How 9/11 was done

[Dr Adequate]

Since I am on ignore, somebody please explain to our friend that he is indeed wrong and those measurements are for columns that were at the base. That they got smaller as the height increased as they didn't need to carry as much load. Thanks.

He should be able to read this if I quote you, yes?

 

[Trojan]

Since I am on ignore, somebody please explain to our friend that he is indeed wrong and those measurements are for columns that were at the base. That they got smaller as the height increased as they didn't need to carry as much load. Thanks.

Since he is not aware of this design, I guess we can assume he has not done much actual investigation, outside of the truther sites.

At least we haven't seen Marvin Bush or pull it yet

 

[bynmdsue]

At least we haven't seen Marvin Bush or pull it yet

Awww man,I had completely forgotten about Marvin.I'm sure he'll get around to it.

 

[dtugg]

Awww man,I had completely forgotten about Marvin.I'm sure he'll get around to it.

Marvin isn't a jooooo so I doubt it.

 

[9/11-investigator]

In the examples that 911 research offers there are several things that must be addressed;First and foremost that none of those examples suffered any direct impact damage at the moment the fires were ignited. In both WTC 1 & 2, the planes severed load bearing members, we'll ignore for a second the specifics, and treat this generally. Not one prior example of the same size had suffered this level of damage before, that's one issue to consider

That's true of course (except for WTC7) but both WTC1 & 2 had survived the initial impact and were still standing tall. The debunkers in the end have to resort to a thermal explanation as a final straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[9/11-investigator]

A bullet no larger than your pinky can take down a bull moose.

"Ultra thin wing." My my.

This was already addressed by Grizzly Bear in post 877.

No. You're astoundingly incorrect. With almost every word you write.

Human beings, too. But go ahead and continue to reveal your true colors.

Again, already covered.

Wings were already shattered by the outer columns.

Human beings consists of 80% water. No exothermal 'gains' to be expected here.

 

[9/11-investigator]

\

if you were any kind of 'researcher" you would know that it a lie
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3214760&postcount=3

ad hom and poising the well logical fallacy noted.

He admits to have been working on the JSF; that is a weapon of war.

He called me an 'anti-semite', that's ad hom; I did not return the favor.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Just as a clarification to others: NIST's NCSTAR 1-2, table 7-6, p. 228 summarizes the core damage to WTC 2:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12386493ae55f690c9.gif[/qimg]

And they say this about the damage:



A more detailed analysis can be found in NCSTAR1-2B. As can be seen in the table, NIST's analysis holds that 10 columns received damage, several of them across multiple floors with 5 of them being completely severed. This stands in stark contradiction to other claims that the core was not damaged. An explanation of how 9/11 truth researchers came to that conclusion would be welcome.

Can you explain to me how he got to this information? I am sure he was not in the building at the time and neither had a scientific conversation over the phone with people desperately trying to survive.

We still have Newtonian physics that would dictate that only columns in the flight path are likely to undergo damage.

 

[9/11-investigator]

He should be able to read this if I quote you, yes?

When I say ignore I mean ignore. There are too many of you to address anyway. I am not a Griffin who can dedicate all his time to this cause.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Just as a clarification to others: NIST's NCSTAR 1-2, table 7-6, p. 228 summarizes the core damage to WTC 2:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12386493ae55f690c9.gif[/qimg]

And they say this about the damage:



A more detailed analysis can be found in NCSTAR1-2B. As can be seen in the table, NIST's analysis holds that 10 columns received damage, several of them across multiple floors with 5 of them being completely severed. This stands in stark contradiction to other claims that the core was not damaged. An explanation of how 9/11 truth researchers came to that conclusion would be welcome.

Again, how did they know these specifics about the core damage?

 

[240-185]

You have put on ignore all those who contradicted you with precise arguments, so you're given the impression that you're the only guy who's right.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I want to go back to the dynamics of the implosion.

'My' theory is that the building was pre-weakened by explosives and/or thermate and that on the moment of collapse a series of explosions/thermate slicings/what ever/ took place from the top to the bottom that caused the building to collapse.

You say that WTC2 came down due to:
1. pancaking of floors onto each other
2. wet noodle core columns at the point of impact

Right?

Then why did the collapse start at the top?

I would expect that the building would crack at the point of impact. I would expect that the upper part of the building would stay intact and collapse onto the lower part. The lower part should collapse first and once the point of impact had reached the bottom only then would the upper part be destroyed.

Nothing of the sort happened.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You have put on ignore all those who contradicted you with precise arguments, so you're given the impression that you're the only guy who's right.

Only dtugg is on ignore, not 'all those'. He was of little use for the process of truth finding, admitted that he enjoyed smearing and mentioned the holocaust in every second post.

I already stated the 8 or so most intelligent persons around here. I want to concentrate on them. They give me enough work as it is.

 

[Baylor]

I want to go back to the dynamics of the implosion.

'My' theory is that the building was pre-weakened by explosives and/or thermate and that on the moment of collapse a series of explosions/thermate slicings/what ever/ took place from the top to the bottom that caused the building to collapse.

You say that WTC2 came down due to:
1. pancaking of floors onto each other
2. wet noodle core columns at the point of impact

Right?

Then why did the collapse start at the top?

I would expect that the building would crack at the point of impact. I would expect that the upper part of the building would stay intact and collapse onto the lower part. The lower part should collapse first and once the point of impact had reached the bottom only then would the upper part be destroyed.

Nothing of the sort happened.

Argument from personal belief, and that belief is laughable.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I would like my esteemed opponents to concentrate on post 912.

That's the core argument so to speak.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Argument from personal belief, and that belief is laughable.

Your non-response is laughable. UNLoVedRebel is on the ignore. I am going to save myself some valuable time.

Anyone on #912?

 

[Baylor]

Is being completely ignorant in all topics related to 9/11 conspiracy theories (geopolitics, blast physics, autonomous flight systems) a prerequisite for becoming a twoofer?

 

[Baylor]

Your non-response is laughable.

Way to pull the "I know you are but what am I" card, straight from the Pee-Wee Herman playbook.

 

[240-185]

Is being completely ignorant in all topics related to 9/11 conspiracy theories (geopolitics, blast physics, autonomous flight systems) a prerequisite for becoming a twoofer?

You forgot three things :

• - Having an access to the Intarweb
• - Googling "9/11" and stop to first page
• - Surfing on Youtube with "9/11" and "truth" tags

TADA! You're a twoofer now!

 

[chillzero]

Thread put back on moderated status for continued bickering and personalisation of the discussion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero