Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

SlightlyAbovePar said:
Be warned - the discussion is not what Ultima1 is "in it" for. He's not after truth, or even 'his' version of the "truth". He's in it to be as disruptive, combative and hostile as possible. In short, he enjoys the attention and will say just about anything to keep the argument going.

People, we are talking about a guy who has amassed (as of now) 418 420 posts in a matter of single digit days.

Don’t take my word for it; Google his screen name.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase a Talking Heads song, "he's posting a lot, but he's not saying anything."
 
TexasJack said:
Also, can you link those reports that the impacts caused "very little damage."
Click to expand...

Sure no problem. I can post facts and evidence.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
Sure no problem. I can post facts and evidence.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.
Click to expand...


Why did you omit this part: Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

BTW, thanks for linking to an article that explains the collapse of the towers!
 
Its funny how people still use articles and stories trying to compare the B-25 crash to the WTC crashes.

Even though the B-25 is a fraction of the size/weight/speed of the aircraft used the WTC attacks.
 
TexasJack said:
BTW, thanks for linking to an article that explains the collapse of the towers!
Click to expand...

Yes, you mean the fact that it has been proven that it was not a combination of impact and fire but fire alone that casued the collapse as the source states.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Funny, who said anythign about them blowing it up ?

The fire commander and incident commad decided to bring down the building to keep from causing any more damage and fire spreading.

PLease read Chief Haydens statements for this source.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Click to expand...

Hayden never said anything about the fire spreading. What did he actually say ULTIMA1? Are you brave enough to quote him or would that do too much damage to your claims?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Yes, you mean the fact that it has been proven that it was not a combination of impact and fire but fire alone that casued the collapse as the source states.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're lying about this, but you've had it pointed out to you that you're wrong and continued to repeat it. Your own source says that fire was the principal cause of collapse of the Twin Towers, implying that there are other contributory causes; it does not say that fire was the sole cause. You've read the source, you're capable of understanding English, and you keep boasting about your research skills, so the only explanation for you continuing to get this wrong is that you're deliberately lying. How is that supposed to lead you to the truth?

Dave
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Yes, you mean the fact that it has been proven that it was not a combination of impact and fire but fire alone that casued the collapse as the source states.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have reading comprehension problems, and like a typical truther, cherry pick the article. Read it again, in its entirety, then explain why Dr. Eagar had no problem, as you put it, of the towers just coming down by "fire alone". Please, at least admit that it was an unique event that brought down the towers, or are you in that much denial?
 
Last edited:
It's hilarious that ULTIMA1 makes all the claims, and gives a link...but when you go to that link, it doesnt back ANY of his claims at all!


:dl:
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Funny, who said anythign about them blowing it up ?

The fire commander and incident commad decided to bring down the building to keep from causing any more damage and fire spreading.

PLease read Chief Haydens statements for this source.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Click to expand...

At this point, I am convinced ULTIMA1 is playing some kind of elaborate prank.

Nowhere in Hayden's statement does he say anything about "bringing down" WTC7. In fact he says just the opposite.

Some key quotes (bolding mine):
By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Click to expand...

No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Click to expand...

ULTIMA1, your sad, sad attempts to substantiate your claim that the FDNY "pulled" WTC7 continue to fail spectacularly as you seem to enjoy presenting evidence that contradicts it.

And of course, you have still provided absolutely no explanation why the FDNY would secretly demolish a building and then spend the last seven years lying about it.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Funny, who said anythign about them blowing it up ?

The fire commander and incident commad decided to bring down the building to keep from causing any more damage and fire spreading.

PLease read Chief Haydens statements for this source.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Click to expand...
lol

"we pulled everyone back"

they blew up the people! ???


They pulled everyone! Everyone must get pulled! Boom; i mean shhhhhhhhh boom


I am afraid to look anymore
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
As usual its fun and easy to prove you wrong with evidence.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
That�s what I was concerned about, that the fire would jump the streets.
Click to expand...

And it's even more fun to show I'm not the one that's wrong by pointing out that the fire that Hayden was afraid would spread was in 90 West, not WTC 7. Did they secrectly demolish that building or did they get the wrong one?

Hayden: That's what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days. Chief Mosier took the operations in 90 West. I gave him X amount of companies. I said just hold it, keep her from jumping the street. The Marriott Hotel was across the street. I said just don't let it get out of the building here, just try to confine it, and he did a great job up there. They got some lines. They were able to hold it and contain it.

Firehouse: The building just south of that was the Marriott.

Hayden: Across the street. That's what I was concerned about, that the fire would jump the streets. We had exposure problems, so Bobby's function was just to contain the fire there. They had a big air shaft in there and he was able to get a line across the shaft and keep it in one wing of the building on the upper floors. And eventually it burned itself out.
Click to expand...
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Thanks for agreeing with me that Chief Hayden was worried about collapse and casuing further damage and spreading fires.
Click to expand...

Why would he be worried about WTC7 collapsing? You claim that such a collapse would be impossible.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Thanks for agreeing with me that Chief Hayden was worried about collapse and casuing further damage and spreading fires.
Click to expand...

This was never contested, nor does it in any way contradict the fact that WTC7 eventually did collapse.

You just go ahead and post your evidence that the FDNY "pulled" WTC7 along with an explanation why they would then lie about to the entire world any time now. We're all waiting anxiously to be proven wrong by your superior research skills.

And while we're thanking each other, a very special thanks to you for all the laughs. The colossal idiocy of your theories and your tenacious belief in them has been ceaselessly entertaining.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Funny, who said anythign about them blowing it up ?

The fire commander and incident commad decided to bring down the building to keep from causing any more damage and fire spreading.

PLease read Chief Haydens statements for this source.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Click to expand...



Your a loon.

I think it can be fairly said that any demo of a 47 story building would require planning and preparation well ahead of the event. Like any demo always has.

The NYFD isnt qualified to demo a building. They are trained in Firefighting, not demolition.

I think the building in fact was a CD. That said, it was done so well that it sure wasnt a hastily planned event.

To say the NYFD had the skill and abiity THAT DAY, to rig and implode WTC7 is so far out there, that its insane.

Not only that, i think its unpatriotic to even imply they had anything to do with its destruction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom