What brought down WTC7

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: munky
Uh huh... so says you. Are you the expert now to judge the qualifications of other professionals?

Are you expert enough to choose the larger number?

A. 99%
B. 1%

Take your time.

When 99% of experts in a specific field agree on something, it's considered an extremely strong consensus. 99% of experts agree that the official 9/11 story is correct. There's no question here: if you honestly reject the findings of multiple, scientific, independently reviewed tests that conclusively show that the buildings could have fallen when struck by aircraft, you are a moron and no one is going to take you seriously.

No, I'm expert enough to chose critical thinking over going with the flow... apparently you aren't.

It's not critical thinking to completely dismiss the findings of a group comprised entirely of people who have spent their entire lives learning and living the subject at hand and have considerably more expertise than you. I'm not a doctor, so if my doctor told me that I had pancreatic cancer, it wouldn't be "critical thinking" on my part to say, "actually, I believe it's just gas, you pompous windbag;" it'd be asinine. It's similarly asinine for you to dismiss a massive body of experts, every single one of whom knows considerably more about the field than you, in favor of some website with no accreditation and evidence which has been proven wrong.

If you actually "thought critically" instead of just leaping on wild conspiracy theories, you'd know that.

How about if the doctor investigated the scene of the crime long after it was cleaned up and evidence removed, and then concluded that the victim must have died of natural causes? Would that be critical thinking?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
Citing to proper authority is part of my job, so, yeah. If you're confused, let me set you up with the hierarchy.

website set up by disgruntled wingnuts

Again, so says you...

<<<<< Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers

Who conducted the official findings without ever setting foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up. Yeah, sounds real convincing to me... :roll:

So we have two options. We can trust the wingnuts who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up, or the American Society of Civil Engineers who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up.....

Why should we take seriously your wing nuts who have been exposed to even LESS of the evidence then the NIST has? because they have cool party hats?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LegendKillerSince I work in NYC, I know many people who were actually IN the towers, ...and yet not a single one says anything about charges or controlled demolition.
...

This is not a fucking game, It is not something open to interpretation or to bandy about theories. It is not fodder for your insane imaginations.

It was an exceedingly hectic day, and an overwhelmingly emotional experience, so it's not surprising that many could be confused as to what actually happened. It's also not surprising that many would be adverse to acknowledging anything which contradicts the accepted conspiracy theory, as so many have found some level of solace and piece of mind in believing they have a solid understanding of what happened that day.

To everyone:

I'm simply noting the physical impossibility of fires causing a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration. I am not presenting an interpretation or a theory, nor am I imagining anything here, and I'm most certainly not playing any game. I'm talking about facts here, and the fact is that the official story of the fall of WTC7 is based in is physically impossible. Being aware of the relevant facts which prove this, deaning as much would require me to surrender a portion of my sanity to believe in Loony Tones physics, and your verbal pummelings aren't going to persuade me into doing anything of the sort.

So I beg you; please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
When 99% of experts in a specific field agree on something...

Sure, yet when someone claims some percentage of experts agree on something without providing any evidence to prove as much, he is obviously making a faith based argument out of an aversion to addressing the facts.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LegendKillerSince I work in NYC, I know many people who were actually IN the towers, ...and yet not a single one says anything about charges or controlled demolition.
...

This is not a fucking game, It is not something open to interpretation or to bandy about theories. It is not fodder for your insane imaginations.

It was an exceedingly hectic day, and an overwhelmingly emotional experience, so it's not surprising that many could be confused as to what actually happened. It's also not surprising that many would be adverse to acknowledging anything which contradicts the accepted conspiracy theory, as so many have found some level of solace and some piece of mind in believing they have a solid understanding of what happened that day.

That said, I'm presenting the physical impossibility of fires causing a system of interconnected mass collapsing with an observable period of free fall acceleration. I am not presenting an interpretation or a theory, nor am I imagining anything here, and I'm most certainly not playing any game. I'm talking about facts here, and the fact is that the official story of the fall of WTC7 is based in physically impossible. Being aware of the relevant facts which prove this and deaning as much would require me to surrender a portion of my sanity, to believe in Loony Tones physics, and your verbal pummeling aren't going to persuade me into doing anything of the sort.

So I beg you; please look at the facts I presented in the OP, Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass can collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Fires can and DID cause the fall.

