• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

Wow, Arus, you are totally right! I didnt even see the 'DC' in the thread name..thought it was more general...my bad.

DC, I am open to hearing anything you have to say. I have not yet allowed myself the luxury of a certainty regarding 9/11, so if you have something that can support the CD theory, please share it. I am new and in need of that type of evidence at the moment.

Thanks.
 
jandarian said:
Wow, Arus, you are totally right! I didnt even see the 'DC' in the thread name..thought it was more general...my bad.

DC, I am open to hearing anything you have to say. I have not yet allowed myself the luxury of a certainty regarding 9/11, so if you have something that can support the CD theory, please share it. I am new and in need of that type of evidence at the moment.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

i have no evidence, it is what i think is the reason for collapse, i dont want to convince you that it was indeed a CD, im not sure enough myself.

best wait till official theory about WTC7 is released.
you can read the Fema stuff meanwhile if you didnt yet.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
your arrogance is unbelivable.

the analysis predicted local damage, the impacts on 9/11 caused local damage, i know you call it global, but other experts do also call it local, just because it was local damage. atleast on that one i agree with Bazant.

funny guy, i even had Thermo Dynamics.

huge rubber blocks lol.....
Click to expand...
Calling the impacts of 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts local is wrong, but then it is not your first error. Like how you now use Bazant's work to back your failed ideas. Since the impacts damaged the core, and the design by Roberson would only breach the shell, you fail again.

But you are off topic and failing to provide evidence on the WTC7, which was burning out of control on 9/11. You should have been there. You would not be spewing fantasies half-baked by 9/11 truth members who made it all up. 6 years and you glom onto failed ideas. Looks like your thermo failed to help you see fraud.

You have no evidence of CD at WTC7. Your thermo will not help if you fail to use it, did you pass?.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Calling the impacts of 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts local is wrong, but then it is not your first error. Like how you now use Bazant's work to back your failed ideas. Since the impacts damaged the core, and the design by Roberson would only breach the shell, you fail again.

But you are off topic and failing to provide evidence on the WTC7, which was burning out of control on 9/11. You should have been there. You would not be spewing fantasies half-baked by 9/11 truth members who made it all up. 6 years and you glom onto failed ideas. Looks like your thermo failed to help you see fraud.

You have no evidence of CD at WTC7. Your thermo will not help if you fail to use it, did you pass?.
Click to expand...


where are robertsons calculations that would show that only the perimeter walls would brake?

and your TNT numbers are pretty useless for me :)
 
everyone is misstaken when he is not agreeing with beachnut. he knows everything, he is one of the best educated structural and mechanical engineers in the world.

its beyond me why we need NIST investigations, we just could ask beachnut. he knows everything for sure. impressive..... or not?
 
Drs_Res said:
I won't even ask you for hard evidence, just about your thoughts that make you give more weight to CD vs. damge & fire.
Click to expand...

ok something that bothers me is, the logation of the damage from impacting WTC debris. and the first visible failure of the building we see. the penthouse that collapses first.

also that the building came down in almost perfect simetric.
CD experts normally need pretty well calculated delays in theyr sequence to move the building into the direction they want it.

and i doubt that asymetric fires and asymetric damage can do the same.
but like i sayd, maybe NIST can comeup with a convincing theory about it.
 
Now we are getting somewhere.

Thank you.

Let me ask you this.

With the amount of damage done to other buildings around the WTC complex (Including the other WTC buildings) , why were there not more buildings brought down on 9-11?

Why stop at the towers and WTC 7?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
where are robertsons calculations that would show that only the perimeter walls would brake?

and your TNT numbers are pretty useless for me :)
Click to expand...
That is due to your inability to understand physics. The kinetic energy of 11 was, 2,839,000,000 joules or 1357 pounds of TNT, or 1,720,000 shotgun blasts of energy. Take your pick! Flight 175 kinetic energy at impact was 4,380,000,000 joules or 2093 pounds of TNT, or if you wish, the energy of 2,662,478 shot gun blasts of energy.

What numbers do you use for the impact. Design was an impact of 184, the impacts on 9/11 were 1,357 and 2093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy. Use joules, I presented those numbers too. If you fail to understand this get some help from those who passed thermo.

The reason these impact caused collapse is due to the energy. The design impact was 7 to 11 times less, at only 386,215,069 joules or 184 pounds of TNT for kinetic energy. This is local damage. Impacts 7 to 11 times greater are global damage and will destroy the WTC towers. It has been shown twice. I am cheating, I watched the impacts, and they looked like 1300 and 2000 pound TNT impact events. The fuel started global fires, causing collapse. The tower can not handle impacts like 9/11.

I used pounds of TNT to express energy. If you want you can check the numbers. This is not about our government, we vote for our government, it changes when we decide. This is about facts and evidence, not how you fell about the government of the USA. You can not support your fantasy, so you will say the US government lies, which has zero bearing on the events of 9/11. Your failure to understand 9/11 may stem from your pure hate of the government of the USA, next time try facts.

So, you have nothing to present on the WTC7. Now what? You need to explain why fires not fought destroy buildings, or don't. You need to explain how long fire protection on steel is rated for. You need to explain what happen to the fuel in WTC7. Do you understand the equipment in WTC7 and what it was for? The fact is no one could plant bombs in the WTC complex, there was security. How did CD get planted in offices? How did they get bombs in? Or your thermite devices, the giant horizontal cutting devices, how did they get these big things in? How did they cut through 3 inches of wallboard in the WTC towers to plant the thermite cutting device in the stairwell, or elevator shaft, where the devices would be seen? Where did they hide the cut out wallboard? You understand the security was up after the 93 bombing; or do you?
 
Last edited:
what bothers me more is, why did other buildings that was far more damaged than WTC7 not collapse completly, while WTC7 contained a bullet or even bomb proof "bunker" or command center. i would have expected that especially that building can take more than others.

i see that WTC had a very special column pattern, a special design. wich even worrys me more when i see it collapsing almost perfectly symertic.

the motive for WTC7 CD? i dunno.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what bothers me more is, why did other buildings that was far more damaged than WTC7 not collapse completly
Click to expand...

Other buildings were not more damaged than WTC7. WTC7 was destroyed. You can't get more damaged than "destroyed".

Your statement is nonsensical, self-contradictory and automatically invalid.
 
beachnut said:
That is due to your inability to understand physics. The kinetic energy of 11 was, 2,839,000,000 joules or 1357 pounds of TNT, or 1,720,000 shotgun blasts of energy. Take your pick! Flight 175 kinetic energy at impact was 4,380,000,000 joules or 2093 pounds of TNT, or if you wish, the energy of 2,662,478 shot gun blasts of energy.

What numbers do you use for the impact. Design was an impact of 184, the impacts on 9/11 were 1,357 and 2093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy. Use joules, I presented those numbers too. If you fail to understand this get some help from those who passed thermo.

The reason these impact caused collapse is due to the energy. The design impact was 7 to 11 times less, at only 386,215,069 joules or 184 pounds of TNT for kinetic energy. This is local damage. Impacts 7 to 11 times greater are global damage and will destroy the WTC towers. It has been shown twice. I am cheating, I watched the impacts, and they looked like 1300 and 2000 pound TNT impact events. The fuel started global fires, causing collapse. The tower can not handle impacts like 9/11.

I used pounds of TNT to express energy. If you want you can check the numbers. This is not about our government, we vote for our government, it changes when we decide. This is about facts and evidence, not how you fell about the government of the USA. You can not support your fantasy, so you will say the US government lies, which has zero bearing on the events of 9/11. Your failure to understand 9/11 may stem from your pure hate of the government of the USA, next time try facts.

So, you have nothing to present on the WTC7. Now what?
Click to expand...

well i normaly work with joules and not with TNT.
for me those TNT numbers say nothing, while some megajoules say far more for me.

and im really geting sick from your arrogance. yes you are an engineer.
but hey, others also work in the engineering bussines.
and EE is not really impressive sorry. im not impressed by titles. i can be impressed by what you do with that title. i have alot more respect from Newtons bit or Greenings , because they dont show that arrogance you show.
and theyr knowledge is far beyond yours and mine together.

your ego is alot bigger than any education one can have....
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Other buildings were not more damaged than WTC7. WTC7 was destroyed. You can't get more damaged than "destroyed".

Your statement is nonsensical, self-contradictory and automatically invalid.
Click to expand...

other buidling was alot more damaged that WTC7 till WTC7 was CDed then oc it was indeed damaged to its max.

düpflischiesser.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
well i normaly work with joules and not with TNT.
for me those TNT numbers say nothing, while some megajoules say far more for me.

and im really geting sick from your arrogance. yes you are an engineer.
but hey, others also work in the engineering bussines.
and EE is not really impressive sorry. im not impressed by titles. i can be impressed by what you do with that title. i have alot more respect from Newtons bit or Greenings , because they dont show that arrogance you show.
and theyr knowledge is far beyond yours and mine together.

your ego is alot bigger than any education one can have....
Click to expand...
I gave you joules too. It is easy to convert. But you make fun of it. Cool, you are no very flexible and easily fooled by the lies of 9/11 truth.

I am sorry, you offer hearsay, and fantasy ideas with no evidence to back your story.

You say Robertson is a liar, and cherry pick NIST as you see fit to support your ideas but fail to see the material you present counters your ideas.

WTC7 was on fire all day and fell. The fact is CD looks like a gravity collapse. Not the other way. Your thermo class must of lacked logic and rational thinking. Gravity caused the failure of WTC after the building burned all day. The fire was not fought at all; zero firefighting; unlike all the fires 9/11 truth says other buildings, some that do not exist today because they were totaled in the fires, survived.
 
in switzerland days have 24 hours......
how many hours did WTC7 burn?
and i did not call robertson a liar. im not one of you guys that runs around and yelll lies frauds after every misstake i spotet.

was you wrong about the 3M shockdampeners or did you lie about it?

and even with that error you wanted me to listen to you, cause your an engineer, you are the one without a lack of knowledge. you know it better than anyone else.

im sorry, i think you are a very very arrogant little wannabe engineer that has actually not much knowldge into mechanical physics.

the only impressive thing about you is your arrogance and your selfoverestimation.
a little bit hummbleness would be a good thing for you.
 
Yes, why not bring down those other damaged builds down and piss of the USA even more?

Let me ask you this now.

Can you tell me how long it would take to wire WTC7 for a CD?

And you do know what they have to do to prep a CD, right? ( <--- yes or no to this is fine)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom