Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Minadin]

I can't believe this argument is still going on. Richard Gage is an idiot. A/E 911 Truth are incompetents. And the fools who follow them are only less culpable for not having the education to know better.

 

[dtugg]

No one will admit your fantasy that explosives blew multi ton columns 600 feet because there is no possible way that it happened. The sound of the explosives going off would have been absolutely deafening, heard by millions of people and recorded by all the video cameras in the area. Your fantasy is dead.

 

[A W Smith]

It is really very simple Chris, Produce an example of an explosive hurling anything 4 tons 600 feet with the same decibel level in the 911 videos, You wont, You cant, Such a device does not exist.

 

[R.Mackey]

Roger...command received...initiating walk to the local bar sequence. I deny responsibility for any posts made later tonight..and I apologize in advance.

Not to worry, new friend. We have a long-standing and proud tradition of drunk-posting in the Conspiracy Theories forums.

Sometimes a little Vitamin A helps cut through the BS, if you know what I mean. Stay safe and party hearty.

 

[beachnut]

Insults, lies, deliberate misinterpretation and subject changes.

Why am I not surprised?

No one here will admit that the only explanation for numerous 4 ton framing section being ejected up to 600 feet is explosives.

No one here can provide another explanation, just a lot of irrelevant crap about balls bouncing, spring steel and roller coasters changing course. This is your idea of scientific evidence.

No one here will admit that NIST has NOT explained the collapse of the Trade towers.

No one here can acknowledge that they believe a Conspiracy Theory.

Not all who read this thread will buy your blind faith in the OCT and you abject denial of any evidence to the contrary.

Gage and Jones are making up the thermite scenario. It takes just a little critical thinking to understand this.

There is over 130 TONS of TNT, that is 130 2,000-pound bombs worth of KINETIC ENERGY being released due to gravity. That is the energy that is ejecting the beams, and exterior columns due to fulcrums in the caotic collapse of millions and millions of pounds of building. Jones is a liar and has fooled you; Ironic you think I am telling a lie because you are not skeptical of Jones rant, you just will not listen to the truth.

Levers! 130 tons of TNT energy. Maybe you want that in joules. 576,214,875,000 joules! Jones gives you lies, I give you simple science a high school teacher can confirm for you if you would take action and act like a skeptic instead of a follower of woo.

NIST did explain the collapse, you did not understand it and you post pure junk from 911Truth, Gage, Jones and other who spew false information.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories, only people without evidence believe in CT.

There is no OCT. There is only what happen on 911, and you are the one with blind faith in the lies of Jones and Gage and have ZERO evidence. Zero. Nada.

Your post is ironic as you blindly support Jones and Gage with nothing. Can your problem be explained by real physics.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

 

[funk de fino]

No one here will admit that NIST has NOT explained the collapse of the Trade towers.

You are a blatant and despicable liar. You should be ashamed.

 

[Christopher7]

No one will admit your fantasy that explosives blew multi ton columns 600 feet because there is no possible way that it happened. The sound of the explosives going off would have been absolutely deafening, heard by millions of people and recorded by all the video cameras in the area. Your fantasy is dead.

That's all you have. Denial. You can't explain it any other way so fall back on "It could not be explosives because it wasn't loud enough."

Given the evidence, one must conclude that there is a high powered explosive, capable of propelling a 4 ton section of frame work up to 600 feet horizontally that can be muffled to the point where it is lost in the rumble of many other smaller explosions and the sound of the collapse. The sound would be directed primarily outward and this would account for a significant drop in decibels to people on the ground hundreds of feet below.

Explosives are the only explanation for the 4 ton framework sections landing 500-600 feet away.

Unless you can come up with another explanation, stop denying that it even might have been explosives.

 

[dtugg]

It's been explained to you genius. And no, it couldn't have been explosives, since it wasn't loud enough. It is impossible. Literally.

But, if you are so convinced that it was explosives and you have so much proof, have you sent this startling information to KSM's lawyers. No? Why not? Are you an intellectually and morally bankrupt coward?

 

[Minadin]

Seriously, the ideas put forth by the AE 9/11 Truth members, their followers, and people who refer to them, are utter stupidity on the order of which we do not have adequate language to describe in English.

 

[Christopher7]

It's been explained to you genius. And no, it couldn't have been explosives, since it wasn't loud enough. It is impossible. Literally.

You cannot know that for sure. You ignore the fact that the explosions that ejected the 4 ton frame work sections 500-600 feet were hundreds of feet above the ground. You have no idea how much that would reduce the sound at street level.

