What brought down WTC7

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Well... If I can go out on a limb and not fall up, I'd say I'm more informed than before the thread. I'm swayed away from thinking that bad guys maybe started fires on WTC 7 11-13 to destroy evidence if that counts.
In my case, when there are two sides and one side brings up an issue that makes sense I keep falling back to the planes the terrorists flew and the people on board and the how do you get the 'cutting' product to the right sites with out being detected... I estimate some 500 or so separate beam locations per building... not easy to do.

Don`t be a retard LunarRay!!
In fact don`t be an out and out liar!!
Before this thread was started you were already on Kylebisme`s side!!

This thread didn`t sway your opinion one bit!!
In fact this thread has not swayed anybodys opinion!!
All this thread has done is give quite a few people a lot of laughs at the OP!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Joints stressed enough to pop will, and the load will gets distributed in different ways than designed, at which point other joints might pop, but to get the whole thing to collapse at free fall for 105 feet, you need to pop 105 feet worth of joints near simultaneously. Even the idea that office fires could accomplish that to the extent you are suggesting is flatly absurd, let alone at free fall, which is why not even the models created to buttress the official story don't show anything of the sort.

see page 37

why do you assume the joints needed to pop simultaneously?

Forgive me for intruding. But page 37 indicates the buckling issue quite nicely.. but and this is sort of a do the observations support that notion... There was pulverized everything at site 7 and the other two... only steel bits were discernable and some facia of the lower floor area... I'd expect the buckling to allow a pancake event.. floor hitting floor hitting floor and result is bunches of broken stuff but not pulverized. I think I'm right but stand to be corrected.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Well... If I can go out on a limb and not fall up, I'd say I'm more informed than before the thread. I'm swayed away from thinking that bad guys maybe started fires on WTC 7 11-13 to destroy evidence if that counts.
In my case, when there are two sides and one side brings up an issue that makes sense I keep falling back to the planes the terrorists flew and the people on board and the how do you get the 'cutting' product to the right sites with out being detected... I estimate some 500 or so separate beam locations per building... not easy to do.

Don`t be a retard LunarRay!!
In fact don`t be an out and out liar!!
Before this threead was started you were already on Kylebisme`s side!!

This thread didn`t sway your opinion one bit!!
In fact this thread has not swayed anybodys opinion!!
All this thread has done is give quite a few people a lot of laughts and the OP!!

IF you say so it must be so! I do want to thank you for the chuckle you brought to me... Being so sure of a BELIEF entitles you to be enshrined with the pope when you finally find peace.

EDIT: Upon reflection I don't know how what you stated relates to what I wrote. Seems inconsistent to me. So, I unfortunately will renege on supporting your enshrinement.
I know, btw, that when I finally find peace and have earned my being enshrined I expect all the popes to jump up and sing praises...

 

[Equ1n0x]

"maybe the building was sentient and collapsed out of sadness over the collapse of WTC1 & 2."

This is the best explanation I've heard yet. I think this will be my answer whenever someone questions it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Equ1n0x


"maybe the building was sentient and collapsed out of sadness over the collapse of WTC1 & 2."

This is the best explanation I've heard yet. I think this will be my answer whenever someone questions it.

Now that one fits my criteria...

Or, it had a burning desire to emulate a fallen interest. We could sing "Blowing in the Wind"... a sad song for a sad day. And for some folks, just to be fair... ''White rabbit'' and for the rest " When I was a lad" from HMS Pinafore.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
define near simultaneously. is 1.75 seconds near simultaneously?

The 1.75 seconds is the time the roof spent bowing towards the middle after core columns had been taken out, and after that the rest of the structural support over the course 105 feet of its height was taken out near simultaneously, as if it wasn't the building wouldn't have came crashing down with a 2.25 second period of free fall acceleration.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Watching the towers fall, My eye caught [can't recall atm which tower it is] the top of a tower starting to fall over to the side. Then it righted itself and proceeded to be smushed as you'd expect from Newton's third...

Rather, it didn't right itself, but came tumbling off as one should expect, as you can see as it pushes the debris cloud here.

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa.../Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...an/Biederman-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

BTW, here are a couple of links to published journals of professors of civil engineering. The first and the third SPECIFICALLY address the issues the OP raised.

The first and the third don't even mention WTC7, and while the second is about WTC7 it doesn't mention its period of free fall acceleration, which is the issue the OP raised.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
..floor hitting floor hitting floor and result is bunches of broken stuff but not pulverized. I think I'm right but stand to be corrected.

