Steel shipped to China...

[DGM]

You say that WTC7 was "brought down by a combination of extraordinary physical damage and unfought fires raging for several hours". Is this NIST's conclusion or yours. Are you seriously saying that the first known instance of a tall building coming down as it did is of no interest to engineers?

Are you aware that this building exceeded code. Why is this building important to you? The design did what it was supposed to do, protect the occupants and give them time to egress in cases of fire. The building is not important, it can and was replaced.

Why would you assume it was of no interest. NIST actual did a study. Did you miss it?

You need to focus, You're going off like a raving lunatic. You just said a team of engineers did a study and no engineers were interested in the same paragraph.

 

[TheRealnz]

Yep, the Towers were totally designed to withstand a full-speed impact from a type of plane that didn't exist until after they were completed, which was significantly larger than the plane they were said to be able to take an impact from, and totally didn't collapse in a way that hit surrounding buildings with debris and set them on fire.

Like, y'know, WTC 7.

Time to first lie...

Are you for real? That nonsense was dispelled while the calendar still read 2001.



"Down" is sorta how gravity works. Amazing how the relevant engineering community with a single, nearly unanimous voice fails to see how a collapse could have occurred in any other way.

I don't know of anything of this scale designed to bare minimum standards. I don't understand the rest of this.

"Down" is sorta how gravity works. Amazing how the relevant engineering community with a single, nearly unanimous voice fails to see how a collapse could have occurred in any other way.

Actual, down symmetrically in a pancake collapse, which is what this allegedly is, is sorta exactly how gravity doesn't work. As the building moved downward, resistance would NOT be symmetrical and debris would pile up. Instead the concrete turned to powder. A quick google image search of pancake collapses shows this.

They already attacked our military and US sovereign property. How much do you need?

August 7, 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

October 12, 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

How is it that "truthers" seem to have never heard of Osama Bin laden or al-Qaeda before 9/11?

Did you read the thread started by PaloAlto I linked to earlier?

If anything it shows you why this Hollywood nonsense is ridiculous. You can't see how an embassy in Africa and a ship in the Middle East are completely different operations than hijacking multiple planes in multiple parts of a distant country all on a synchronized schedule so as not to be stopped and flying they unmolested in hostile airspace while completing amazing aerial maneuvers? How much I need is an operation that is within the scope of achievable.

Either these people are insane fanatics or they are military men fighting asymmetrically. You can only have one. This makes no sense in either scenario.

 

[DGM]

Either these people are insane fanatics or they are military men fighting asymmetrically. You can only have one. This makes no sense in either scenario.

This is the choice I go with.

Why do you think their plan was so complicated? If I recall you claim to be older than 13. Were you living in a cave in 2001?

What part of the actual plan was complicated. Please don't include your made up complications like defeating the US air defenses (there were none) or rigging the buildings to collapse. They boarded planes with weapons that were allowed at the time. They were not stopped because we don't "profile" passengers and they hadn't done anything wrong.
Again, what was so hard about what happened on 9/11. I bet you make up things in an attempt to justify your belief.

 

[beachnut]

I don't know of anything of this scale designed to bare minimum standards. I don't understand the rest of this.

What does this mean? I think you left out what you think you said.

Actual, down symmetrically in a pancake collapse, which is what this allegedly is, is sorta exactly how gravity doesn't work. As the building moved downward, resistance would NOT be symmetrical and debris would pile up. Instead the concrete turned to powder. A quick google image search of pancake collapses shows this.

How much concrete turned to powder? What percent of the dust was concrete.
The collapse of the WTC was not symmetric - do you know what symmetry is. A quick google, that is your problem.

If anything it shows you why this Hollywood nonsense is ridiculous. You can't see how an embassy in Africa and a ship in the Middle East are completely different operations than

What is your point? I think you left out what you meant to say.

hijacking multiple planes in multiple parts of a distant country all on a synchronized schedule

Wow, the official story, is your story.

so as not to be stopped and flying they unmolested in hostile airspace

What hostile airspace; the terrorists initially would be treated as an emergency aircraft, other traffic would be moved to protect what ATC would think was an aircraft having problems. The US airspace is civilian, not military - not hostile.

while completing amazing aerial maneuvers?

