Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The steel used in swords is quite different than the steel used in buildings
[and i'm not gettin any where near that guy]
Some simple Tower 7 questions
- Thread starter Submersible
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc wtc7
The steel used in swords is quite different than the steel used in buildings
[and i'm not gettin any where near that guy]
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I know about metal fatigue, it takes a lot of bending. These joints only bent once
Concrete is poured arround rebar, not I beams
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
3" rebar on 4' centers perhaps? lol
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Oh, Christopher 7!
Oh, Chris!
Hello?
You seem to have completely forgotten that we went through all this months ago. Remember my pretty pictures showing that the exterior columns on WTC 7 had separated at their joints? Remember, Chris? Remember my long posts here in this very forum?
You can see those pretty pictures again in the WTC 7 paper that's linked in my signature below. And read the paper while you're at it. You will be enlightened.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
Care to reassess your original statement, then? You didn't specify a particular steel, you generalized that steel doesn't break. Then you were shown evidence that it does. Will you admit to a mistake?
Ahem. The spot where the steel hinge broke was not a part that bends, but stays entirely rigid. Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said "metal fatigue", but the point is that steel does indeed break.
Strange that you used that FEMA picture to back up your first picture then, you did it in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2173948#post2173948
I assume that your cut column is the one that you featured in this post:
There's a lot of wide-angle lense distortion on those photos and the angle is really weird. I can see a ragged edge and it looks like it's at another weld point. Also, why only this column? There seem to be others that have broken at the same height.
This is NIST's current thinking on column failure:
p28 of http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
What makes you think that it was an acetylene torch or a shaped charge and not one of the above?
Also, if this is powerful evidence, why not take it to the world?
From another thread:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
No Gravy, i havent forgotten your pertty pictures or your long posts.
Thanx for the birthday 'card'. LC didnt rember my birthday so i decided to come back here for my fair share of abuse.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
maccy
I trust FIMA and NIST pictures, their thinking, .......not so much
I'm gonna check out your ref.
BTW, one doesnt have to wait long for a reply here, i like that
I trust FIMA and NIST pictures, their thinking, .......not so much
I'm gonna check out your ref.
BTW, one doesnt have to wait long for a reply here, i like that
I really, really wish the Loose Change forums would open up again.
You guys are totally lost without your own little world to trade recipes and anarchist gossip, huh? As Gravy said, we've been over this with you before. Nothing new have you brought. Gone you should be.
You guys are totally lost without your own little world to trade recipes and anarchist gossip, huh? As Gravy said, we've been over this with you before. Nothing new have you brought. Gone you should be.
Why do you keep writing FIMA? "E" and "I" aren't even near each other on the keyboard
The reason I mentioned it was because it looked to me like you were using a photo from a FEMA report as evidence of some sort of controlled demolition. Now FEMA and NIST say there is no evidence for controlled demolition. If they are covering this up, then why would they include an incriminating photo? The only answer must be that they aren't covering it up but are, as trained scientists and engineers, too stupid to recognise the evidence which is obvious to a select bunch of internet message board posters.
Last edited:
R.Mackey I enjoy your posts. We know you have been through all this with us before but we don't believe it. We aren't just being stubborn; we really don't believe you. Please try harder.
You say you want us gone, if we all go what is this section going to discuss?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The wall curves about the same as the beam FWIW
I see 2/3 straight edge with blue discolaration
and the beam behind it, same thing
These joint ties have been cut at least 2/3
Its behind this section
I am. This is part of the world.
Unless by "we" you are affiliating yourself with those who are regulars at the "Loose Change" forums, and supportive of that laughable bit of video, I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't run across you before.
However, you make the same mistake that many of the Sept. 11th deniers do, namely that of egocentricity. You see, I don't care whether you "believe me" or not. That's irrelevant. You are, presumably, a grown individual and responsible for your own education. We don't debate these issues begging, hoping against hope, for your approval. Since virtually every one of you believes in NWO mythology, demolitions that fly in the face of all known physics and logistics, or technologies culled from the scripts of Star Trek based a total lack of scientific understanding or logical thinking, it would be foolhardy for me to believe that I could convince you otherwise through rational investigation.
Indeed, it is not I who have to convince you, but the other way around. You can prey upon your fellow conspiracy theorists all you like, burning DVDs and advancing insane theories to your hearts content, selling T-shirts and hosting podcasts along the way, but ultimately this is self-defeating. It is you and your movement that desperately craves the attention of the general public. But to do so, you need to challenge the understanding, and the vast body of research that the scientific community has produced.
Except you can't do that. Here I refer to "you" in the same sense as your use of "we." Not you specifically. You yourself haven't even attempted to bring anything.
This isn't about belief, friend. You can believe any fool thing you please. But if you want your beliefs to affect reality, you need to do some more homework. It starts with a fresh acceptance that your preconceived notions are worthless, and only the evidence matters. Hardly any among your movement are capable of this, as seen in the continuing spats even at the highest levels -- Steven Jones vs. Fetzer, no-planers vs. everybody else, etc.
Can you do this? Do you have what it takes to be a scientist? Show me.
I haven't claimed to be a scientist which is why I appeal to the scientists to convince me. I don't believe parts of the official story and particularly the strange disintegration of tower 7.
I'm not a structural engineer and i'm sure they know more about builing collapses than me, but boy did it fall straight! Fire is one of the most random things that can happen to a building and so is random damage. I am yet to see how all this randomness led to what we saw
I'm not a structural engineer and i'm sure they know more about builing collapses than me, but boy did it fall straight! Fire is one of the most random things that can happen to a building and so is random damage. I am yet to see how all this randomness led to what we saw
You will not be convinced because you have too much 'intellectual' investment in the CT to let it go.
If the CTers were to be honest with themselves (let alone the rest of the world) they would start to see how they have continually adjusted their thinking on the subject of 9/11 to meet every new debunking without giving up the core belief of it being a government/nwo/illuminatti/jewish conspiracy.
They don't seek the truth, they just seek validation for their paranoid world view which tells them it must have been a conspiracy because that is how the world works, and random chance/luck and coincidences make the world a much more chaotic place than they would like to accept.
For the woowoos everything that happens, anywhere and at any time, is the result of a covert conspiracy because that explanation gives them a bogeyman to focus on and blame for some other defficiency in their lives.
They will not learn or accept because the truth really is too painful for them.
Life is so much more exciting when you believe in conspiracies, especially when the conspiracy in question apparently does not actually require you to do anything to counter it.
Apart from posting on internet forum.....
Whose fault do you think it is that you don't understand what they're saying?
And why should anyone care if you're not convinced?
Well, consider that the structure itself is not 'random' but is mostly symmetrical.
Why shouldn't a symmetrical structure collapse symmetrically after random damage?
If you understand that a structure is interdependant on it's various elements, in just the same way that the roof of your house is interdependant on the walls to hold it up and the walls are dependant on the roof restraining them from moving out of upright.
If the damage to a structure is great enough and the further weakening of that structure through fire is allowed to go on for long enough then despite the randomness of the damage the structure is going to act as a whole because that is what it is designed to do.
The priciple of redundancy takes this into account by requiring structures to withstand a given amount of damage before failure. But that doesn't mean they can withstand ALL damage, only an amount that could be reasonably predicted.
Once this redundancy is exceeded the structure as a whole is going to behave in exactly the way the designers predicted and tried to design against.
It will fail, and with sufficient random damage, that failure will almost be symmetrical.