• 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.

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

RedIbis said:
I thought bldgs were desgined to stay upright.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the term "cost/benefit analysis"? Well, structural engineers weigh the cost of building an indestructible skyscraper with the probability that something disastrous, like a plane crash or an unfought fire, will happen. Because such an eventuality is unlikely, they roll the dice and build it only strong enough to withstand just things as wind, reasonable static and dynamic loads, etc.

It would be especially crazy if they designed it so that, as it tipped over, it maintained it's structural integrity so it would topple like a tree. What in the world would be the use of that?
 
RedIbis said:
Two things:
1) WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more immediate damage from the collapse of the towers and although portions of the roofs collapsed the buildings themselves did not suffer global collapse.
2) Suggesting that "large chunks of debris did fall from as high as 1000 feet and caused considerable damage. It is MUCH more likely that this caused the collapse" is not consistent with NIST's conclusions, since it is fire and not structural damage with causes the thermal expansion that leads to single column failure that leads to global collapse, not the debris damage. Debris damage starts the fire.
Click to expand...

Point two is 100% correct, but the first statement is horribly wrong. WTC 5&6 were MUCH smaller buildings, and therefore had a much lower center of gravity. Plus, not to mention, that they are both concrete structures and the firefighters were able to fight those fires.

But, good points......:rolleyes:
 
RedIbis said:
Which they compare to the sound of a gunshot blast if unobstructed by surrounding bldgs. But we're talking about lower Manhattan here, not the plains of Kansas.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would have made it worse, because it would have reflected off other buildings, and made it more noticeable. I did not hear ONE person there that day say they heard a boom like a gunshot, and they were no more than 250 yards away when it fell.
 
Ragnarok said:
And nothing to do with the fact they had just seen two of the biggest buildings in America collapse already. If that hadn't happened and a bomb had caused the structural damage and fires in WTC7, I'm sure the FDNY would have had no qualms about continuing to battle the blaze with whatever resources they had, and would never have expected the building to collapse in a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Um, this is absolute BS on so many levels I have to get a beer before I begin.


(Opens beer, takes long gulp and a deep breath)

You're absolutely uneducated on firefighting. We would have NEVER gone back into WTC 7, even if we HADN'T seen the other ones collapse. NEVER. It was structurally unsafe, and we will not put ourselves into a building that we know for a FACT is not structurally sound. To say that is absolutely assinine at best. Sure, we went into the South Tower, and we paid for it dearly. After the S tower collapsed, every firefighter was ordered out of the N tower.

I expected WTC 7 to collapse after the S tower collapsed, as we didn't hardly have any water pressure. I knew it would come down.

I was there that day, saw ~3,000 people killed in front of my own two eyes, including 343 of my Brothers. Don't try to tell me what we would and wouldn't have done, as I have proven, and will continue to prove time and time again, that you are wrong.
 
Ragnarok said:
Based on what previous experience and specialist knowledge?

Are you implying he was able to look at the blueprints and say "Hey, if that goes, the lot is coming down!"?
Click to expand...

It doesnt take blueprints to look at a building, see the bulge, see the raging fires, and think it might come down. Its common knowledge, and has been for years. Fire+Steel=structual integrity in peril.
 
Ragnarok said:
Well, the fact it was one of the most important buildings in the US, you'd expect every effort to save its contents, if not its structure. Is the amount of data saved or recovered of no interest to anybody, regardless of it's relevance on the events of the day?

For instance, was all the data held on computers transferred to a safer environment after the 2nd plane hit?

ps. Who was in WTC7 when the attacks took place, and who oversaw everyone leaving the building?
Click to expand...

Problem one: Records are not stored on just one computer, especially government work. It is on many computers, including remote backups.

That would be the police and the fire department.
 
So, it appears that Ragnarok's views are based on two things:

1. Lack of knowledge
2. Lack of curiosity

...and, of course...

3. Preconceived notions
 
triforcharity said:
Problem one: Records are not stored on just one computer, especially government work. It is on many computers, including remote backups.

That would be the police and the fire department.
Click to expand...

my banks ATM mainframe wasnt so lucky (bank of NY)
took months to come back up
 
RedIbis said:
I thought bldgs were desgined to stay upright.
Click to expand...

They are.

But any competent high rise structural engineer takes into account the possibility that a building will collapse and designs it to do so in a way that minimizes the damage to the buildings around it.


