I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

[jc456]

Intelligent conversation that starts with 9/11 was done by the U.S. Government..... that's a non starter

Anyone who believes the government’s story on 9/11 is a self admitted ignoramus.

what story?

Are you aware of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Yeah, what is it you don't believe?

 

[gipper]

Intelligent conversation that starts with 9/11 was done by the U.S. Government..... that's a non starter

Anyone who believes the government’s story on 9/11 is a self admitted ignoramus.

what story?

Are you aware of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Yeah, what is it you don't believe?

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint.

 

[Gdjjr]

Yeah, what is it you don't believe?

Believe? I know, the US gov't lies. Period. I know that the never ending wars, foreign and domestic, have nothing to do with securing our Liberty, or defending our "democracy"- I know that BOTH sides subscribe to the hegemony- I know that both sides help fund the MIC with lies and selling fear-

Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe known liars.

 

[Gdjjr]

As is typical, intellectual discussion cannot be had- it boggles my mind.

 

[jc456]

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint

You personally know that didn’t happen? Ouch. Did you do something to the buildings to know that?

 

[jc456]

Yeah, what is it you don't believe?

Believe? I know, the US gov't lies. Period. I know that the never ending wars, foreign and domestic, have nothing to do with securing our Liberty, or defending our "democracy"- I know that BOTH sides subscribe to the hegemony- I know that both sides help fund the MIC with lies and selling fear-

Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe known liars.

So the planes didn’t fly into the two buildings?

I personally watched the second one fly into one on tv.

are you saying that didn’t happen?

and experts told us the planes caused the buildings to fall, not the government

 

[gipper]

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint

You personally know that didn’t happen? Ouch. Did you do something to the buildings to know that?

Lol. We’re done here.

 

[jc456]

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint

You personally know that didn’t happen? Ouch. Did you do something to the buildings to know that?

Lol. We’re done here.

That’s what a loser says when they can’t defend their positions.

you made the claim publicly and you shirk your responsibility to post why! And then blame me! Hahaha

 

[gipper]

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint

You personally know that didn’t happen? Ouch. Did you do something to the buildings to know that?

Lol. We’re done here.

That’s what a loser says when they can’t defend their positions.

you made the claim publicly and you shirk your responsibility to post why! And then blame me! Hahaha

Banned permanently.

 

[jc456]

That the planes caused the building to collapse into their footprint

You personally know that didn’t happen? Ouch. Did you do something to the buildings to know that?

Lol. We’re done here.

That’s what a loser says when they can’t defend their positions.

you made the claim publicly and you shirk your responsibility to post why! And then blame me! Hahaha

Banned permanently.

Post #48

 

[jc456]

As is typical, intellectual discussion cannot be had- it boggles my mind.

Well if that’s what you wanted, why didn’t you provide data to support your claim? You’re claiming the planes didn’t cause the buildings to fall, then what did? You offered nothing

 

[Gdjjr]

You offered nothing

Read the first post and get back to me.

 

[jc456]

You offered nothing

Read the first post and get back to me.

I did, the buildings collapsed top down from where the two planes entered each building. Your theory would need to show the opposite and it doesn’t! So again, what else would have made the buildings fall top down

 

[Gdjjr]

Your theory would need to show the opposite and it doesn’t! So again, what else would have made the buildings fall top down

My "theory"? LOL- no, 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the top and brought them down in near identical fashion at near free fall speed- that's not a theory-those are facts- it's impossible- or a great coincidence- from the lyingest entity on the planet - none of this is "theory".

Can I suggest you educate yourself?

A teaser:

Abstract: On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.


Note: This article has received more than one million views since its publication on August 24, 2016, and prompted a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Peter Michael Ketcham, to speak out for the first time. In the subsequent November 2016 issue of Europhysics News, Ketcham wrote a letter to the editor, "Thoughts from a Former NIST Employee," condemning the NIST World Trade Center reports.

15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses


Another: Read at The Open Civil Engineering Journal.


Abstract: Until recently, the progression and time of collapse of structures has not been a primary objective of the structural engineering profession. However, such events are likely to be of major interest in high rise building situations where a fire-initiated failure takes place, or where a controlled demolition is to be implemented. The paper attempts to shed light on this problem and to develop velocity profiles during a collapse event, also potentially important, especially in built-up areas. Because of the complex nature of both the structural system and the process of collapse, analysis methods need to be simplistic, which are yet realistic and are easily understood by designers and code writers of the nature and cause of a building collapse. The objective of this paper is to shed light on this problem by employing the most basic equations of Newton’s laws of motion. A formulation of the problem of a building frame of N stories, subjected only to gravity loading is postulated that involves an analysis employing a generic one-dimensional discrete model of progressive collapse. The supporting elements within its nth story are suddenly degraded by whatever cause, with the velocity and time steps calculated. Several design scenarios are presented for the columns with prescribed energy dissipation properties ascertained at any level, thus allowing the motion to be determined in accordance with the known equations of energy and momentum. An example 10-story structure is proposed to illustrate the method, in which the column designs, utilizing square hollow sections and W-shapes, are governed by a combination of dead, live and wind loads. For the 6 designs postulated involving tubular columns alone, and with sequential removal of columns in each of the 10 stories, it was found that progressive collapse was arrested in 90% for such hypothetical scenarios. For the other 10%, global collapse times exceeded that of free-fall by 57 to 228%.

Read at The Open Civil Engineering Journal.

 

[jc456]

Your theory would need to show the opposite and it doesn’t! So again, what else would have made the buildings fall top down

My "theory"? LOL- no, 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the top and brought them down in near identical fashion at near free fall speed- that's not a theory-those are facts- it's impossible- or a great coincidence- from the lyingest entity on the planet - none of this is "theory".

Can I suggest you educate yourself?

A teaser:

Abstract: On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.


Note: This article has received more than one million views since its publication on August 24, 2016, and prompted a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Peter Michael Ketcham, to speak out for the first time. In the subsequent November 2016 issue of Europhysics News, Ketcham wrote a letter to the editor, "Thoughts from a Former NIST Employee," condemning the NIST World Trade Center reports.

15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses


Another: Read at The Open Civil Engineering Journal.


Abstract: Until recently, the progression and time of collapse of structures has not been a primary objective of the structural engineering profession. However, such events are likely to be of major interest in high rise building situations where a fire-initiated failure takes place, or where a controlled demolition is to be implemented. The paper attempts to shed light on this problem and to develop velocity profiles during a collapse event, also potentially important, especially in built-up areas. Because of the complex nature of both the structural system and the process of collapse, analysis methods need to be simplistic, which are yet realistic and are easily understood by designers and code writers of the nature and cause of a building collapse. The objective of this paper is to shed light on this problem by employing the most basic equations of Newton’s laws of motion. A formulation of the problem of a building frame of N stories, subjected only to gravity loading is postulated that involves an analysis employing a generic one-dimensional discrete model of progressive collapse. The supporting elements within its nth story are suddenly degraded by whatever cause, with the velocity and time steps calculated. Several design scenarios are presented for the columns with prescribed energy dissipation properties ascertained at any level, thus allowing the motion to be determined in accordance with the known equations of energy and momentum. An example 10-story structure is proposed to illustrate the method, in which the column designs, utilizing square hollow sections and W-shapes, are governed by a combination of dead, live and wind loads. For the 6 designs postulated involving tubular columns alone, and with sequential removal of columns in each of the 10 stories, it was found that progressive collapse was arrested in 90% for such hypothetical scenarios. For the other 10%, global collapse times exceeded that of free-fall by 57 to 228%.

Read at The Open Civil Engineering Journal.

Well again the video shows the buildings collapsing top down, that isn’t how demolition removal works, charges are placed on the bottom and the building then collapses onto itself. That’s not how they fell. You can post as many links you want, give me one to explain that

 

[Donald H]

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

There's an intellectual discussion to be had on trying to determine the reason why people buy into conspiracy theory nonsense.
I doubt you would want to go there.

But to go along with the crazy sh-t a bit because it is in all fairness your thread and your request for a discussion shouldn't just be laughed off as being ridiculous USBS.

People's credentials shouldn't be summoned up in an attempt to enhance one's credibility. Even some nuclear physicists are religious believers, and that includes believing in the Christian bible in a literal sense.

Point is, the floor sweeper can get it right when the physicist doesn't.

Are you ready to begin? I'm ready to take you and your conspiracy theory apart!

My credentials? Just think of me as a Canadian ditch digger.

 

[Gdjjr]

Are you ready to begin? I'm ready to take you and your conspiracy theory apart!

My credentials? Just think of me as a Canadian ditch digger.

Read the title- bring it on. Think of me as a not real bright, floor sweeper.

 

[Donald H]

Are you ready to begin? I'm ready to take you and your conspiracy theory apart!

My credentials? Just think of me as a Canadian ditch digger.

Read the title- bring it on. Think of me as a not real bright, floor sweeper.

I would start by considering you to be a worthy opponent. Then I would think over your apparent position on the building 7 conspiracy theory. Read 'conspiracy theory' for what the words mean.

Now, do you want to present your position on what happened?

Fwiw, I'll give you my position on what happened at the Pentagon. A commercial airliner hit it. That's only added to set the tone with me.

 

[MarathonMike]

But the simulation will show if a building made the way the towers were made would collapse that way if hi5 by an airliner.

The danger of a simulation is always "garbage in-garbage out". There are so many independent variables and you have to make so many assumptions, that ultimately all you have done is create an interesting computer generated animation. It would prove or disprove nothing.

 

[Donald H]

But the simulation will show if a building made the way the towers were made would collapse that way if hi5 by an airliner.

The danger of a simulation is always "garbage in-garbage out". There are so many independent variables and you have to make so many assumptions, that ultimately all you have done is create an interesting computer generated animation. It would prove or disprove nothing.

That's Trumpy nonsense and it shouldn't even be entertained by normal people now that he's been smacked down. It's extremism and it's time for Americans to start trying to find their way back to normal.

Can you moderate your beliefs on 'simulations' so that it would make sense. Normal people will usually accept that which is rational.