• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

camlok said:
I shouldn't have to tell you that there is a huge explosion right after the "missile" exits the building, as you already know this from looking at the video but because that is your only schtick, distractions and diversions, I do have to tell you.
Click to expand...
Where is your perfectly shaped "missile" exiting the building again PRIOR to the explosion? If the missile created the explosion, why did the explosion come AFTER the supposed "missile nose" penetrated and exited the exterior facade? Come to think of it, how did the "missile" survive its first impact with the exterior facade when ENTERING the building?

So again, where is this perfectly shaped "missile" prior to the explosion?
debriscloud2.jpgdebriscloud3.jpg
 
camlok said:
I shouldn't have to tell you that there is a huge explosion right after the "missile" exits the building, as you already know this from looking at the video but because that is your only schtick, distractions and diversions, I do have to tell you.
Click to expand...
Think about what you just wrote above for a second.
...
...
...

Think about it? Good.

You're claiming that the "missile" entered the tower by penetrating the facade on one side , traveled 208' through the building within a 12' high floor space, penetrated the steel facade on the other side and came out with a perfect "nose cone" AND THEN AN EXPLOSION OCCURRED WITHIN THE BUILDING BEHIND IT?! What caused the explosion in the building if the missile exited perfectly intact?!?!

:lamo
 
Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been a little bit busy.
gamolon said:
I think it may affect one, possibly two floors, but I cannot say for sure.



Not sure, but fire on the actual floor affecting steel on above/below floors doesn't figure into my reasoning for the collapse.
Click to expand...
That is fair enough and I have a better understanding of your belief now.

gamolon said:
You would be correct.


No. I believe that fires weakened structural components on the floors/areas that they were burning. Heat may have affected one, possibly two floors above/below, but I cannot say for sure.
Click to expand...
So this is where I get confused, if the fires are only affecting the floors/areas of where they are burning, then why are they also effecting other areas of the building where there are no fires?

gamolon said:
Here's a simple drawing I made of a three column structure with floors and made up loads.
View attachment 67224083

If I remove part of COL 2 between the foundation and 1st floor, isn't the following picture a representation of what the result would be? Wouldn't COL 2 above the removed portion come down and sag all the floors connected to it as shown?
View attachment 67224081
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, you see if you removed part of column 2 as you suggest, then I don't see how column 2 would drop down because there is still plenty of interconnected floors above it.

Imagine for a moment that we removed the same bit from column 1 instead of column 2, I would still expect the rest of the structure to stand.

When the planes hit WTC 1 & 2 and destroyed the weaker exterior columns from the impact, the floors didn't sink down like in your example because there was still plenty of support in the rest of the structure, it's still interconnected.

gamolon said:
See second drawing above of the sagging column. In order for the loads to be redirected to the other two outer columns, COL 2 HAS to try and move down. It's can't just be suspended in the air and still carry its portion of load. so know you have basically doubled the load of each of the floor girder connections to COLs 1 and 3.
Click to expand...
I see what you are trying to say, but I can't see how this could be.

I agree that it couldn't support it's portion of the load seeing as it's no longer connected to the ground. However, I do not see how the loads on each floor connected to columns has basically doubled it's load.

Maybe I am missing something.??
 
stundie said:
Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been a little bit busy.
Click to expand...
No worries on my end. Life happens.

stundie said:
So this is where I get confused, if the fires are only affecting the floors/areas of where they are burning, then why are they also effecting other areas of the building where there are no fires?
Click to expand...
The fires aren't. As the components weaken/break/shear, the load has to go elsewhere.

stundie said:
I'm not so sure, you see if you removed part of column 2 as you suggest, then I don't see how column 2 would drop down because there is still plenty of interconnected floors above it.
Click to expand...
So in my drawing, each floor girder is connected to two columns via a bolted connection. Those connection are designed to be able to support/pass the load, not only of themselves, but things added to it (people, furniture, etc.). Those two connections are designed to help each other. If the designed load for one floor is 2500 lbs total, do you think the engineers designed each connection to support all 2500 lbs just in case the other connection fails? I know this is a simplistic example, but just trying to get a concept across.

stundie said:
Imagine for a moment that we removed the same bit from column 1 instead of column 2, I would still expect the rest of the structure to stand.
Click to expand...
What if you weaken column two by 20%? 30%?

stundie said:
I agree that it couldn't support it's portion of the load seeing as it's no longer connected to the ground. However, I do not see how the loads on each floor connected to columns has basically doubled it's load.
Click to expand...
loads2a.jpg
In the above example, let's say there was 2500 lbs on each floor section between each column. Let's say columns 1 and 3 each take 1250 lbs and column 2 in the middle takes 2500 lbs. if I fail col 2 by the foundation, 2500 lbs now goes to col 1 and 3 which was designed for 1250 lbs.
 
gamolon said:
Again, the fire did not just affect column 79.
Click to expand...

It certainly did not effect Column 79 as NIST portrayed. As Professor Hulsey has stated, NIST's notions on Col 79 are, like every other crazy NIST idea, totally impossible. That is why the USGOCT conspiracy theorists have never ever been able to offer any evidence for the totally impossible USGOCT.

