collpased onto the underpass, and when there were partial collpases in burning buildings, where the buildings were actually burning.

I never said anything about missiles either so your second video there is irrelevant.

not yet you haven't

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

ten pages in and the making shit up posts begin.
I've admitted nothing just stating facts .
you on the other hand,,,

 

[Gamolon]

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Yeah, I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you might want to look up the word "possible".

what's possible and what occurred are to separate things
put another way the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable

Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.

3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

 

[daws101]

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You dodging because you don't know.

It's not how I think it happened. Steel buildings do not collapse under their own load without eliminating many, many key structure points throughout the structure.

ah.... obviously they do...

 

[Jackinthebox]

The weakening of a steel section does not cause global collapse of a steel structure. Your own previous video showed that, when the overpass collpased onto the underpass, and when there were partial collpases in burning buildings, where the buildings were actually burning.

I never said anything about missiles either so your second video there is irrelevant.

not yet you haven't

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

ten pages in and the making shit up posts begin.
I've admitted nothing just stating facts .
you on the other hand,,,

Making shit up? Like assuming that I was going to say anything about missiles?

 

[daws101]

what's possible and what occurred are to separate things
put another way the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable

Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.

3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

 

[daws101]

not yet you haven't

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

ten pages in and the making shit up posts begin.
I've admitted nothing just stating facts .
you on the other hand,,,

Making shit up? Like assuming that I was going to say anything about missiles?

it was not an assumption,

 

[Jackinthebox]

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.

I have, several times now. Because steel buildings don't just collapse under their own weight at free fall speed without a perfectly executed demolition plan.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Sayit - So were you dancing and celebrating like the other Israelis when the Towers got hit?

 

[Jackinthebox]

ah.... obviously they do...

Yeah, in the NIST imaginationland.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.

3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?

false I'm pointing out your numerous assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.

ad hominems is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.

So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.

ten pages in and the making shit up posts begin.
I've admitted nothing just stating facts .
you on the other hand,,,

Making shit up? Like assuming that I was going to say anything about missiles?

it was not an assumption,

Well I didn't say anything about missiles, so you sir, are now talking straight out of your ass.