I think I'll take your route of argueing

It is physically impossible for anything else to have caused the building to collapse. The evidence is overwhelming that fires caused the buildings to collapse and the internal support to fail in the manner in which it did.

8 Stories of measurable free fall is completely possible when you have a huge chunks of metal falling in conditions which a building was never setup to handle. weakening of the joints throughout the building from large fires to the point where building integrity failed happened. The joints the initially failed would have been made very brittle from the fire. All other joints that didn't fail would have been in an extremely weakened state due to the fire, the providing negligible resistance.

It is physics, the fires were not applied to just one joint, they were applied to several. It wasn't a case of "Oh, only one floor of joints were weakened, the rest were completely unaffected!"

I beg you, please look at the facts presented throughout the entire thread, throughout any and every thread dedicated to this topic. They are overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the NIST got it right. Then, ask yourself, without even thinking about your crack-pot theorists; "Am I really smarter then the NIST, and 99% of engineers that have thoroughly reviewed this situation? Who have years of experience that I don't have. And who damn well better know physics better then the average 6th grader."

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
Citing to proper authority is part of my job, so, yeah. If you're confused, let me set you up with the hierarchy.

website set up by disgruntled wingnuts

Again, so says you...

<<<<< Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers

Who conducted the official findings without ever setting foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up. Yeah, sounds real convincing to me... :roll:

So we have two options. We can trust the wingnuts who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up, or the American Society of Civil Engineers who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up.....

Why should we take seriously your wing nuts who have been exposed to even LESS of the evidence then the NIST has? because they have cool party hats?

Or why not take this crazy third option and decide for yourself after hearing both sides of the argument... I know it sounds far fetched and all, so much easier to just trust what you're told.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
When 99% of experts in a specific field agree on something...

Sure, yet when someone claims some percentage of experts agree on something without providing any evidence to prove as much, he is obviously making a faith based argument out of an aversion to addressing the facts.

You call it faith when someone trusts the 99% of engineers that agree with the official story facts and all. What do you call the people who trust the 1% with no facts to support their claims? I guess it could be called faith, I would refer to it is retardation.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
When 99% of experts in a specific field agree on something...

Sure, yet when someone claims some percentage of experts agree on something without providing any evidence to prove as much, he is obviously making a faith based argument out of an aversion to addressing the facts.

The "facts" are that no reputable recognized accredited institution has taken the view that what happened is anything other that what everyone saw happen. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time some armchair cowboy isn't satisfied. That's what these people get paid to do.

There are some aspects of evolution which aren't fully explained yet. Some holes in the theory. One can then decide to accept the best understanding scientists have given us, shared by 99% of those in the field, or one can focus on the unknown part of the equation and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky
Or why not take this crazy third option and decide for yourself after hearing both sides of the argument... I know it sounds far fetched and all, so much easier to just trust what you're told.

Actually, the majority of the arguments I have seen and heard come from the Whack-jobs. And I still think they are absolutely crazy.

Why do you trust the insane? This isn't free thinking because you propose the same theories they do, and when presented evidence to the contrary you blatantly ignore it. (or when your "evidence" is easily disqualified)

Do you believe the earth is round? Do you believe that all people are people and not lizards? Do you believe that NASA landed on the moon? Why? There is a 1% that argue against all those things. Have you read all of their arguments?

They may be 1%, but they are there.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
Citing to proper authority is part of my job, so, yeah. If you're confused, let me set you up with the hierarchy.

website set up by disgruntled wingnuts

Again, so says you...

<<<<< Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers

Who conducted the official findings without ever setting foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up. Yeah, sounds real convincing to me... :roll:

So we have two options. We can trust the wingnuts who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up, or the American Society of Civil Engineers who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up.....

Why should we take seriously your wing nuts who have been exposed to even LESS of the evidence then the NIST has? because they have cool party hats?

Or why not take this crazy third option and decide for yourself after hearing both sides of the argument... I know it sounds far fetched and all, so much easier to just trust what you're told.

um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Cogman
It is physics, the fires were not applied to just one joint, they were applied to several. It wasn't a case of "Oh, only one floor of joints were weakened, the rest were completely unaffected!"

even if it were just one....
http://www.structuremag.org/Ar...WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman
I think I'll take your route of argueing

It is physically impossible for anything else to have caused the building to collapse.

Rather, you are taking the exact opposite of my argument here; you are spewing a flagrant falsehood to deny an indisputable fact.

Originally posted by: Cogman
8 Stories of measurable free fall is completely possible when you have a huge chunks of metal falling in conditions which a building was never setup to handle. weakening of the joints throughout the building from large fires to the point where building integrity failed happened. The joints the initially failed would have been made very brittle from the fire. All other joints that didn't fail would have been in an extremely weakened state due to the fire, the providing negligible resistance.

Again, this is Loony Tones physics you are clinging to here, like Wile E Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles away, only after which does he free fall to the rubble below.

Originally posted by: Cogman
I beg you, please look at the facts presented throughout the entire thread, throughout any and every thread dedicated to this topic. They are overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the NIST got it right.

They are arguing on faith that NIST got it right, despite the fact that NISTs model shows nothing even resembling conditions which would lead to free fall, and nor did they show their model fall at all. Nor can anyone else show anything of the sort, as it is physically impossible.

Originally posted by: Cogman
You call it faith when someone trusts the 99% of engineers that agree with the official story...

I call it faith because you so obviously have no demonstrable basis for the percentage you claim. On the other hand, you refuse acknowledge your faith based arguments for what they are because you are a falser.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
I think I'll take your route of argueing

It is physically impossible for anything else to have caused the building to collapse.

Rather, you are taking the exact opposite of my argument here; you are spewing a flagrant falsehood to deny an indisputable fact.

Originally posted by: Cogman
8 Stories of measurable free fall is completely possible when you have a huge chunks of metal falling in conditions which a building was never setup to handle. weakening of the joints throughout the building from large fires to the point where building integrity failed happened. The joints the initially failed would have been made very brittle from the fire. All other joints that didn't fail would have been in an extremely weakened state due to the fire, the providing negligible resistance.

Again, this is Loony Tones physics you are clinging to here, like Wile E Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles away, only after which does he free fall to the rubble below.

Originally posted by: Cogman
I beg you, please look at the facts presented throughout the entire thread, throughout any and every thread dedicated to this topic. They are overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the NIST got it right.

They are arguing on faith that NIST got it right, despite the fact that NISTs model shows nothing even resembling conditions which would lead to free fall, and nor did they show their model fall at all. Nor can anyone else show anything of the sort, as it is physically impossible.

Originally posted by: Cogman
You call it faith when someone trusts the 99% of engineers that agree with the official story...

I call it faith because you so obviously have no demonstrable basis for the percentage you claim. On the other hand, you refuse acknowledge your faith based arguments for what they are because you are a falser.

Where am I wrong. Put up, or shut up. You haven't posted one counter claim to what I've said, Rather you just say I'm crazy. So where is? If anything, it is YOUR argument that the building just free floated while the columns disappeared. You have no proof, method, or math to show that the columns disappeared, you just claim that they did, somehow.

I claim that if a column comes close to failure, that a large weight will make it fail, and that a column close to failure will offer far less resistance then a column that is not close to failure.

So where I am I wrong. Surely someone of your intellect that show me it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I call it faith because you so obviously have no demonstrable basis for the percentage you claim. On the other hand, you refuse acknowledge your faith based arguments for what they are because you are a falser.

Why are you still arguing? It's been 8 years. You, and the other people who believe as you do, have not been able to convince the vast majority. You've dedicated dozens and dozens of posts to this thread, and you've convinced zero people. Are you typing up arguments just to feel better about your own opinion? At a certain point, an argument becomes moot. You will not convince your opponents and they will not convince you. I'm pretty sure this is why every other 9/11 conspiracy thread has been locked. Hopefully that happens to this one too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
Citing to proper authority is part of my job, so, yeah. If you're confused, let me set you up with the hierarchy.

website set up by disgruntled wingnuts

Again, so says you...

<<<<< Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers

Who conducted the official findings without ever setting foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up. Yeah, sounds real convincing to me... :roll:

So we have two options. We can trust the wingnuts who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up, or the American Society of Civil Engineers who never set foot on ground zero before the forensic evidence was cleaned up.....

Why should we take seriously your wing nuts who have been exposed to even LESS of the evidence then the NIST has? because they have cool party hats?

Or why not take this crazy third option and decide for yourself after hearing both sides of the argument... I know it sounds far fetched and all, so much easier to just trust what you're told.

