The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

[youtube]Mk6_qwnd8tk[/youtube]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk6_qwnd8tk

÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷

psikeyhackr 23h ago

Now we have the eternal physics problem.

Analyze the straight down collapse of a 1360 ft skyscraper without even asking about the distribution of steel and the distribution of concrete down the structure?

Is this a joke?

Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped like that?
It is called exponential.

(Thumbs Up) 4

==============================

Christine Quinn 1 hour ago

Well said. I am a licensed Architect who was working at a University in Maryland when this happened. I also had many EXPERIENCED structural and civil engineer friends. Together we had been involved in observing several CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS of high rise buildings. We all knew that this ”straight down collapse" could not have occurred as we were being told.

We also knew that WAFER THIN aluminum airplane wings could not cut through steel reinforced concrete they would have immediately sheared off.

After voicing my professional opinions for several weeks I was eventually FORMALLY told by University officials to stop, and basically TOE THE PARTY LINE.

That was a very disturbing experience,

and I'm sure MANY other architects and engineers throughout the United States were given the same instructions.

============================

Thomas Truong 10h ago

@Christine Quinn

You're not alone, ma'am.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I've read that Anthony Shaffer (ret Lt-Col) made himself some powerful foes in the intelligence circle and eventually stripped of his access clearance, for providing some info which became acceptable to the 9/11 Commission's official findings. He later co-authored a book, which was also censored (1 st edition entirely bought then destroyed by the Dept of Defense).


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony ... ce_officer)


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dark_Heart

==============================
Christine Jillian Quinn AIA

Campus Architect at University of Maryland at Baltimore

University of Maryland at Baltimore The Johns Hopkins University

================================
Christine Jillian Quinn Architect

Christine Jillian Quinn, Bath, ME holds a Architects license according to the Maryland license board.

Their BuildZoom score of 90 indicates that they are licensed or registered but we do not have additional information about them.

[841337]

[felltoearth]

22 years of the argument from incredulity and authority.

I know a lot of architects. Some are smart. Some are a dumb as a bag of hammers. Those statements mean nothing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

22 years of the argument from incredulity and authority.

I know a lot of architects. Some are smart. Some are a dumb as a bag of hammers. Those statements mean nothing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

WOW! That was a fast response. TEN Minutes! Damn!

Anybody can CLAIM to know architects on the internet. And CLAIM that they said anything.

I just posted what this woman I never heard of wrote and provided the YouTube link where you can check for yourself.

[psikeyhackr]

But nothing to say for 3 and a half months.

I should be proud for giving purpose to your existence.

[felltoearth]

Keep trolling. I’m sure another 20 years of this will change something.

[psikeyhackr]

Keep trolling. I’m sure another 20 years of this will change something.

How has the climate changed since 9/11? What will it do in another 20 years? Morons who cannot understand physics can't figure out what to do to resolve a simple issue are supposed to handle a complicated one? LOL It is hilarious that we can supposedly simulate the climate until 2100 but not a 1400 foot skyscraper collapse.

[842136]

[felltoearth]

I’ll let you figure out the self own in posting a comment that says “We’ve witnessed numerous controlled demolitions and an uncontrolled demolition wouldn’t behave like that.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

I’ll let you figure out the self own in posting a comment that says “We’ve witnessed numerous controlled demolitions and an uncontrolled demolition wouldn’t behave like that.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is really curious. Search the thread for 'uncontro' and see who used that sequence of characters in a word besides YOU.

ROFL

[felltoearth]

I thought I would paraphrase for you to help you out. Here is the original quote. You can work out the rest.

Together we had been involved in observing several CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS of high rise buildings. We all knew that this ”straight down collapse" could not have occurred as we were being told.

[841337]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Agi Hammerthief]

Keep trolling. I’m sure another 20 years of this will change something.

How has the climate changed since 9/11? What will it do in another 20 years? Morons who cannot understand physics can't figure out what to do to resolve a simple issue are supposed to handle a complicated one? LOL It is hilarious that we can supposedly simulate the climate until 2100 but not a 1400 foot skyscraper collapse.

[842136]

I wholeheartedly agree that a moron who can’t understand a simple issue won’t be able to handle a complicated one.

fortunately I am too busy with real life issues to dig out all the simple mechanical principles we tried to explain to various people in this thread over the years.

[psikeyhackr]

Of course the distribution of steel down a skyscraper is not a simple mechanical principle since a mass falling from above onto a stationary mass below might involve the conservation of momentum.

Ridicule demonstrates so much more intelligence than physics.

Provide a link to some certified experts discussing the distribution of steel down the North Tower in the last Two Decades.

Oh that's right, you are too busy Living. So why did you post here at all?

[Agi Hammerthief]

why dig to find points that have been explained before when I can be sure that you will bring them up again?

[psikeyhackr]

why dig to find points that have been explained before when I can be sure that you will bring them up again?

There is nothing to explain about accurate data, IF IT EXISTS.

Since it doesn't you cannot point it out so you must come up with excuses.

But how is it that you have time for this out of your busy life, AGAIN?

You managed to say nothing for 3 1/2 months. Why not continue with your exciting diversions? Whatever they were.

[Agi Hammerthief]

There is nothing to explain about accurate data, IF IT EXISTS.
Since it doesn't you cannot point it out so you must come up with excuses.

well fuck that shit.

the data doesn’t exist because anyone with half an education on the topic doesn’t need it.
which btw. includes other people who claim the airliners didn’t cause the collapses.

But how is it that you have time for this out of your busy life, AGAIN?

this level of not violating the FUA by not calling you a moron doesn’t take much attention.

You managed to say nothing for 3 1/2 months.

correct, so did you.

Want me to quit posting in this thread?
Want me to stop assisting you making yourself look like a fool?
Try to smarten up or quit posting.
I really don’t care which one you choose.

[psikeyhackr]

anyone with half an education on the topic doesn’t need it.

Clowns with half an education can't figure out the conservation of momentum.
When one mass hits another mass it is necessary to know the quantity of mass to analyze the event.

correct, so did you.

It would have been difficult to post what Catherine Quinn wrote before she wrote it.

I was not just repeating what I had said before.

[Agi Hammerthief]

anyone with half an education on the topic doesn’t need it.

Clowns with half an education can't figure out the conservation of momentum.
When one mass hits another mass it is necessary to know the quantity of mass to analyze the event.

out of context of the 9/11 happenings two true statements.
in context of 9/11: people with enough of an education understand when and where collision dynamics are applicable to an event and where they are not.

We also knew that WAFER THIN aluminum airplane wings could not cut through steel reinforced concrete they would have immediately sheared off.

You want to talk about collision dynamics in the collapse phase, when it’s not applicable.
She points to cutting mechanics during the plane impact phase, when it’s not applicable.
looks like a perfect match, you can be incompetent at each other

btw. since you like to play with big numbers
those „wafer thin aluminum airplane wings“ are plenty strong to transfer 48,000 pounds-force of thrust per engine to the airframe and carry of up to 395,000 lb into the air. That’s 179 metric tons!!!

correct, so did you.

It would have been difficult to post what Catherine Quinn wrote before she wrote it.
I was not just repeating what I had said before.

It’s nothing new: argument from incredulity, just wrapped up in a different color.

[Xaihe]

anyone with half an education on the topic doesn’t need it.

Clowns with half an education can't figure out the conservation of momentum.
When one mass hits another mass it is necessary to know the quantity of mass to analyze the event.

out of context of the 9/11 happenings two true statements.
in context of 9/11: people with enough of an education understand when and where collision dynamics are applicable to an event and where they are not.

We also knew that WAFER THIN aluminum airplane wings could not cut through steel reinforced concrete they would have immediately sheared off.

You want to talk about collision dynamics in the collapse phase, when it’s not applicable.
She points to cutting mechanics during the plane impact phase, when it’s not applicable.
looks like a perfect match, you can be incompetent at each other

btw. since you like to play with big numbers
those „wafer thin aluminum airplane wings“ are plenty strong to transfer 48,000 pounds-force of thrust per engine to the airframe and carry of up to 395,000 lb into the air. That’s 179 metric tons!!!

correct, so did you.

It would have been difficult to post what Catherine Quinn wrote before she wrote it.
I was not just repeating what I had said before.

It’s nothing new: argument from incredulity, just wrapped up in a different color.

179 metric tons, but how many tons of steel and tons of concrete are in those wings? Nobody knows and nobody has even asked this question before in this thread. How can 20+ years pass by without anyone asking about the distribution of steel and concrete in the airplane wings?

[Agi Hammerthief]

179 metric tons, but how many tons of steel and tons of concrete are in those wings?

before or after the impact?
before - I know, but I’m not telling

[psikeyhackr]

btw. since you like to play with big numbers
those „wafer thin aluminum airplane wings“ are plenty strong to transfer 48,000 pounds-force of thrust per engine to the airframe and carry of up to 395,000 lb into the air. That’s 179 metric tons!!!

Actually I do not play idiotic games by switching between tons and pounds to get big numbers.

Of course talking about concrete in the wings is too idiotic for words. LOL

[844591]

[Agi Hammerthief]

Just one word required:

sarcasm

sarcasm
/ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.


irony
/ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.