You are correct, there simply isn't enough energy in the system to pulverize everything when sticking to the official story of gravity being the sole force in bringing down the buildings.

Originally posted by: Equ1n0x
"maybe the building was sentient and collapsed out of sadness over the collapse of WTC1 & 2."

This is the best explanation I've heard yet. I think this will be my answer whenever someone questions it.

It's just as believable as the official story anyway. I've got another proposal though; the fire was sentient, and shaped itself into a magic wand, which then tapped the building twice, once to make core columns turn into rabbits, and the second to turn the rest of the structural support over 105 feet of the building's hight into pigeons. Free fall by fire, there you have it, simple and complete. Never mind that it contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Watching the towers fall, My eye caught [can't recall atm which tower it is] the top of a tower starting to fall over to the side. Then it righted itself and proceeded to be smushed as you'd expect from Newton's third...

Rather, it didn't right itself, but came tumbling off as you'd expect, as you can see as it pushes the debris cloud here.

Let me see if I get this right. You're agree that it appears to have sorta bent over to the left but that it continued on and fell astride the tower that it once was atop? That would mean that there was nothing to cause the rest of the building to collapse and we know the building did collapse! I think I see something bend back and then continue down.. but I'll look a few more hundred times.

EDIT: I've watched it a bunch more times but I can't tell if it continues to fall off to the side or just bent over there and falling at that angle downward but I guess it doesn't move back to the right or do so too much. It don't look like it is crushing or being crushed so guess it is in free fall at that point. I'll stand corrected, It don't defy physics.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
define near simultaneously. is 1.75 seconds near simultaneously?

The 1.75 seconds is the time the roof spent bowing towards the middle after core columns had been taken out, and after that the rest of the structural support over the course 105 feet of its height was taken out near simultaneously, as if it wasn't the building wouldn't have came crashing down with a 2.25 period of free fall acceleration.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Watching the towers fall, My eye caught [can't recall atm which tower it is] the top of a tower starting to fall over to the side. Then it righted itself and proceeded to be smushed as you'd expect from Newton's third...

Rather, it didn't right itself, but came tumbling off as you'd expect, as you can see as it pushes the debris cloud here.

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa.../Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...an/Biederman-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

BTW, here are a couple of links to published journals of professors of civil engineering. The first and the third SPECIFICALLY address the issues the OP raised.

The first and the third don't even mention WTC7, and while the second is about WTC7 it doesn't mention its period of free fall acceleration, which is the issue the OP raised. At this point I see no reason to do anything but take your advice to "IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE" your posts.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
..floor hitting floor hitting floor and result is bunches of broken stuff but not pulverized. I think I'm right but stand to be corrected.

You are correct, there simply isn't enough energy in the system to pulverize everything when sticking to the official story of gravity being the sole force in bringing down the buildings.

Originally posted by: Equ1n0x
"maybe the building was sentient and collapsed out of sadness over the collapse of WTC1 & 2."

This is the best explanation I've heard yet. I think this will be my answer whenever someone questions it.

It's just as believable as the official story anyway. I've got another proposal though; the fire was sentient, and shaped itself into a magic wand, which then tapped the building twice, once to make core columns turn into rabbits, and the second to turn the rest of the structural support over 105 feet of the building's hight into pigeons. Free fall by fire, there you have it, simple and complete. Never mind that it contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics.

HA HA HA. That was never my advice, and you've completely ignored my earlier post.

Here's the facts. Both buildings where hit by planes, both buildings lost tones of support, and both buildings fell. So, are you arguing that one building had charges detonated in it and the other didn't?

I'm sorry, but details about how one of the buildings fell are going to be very similar to the way the other building fell.

But don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy world.

 

[Vic]

Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denial or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

Structural damage or diesel fire did not bring WTC7 down. As a mater of fact most of the diesel fuel from the tanks was recovered. Ordinary building fires set by falling debris brought the building down. It's that simple.

There is no arguing with the twuthers. They will never admit to this reality.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Well... If I can go out on a limb and not fall up, I'd say I'm more informed than before the thread. I'm swayed away from thinking that bad guys maybe started fires on WTC 7 11-13 to destroy evidence if that counts.
In my case, when there are two sides and one side brings up an issue that makes sense I keep falling back to the planes the terrorists flew and the people on board and the how do you get the 'cutting' product to the right sites with out being detected... I estimate some 500 or so separate beam locations per building... not easy to do.