 

[dtugg]

Yes I do know. It is impossible. A thousand feet isn't very far for such a very loud sound to travel. NIST, in their WTC7 report calculated that the smallest amount of explosives neccesary to destroy the critical column would have been 130dB half a mile away. That is loud, and it would have only been a few kilos of explosives. The amount needed to throw tons of steel would be much higher and thus the blast much more powerful and it's sound louder. You lose.

By the way, when are you going to send you "evidence" to KSM's lawyers? Or are you just going to let the government execute that poor, innocent man for something that Dick Cheney did?

 

[Arus808]

wow, 8 more pages of a trip back to 2006. guys this is 2009. Stop talking to people trying to convince them that its 2009

 

[funk de fino]

You cannot know that for sure. You ignore the fact that the explosions that ejected the 4 ton frame work sections 500-600 feet were hundreds of feet above the ground. You have no idea how much that would reduce the sound at street level.

Where do you think people normally video CD from? Why do they have loud explosions on them and the towers dont?

Why are the explovises not visible or audible in any video evidence? You could easily bring it here if they were. Why did the perimeter columns bow inward C7? What made them do that? What made the top section tilt first before it fell? What would have happened to the core or perimeter columns as the top section tilted?

Please explain how the uppermost floor in the bottom section would resist the top section falling on it.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes I do know. It is impossible. A thousand feet isn't very far for such a very loud sound to travel. NIST, in their WTC7 report calculated that the smallest amount of explosives neccesary to destroy the critical column would have been 130dB half a mile away. That is loud, and it would have only been a few kilos of explosives. The amount needed to throw tons of steel would be much higher and thus the blast much more powerful and it's sound louder.

Personal incredulity. You are not a demolitions expert. You may claim to know how loud the explosions should be but you don't.

Do you have another explanation or just a reason to deny the explanation you don't want to accept?

 

[dtugg]

OK. I am not a demolitions expert. Now find me one who says that silent explosives blew multi ton pieces of steel hundreds of feet. Begin.

 

[GlennB]

ETA: My question was rhetorical. There is no mechanism for turning large amounts of vertical kinetic energy into horizontal kinetic energy.

If true, this would also preclude kinetic energy operating in the horizontal plane from producing vertical motion.

I think Tiger Woods should be told he's wasting his time trying to get the ball in the air. Tell him to just use a big putter for every shot.

 

[Bell]

Key word here is "potential"

The question no one has [or can] answer is:

How do you convert that "potential" vertical energy into lateral energy?

I'll refer you to two of my previuos posts!

To try and explain this to you, I've made up a Heiwa-like experiment:

Take a couple of crates, say 6. Put them ontop of each other. Now get hold of the crate at the bottom and slowly turn it along it's X-axis, like this:

[ ] ---> / /
[ ] --> / /
[ ] -> / /

What happenes? What kind of kinetic energy was involved?

I don't agree with this hypotheses. Mine is that once most/all the floors were destroyed, huge parts of the outside structure remained standing. This was not one massive side, but made up of hundreds of interlocking beams, unsupported. Somewhere along the standing part, the interlockings gave way and the whole section started to fall sideways, pulling the rest of the side with it. Something like this:

| ----> | ---> |
| ----> | ---> | ----> /
| ---> / ---> / ----> /
| --> | ---> / --> __|
| --> | --> | --> |
| --> | --> | --> |

Not that I expect you to be the slightest bit of interested.

Btw, when are you going to present your evidence to KSM's lawyers? Help them now before an innocent man is sentenced tot death. You are not ethically challenged, are you?

 

[twinstead]

Personal incredulity. You are not a demolitions expert. You may claim to know how loud the explosions should be but you don't.

Chris, you aren't one either. In fact, your ENTIRE argument is based on personal incredulity. You simply can't believe anything but explosives could have produced the effects of the collapse. You have no real evidence, and you are a distinct minority in the scientific world. You are simply incredulous.

You are less qualified to discuss this topic than even some people on this board, much less in the engineering and scientific community.

 

[T.A.M.]

wow, 8 more pages of a trip back to 2006. guys this is 2009. Stop talking to people trying to convince them that its 2009

I know. I even used the same, VERY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND arguments "egg on egg" and "Fist on Big Mac" that I used back then...still can't get them to understand it.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Until it has been determined, no one can state that the collapse wasn't arrested as Prof. Jones states.

There go those goalposts again. This is a perfect example of your dishonesty, Chris. You start by saying that Jones proved that collapse must have arrested. It's then pointed out to you that he proved no such thing. You then retreat to the position that Jones's position hasn't been refuted, which is a different claim, and an irrelevant one because the burden of proof is on Jones here. And yet, in fact, Steven Jones has never presented calculations which suggest the collapse should have arrested, he's simply offered verbal, handwaving and completely calculation-free arguments.

And by the way: we're pretty sure the collapse wasn't arrested. The Twin Towers aren't there any more.

Dave