IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

15 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses

KP50
post Jul 14 2008, 05:45 PM
Post #261



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I go away, I come back and still it continues.

If you told one of these "debunkers" to stick their patient irrelevant questioning up their rear ends, they would surely reply .....

> How do you propose I insert these questions? Should I record them and play them back with the microphone located adjacent to my back passage or should I print them off and insert the paper?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 15 2008, 09:06 AM
Post #262





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
Adam,

If you are incapable of seeing that the structural integrity of approximately the upper 1/3 of the VOLUME of either tower was compromised (to the point of airborne dust hanging over Manhattan for at least a week afterward) BEFORE the lower 2/3 of either tower exhibited a "spherically gravitational"-WTF?? migration many directions except "downward,"


"Spherically gravitational"??? What do you mean by that?
Are you claiming that the part of the tower above the impact zone turned to dust prior to the collapse of each tower?

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
What percentage of the MASS do you say Adam- please illuminate us with your wisdom?


I don't know. But since you claim to know the amount, I would like to know how you determined it.

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
Since you have missed it repeatedly before, I'll say effectively all of the mass and structure of the approximate upper 1/3 of either tower was compromised to the point that it could no longer provide a gravitational load on the lower 2/3 of either tower.


Are you claiming that this happened prior to the collapses?

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
Don't you think demanding absolute mass numbers is a little un-realistic here Adam? How exactly would you go about weighing all that airborne dust Adam? After all, wasn't all that steel shipped off post haste by NYPA and FEMA? Why do you think that evidence was destroyed Adam? I know several here are curious about that point.


Exact numbers are unrealistic, but approximations would be nice, especially since you claim to know the amounts. You couldn't accurately weigh all of the airborne dust, but approximations could be made. The steel was shipped off after it was sorted through and there was no longer a reason to keep it around.

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
BTW, VOLUME does not equate to MASS- if you will note I have made that distinction, and I alluded to that in my SOURCED answer #1 that you posted your circular answer/consider/answer/whatever bit about, in case you missed it. I don't have an accurate MASS distribution of WTC1 and WTC2- what are you using for those numbers Adam? You'll need to ask someone else your "mass" question there - I don't have those numbers. Did you see them somewhere in the NIST report by any chance? A section number and page number would be great when you get the chance- it is ~10,000 pages after all.


Again, in case you missed it..I don't have the numbers. I'm not asking for an exact mass distribution, but you must know approximations if you're able to claim that the mass pushing down on the rest of the tower was "effectively zero". I'm not aware of those numbers being part of NIST's report, but since you reject their conclusions anyways, I'm not sure why that matters.

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 05:25 PM) *
I answered your 2 questions Adam (even though you don't seem to want to acknowledge the posts back since about #300 for whatever reason). Why don't you get started on those 83 or so questions that the MSM/OGCT loyalists seem to want to keep dodging repeatedly on this thread? We're not getting any younger after all...


You have still not answered my second question. (Note rewording to avoid confusion)
QUOTE
Reworded for dmole---How much of the tower could 1/3 of the mass of the wtc crash through driven by gravity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 15 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #263


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (adam_zapple @ Jul 15 2008, 07:06 AM) *
You have still not answered my second question. (Note rewording to avoid confusion)
QUOTE

Reworded for dmole---How much of the tower could 1/3 of the mass of the wtc crash through driven by gravity?



The answer is "zero percent".

First a disclaimer. I am neither an architect or an engineer much less a physicist. Nevertheless I am a reasonably intelligent person who has over a lifetime had hands-on experience with various materials and structures. Nothing on the scale of a skyscraper but physical principals apply across vastly different scales. So I can not speak in the clear language of mathematics, engineering or science, only in general layman's terms.

The towers stood for decades with the lower two-thirds supporting the upper one third with nothing but gravity acting upon the structure. On 9/11 something changed and what had been a solid structure very rapidly, within a matter of seconds, disintegrated into severed steel beams -- many of them hurtled laterally -- and very fine particulate dust. The question is, how did this happen? The only energy available to the OCT to produce these observed results (not to mention molten metal found beneath the structure for weeks afterward) is gravity acting upon mass.

So, lets do a thought experiment. Lets place a mass at the top of one of the towers. For simplicity's sake, lets say this mass is one more story. I can't do it but I assume it would be relatively easy to approximate the weight of one floor of a WTC tower -- 'x' number of tons of steel, concrete, glass and other structural components, even contents if you like. So, lets add one floor above the 110. Would this extra weight (mass acted upon by gravity) cause the entire structure to collapse? The answer is no -- I think we can all agree on this. Very well, lets keep adding floors (values of 'x') and -- for the sake of our thought experiment lets leave aside any possible other forces that might change the outcome such as wind-sheer. (We don't want our imaginary structure to fall sideways or do anything other than what was observed on 9/11.) So, lets keep adding floors one by one and approximate at what point the entire structure would be sufficiently over-stressed to result not only in catastrophic structural failure but the precisely observed results seen on 9/11. So we have a very simple equation 'x' times 'y' where 'x' is an approximate weight of one floor and 'y' is the number of floors that can be built on top of one another before the observed outcome, let's call it 'R' for result, occurs.

Who would like to make a more-or-less educated guess at the quantities for 'x' and 'y' to produce 'R'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 15 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #264


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Adam, apparently you didn't click on the link I posted uptread, so I'll just put the pictures here. Please watch the corner of the building as the part above the collapse floor vanishes to dust.

To put it as clearly as I can, there was no mass pushing down on the rest of the tower. Dust drifting away in the wind has no downward momentum.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Destinova
post Jul 15 2008, 02:08 PM
Post #265





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 17-July 07
From: Germany
Member No.: 1,468



I read and read... and still this thread is like Nascar racing. And I have a feeling that Adam is always a lap behind with all his questions.

Get a break and watch this if you didn't allready know it (right after watching you'll understand the joke in my sentence above).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaybOwDhJZo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 15 2008, 09:26 PM
Post #266





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Jul 15 2008, 12:28 PM) *
Adam, apparently you didn't click on the link I posted uptread, so I'll just put the pictures here. Please watch the corner of the building as the part above the collapse floor vanishes to dust.

To put it as clearly as I can, there was no mass pushing down on the rest of the tower.


Those top 10-30 floors had no mass?
Is your claim based on your own personal opinion or are you citing the opinion of an expert?


In your second photo here, we see that most of the floors in that top area are still intact, and falling, which means they are pushing down on the rest of the tower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 15 2008, 09:43 PM
Post #267


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



I didn't think you would be able to see it. Try again.

In the second photo the floor where the flames are being ejected is the same floor where the smoke starts in the first photo. Yet the height of the upper section is clearly diminished. Some floors between the lower section and what is left of the upper section are simply gone. If they were still there, the floor with the fire would have already been crushed and pushed downwards. Same with the third and fourth photo.

By the time the collapse of the lower section begins there is nothing above it except dust. In other words, the building was demolished floor by floor, starting at the damaged area going upward like in a standard CD, then once the top part was gone the process went downwards, floor by floor. Easy to see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 16 2008, 11:05 AM
Post #268


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



OF is right, Adam. If you watch the video of that sequence what you see is there is no compression of structure below the threshold of demolition initiation. Just the opposite is occurring -- decomposition of the mass and structure ABOVE that point -- which makes no sense in your "top down gravity driven collapse" theory. It is only at the point that (approximately) the base of the antenna reaches the blast zone that the lower structure begins to be exploded outward.

It is right there in front of you, Adam, and there is no denying it. If you can't see it there are only two explanations. 1) you are in denial and don't want to see it and therefore your brain keeps finding ways to 'not' see it or 2) you are a paid agent/shill sent to forums like this to try and keep the OCT alive in the minds of lurkers.

In either case, you're now going to have to live through the consequences of either your ignorance or your complicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 16 2008, 11:38 AM
Post #269





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Jul 15 2008, 09:43 PM) *
I didn't think you would be able to see it. Try again.

In the second photo the floor where the flames are being ejected is the same floor where the smoke starts in the first photo. Yet the height of the upper section is clearly diminished. Some floors between the lower section and what is left of the upper section are simply gone. If they were still there, the floor with the fire would have already been crushed and pushed downwards. Same with the third and fourth photo.

By the time the collapse of the lower section begins there is nothing above it except dust. In other words, the building was demolished floor by floor, starting at the damaged area going upward like in a standard CD, then once the top part was gone the process went downwards, floor by floor. Easy to see.


So what you're saying is, as the top of the tower is falling, it's not hitting any of the rest of the tower at all, it's being all turned to dust and all ejected out the sides of the tower so that zero mass falls on the rest of the tower below?

Again I ask, is this a conclusion you reached yourself or the opinion of one or more experts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 16 2008, 11:41 AM
Post #270


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



It's something I can see. Look at the photos again. No outside expertise is needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 16 2008, 12:02 PM
Post #271





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Jul 16 2008, 11:41 AM) *
It's something I can see. Look at the photos again. No outside expertise is needed.


I'll ask again:

QUOTE
So what you're saying is, as the top of the tower is falling, it's not hitting any of the rest of the tower at all, it's being all turned to dust and all ejected out the sides of the tower so that zero mass falls on the rest of the tower below?


Is that what you are claiming?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 16 2008, 12:09 PM
Post #272


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Do you have a comprehension problem Adam? Of course that's what I'm saying. Just look at the photos and it will become clear.

Here, I'll quote myself:

QUOTE
By the time the collapse of the lower section begins there is nothing above it except dust. In other words, the building was demolished floor by floor, starting at the damaged area going upward like in a standard CD, then once the top part was gone the process went downwards, floor by floor. Easy to see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 16 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #273


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



If you ask me the same question again, which of course I answered before you asked it the first time, you get a 'warn'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 16 2008, 12:36 PM
Post #274



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 14 2008, 04:25 PM) *
Adam,

If you are incapable of seeing that the structural integrity of approximately the upper 1/3 of the VOLUME of either tower was compromised (to the point of airborne dust hanging over Manhattan for at least a week afterward) BEFORE the lower 2/3 of either tower exhibited a "spherically gravitational"-WTF?? migration many directions except "downward," then there is likely nothing you can gain here. Are you just wasting your time and ours here Adam?

There's a 3rd time you've dodged and haven't answered that big, bright red question Adam. Some of us notice these things...

Also, elmers' do you quietly skulk along with Adam everywhere he goes? I notice you two appear to keep the same schedule here at least. (Be sure to IM each other right away about this one wink.gif ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Jul 16 2008, 12:51 PM
Post #275


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



3 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
3 Members: Oceans Flow, adam_zapple, elmersglue


Adam, we have a requirement of those who support the official story. You must answer all the questions in the opening post in this pinned thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13214

I would like for you to do that now, with no delay. Others who have failed to comply with this request have been sent packing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 16 2008, 01:01 PM
Post #276



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Where'd elmersglue go? dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 16 2008, 01:48 PM
Post #277





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Jul 16 2008, 12:10 PM) *
By the time the collapse of the lower section begins there is nothing above it except dust.


I would like to know how you were able to see this, since you did not have an unobstructed view of the top of the lower section as it began to collapse.

Oceans flow: According to the board rules, that rule only applies to those who "advocate without sincere question the government's OCT", which means it would not apply to me.

Dmole: I hope not.

This post has been edited by adam_zapple: Jul 16 2008, 01:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 16 2008, 02:38 PM
Post #278



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (adam_zapple @ Jul 16 2008, 12:48 PM) *
Oceans flow: According to the board rules, that rule only applies to those who "advocate without sincere question the government's OCT", which means it would not apply to me.

Dmole: I hope not.

I think you missed a couple of those links that OF referred you to Adam, specifically the "BUT IF YOU ARE HERE TO DISRUPT UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE OF POLITE MANNERS AND ASKING QUESTIONS WHICH SIMPLY GET PEOPLE TO ARGUE INDEFINITELY ABOUT THINGS THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN ABSENT A GENUINE INVESTIGATION WITH SUBPOENA POWER IN A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OR A COURT OF LAW, THEN KNOW THAT I WILL BAN YOUR ASS WHEN I GET TIRED OF KICKING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

OK?"- painter.

Please review your posts at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13866

and where you were contacted by Admin in post #12:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746770

and by Admin on this thread at post #325:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746775

"It is right there in front of you, Adam, and there is no denying it. If you can't see it there are only two explanations. 1) you are in denial and don't want to see it and therefore your brain keeps finding ways to 'not' see it or 2) you are a paid agent/shill sent to forums like this to try and keep the OCT alive in the minds of lurkers.

In either case, you're now going to have to live through the consequences of either your ignorance or your complicity. "


Now go read that post that OF already referred you to, along with ALL links in entirety and answer all questions listed there before posting yet more of your "debate" on this forum.

Consider this a 2nd written request by the staff of this forum. For your convenience again, the links, questions, and notice are located at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10743206

Have a nice day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Destinova
post Jul 16 2008, 02:41 PM
Post #279





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 17-July 07
From: Germany
Member No.: 1,468



QUOTE (adam_zapple @ Jul 17 2008, 04:48 AM) *
I would like to know how you were able to see this, since you did not have an unobstructed view of the top of the lower section as it began to collapse.


Well Adam... I guess you can't amplify anything on your own. You're like a computer without the required main memory to calculate it. Maybe the next picture is a lot easier for you to calculate?

Where would the mass of the falling section fall after this frame? Remember... gravitation itself took the section where it is right now. This partial collapse you can see on the picture, caused by gravitation, moves now to the center of the earth, like all other things on this planet would do, guided by the law of nature. Where will it fall? Through the rest of the standing tower? Or aside of it? And please... give me an answer for only one time and don't ask a hundred questions again. Thanks in advance.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adam_zapple
post Jul 16 2008, 02:46 PM
Post #280





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 11-July 08
Member No.: 3,696



QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 16 2008, 02:38 PM) *
Now go read that post that OF already referred you to, along with ALL links in entirety and answer all questions listed there before posting yet more of your "debate" on this forum.

Consider this a 2nd written request by the staff of this forum. For your convenience again, the links, questions, and notice are located at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10743206

Have a nice day.



"Those who advocate without sincere question the government's OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory -- so called "debunkers") are REQUIRED to..."
-Board rules

For the 2nd time: According to the board rules, that rule only applies to those who "advocate without sincere question the government's OCT", which means it would not apply to me.

Is this now a requirement for anyone who disagrees with an existing member?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

15 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 03:54 PM