Don`t be a retard LunarRay!!
In fact don`t be an out and out liar!!
Before this threead was started you were already on Kylebisme`s side!!

This thread didn`t sway your opinion one bit!!
In fact this thread has not swayed anybodys opinion!!
All this thread has done is give quite a few people a lot of laughts and the OP!!

IF you say so it must be so! I do want to thank you for the chuckle you brought to me... Being so sure of a BELIEF entitles you to be enshrined with the pope when you finally find peace.

EDIT: Upon reflection I don't know how what you stated relates to what I wrote. Seems inconsistent to me. So, I unfortunately will renege on supporting your enshrinement.
I know, btw, that when I finally find peace and have earned my being enshrined I expect all the popes to jump up and sing praises...

So I was right.....of course I already knew I was right!
The question that Fear No Evil asked....
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Does not pertain at all to you...because you were already sleeping in bed with Kylebisme!!

Muahaha.......there goes yopur credibility..oopps..you never had any!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

NIST does not agree that fuel oil had anything to do with the destruction. Or words to that effect. I think more than 20 stories took damage on two sides also. I think floors 11-13 are the key to the collapse. IF the fires on 11 - 13 could cause what NIST said, then I think that is the answer to how it could collapse.
I think your first para is correct or close. I think there are some issues that could be explained better or with out bias but that won't happen... I've not read NIST's report on the Towers Collapse or found a link to that yet.
Morons or not, if experts can show alternate causes then NIST should show them to be wrong in open debate, I think.

For me, Terrorists flew planes into buildings and a field. Buildings fell or were damaged.
Evidence exists that suggests other events occurred that are unrelated to terrorists. How much weight do you give? [Beyond reasonable doubt is usually a good one] If you'd not convict in court then there it is... IF you can.. there that is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

So I was right.....of course I already knew I was right!
The question that Fear No Evil asked....
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Does not pertain at all to you...because you were already sleeping in bed with Kylebisme!!

Muahaha.......there goes yopur credibility..oopps..you never had any!!

ah.. well.. what ever you say is fine with me.

I have no animosity toward you for any of the comments directed to me personally now or in any other thread. Try not to have any toward me for not responding in kind..
You do give me a bit of a smile, I must say. I do like to smile..
It is ok to disagree or call me a liar or whatever you have called me previously and IF I met you on the street I'd buy you a coffee... maybe a double latte.. be friendly, it won't hurt.

Would I help kyle anyway I could? You bet! Regardless of how I felt personally about 9/11 or any other topic, I will always help someone who is besieged by the multitude... always and with out a concern in the world how that affects me personally. When someone laughs at his disability I feel his hurt too. That you don't, if you don't, is for you to deal with, not me.
But, as I've stated maybe a bazillion times, I think terrorists flew planes as I've said and how anyone could have brought 100 tons of explosives into buildings is beyond me. Other than that there are lots of loose bits lying about that if true could make me reconsider... Maybe not you but then I'm not you. And ain't you thankful for that...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

That theory doesn't add up because, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. Moreover, has there been any other incident in recent history where a fire caused a complete collapse of a skyscraper? Not that I've heard of. And look at the collapse itself - the mushrooming at the top, then the entire thing just disintegrated into rubble practically within its own footprint. Even demolition professionals don't achieve a 100% success rate with pre-wired explosives and preparation, and here these towers just collapsed within hours of each other in a perfect pancake effect.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Structural damage or diesel fire did not bring WTC7 down. As a mater of fact most of the diesel fuel from the tanks was recovered. Ordinary building fires set by falling debris brought the building down. It's that simple.

There is no arguing with the twuthers. They will never admit to this reality.

That statement is true but for the IF's. IF the pancake effect can't render the stuff not burned except the steel, into particulates of their former self AND that is what was found then we'd have to account for that phenomenon. There is some evidence to that effect from credible eyes on the site. IF the fire only event can produce the visual dynamics of the collapse of '7', the observed free fall, then that is powerful evidence. I read one NIST report, a draft or some such, just the other day and they called it a constant or what ever it was.. non accelerating drop.. iow, not free fall and then someone sends me a link where NIST comes up with a change to partial free fall. Now I ask my self; the data that supported the former can't be the same as used to support the latter, but it is, as I read it. Something seems wrong there. But then I look at a building whose entire guts are falling a part and not one single bit of fascia is affected to my view... that is odd to me. FEMA finds molten stuff and now folks say there is no molten stuff... how can that be? There are credible scientists who say Thermite shows in the rubble samples along with other evidence consistent with Thermite (molten this or that). I don't know the science that well or even much at all but when someone like a scientist puts his neck on the peer review block... I have to listen and weigh the possibility against the simple answer.. Can you reject the null or not reject it when scientists are thought to be unbiased? IF there is Thermite and unexpended Thermite found in the area I wonder... but still not enough to accept it happened exactly that way... A case is built block upon block until you have enough evidence to submit... A lawyer never ever ever introduces evidence he knows can be impeached with out effort or doubt... That is what folks say about some of the so called evidence. It seems to me these folks are not fools on either side... someone got it wrong is all I see... And I can't see this topic being anymore dramatic than Bush's invasion of Iraq... you all choose your side and reject anything not in accord.. but that is being human, I guess.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

That theory doesn't add up because, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. Moreover, has there been any other incident in recent history where a fire caused a complete collapse of a skyscraper? Not that I've heard of. And look at the collapse itself - the mushrooming at the top, then the entire thing just disintegrated into rubble practically within its own footprint. Even demolition professionals don't achieve a 100% success rate with pre-wired explosives and preparation, and here these towers just collapsed within hours of each other in a perfect pancake effect.

It apparently adds up just fine for world-renowned scientist and Structural Engineer Zdenek Ba?ant. Is he part of the conspiracy, or just an idiot (an idiot who holds seven doctorates, at that!)?

Ba?ant has published two papers analyzing the collapse of the twin towers ((1) (2)). As you are obviously an expert, please identify the mathematically incorrect portions of these papers.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

That theory doesn't add up because, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. Moreover, has there been any other incident in recent history where a fire caused a complete collapse of a skyscraper? Not that I've heard of. And look at the collapse itself - the mushrooming at the top, then the entire thing just disintegrated into rubble practically within its own footprint. Even demolition professionals don't achieve a 100% success rate with pre-wired explosives and preparation, and here these towers just collapsed within hours of each other in a perfect pancake effect.

It apparently adds up just fine for world-renowned scientist and Structural Engineer Zdenek Ba?ant. Is he part of the conspiracy, or just an idiot (an idiot who holds seven doctorates, at that!)?

Ba?ant has published two papers analyzing the collapse of the twin towers ((1) (2)). As you are obviously an expert, please identify the mathematically incorrect portions of these papers.

No, I am an expert in detecting inconsistent stories, ulterior motives, and other forms of bullshit you've been swallowing for the last 8 years. Had you bothered to research the political and economic implications of the events from sources other than the mainstream media, maybe you wouldn't be such a gullible sheep to these co-called experts either.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

That theory doesn't add up because, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. Moreover, has there been any other incident in recent history where a fire caused a complete collapse of a skyscraper? Not that I've heard of. And look at the collapse itself - the mushrooming at the top, then the entire thing just disintegrated into rubble practically within its own footprint. Even demolition professionals don't achieve a 100% success rate with pre-wired explosives and preparation, and here these towers just collapsed within hours of each other in a perfect pancake effect.

It apparently adds up just fine for world-renowned scientist and Structural Engineer Zdenek Ba?ant. Is he part of the conspiracy, or just an idiot (an idiot who holds seven doctorates, at that!)?

Ba?ant has published two papers analyzing the collapse of the twin towers ((1) (2)). As you are obviously an expert, please identify the mathematically incorrect portions of these papers.

No, I am an expert in detecting inconsistent stories, ulterior motives, and other forms of bullshit you've been swallowing for the last 8 years. Had you bothered to research the political and economic implications of the events from sources other than the mainstream media, maybe you wouldn't be such a gullible sheep to these co-called experts either.

What is it with you dipshits dancing around even the simplest of questions? I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect. This should be trivial if he is just a "so-called expert."

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Oh man, this is great! We are make believe investigator, architect, engineer and physicist.

Even Moonbeam is trying to make sense.... Ain't that worth the price alone? Oh, and I'm in non-denial denile or something and kyle can't add and everyone is an expert now...

Let's recap. Two 400,000 lb jet planes carrying 11,000 lbs of kerosene each traveling at 600 mph struck the mid-to-upper floors of two 110 story skyscrapers and the buildings suffered major structural damage, caught fire, and collapsed. It's not rocket science. It's overkill.