There were no amazing aerial maneuvers, this is a lie, or extreme ignornace. Crashing is the least amazing aerial manuver in the book, the easiest to do, so easy it is the end of many pilots who don't respect flying. Flying VFR is easy, crashing VFR takes no skill. Why do you lie about 911? Due to ignornce, or did you do one of those "quick google search" things...

How much I need is an operation that is within the scope of achievable.

911 was easy to do. Take plane, crash plane.

Either these people are insane fanatics

19 idiots did 911, the insane fanatics are 911 truth "experts", spreading lies.

or they are military men fighting asymmetrically.

Are you blaming the military? Another lie.

[/QUOTE]You can only have one. This makes no sense in either scenario. [/QUOTE] 19 terrorists is what the evidence shows. 911 truth can't figure this out after 13 years.

 

[DGM]

TheRealnz:

Let me tell you the plan and you tell us what was so complicated.

Buy tickets on a commercial cross country flight using aircraft you are familiar with. Board the plane with tickets carrying nothing that was illegal at the time. Once in flight, take over the aircraft knowing full well no one will interfere. Turn off the transponder to blind ATC and buy time. Fly the plane into a target using pilot skills any average pilot would know (navigation and such). The military would not interfere because they would not know until it was too late (Payne Stewarts intercept proved that).

So, what part of this was tough?

 

[000063]

I don't know of anything of this scale designed to bare minimum standards. I don't understand the rest of this. ...

I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken my and Jay's posts for posts by someone else, saying something completely different from anything we mentioned.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know of anything of this scale designed to bare minimum standards. I don't understand the rest of this.

You don't understand the first part of it either. You don't seem to know what standard the WTC towers were originally designed to. And this was raised and answered mere days after 9/11. The survivability of the structures in an airframe collision hasn't been a viable line of inquiry for many years. There are literally kids in puberty now who were born after that particular concern was dispelled. This is why I'm asking if you're for real.

The towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 collision at approach speeds, not a 767 at near maximum airspeed. If you don't understand that difference in kinetic energy, you aren't the least competent to have this discussion.

 

[000063]

Heck, I'm an art major, and even I "get" the basic idea of the Square Cube law.

 

[LSSBB]

...you aren't the least competent to have this discussion.

Well, maybe not, but he's pretty darn close.

 

[pgimeno]

Ahem, not "designed", merely "found out".

I was wrong. I take this back.

 

[beachnut]

...while completing amazing aerial maneuvers...

Where does this come from? Why are you gullible, posting BS you googled. You never studied the RADAR, or FDR, you repeat nonsense from 911 truth without thinking. Why.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Actual, down symmetrically in a pancake collapse, which is what this allegedly is, is sorta exactly how gravity doesn't work.

Actually, Jack, this is EXACTLY how gravity works. Basic, elementary, high school physics may not be your strong suit.

 

[beachnut]

... while completing amazing aerial maneuvers ...

I first flew a large jet in 1976, I have thousands of hours in large jets, what are these amazing aerial maneuvers on 911?

 

[kookbreaker]

I first flew a large jet in 1976, I have thousands of hours in large jets, what are these amazing aerial maneuvers on 911?

Dude, they made a turn! A turn! have you seen how big those jumbo jet planes are? They can't possibly turn! They have to take off on a runway pointing at the city they hope to land in.

Not only that but they hit a huge building! How could that possibly happen? I mean, just because it was something everyone did to the Hancock Center at least once in the first version of Microsoft Flight Simulator....

 

[fezzic]

So we are back, in part, to someone claiming or saying (or throwing stuff against a wall to see if any of it sticks) that the aerial maneuvers were so "outrageously" difficult that nobody but a fully trained professional pilot could have accomplished them?

Perhaps the next claim would be that the jihadi in control could not possibly have flown the plane so close to the ground without crashing it short of the Pentagon...

Then perhaps a claim that since they could not have crashed the plane into the Pentagon, that they flew over the Pentagon and the conspiracy then proceeded to detonate pyrotechnics and explosives to simulate a plane crash and co-conspirators on the ground, in the open, spread all kinds of aircraft debris and knocked over light poles in the area. Meanwhile the plane flies off (invisibly) into obscurity and history.

And, when all else fails, perhaps that no plane actually hit the Pentagon, but it was a substitute aircraft, say an A-3 or a Global Hawk or maybe a cruise missile?

I suppose we should not forget the holograms and explosives alternative... no that was WTC...

 

[DGM]

Perhaps the next claim would be that the jihadi in control could not possibly have flown the plane so close to the ground without crashing it short of the Pentagon...

Come on, these are cave people. They can't fly planes.


Sad as this sounds. Parts of the "truther" hypothesis actually lean this way.

 

[TheRealnz]

Because it was found that the damage and fire were sufficient to cause what was seen. Remember the physical collapse was investigated, you just don't understand it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

When was it found that the damage and fire were sufficient to cause what was seen?

Not even close. Remember the "biggest investigation in history"? The fact you don't understand history is not a reason to dismiss it.

Not sure why you continue to use quotation marks when you say "biggest investigation in history". I'm surprised that the "biggest (criminal) investigation in history" didn't bother to indict bin Laden, but that's a separate topic.

 

[TheRealnz]

NIST does not do criminal investigations.

FBI did the investigation of crime, and they found it all was done by 19 terrorists, no bombs, no extra nuts.

You do woo, you have some fantasy you can't explain, or support with facts, or evidence.

you lost this one, you have no idea NIST does not do crime

Better luck with Bigfoot, or your OKC fantasy.

Engineers don't need pieces of steel to study why a structure failed. They have the plans, they have the science. You have woo, next time try evidence.


No bombs, there was no boom. Where do you get the silent explosives for your fantasy of CD and the big inside job you can't explain?

Yeah, I realise NIST don't do criminal investigations. Are you saying there was no need to retain any steel because all the investigators needed were plans and science? Look, I disagree but let's continue with that. Was NIST's computer modelling an accurate representation of the plans or were the parameter's manipulated?

That is why engineers figured it out. Engineers know it was not explosives, not thermite.

lay people know it was not explosives, not thermite -

NIST does not do crime - it seems there is confusion on who investigates what.

There's no confusion regarding who investigates what. Do you think it's reasonable to a suggest that chemical reaction could have taken place when aluminium from the plane combined with iron oxide that was present in the building and was ignited by the high temps of the fires?

WTC 7 is not the first high-rise to be totaled by fire. One Meridian Plaza, fires fought, building totaled. Windsor building in Spain, fires fought, building totaled by fire. oops, you thinking a collapse is different from being totaled. WTC 7, fires not fought, building totaled by fire. oops, you think a collapse means something - how do your silent explosives work? Where do you get them?

Don't shoot the messenger, I was just quoting NIST.

 

[TheRealnz]

Are you aware that this building exceeded code. Why is this building important to you? The design did what it was supposed to do, protect the occupants and give them time to egress in cases of fire. The building is not important, it can and was replaced.

No, I wasn't aware it exceeded code. If you think the collapse isn't important, then cool, we'll leave it at that.

Why would you assume it was of no interest. NIST actual did a study. Did you miss it?

This is getting a bit silly, You just said a team of engineers did a study and no engineers were interested in the same paragraph.

Yeah , it's getting very silly. Why did the engineers (NIST) do physical experiments only to ignore them?

 

[carlitos]

I'm surprised that the "biggest (criminal) investigation in history" didn't bother to indict bin Laden, but that's a separate topic.

Not a separate topic, just pointless. Bin Laden was already under indictment since 1998.

ETA - here's a Bin Laden timeline.