Most of us in here HAVE heard both sides of the argument. We've heard the truther side for years now, regurgitating the same crap over and over and over, endlessly, as if repeating something enough makes it true. Imagining that nobody but the truthers know their side of the argument is plain lying to yourself in order to justify to yourself why you believe in a theory that is considered batshit insane and so full of holes it would sink if thrown into water. Stop lying to yourself and realize that many of us know both sides of the argument extremely well (I can assure you that I know the truther arguments far better than many of those who subscribe to their theory), have carefully weighed the theory from each side, and have determined which one fits the evidence and which one doesn't. The truther argument doesn't fit the evidence because they have no evidence, only speculation, hearsay, and accusations all heavily salted with a dose of paranoia. You, Kyle, nor any of the other truthers in tis thread have said a single thing that hasn't been repeated for years already and thoroughly debunked.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

the towers did withstand the impact.

That also is obvious I won't disagree there.

But, they had to assume the 707 plane would have had fuel on board as well in their design criteria and ergo, a fire might occur. My point is: IF they considered a plane hit did they underestimate the damage that might occur or just why did the design not enable the building to stay up?

NIST said the floor sagged 42" from the fire heat. OK... (I'm not bringing up the UL tests done for NIST that said the floors did not fail with greater stress and heat etc in their tests.. and they buckled only 3") That accounts for the stress to break the 5/8" bolts holding the floor bits to the sides and core. Not sure yet why that is important but if the bolts failed it would be building design issue and not terrorist issue. (yes, terrorists caused it but insurance may not pay full amount if the building should have stood and didn't) The fall was symetrical indicating each floor fell one floor at a time. I'm sure the insurance co. would be fighting tooth and nails if they didn't have to pay so maybe it is a non-issue.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Oh, and in case you missed all the other accounts of explosions at WTC:

Text

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

the towers did withstand the impact.

That also is obvious I won't disagree there.

But, they had to assume the 707 plane would have had fuel on board as well in their design criteria and ergo, a fire might occur. My point is: IF they considered a plane hit did they underestimate the damage that might occur or just why did the design not enable the building to stay up?

NIST said the floor sagged 42" from the fire heat. OK... (I'm not bringing up the UL tests done for NIST that said the floors did not fail with greater stress and heat etc in their tests.. and they buckled only 3") That accounts for the stress to break the 5/8" bolts holding the floor bits to the sides and core. Not sure yet why that is important but if the bolts failed it would be building design issue and not terrorist issue. (yes, terrorists caused it but insurance may not pay full amount if the building should have stood and didn't) The fall was symetrical indicating each floor fell one floor at a time. I'm sure the insurance co. would be fighting tooth and nails if they didn't have to pay so maybe it is a non-issue.

A 707 is a relatively small plane compared to a 767. Additionally, it wasn't just fire that led to weakened floor joints, it was the impact which blew off spray-on fire-retardant that was on the steel.

The building was properly designed - it was designed so that the outer walls and the inner central core were load bearing. Punching a big whole in the side greatly affected the building's ability to distribute the load, as the side wall was important in holding the building up. Plus, the planes cut into the cores of the building, damaging that sections ability to handle loads.

I'm sure they didn't design the building to withstand the impossible scenario that could result. For example, the building might have been fine without the fires or with the fires and without the impact, but the combination led to floor pancaking - once the floors started to fail, the outer, load bearing walls were no longer being properly supported, and subsequently buckled, leading to unstoppable, catastrophic structural failure.

Symmetry is caused by how the floors and the outer load bearing walls interact. The floor holds the load bearing walls in place - when the floor starts to buckle, the walls can bulge out fairly evenly because of this important interconnect between the floors and walls.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Oh, and in case you missed all the other accounts of explosions at WTC:

Text

PS, in case you missed it, you need to get a fucking clue.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
You call it faith when someone trusts the 99% of engineers that agree with the official story...

I call it faith because you so obviously have no demonstrable basis for the percentage you claim. On the other hand, you refuse acknowledge your faith based arguments for what they are because you are a falser.

Where am I wrong. Put up, or shut up. You haven't posted one counter claim to what I've said, Rather you just say I'm crazy.

I said you are making faith based arguments, like the one above. I didn't call you crazy, but I suppose that is an applicable label for arguing against facts with faith.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Why are you still arguing? It's been 8 years.