As the North Tower collapsed, a large section of the upper floors, falling from nearly 1/4-mile height, ripped a deep 20 story gash in the neighboring tower 7 in its fall to earth. The resulting fire spread to basement of the building, which housed the largest electrical substation and emergency power generator in lower Manhattan, along with 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel to supply those generators. Once again, not rocket science. Overkill.

If anyone has an explanation better than this, and can back it up with facts and not BS, I'm completely open to it. OTOH, claiming those forces could had not brought down those buildings, and that additional forces MUST have been required, is simply ridiculous. Seriously. All opinions are NOT equal... and truthers are morons.

That theory doesn't add up because, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. Moreover, has there been any other incident in recent history where a fire caused a complete collapse of a skyscraper? Not that I've heard of. And look at the collapse itself - the mushrooming at the top, then the entire thing just disintegrated into rubble practically within its own footprint. Even demolition professionals don't achieve a 100% success rate with pre-wired explosives and preparation, and here these towers just collapsed within hours of each other in a perfect pancake effect.

It apparently adds up just fine for world-renowned scientist and Structural Engineer Zdenek Ba?ant. Is he part of the conspiracy, or just an idiot (an idiot who holds seven doctorates, at that!)?

Ba?ant has published two papers analyzing the collapse of the twin towers ((1) (2)). As you are obviously an expert, please identify the mathematically incorrect portions of these papers.

No, I am an expert in detecting inconsistent stories, ulterior motives, and other forms of bullshit you've been swallowing for the last 8 years. Had you bothered to research the political and economic implications of the events from sources other than the mainstream media, maybe you wouldn't be such a gullible sheep to these co-called experts either.

What is it with you dipshits dancing around even the simplest of questions? I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect. This should be trivial if he is just a "so-called expert."

Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Still not an answer. I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

I really just don't understand why you feel compelled to defame one of the world's most respected engineering researchers--and without even bothering to read his papers, at that. You and the OP may be complete fucking morons, but I will freely admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with the official version of September 11 events; Steven Jones certainly isn't stupid, and even just in this thread, miniMUNCH seems like a bright guy. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support the official explanation?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: munky

Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Really?

:Q :laugh:

 

[Painman]

I'm sticking with the "19 hijackers flew 4 planes into 3 buildings and a field" version of events.

Sorry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Well... If I can go out on a limb and not fall up, I'd say I'm more informed than before the thread. I'm swayed away from thinking that bad guys maybe started fires on WTC 7 11-13 to destroy evidence if that counts.
In my case, when there are two sides and one side brings up an issue that makes sense I keep falling back to the planes the terrorists flew and the people on board and the how do you get the 'cutting' product to the right sites with out being detected... I estimate some 500 or so separate beam locations per building... not easy to do.

Don`t be a retard LunarRay!!
In fact don`t be an out and out liar!!
Before this threead was started you were already on Kylebisme`s side!!

This thread didn`t sway your opinion one bit!!
In fact this thread has not swayed anybodys opinion!!
All this thread has done is give quite a few people a lot of laughts and the OP!!

IF you say so it must be so! I do want to thank you for the chuckle you brought to me... Being so sure of a BELIEF entitles you to be enshrined with the pope when you finally find peace.

EDIT: Upon reflection I don't know how what you stated relates to what I wrote. Seems inconsistent to me. So, I unfortunately will renege on supporting your enshrinement.
I know, btw, that when I finally find peace and have earned my being enshrined I expect all the popes to jump up and sing praises...

So I was right.....of course I already knew I was right!
The question that Fear No Evil asked....
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Does not pertain at all to you...because you were already sleeping in bed with Kylebisme!!

Muahaha.......there goes yopur credibility..oopps..you never had any!!

What a titanically presumptuous imbecile you are. And what a low class individual. What happened to you, did LR out think you in some thread and bruise you sad little ego? Did it appear that he made you look like the stupid fool that can hardly conceal whenever you post.

I happen to know that your words above are total complete and utter horse shit, you filthy little scum bag. I have talked extensively on every manner of subject for a good 5 years with LR on pretty much a daily basis and not ever, since before this thread began did we ever speak of the towers or a conspiracy to my memory or for that matter kyle. I hadn't till this thread even taken note that he existed. Shove your fucking conspiracy theories about LunarRay up your ass, you miserable little piece of shit. I fucking know he changed his mind because we have also talked during this thread. You back stabbing little fuck, you are the one with no credibility. You talk filth because you are.