Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Richard Gage PWNS Mark Roberts; Must see.
Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 01:15 PM (3,625 Views)
BoneZ
Member Avatar

silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 12:01 PM
Quote:
 
"It was slower by a few seconds which is negligible."

And you decide that is negligible based on what?
It did not fall at freefall.
That was supposedly the point of the demonstration?

Quote:
 
"It also appears you joined this forum specifically for this topic. Who are you?"


Why would you think that?
And who are you?
It fell at near free-fall speed and that could not have been accomplished without assistance, i.e. explosives. The buildings were designed to resist collapse, not allow the collapse to happen. Even if every single floor took a half a second to collapse, it still would've taken 50 seconds, not 10-15. Buildings just don't fall down when a few upper floors collapse or just because of a few small office fires. Of course, you would know this had you done some research before posting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
silverstein

"Buildings just don't fall down when a few upper floors collapse or just because of a few small office fires."

The whole block of 15 floors dropped onto one floor, would you expect it to withstand that force?
The building fires were raging across multiple floors, you only need to look at videos to understand that.

Quote:
 
Even if every single floor took a half a second to collapse, it still would've taken 50 seconds, not 10-15.


And if they took lots less than half a second to collapse?
Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 12:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 11:44 AM
Quote:
 
"The point of the demonstration is that the 15-storey portion of the towers that began collapsing, cannot destroy 90 storeys of the rest of the entire building at the same speed as that same 15-storey portion falling freely through the air."


It didnt though, you only need to look at the collapse video to realise that.
The collapse front was noticeably slower than freefall.
So Gages point is?
that's incorrect, the "collapse front" moves faster down the building than any falling debris.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en
Edited by Headspin, Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gaged
Member Avatar

I can't wait for Alex Jones to post this debate on InfoWars!!!! The whole world needs to see how Gage PWND Roberts with fact after fact as Roberts was made to look the stuttering fool.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
silverstein

Headspin
Jul 6 2008, 12:18 PM
silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 11:44 AM
Quote:
 
"The point of the demonstration is that the 15-storey portion of the towers that began collapsing, cannot destroy 90 storeys of the rest of the entire building at the same speed as that same 15-storey portion falling freely through the air."


It didnt though, you only need to look at the collapse video to realise that.
The collapse front was noticeably slower than freefall.
So Gages point is?
that's incorrect, the "collapse front" moves faster down the building than any falling debris.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=fairbanks+911&sitesearch=#
So you link to a video of the plane impact????? ^o)
Every video of the COLLAPSE of the wtcs shows the debris falling much faster than the collapse front.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bobloblaw

Headspin
Jul 6 2008, 12:18 PM
that's incorrect, the "collapse front" moves faster down the building than any falling debris.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=fairbanks+911&sitesearch=#
That's absolute bullshit.

Every video of the collapse that I have seen, including the Fairbanks video, clearly shows debris falling faster than the rate of collapse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bobloblaw

silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 12:24 PM
So you link to a video of the plane impact????? ^o)
Every video of the COLLAPSE of the wtcs shows the debris falling much faster than the collapse front.
He is talking about this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911&ei=4P5wSIWyOpOuwgPhyrTFDA

And he's wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

that was an incorrect link, (google video new layout doesn't aid cut and paste for the links), here is the video i meant
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoneZ
Member Avatar

"silverstein"
 
The whole block of 15 floors dropped onto one floor, would you expect it to withstand that force?
Yes, because that's the way the buildings were designed. They were designed to resist collapse and resist aircraft crashes. I know that's hard for you to comprehend. And the 15 storeys didn't "drop" onto the floors below. It started collapsing onto. Much less force there.

"silverstein"
 
The building fires were raging across multiple floors, you only need to look at videos to understand that.
I understand there were people standing in those crash zones and other people crossed those crash zones to make it out of the buildings alive and they weren't burnt at all. Hardly raging infernos. I also understand that a building in Spain was completely engulfed by a real raging inferno for over 20 hours and never collapsed.

"silverstein"
 
And if they took lots less than half a second to collapse?
Then that would seem the resistance was removed altogether, i.e., explosives.
Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 12:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
silverstein

Headspin
Jul 6 2008, 12:30 PM
that was an incorrect link, (google video new layout doesn't aid cut and paste for the links), here is the video i meant
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en
Yes, I ve justed watched it, the collapse front is travelling more slowly than the ejected debris.
Your point was?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bobloblaw

Headspin
Jul 6 2008, 12:30 PM
that was an incorrect link, (google video new layout doesn't aid cut and paste for the links), here is the video i meant
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en
Looks like the debris is falling faster than the rate of collapse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bobloblaw

BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM
I understand there were people standing in those crash zones and other people crossed those crash zones to make it out of the buildings alive and they weren't burnt at all. Hardly raging infernos.
So all of those people were jumping from the building for no reason at all?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM
Your point was?
This wouldn't happen to be Smiling_Gorilla, huh? Regardless, 'silverstein', is now limited to the skeptic's section

[edit to add] as is bobloblaw.
Edited by Lin Kuei, Jul 6 2008, 12:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM
Headspin
Jul 6 2008, 12:30 PM
that was an incorrect link, (google video new layout doesn't aid cut and paste for the links), here is the video i meant
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en
Yes, I ve justed watched it, the collapse front is travelling more slowly than the ejected debris.
Your point was?
pause the video at 13 seconds. At this point in the video the top 2/3 of the building has exploded apart.
tell me where the falling debris is below the "collapse front".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoneZ
Member Avatar

bobloblaw
Jul 6 2008, 12:38 PM
BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM
I understand there were people standing in those crash zones and other people crossed those crash zones to make it out of the buildings alive and they weren't burnt at all. Hardly raging infernos.
So all of those people were jumping from the building for no reason at all?
The people were jumping because they couldn't breathe from the thick smoke. This is evident in some of the videos of the jumpers, no fire just smoke where they jumped from. It's also evident from phone calls to 911 where they kept saying they couldn't breathe because of the smoke. Come on people, why doesn't anyone do research anymore before posting?
Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 12:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gaged
Member Avatar

Lin Kuei
Jul 6 2008, 12:41 PM
silverstein
Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM
Your point was?
This wouldn't happen to be Smiling_Gorilla, huh? Regardless, 'silverstein', is now limited to the skeptic's section

[edit to add] as is bobloblaw.
You should just ban those disinfo shills.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gaged
Member Avatar

BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:48 PM
bobloblaw
Jul 6 2008, 12:38 PM
BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM
I understand there were people standing in those crash zones and other people crossed those crash zones to make it out of the buildings alive and they weren't burnt at all. Hardly raging infernos.
So all of those people were jumping from the building for no reason at all?
The people were jumping because they couldn't breathe from the thick smoke. This is evident in some of the videos of the jumpers, no fire just smoke where they jumped from. It's also evident from phone calls to 911 where they kept saying they couldn't breathe because of the smoke. Come on people, why doesn't anyone do research anymore before posting?
Don't bother responding to the trolls. They've been banned from this subsection anyways. Good riddance!! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sureshot
Member Avatar
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
hamba
Jul 6 2008, 10:32 AM
Sureshot
Jul 6 2008, 01:42 AM
Lin Kuei
Jul 6 2008, 12:53 AM
Sureshot
Jul 6 2008, 12:27 AM
Mark Roberts needs to shave.
Was it to make him look more 'learned'?

A 'fully dignified' beard doesn't really offset a lack of credibility.. does it?

Posted Image
It makes him look like those creepy guys you don't want your kids around...

"honey, don't get near that guy over there..."

:D
LOL

Says the guy who has a picture honouring a guy with a beard in his signature?



Not all beards are bad, but it just looks plain creepy on Roberts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Posted Image

:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
JFK
Jul 6 2008, 02:43 PM
Posted Image

:D
Maybe Tour Guide should be changed to "Vacation Engineer Specialist."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Sureshot
Jul 6 2008, 02:10 PM
Not all beards are bad
Agreed. But I would go as far as to say that it actually looks good on him. Similar beards can be found on others...

Posted Image

:ermm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hamba

BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 11:39 AM
It appears you are the one that missed your structural theory classes.
I didn't miss my 4 years of structural engineering classes at university. Have you ever taken a course on structural engineering?

His point is invalid. His event is not similar to the real event in any matter. The structures are infinitely different.

Quote:
 
And you missed the point of the cardboard box demonstration. The point of the demonstration is that the 15-storey portion of the towers that began collapsing, cannot destroy 90 storeys of the rest of the entire building at or near the same speed as that same 15-storey portion falling freely through the air.


Please explain why this can't happen? The top 15 stories is not some other structure. Its the same structure. Its connected to the stories below it. 15 stories are not destroying 90 stories instantly.The weight of 15 stories collpases onto the story below it. Then the weight of 16 stories collapse on to the floor below that. Then the weight of 17 stories collapse on to the floor below that. And so on.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
hamba
Jul 6 2008, 03:29 PM
BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 11:39 AM
It appears you are the one that missed your structural theory classes.
I didn't miss my 4 years of structural engineering classes at university. Have you ever taken a course on structural engineering?

His point is invalid. His event is not similar to the real event in any matter. The structures are infinitely different.

Quote:
 
And you missed the point of the cardboard box demonstration. The point of the demonstration is that the 15-storey portion of the towers that began collapsing, cannot destroy 90 storeys of the rest of the entire building at or near the same speed as that same 15-storey portion falling freely through the air.


Please explain why this can't happen? The top 15 stories is not some other structure. Its the same structure. Its connected to the stories below it. 15 stories are not destroying 90 stories instantly.The weight of 15 stories collpases onto the story below it. Then the weight of 16 stories collapse on to the floor below that. Then the weight of 17 stories collapse on to the floor below that. And so on.

So explain how a natural fire with resultant damage can cause a symmetrical collapse three times for the first time in history? Please. I'm all ears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hamba

BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM
"silverstein"
 
The whole block of 15 floors dropped onto one floor, would you expect it to withstand that force?
Yes, because that's the way the buildings were designed. They were designed to resist collapse and resist aircraft crashes. I know that's hard for you to comprehend. And the 15 storeys didn't "drop" onto the floors below. It started collapsing onto. Much less force there.
WTC was not designed like that. The floor trusses are only designed to carry the dead laods and the working loads of the items on that specific floor. The floor trusses were not designed to take the load of 15 floors worth of steel, concrete and other items. No floor will ever be designed like that because you would have ridiculously large truss memebers, such that you wouldn't have no space for a floor. The building would be a matrix of steel trusses.

Since this is your opinion, please provide proof of your claim, by providing an analysis that would show that the floor trusses in the WTC were strong enough to sustain the dead laod and live load of 15 floors worth of concrete and steel falling on to it.

Thank you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gaged
Member Avatar

hamba
Jul 6 2008, 03:40 PM
BoneZ
Jul 6 2008, 12:31 PM
"silverstein"
 
The whole block of 15 floors dropped onto one floor, would you expect it to withstand that force?
Yes, because that's the way the buildings were designed. They were designed to resist collapse and resist aircraft crashes. I know that's hard for you to comprehend. And the 15 storeys didn't "drop" onto the floors below. It started collapsing onto. Much less force there.
WTC was not designed like that. The floor trusses are only designed to carry the dead laods and the working loads of the items on that specific floor. The floor trusses were not designed to take the load of 15 floors worth of steel, concrete and other items. No floor will ever be designed like that because you would have ridiculously large truss memebers, such that you wouldn't have no space for a floor. The building would be a matrix of steel trusses.

Since this is your opinion, please provide proof of your claim, by providing an analysis that would show that the floor trusses in the WTC were strong enough to sustain the dead laod and live load of 15 floors worth of concrete and steel falling on to it.

Thank you.
Ban this shill!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply