67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

LoneStrSt8 said
"the mass weighs the same at all times."

But mass, isn't weight.

 

Parsing grammar? Okay.

The point remains: it has the same mass. Try to focus on the important parts, won't you?

 

sorry kid,but mass is calculated by weight,when I said that mass weighs to same at all times.I meant that a mass having 1pound on earth,would have one pound in orbit

 

In a previous discussion about airspeed
I was bashed unmercifully about the difference
between "knots" & "MPH" wow man, language
matters, now in the discussion with the terms
"weight" & "mass" being used, I can't question
the use of words in a given context?

what?

 

How mass is calculated confuses you?

And you were NOT 'bashed unmercifully',stop whining.

 

I'm not the one who is confused about the application
of the words "mass" & "weight", thank U very much.

Have a nice day

: )

 

I'm in no way confused

 

RE: High Rise Safety Initiative

Please, anyone who has any pointers to any of the advertising for ( or against ) this ballot measure, please either post to the forum, or for that matter send me email or something. I would very much like to see what the psychological warfare does to this issue.

 

Two seconds of Google.

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-07-04/we-did-it-67192-signatures-submitted-city-new-york

Get those checks in quickly.

 

To clarify, I would like to see the efforts of the
opposition to this ballot measure also, Not
just from the people promoting it. I understand
that there will be opposition to this, there always is.
The question is, what form will that opposition take?

 

Correct.

The upper section sheared the connections of the lower section as it descended. There is no way that the connections on the level immediately below and first impacted by the descending upper sections would have resisted. They were not designed for that.

You're lack of understanding is why you are using terms like "idiotic manner".

Explain to me how the Conservation of Momentum applies to the load paths of the lower section when impacted by the descending upper section. Do you understand a structure works? From the impact point out, the load created tries to travel through the components to reach the grillages which sat upon bedrock. If at any point the traveling load passes through a component that cannot handle said load, the component fails.

The problem with your understanding is that you cannot explain how the Conservation of Momentum applies to complex objects.

 

My question about all of this, is it a guaranteed certainty
that ALL of the connections to ALL of the floor trusses on
any given level would break and all at the same time?

 

What part of the descending upper section, contained withing an approximate 208' x 208' footprint and impacting components below would NOT have impacted/sheared components below? Furthermore, it was NOT all at the same time. You are making this up. Case in point, the tilted upper section.

Keep dancing in circles genericBob.

 

There is only one instance of visible asymmetrical
breakage of connections and that is the south tower
tilt and that part of the building disappeared behind
a cloud of smoke/dust or just plain disappeared because
it was blown up. in all other cases, the vertical descent
is evidence of symmetrical breakage of connections
within the tower. Given that the building was allegedly
damaged by an airliner crash, the upper mass could
not possibly be totally uniform in nature, there would
be an inconsistency in the "punch" from above.

 

I thought you said all the connections were removed at the same time?

 

I have no idea what you think is correct when your whole premise is incorrect. Its about the collision of 2 masses not what it was designed to do.

2 masses collided and when they do you get deceleration








wtc 1 had no point of deceleration hence no support hence the support was removed before any impact could occur.




.

 

They weren't all sheared at the same time.

 

so from the 93rd story down, ( in the case of the north tower )
there would be an imbalance, there would be a shift in the
center of gravity of the upper mass, and as the center of
gravity shifts, this would become a progressive event, that
is the more it shifts, the more it would have a tendency to
shift further and eventually dump huge amounts of rubble
over the side of the tower, stopping the action.
Why should the action continue right down to ground level?

 

Really?

Can you please explain why the total collapse time frame of WTC1 was not in the duration it would have taken for a free falling object to reach the ground?

 

its amazing that anybody actually asks this question,
the fact of there being some mass in the lower and
as yet undamaged part of the building below the alleged
airliner crash site, and this mass (short of a hydrogen bomb blast)
would have to constitute some resistance to the fall of the upper mass.

 

Same old question that has been answered numerous times.

I'm done. Continue running in circles: but realize you're going nowhere.

 

So you have no rebuttal at all for the argument that
the upper mass would have required special magic
to make sure that it stayed on top in order to crush
the lower part of the building, because if it didn't,
the loss of mass by dumping rubble over the side
would stop the action, leaving the tower damaged
but not destroyed.

 

No,seems what he's saying is he keeps answering your questions,and you keep hand waving them away,only to ask the same questions later

 

problem is, there has NOT been a rebuttal to
any of the bits posted about why should the
towers simply "collapse" in the manner that
they did ( that is without some serious help).

 

Problem is,you won't accept any rebuttal that runs counter to your truther manifesto...