• 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!

"Amateur Engineering" practice in progressive collapse analysis[W:222, 344. 1463]

LIES
I did NOT say that

I said this;




Modifying the content of a quote to say something I did NOT SAY and opposite the intended meaning is not fixing, its outright ****ing fraud, lying, you name it.

Thanks NWO, changing quotes to mean the opposite promotes such wonderfully cozy warm and civil feelings. Something to "really" be proud of.

Perfect way to show the world what sore losers debunkers are when they get their asses handed to them!


How many other peoples quotes are being changed?

Calm down, if you didn't pepper every post with brain dead insults you wouldn't be treated with contempt. The very idea of a government sponsored debunker movement is ridiculous and insulting to those who post here. I know it gives you a false sense of superiority, but it is quite childish. Now grow up for once!
 
Do you reely thinik we dont know who you are?


1 – CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

(Psychological Warfare – discredit, distract, intimidate, frustrate, divide & conquer) – Disinformation shills often make outrageous comments for the sole purpose of deflecting focus from the truth to distract us by creating a “controversial debate” where none truly exists. Often, trolls use the “Trojan Horse” method to attempt to elicit an emotional response from people online, to evoke hostility with the intent of twisting it around to make the person look volatile, a classic “character assassination” tactic to discredit them, making them appear weak.

The trolls often “make stuff up” if they can’t find anything real [just like modifying my quote with made up ****] to highlight for this goal, after all, shills are paid liars. Another trick these liars are taught is to use semantics to twist people’s words around and make it seem as though they’ve lied, to discredit them. These are all character assassination tactics that you will easily recognize happening all over the internet once you become familiar with them.

2 – DEMANDING IMPOSSIBLE PROOF

Disinformation shills sometimes pose as a supporter of the truth, or friendly folks on the fence politely asking simple questions, in a sly attempt to later discredit the movement. Often trolls posing as friendly allies will resort to posting long, incoherent diatribes (usually on fake blogs & articles) for the purpose of associating the movement with insanity; or other times to act as a “the voice of reason” and create a debate (where none exists) to make it appear as though the data isn’t strong enough, and they offer to play “devil’s advocate” to “help the movement”, then render any and all data as invalid regardless of how legitimate the source. They will “demand proof” then ignore it when it’s presented, or continue to demand impossible proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, they will deem the material irrelevant and demand unattainable proof that is virtually impossible for the opponent to retrieve; for the purpose of detracting focus from the mounds of legitimate data available for those of us that take the time to do some real research beyond the disinformation site links.

3 – DOMINATE THE THREAD

Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to make themselves appear credible as though they have a “real” argument, where none actually exists. Their job is to create controversy and instigate a “debate”. They scour the net and attack awareness videos, articles, blogs, public facebook pages, etc., posting links from metaxxxx or conxxxxxscience, but fail to post legitimate links with verifiable references. They relentlessly keep commenting on a thread to dominate the discussion with the intent to keep their comments at the very top. They also vote their comments up and everyone else’s comments down, (if the forum offers that feature). This is evident when you become familiar with their methods. I have yet to see a disinformation shill post a reputable link, or ANY link, other than from those two disinformation sites. In addition, they adamantly refuse to look at real data. They intentionally divert attention from credible documentation, dismissing it without examination. They regurgitate the same tired harassing insults, and repetitive generic jargon [truthers cant reason, how many time have we heard that ****.] about how water vapor condensation trails are formed, which has nothing to do with the persistent, spreading, lingering trails we often see covering the sky that is being done as “scientific research”, the prelude to fully implementing global geoengineering programs.

4 – PRE-WRITTEN SCRIPTED RESPONSES (cut & paste comments)

Trolls are supplied with a list or database with preplanned talking points and a format designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. [ yep and koko took them off script, like cockroaches in the light they disappear and send in the adhominen crew] f you pay close attention and track the trolls, you will see that they often post the same comments over and over on many different threads.

[Take note people how they hit a wall with there propaganda when koko destroyed their arguments praying that someone will give them some bull**** to to argue instead]

5 – FALSE ASSOCIATION

This works hand in hand with #1 (character assassination), and the “Trojan Horse” troll. The goal is to sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule, engaging them in a hostile argument to try to discredit them, also known as the “attack the messenger” ploy. The goal of “false association” is to associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “paranoid conspiracy theorist” to make them look crazy and try to discredit them, or call them derogatory names such as “chemtard”, “ignorant”, or “liar”, attempting to invalidate anything they say regardless of how true it is. The trolls seek to deliberately associate the movement with far fetched concepts like “Big Foot”, aliens, false flag conspiracy theories, etc., because of the inherent negative connotations, (tying in with “character assassination”). The ultimate goal is to provoke argument, create biases, and dissuade people from objectively examining any evidence presented. [very popular troll tactic out here]

6 – FALSE MODERATION

Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true, into the murky waters of “doubt” where the truth becomes “relative.” And if that doesn’t work they will antagonize and goad opponents with insults, name calling, and bullying. If they can’t do anything else, they will chide and taunt their opponents and draw them into emotional responses with the goal of making them look foolish or mentally unbalanced, in hopes of rendering their point invalid merely by shifting focus to show how “sensitive they are to criticism”, in an attempt to deflect from their point and invalidate any data they are presenting. This is why it’s best to ignore their taunting.

7 – STRAW MAN and “AD HOMINEM” ARGUMENTS

A very common technique is that the troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, will make it appear so, then attack that point of view (Straw Man). Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words. He will use conjecture, ridicule, and accusation to try and prove himself as valid while discrediting others with absolutely nothing, shouting “you have no argument, that is just ad hominem”, which is ironically, exactly what he is doing. The troll is trained to appear confident, unwavering, and that he is undoubtedly right, when in reality, it’s the exact opposite. Basically, he is a paid liar and his goal is to create doubt and discredit the truth.

8 – POSING LEADING QUESTIONS and “PLAYING NICE”

When the internet shill realizes people are aware of his tactics, he will try to play nice, act innocent, and pose a seemingly “harmless” leading question.
 
What a flurry of activity.

... and kat and oz are no where to be found despite the fact this throws a wee bit of a wrench wrench into their works.
I'm on vacation, as I said I would be. I'm back to civilization and an internet connection, but not done with kicking back so consider me scarce.
 
From what I can see, there's no wrench in my works. I see yet another "proof by gif" charade.
 
4 – PRE-WRITTEN SCRIPTED RESPONSES (cut & paste comments)
Jeeesus, you're the king of this. Do I need to run similarity analyses on everyone's post to prove that you're the number 1 culprit for this behavior?
 
Very convenient to mask evasion.

I would love to get a paycheck for this.

I dindt mention any names the posting style examples perfectly fit a certain few people who claim to be neither debunkers nor truthers.
 
Jeeesus, you're the king of this. Do I need to run similarity analyses on everyone's post to prove that you're the number 1 culprit for this behavior?

yes you do since that is bull**** unless you want to stretch definitions where no linguist has gone before
 
yes you do since that is bull**** unless you want to stretch definitions where no linguist has gone before
A text similarity analysis has nothing to do with linguistics. It's purely objective and establishes a good metric for the amount of copy/paste between distinct bodies of text. Among other things, it's a tool to detect plagiarism. It's not plagiarism when you copy/paste yourself, but it is an example of your fourth point above.
 
What a flurry of activity.


I'm on vacation, as I said I would be. I'm back to civilization and an internet connection, but not done with kicking back so consider me scarce.

well you got nwo changing my quotes and inserting his lies to pretend its what I said then using an acronym disqualifies that only insiders know the meaning of. Oh yeh, they are trying to revive their sinking titanic



lattice loading



The ONLY way it can fall straight down without tipping is by demolition

Dont even need to go through 1st grade to see how fast the building below tips as soon as it meets resistance.



Otherwise

the top, as a result of the center of mass as you said, would have sliced off the side of the building. Only a debunker and agency fraud would try and claim that it is not relevant and that it would not. Physics models show this.




the superimposed relative green vertical damage, the orange torque will cause the top to slide off the side as can be seen below unlike the demolition as seen above.




WTC2

The debunkers archilles heel.

I am impressed however with how skillfully the events on 911 are being covered up by proffering incorrect perceptions through out the net.



So there you go, I have already shown previous posts that it is a lattice, as you can see from the markup you have your work cut out for you to argue how it collapsed straight down. The conditions are generally laid out for you and no I do not wish to hear a damn thing about building 1 which did not tilt as sanders tried to sneak in.
 
A text similarity analysis has nothing to do with linguistics. It's purely objective and establishes a good metric for the amount of copy/paste between distinct bodies of text. Among other things, it's a tool to detect plagiarism. It's not plagiarism when you copy/paste yourself, but it is an example of your fourth point above.

spook changed what I said:

the government sponsered debunker movement is a complete FAILURE.


to this:
The belief in a government sponsered debunker movement is a complete truther fantasy.
pretending he was quoting me


what sore losers debunkers are when they get their asses handed to them!
 
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Except for the very beginning and end, this post is identical to a previous one you posted here.

IDENTICAL. Copying and pasting the same **** over and over, mucking up the thread.

And still using that unsourced, completely undescribed (except by me where I DISCREDITED it) game engine simulation to try to prove something???
 
spook changed what I said:
And said 'ftfy': Fixed That For You. Common practice, typically viewed as humorous by those on the same side of an argument. It's not what you're trying to make it out to be with Playskool colors and large fonts.
 
Going back...

each said in specific context, you combine them and get it wrong and I simply ignore it altogether.
I can't make sense of this.

The top was at 20 degrees therefore no torque means it fell subject to no resistance
That is a true statement but not necessarily a relevant statement. That's like "if I go to Bora Bora, I'm sure to have a good time" but I'm not going there anytime soon so what does it matter? You're trying to imply it has been shown there is no torque, therefore it's true that there was no resistance. It has not been shown.

It looks as if you want to move past the issue without ever quantifying it. As has been noted several times, if there were no torque acting on the upper section, it would continue to rotate with the angular velocity present at the moment of the release. I've tried to ask you in different ways - like here - but you've skated around the central issue each time. Either that's a hell of a coincidence or you're smart enough to see how you're boxed in.

But not smart enough to realize crude evasions won't fool the people doing the boxing.

Did it continue to rotate, or not?
 
Last edited:
And said 'ftfy': Fixed That For You. Common practice, typically viewed as humorous by those on the same side of an argument. It's not what you're trying to make it out to be with Playskool colors and large fonts.

and fraud by those on opposite sides of an argument.

I like the color, you dont like the pretty colors?

They stand out nicely I think
 
Going back...


I can't make sense of this.


That is a true statement but not necessarily a relevant statement. That's like "if I go to Bora Bora, I'm sure to have a good time" but I'm not going there anytime soon so what does it matter? You're trying to imply it has been shown there is no torque, therefore it's true that there was no resistance. It has not been shown.

It looks as if you want to move past the issue without ever quantifying it. As has been noted several times, if there were no torque acting on the upper section, it would continue to rotate with the angular velocity present at the moment of the release. I've tried to ask you in different ways - like here - but you've skated around the central issue each time. Either that's a hell of a coincidence or you're smart enough to see how you're boxed in.

But not smart enough the realize crude evasions won't fool the people doing the boxing.

Did it continue to rotate, or not?


it would continue to rotate with the angular velocity present at the moment of the release.

wrong thinking, only if the core offered no further resistance as can be seen in the demolition in the previious post, it continues to rotate at its released angular velocity because there was nothing underneath it, therefore it lost the race to the ground. However had their been resistance in the demolished buildings core it would have tipped nearly instantly after dropping a floor or 2.

like this:





the wtc2 65% of the top section is over cg and outside the core, 30% is outside the whole building acting as pure torque and the remaining 30% has little crushing ability and converts mostly to torque.




what does your model show Kat?
 
Last edited:
maybe you prefer Oz'z "negligible" resistance in which the only way to conclude that is by ignoring the horizontal components of the core that not only stabilized one column to the next but were designed to hold up the trusses as well.
And, as SanderO has already pointed out, that isn't **** compared to the loads borne by the columns.


yes in fact they were VERY beefy and YES THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE VERTICAL SUPPORT because the floor trusses were connected to them, and the verticals were also held together by beams between them.
It isn't about how beefy they look to you - someone who's impressed by an unphysical game engine simulation - it's what their effective capacity is compared to imposed loading.

The question is why do you insist on downplaying the strength of the core?
I'm trying to accurately assess what can be expected in terms of resistive force based on common and basic engineering principles. You're trying to make an argument from the gut with fabricated pictures and terms like 'beefy'. This doesn't cut it. I'm quite sure you could take the beefiest core columns at a given level, turn them on their side to act as beams, and set the top section down gently on them and it would collapse. This is from my gut, but is based on simple principles.

If a column is rated at 250% of load in optimal vertical configuration, the deflection when 100% load is applied laterally in the center portion would be sufficient to induce fracture.
 
Last edited:
Your evasions are so bleeding obvious.
 
Your evasions are so bleeding obvious.

NOT, you and sanders are the ones handwaving, and you expect us to believe your unquantified remarks that the core would offer negligible resistance.

Still waiting on your model and data spread
 
It may be the correct one and yours may be wrong if there is no validation to the contrary as you claim, you cant have it both ways.
No, yours is definitely not correct! You DISHONESTLY included the crane pedestals, which you knew were there. This is exceedingly misleading to anyone not knowing these were temporary structures. On the flipside, there are many pictures of the buildings in construction with varying amounts of core exposed, and ONLY the one story you chose to copy and paste has that many members. It's not even close. Your fabricated core picture was deliberately dishonest, period.



I assure you that it will not fall straight down to the ground.
We've seen what you call a model. It has self-propelling and magically disappearing debris, interpenetration of perfectly rigid elements, physically meaningless fracture patterns, and so on. It still doesn't show a toppling upper section. It shows a top competely crushing up to an apparently (and likely) indestructible roof element, which then GRAZES a couple of levels as it tips over which initiates a regional progresive collapse that goes many stories.

Wow.
 
First, why do you answer a question with a question? Then, why do you think I'll answer yours when you ignore mine?

Because the purpose of your model was to answer these questions, unless you changed your mind in light of the data and minimum modelling requirements to accomplish that goal that I laid on the table
 
Still waiting on your model and data spread
Still waiting on you to answer DOZENS of questions you've brashly refused to answer, some of which you asked of me first. You really expect me to jump to it, don't you?

Of course you're waiting for my model.

I wonder what would happen if I threw up a gif with absolutely no explanation - like you did.
 
Back
Top Bottom