It's only been 4 years since I saw the fall of WTC7, and prior to that promoting me to look into the matter I naively believed that others had explained the fall of the towers. After looking the available evidence, I admited I had been wrong, and only since then have I been arguing those who refuse to do the same. While you'd obviously like to ignore the facts and pretend they will go away, I've no interest in doing anything of the sort, and all your badgering me while ignoring the facts I present will do nothing to change that.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Oh, and in case you missed all the other accounts of explosions at WTC:

Text

PS, in case you missed it, you need to get a fucking clue.

First, pull your head out of your ass.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Still can't cite one credible group who agrees with you, can you? I can cite a few dozen who disagree. but come on, gimme an acronym (hums jeopardy theme)

A plane hits a building, it burns, collapses, no evidence is brought forward after 8 years that shows anything else caused the collapse, and you aren't satisfied. There's really nothing more to say.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky
Or why not take this crazy third option and decide for yourself after hearing both sides of the argument... I know it sounds far fetched and all, so much easier to just trust what you're told.

Actually, the majority of the arguments I have seen and heard come from the Whack-jobs. And I still think they are absolutely crazy.

Why do you trust the insane? This isn't free thinking because you propose the same theories they do, and when presented evidence to the contrary you blatantly ignore it. (or when your "evidence" is easily disqualified)

Do you believe the earth is round? Do you believe that all people are people and not lizards? Do you believe that NASA landed on the moon? Why? There is a 1% that argue against all those things. Have you read all of their arguments?

They may be 1%, but they are there.

You seem a reasonable person so maybe you can explain to me what occurred to the central column section under the pancake theory as presented.
Consider, the floor section was said to sag 42"(NIST) - that is about what you'd have to have to break the 5/8" bolts attaching the floor to the edge and center column supports and start the pancake event. I'm pretty sure the connections were the weakest link there. I'm going to presume the floor (they, NIST, said reinforced) had #5 bar in it to reinforce. Bar bends easily, [We designed the machines (MADC) that do that is why I know. Actually, I'm pretty up on Concrete and Steel cuz that is what we do!] they actually can use rolls of it and form it and cut to length etc. so no big deal sagging the floor if you've enough heat. But that heat must be symmetrical since all the floor fell at once or nearly so per video.
I can visualize the event occurring as per NIST if I stretch the heat a bit and discount the fact that alot of heat would be carried via the core like that thing on the computer's cpu out and up and down. I can account for the spire collapsing the 30' or so before any other events occur due to that conduction of heat up and weakening that section.
What I can't visualize, however, is the massive and it was massive and all tied together central core being torn apart at regular intervals of say 35 or so feet AND the pancake event. It seems counter intuitive. Them straw examples were very telling regarding this.
They did find a few bits of central core some 5 or 600 ft from the foot print site. How that happened can be calculated. I've yet to find that calculation or the rationalization for it.
I'm fine with the pancake theory cuz to my knowledge all of the concrete was pulverized and none of the 22 guage floor stuff was recovered. I'd expect it was fused and whatevered.

If you do care to respond would you sort of say it in a manner that I can try to visualize.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

That also is obvious I won't disagree there.

But, they had to assume the 707 plane would have had fuel on board as well in their design criteria and ergo, a fire might occur. My point is: IF they considered a plane hit did they underestimate the damage that might occur or just why did the design not enable the building to stay up?

well, actually, the designer of the tower has stated that the towers weren't designed to withstand the impact, but they did calculations to see what the results might be and found they would stand up to an impact (he claims 200ish mph, the port authority claims 600 mph). he also said there was no study as to what would happen with the fire (and stated that there weren't any fire control systems at the time that could control such a fire anyway), though the port authority claims they did.

so, according to the designer, we've got it backward. the buildings weren't designed to hold up to a plane impact, but they did later calculations and determined that the buildings could withstand the impact.

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I'm simply noting the physical impossibility of fires causing a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration.

you've yet to prove that doing so is impossible. not to mention you've assumed something that is bolted together is going to stay together when subjected to forces it wasn't designed to handle.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Still can't cite one credible group who agrees with you, can you? I can cite a few dozen who disagree. but come on, gimme an acronym (hums jeopardy theme)

Too bad your credible groups have been discredited on multiple occasions by those willing to question them.