NIST lied about many of the features of Col 79. Lying is what USGOCT conspiracy theorists do best, do always.
 
gamolon said:
Where is your perfectly shaped "missile" exiting the building again PRIOR to the explosion?

So again, where is this perfectly shaped "missile" prior to the explosion?
View attachment 67224246View attachment 67224247
Click to expand...

In Post #177 wherein you, gamolon said, about a missile shaped object that you were viewing;

gamolon: "If that is an intact "missile nose" that PENETRATED THE FACADE, where did it go in the videos? I never see that "missile nose" continue in it's[sic] trajectory in ANY videos".

torpedo1.jpg

You can see it clearly in the following video if you possess the competence [and the honesty, this may well prove to be problematic] to stop the video around the 8 to 9 second mark.

The missile that hit WTC 2 in Slow Motion



gamolon said:
If the missile created the explosion, why did the explosion come AFTER the supposed "missile nose" penetrated and exited the exterior facade? Come to think of it, how did the "missile" survive its first impact with the exterior facade when ENTERING the building?
Click to expand...

Obviously the US military can do wonders in this respect. Have you ever heard of a bunker buster?
 
camlok said:
In Post #177 wherein you, gamolon said, about a missile shaped object that you were viewing;

gamolon: "If that is an intact "missile nose" that PENETRATED THE FACADE, where did it go in the videos? I never see that "missile nose" continue in it's[sic] trajectory in ANY videos".

View attachment 67225929
Click to expand...
I have shown your distant, low resolution screen capture of what you claim to be a "torpedo/missile nose" to be nothing more than a debris cloud. The capture below shows your "torpedo/missile from the front. Again, nothing more than a misshapen debris cloud.
debriscloud2.jpg
 
gamolon said:
I have shown your distant, low resolution screen capture of what you claim to be a "torpedo/missile nose" to be nothing more than a debris cloud. The capture below shows your "torpedo/missile from the front. Again, nothing more than a misshapen debris cloud.
View attachment 67225953
Click to expand...

On another thread cam claims he never said there was a missile. Seems he has trouble keeping track of what he has posted.
 
mike2810 said:
On another thread cam claims he never said there was a missile. Seems he has trouble keeping track of what he has posted.
Click to expand...

As far as he is concerned it could be anything except the truth.
 
gamolon said:
I have shown your distant, low resolution screen capture of what you claim to be a "torpedo/missile nose" to be nothing more than a debris cloud. The capture below shows your "torpedo/missile from the front. Again, nothing more than a misshapen debris cloud.
Click to expand...

You, of the USGOCT zero evidence crowd, never show anything or provide and evidence. One of you offers up a distraction and the rest of the USGOCT zero evidence crowd leaps in with their zero evidence offerings.

To deny that there is a rounded, cylindrical shape in the picture I posted and in the video in Post 207 between 7 and 9 seconds illustrates perfectly what the USGOCT zero evidence crowd is really all about, zero evidence and denying reality.

It's the height of hypocrisy that this thread even has "and supported by factual evidence..." in the title.
 
camlok said:
More of that great "evidence" from the USGOCT zero evidence group.
Click to expand...

Still denying reality and unable to produce any evidence to support your fantasy I see.
 
Quag said:
Im[sic] Zygy[sic] now?
:lamo
You just keep getting further and further from reality
Click to expand...

No, you are the equivalent of zyzygy. Only he can spell better.
 
Quag said:
Would you like fries with that?
Click to expand...

Just go back in history, Quag, and point out the last post you made that had anything remotely on point about the actual issue in any of the 911 threads you post zero evidence in.
 
camlok said:
Just go back in history, Quag, and point out the last post you made that had anything remotely on point about the actual issue in any of the 911 threads you post zero evidence in.
Click to expand...

Still no evidence from, Cam the science denier.
 
Quag said:
Still no evidence from,[sic] Cam the science denier.
Click to expand...

Do you have the slightest notion of the meaning of 'hypocrite'?
 
camlok said:
Do you have the slightest notion of the meaning of 'hypocrite'?
Click to expand...

Still no evidence from Cam, just pathetic insults as usual
 
camlok said:
To deny that there is a rounded, cylindrical shape in the picture I posted and in the video in Post 207 between 7 and 9 seconds illustrates perfectly what the USGOCT zero evidence crowd is really all about, zero evidence and denying reality.
Click to expand...
Yup. Round, cylindrical shape because it's a screen capture of a video shot from a distance and is low resolution. In order to determine what that actually is, we go to a better screen capture taken from the front of that same shape. It clearly shows that your claimed "cylindrical, round" shape is nothing more than a misshapen debris cloud.

debriscloud2.jpg
 
gamolon said:
Yup. Round, cylindrical shape because it's a screen capture of a video shot from a distance and is low resolution. In order to determine what that actually is, we go to a better screen capture taken from the front of that same shape. It clearly shows that your claimed "cylindrical, round" shape is nothing more than a misshapen debris cloud.

View attachment 67226092
Click to expand...

It appears your screen grab is from a video. Why are you so frightened to provide a link? Distractions, diversions, zero evidence, ... the USGOCT conspiracy theorists in a nutshell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom