Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Dog Town]

LOL!

There's a surprise!

 

[six7s]

@bill smith:

I'm still waiting...

I was wondering when you are going to reply ?

You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.

This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.

If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

​

When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Despite claims of independence Purdue is in deep with the government .

And what is Purdue, Bill?

Bump for Bill.

What do you know of Purdue, Bill?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The collapses are understood very well by the engineering community. You know nothing and are not capable of learning. The voice-morphing technology imagined by you frauds will not exist for a long time, as shown by Dr. George Papcun.

Three things that sum up the truther position very well:

1. If you have to invoke a speculative technology to explain away facts that contradict your theory, then your theory is on shaky ground.

2. If you have to do this more than once, then your theory is doomed.

3. If the latter is true and you are unable to articulate WHAT YOUR THEORY IS, then your theory is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

 

[aggle-rithm]

LOL!

Everything OK?

You're growing less coherent with each successive post.

 

[Gaspode]

Derail removed. Back on topic please.

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

 

[dafydd]

Honour?

Is that German for 'the impotent, psychotic, delusional vomit-spouting paranoia of a domineering, cowardly megalomaniac with the exceedingly poor judgment typical of one unable to notice contradictions in their own thinking, prone to disposing of obvious objections in an irrational fashion whilst in a sort of dream world in which their own contemptuous ideas, desires and fears are mixed up with no distinction between fact and fancy'?

Or is it 'the hallmark of a half-educated, self-deluding fool with a preference for pseudo-science and a penchant for spinning out theories based on a small, usually very questionable factual foundation, who believes that 'we must distrust the intelligence and the conscience and must place our trust in our bad tempered, weak, scared, aggressive, instincts' who, instead of adjusting his assumptions to reality, tries in vain to adjust reality to his perception of a fantasy world whilst flying into an indignant, uncontrollable rage'?

Ich bin ein bin liner

Osama Bin Liner

 

[CORed]

Hopeless desperation. Making up nonsense won't salvage your myths. Astaneh is a critic of NIST. His team conducted two simulations. He is trying show that the builders of the towers cut corners. One of his simulations showed the performance of the towers if they had been built in strict accordance with existing codes. The other one reflected the actual construction of the towers. Guess what? When the simulation reflects reality, the towers collapsed EXACTLY as they did on 9/11.
You frauds are fond of distorting Astaneh's words. How will you talk your way out of this disaster?

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

 

[FineWine]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

Well, Astaneh thinks there is a real scandal here. He regards the "truthers" as hopeless idiots pushing nonsense, but he thinks that NIST papered over some real questions about the builders' adherence to existing codes.

 

[bill smith]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

 

[beachnut]

Well, Astaneh thinks there is a real scandal here. He regards the "truthers" as hopeless idiots pushing nonsense, but he thinks that NIST papered over some real questions about the builders' adherence to existing codes.

The anti-intellectual 911 conspiracy theorist lack reading and comprehension skills so they ask for a new investigation when they can't understand the studies already done.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
Many people outside engineering and government have developed their own theories about how and why the World Trade Center buildings fell. Some, ..., argue that explosives planted before the attacks must also have been involved. Even some college professors have advanced such theories, though they have largely been dismissed (The Chronicle, June 23).
Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.
"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

Irony; he is used by the failed 911 conspiracy theorist and he does not buy their moronic lies.

 

[BigAl]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

Because the claims of molten steel and man-made demolitiotn are silly and make the people that want accurate accountability for failures of 9/11 are made to look silly by association.

 

[CORed]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

If somebody finds convincing evidence of construction deficiencies, sure those should be investigated. However, I'm not in favor of squandering finite resources to rehash investigations that have already been done because a few ignorant nut cases think it was an inside job. It's pretty clear to me that most of those nut cases will never be convinced that the gub'mint, the NWO, the illuminati, the Jews, or somebody didn't deliberately bring the buildings down with super-duper-nano-therma/ite, explosive ceiling tiles, or death rays from outer space.

I am perfectly satisfied that the towers were brought down by the impact and fires resulting from the planes crashing into them. Occam's razor is enough to convince me of that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When I hear hoofbeats, I usually expect to see horses. If I'm in the Serengeti, I might expect zebras. You, I suspect, fully expect to see unicorns.

 

[FineWine]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

You have no interest in an open investigation. You are peddling politically-motivated nonsense. You gave your game away when you confessed that events in the real world have no meaning for you. In your fantasy, George Bush is still around and pulling all the strings. When asked why ALL of your tiny movment's predictions turned out wrong, you run away. To promote your absurd garble of engineering, you parrot the words of a discredited incompetent. You are not serious.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Bill are you playing dodge the question? I see you have decided to avoid answering Post#'s 1319 & 1323.

What is Purdue, Bill?

 

[six7s]

@bill smith:

I'm still waiting...

I was wondering when you are going to reply ?

You're funny!

Alas, not in a humourous way

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.

This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.

If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

​

When are you going to respond to my exceedingly simple challenge?

Time's up

 

[BasqueArch]

But I'm sure you will admit that we absolutely HAVE to know ? Call for a new open and independent enquiry with the rest of us. What is so wong with that ?

1. If it is done by the government, you will disavow it again.
2. The present inquiry was open and independent.
3. The present inquiry was exhaustive, you can review its raw data and come up with your own study.
4. No one is stopping you or anyone else from conducting their own investigation.
5. BTW nice legs Bill.

________________________________________________________________

The reason there are so many contradictory CT hypotheses, and only one actual theory:

"Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. " - Aristotle

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If somebody finds convincing evidence of construction deficiencies, sure those should be investigated. However, I'm not in favor of squandering finite resources to rehash investigations that have already been done because a few ignorant nut cases think it was an inside job. It's pretty clear to me that most of those nut cases will never be convinced that the gub'mint, the NWO, the illuminati, the Jews, or somebody didn't deliberately bring the buildings down with super-duper-nano-therma/ite, explosive ceiling tiles, or death rays from outer space.

I am perfectly satisfied that the towers were brought down by the impact and fires resulting from the planes crashing into them. Occam's razor is enough to convince me of that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When I hear hoofbeats, I usually expect to see horses. If I'm in the Serengeti, I might expect zebras. You, I suspect, fully expect to see unicorns.

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

As FineWine pointed out, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had stated this exact concern:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says...

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

That same article notes that NIST agrees there were "departures" from code, but disagrees that they mattered on 9/11:

The departures from the building codes and standards identified by NIST did not have a significant effect on the outcome of September 11.

As for myself: I don't know what the truth is. I've noted that the majority opinion is counter to Dr. Astaneh-Asl's, and others here have opined that some of his claims are made with the benefit of hindsight. That's a fair criticism, I think. But, it is indeed worth noting that there is some opinion that contradicts elements of the NIST findings, and unlike the conspiracy peddling nonsense, they're at least based on sound engineering issues rather than paranoid twisting of reality. I wish I knew enough to really understand the nuances of Astaneh-Asl's critique. I also wish I knew enough to evaluate the validity of James Quintiere's critiques of the NIST models. But I don't. All I can note is that both gentlemen's critiques are at least worth acknowledging, and indeed have been acknowledged academically (and in Dr. Quintiere's case, in a House of Representatives hearing). If only truthers realized what legitimate critiques looked like, then perhaps they could drop their mad insistence on analyzing the irrelevant.

Also, I noted the first comment was a response to one of Bill Smith's echoing of the conspiracy peddler's standard cliché. What ignorant people like Bill fail to understand is that there have already been multiple investigations into the event; aside from the NIST investigation, I don't think he could name any of them. Heck, I didn't know about most of them until others here (Ryan Mackey, Architect) identified them; when I started studying this, all I could name were NIST and FEMA. At any rate, Bill seems to refuses to acknowledge the fact that more people than the ones associated with NIST have analyzed the event, and while some of them disagree with isolated elements - as noted above, Astaneh-Asl criticizes the design, Bill Quintiere critiques the modeling assumptions and fireproofing, elsewhere in this forum you'll note that the University of Edinburgh's BRE Cenre for Fire Safety has also critiqued assumptions about the fireproofing (they're of the opinion that the fires would have been sufficient in and of themselves to have caused the collapse, even if the fireproofing had been intact) - all of them agree in thrust. All of them agree that damage from a high speed airliner crash caused severe damage changing the geometry of the building, thus rendering it susceptible to the effects of a fire weakening the structure. Furthermore, as far as I understand, all of them agree that unique elements of the Twin Towers design contributed to this building being uniquely vulnerable to collapse from this combination of events (others here who know the arguments more intimately can and should correct me on this if I'm wrong). The verdict has been passed by multiple entities already; the call for a "new investigation" by the so-called "Truth" movement is an inane one, full of rhetoric but devoid of actual substance.

 

[Typicallucas]

I was just watching some 9/11 truther video and they had quotes from Dario Fo an Italian "Nobel Prize Winner." He thinks WTC 1 and 2 couldn't have fallen down without some "assistance" from demolition charges...

You would think that a Nobel Prize winner should be listened to when it comes to important issues, wouldn't you?

Well a simple search would show you that he won not one Nobel Prize... but two... But both prizes were for Literature!

He is reiterating the most common and most frequently refuted truther rhetoric.

In two different biographies there is no mention of any achievements or interest in structural engineering except for a single line "Is critical of the events on 9/11"

 

[BasqueArch]

Builders cutting corners is a nagging suspicion I've had for a long time. It seems a whole lot more plausible to me than a controlled demolition orchestrated by the government (or anybody else, for that matter). Maybe the Twoofers, in their rush to blame the NWO, missed the real scandal. If there is anything suspicious about the collapse of the towers or WTC7 (and I'm not convinced there is, but I'm not an engineer), it seems that errors (or deliberate corner-cutting) in design or construction would be a much more likely culprit than false flag attacks, super-duper-nano-thermite paint chips, or hastily improvised demolition because Silverstein said "pull it".

Cored

1. "Builders cutting corners." You can discount this. There are too many checks for this to have happened,especially on such serious commercial buildings. This is not like a house. Engineers review "shop drawings and submitals" before steel fabrication. Specialist inspectors check steel at
the factory before delivery for weld quality and steel dimensional tolerances, steel strength tested, certified, erection tolerances, erection loading, bolt torques, rivets to specs,welders are certified , concrete mix approved, tested, only experienced subcontractors used, reports are
produced, faulty work rejected and redone, etc. The engineers and testing labs had too much liability to not have done this correctly (The owner pays for these services).

2. "Errors in design." The Port Authority asked the architects and engineers, for the building design and inspections including the structural portions to comply with the then current 1968 NYC Building Code as a minimum. In a number of cases, the contract inspection and fabrication
requirements were more stringent than the codes required. NIST found no fault in the design. The light weight floor trusses were more vulnerable to heat than solid rolled shapes.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05155.pdf (page XL)