At 5:02 and on I quote Leslie Robertson "the collapse mechanism of the towers is as we had anticipated it to be when we designed it. It was not, um please don't misunderstand me, it was not designed to collapse. But any prudent engineer looking to the future has to think about, what are the mechanism that cause collapse and how to go about strenghtening the building so as to minimize that circumstance. Sure we spent time looking at that type of event, and that which was observable from the photographs is resonabley consistent with that case."

So (as has been pointed out to you many times before) leslie robertson has stated repeatedly that the buildings were going to collapse, and they collapsed in the way they were built to collapse.

and yet more videos for you to watch and things to pay attention to

And here we have Steven Jones being schooled by Leslie Robertson starting at 3:58ish, about how just losing support on ONE floor in the middle of the building would cause a one way crush down all the way to the foundations (Heiwa, pay attention... you might just learn something.)




ETA: Griz you are welcome. I think you mean these videos.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
"It was not, um please don't misunderstand me, it was not designed to collapse."
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving Beachnut absolutely wrong when he said,

"Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer[...]"

Oops, no is the answer. Buildings are not designed to collapse. Engineers consider collapse scenarios and then design against it.

Is Beachnut lying? Was he lying when he claimed he asked Robertson?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Thank you for proving Beachnut absolutely wrong when he said,

"Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer[...]"

Oops, no is the answer. Buildings are not designed to collapse. Engineers consider collapse scenarios and then design against it.

Is Beachnut lying? Was he lying when he claimed he asked Robertson?
Click to expand...

Let me just step in to clear a confusion on your part. You´re fundamentally misreading Beachnut. He does not say the WTC towers were designed to collapse (a silly idea btw), but that they were designed to collapse in a certain manner, if they collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
Thank you for proving Beachnut absolutely wrong when he said,

"Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer[...]"

Oops, no is the answer. Buildings are not designed to collapse. Engineers consider collapse scenarios and then design against it.

Is Beachnut lying? Was he lying when he claimed he asked Robertson?
Click to expand...

Now would be a good time to retract your accusation and apologise for making it.

I can see it and so can everybody else, Red.
 
Blatant misrepresentation of posts on the part of redibis... what a shocker...
 
progge said:
Let me just step in to clear a confusion on your part. You´re fundamentally misreading Beachnut. He does not say the WTC towers were designed to collapse (a silly idea btw), but that they were designed to collapse in a certain manner, if they collapse.
Click to expand...

You might want to step right back out because that's not what Beachnut said.

Read it slowly...

"Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer[...]"

Is anyone going to question Beachnut on his claim that he asked Robertson or do debunkers take a vacation when it's one of their own who come out with a whopper without any support?
 
Justin39640 said:
my banks ATM mainframe wasnt so lucky (bank of NY)
took months to come back up
Click to expand...

After 9/11 a tremendous amount of computer equipment was sold to fix poorly planned corporate backup strategies. The regulatory agencies studied problems like that of your bank and issued standards to attempt to prevent another disaster from knocking out big chucks of the economy.

When I worked at BigBank in the 80s, we did a full-blown drill that shifted our business operations to our backup site every 6 months.
 
RedIbis said:
You might want to step right back out because that's not what Beachnut said.
Click to expand...
O RLY?

RedIbis said:
Read it slowly...
Click to expand...
Most of us already have... a few have highlighted it in pretty bolded letters...

"Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer[...]"
Click to expand...


RedIbis said:
Is anyone going to question Beachnut on his claim
Click to expand...
I don't what you're reading in his post... but the context of beachnut's post is pretty clear... I went the extra step to bold, colorize, and enlarge the context for you because I know reading things like context is a challenge for you... Now if you'd be so kind as to point out where he said the building's were "specifically designed to collapse". The idea "if they collapse, to engineer in a way to minimize collateral damage" isn't quite there.

progge said:
Let me just step in to clear a confusion on your part. You´re fundamentally misreading Beachnut. He does not say the WTC towers were designed to collapse (a silly idea btw), but that they were designed to collapse in a certain manner, if they collapse.
Click to expand...

I just applied every major style of formatting to the context just to see if red sees it any better.... testing... 1...2...3...4... is it working?
 
It won't matter for red.

any more than his blatant lie about TRI mattered, or his numerous slanders of first responders...

I think that a lack of reading comprehension is one of the twoofs (almost all of them) main failings.

It really is a damning indictment of public education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom