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

[Justin39640]

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.

that was the video i was looking for that i mentioned yesterday
i forgot it was a radio interview

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?

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?

the answer is in the videos that TruthersLie posted
so no beachnut didnt lie
unless youre calling robertson a liar too

 

[RedIbis]

O RLY?


Most of us already have... a few have highlighted it in pretty bolded letters...





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.



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?

You can yell and scream and bold all the font you want, but Beachnut did not say designed against collapse, or designed to fall in such and such a way. He said "built" to fall in this way. He's saying it was built to fall in a particular way.

This is 100% incorrect and he has provided zero support for such a contention, and it's ridiculous to watch the debunkers run to his aid to defend this nonsense.

Is anyone going to ask Beach for some proof he talked to Robertson?

 

[RedIbis]

the answer is in the videos that TruthersLie posted
so no beachnut didnt lie
unless youre calling robertson a liar too

Beachnut said, "I cheated and asked the chief structural engineer."

Is Beachnut in the video?

 

[Justin39640]

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.

yeah my local manager told me they had to build new facilities (obviously)
he also said the old system had a backup, but it too was in the trade center

isnt the trend now to build the sites in the middle of nowhere?

 

[funk de fino]

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?

beachnut posts this style of post all the time. When he says he asked Leslie Roberston he means he looked at Robertsons words or reads them or listens to them. You have been here long enough to know that he was not making a claim that he actually spoke to Robertson to ask him that question.

 

[TruthersLie]

You can yell and scream and bold all the font you want, but Beachnut did not say designed against collapse, or designed to fall in such and such a way. He said "built" to fall in this way. He's saying it was built to fall in a particular way.

This is 100% incorrect and he has provided zero support for such a contention, and it's ridiculous to watch the debunkers run to his aid to defend this nonsense.

Is anyone going to ask Beach for some proof he talked to Robertson?

did you even bother to read what you wrote?

"Beachnut did not say designed against collapse, or designed to fall in such and such a way. He said "built" to fall in this way. He's saying it was built to fall in a particular way."

Ummm they mean the SAME THING. I know reading for comprehension isn't one of your strong suits (I could recommend some classes for you if you want, it is something my wife teaches).

But the buildings were built and engineered in a manner that if they collapsed, they would follow a certain design principle. Which according to L. Robertson THEY DID.

He has stated numerous times that the collapse once started (with just one floor failing) would "progress to the foundations."

Please just try to pay attention.

you are wrong. (yet again. Have you apologized to TRI yet for your slander? or the other instances where you have been wrong?)

Try again.

 

[Justin39640]

You can yell and scream and bold all the font you want, but Beachnut did not say designed against collapse, or designed to fall in such and such a way. He said "built" to fall in this way. He's saying it was built to fall in a particular way.

This is 100% incorrect and he has provided zero support for such a contention, and it's ridiculous to watch the debunkers run to his aid to defend this nonsense.

Is anyone going to ask Beach for some proof he talked to Robertson?

Beachnut said, "I cheated and asked the chief structural engineer."

Is Beachnut in the video?

why would it matter if beach is in the video
robertson backs the claim

 

[TruthersLie]

beachnut posts this style of post all the time. When he says he asked Leslie Roberston he means he looked at Robertsons words or reads them or listens to them. You have been here long enough to know that he was not making a claim that he actually spoke to Robertson to ask him that question.

It is very possible he might very well have asked him. that is for Beachnut to provide as support.

BUT EVEN IF HE DIDN'T ask him, Leslie Robertsons words are public record, and he has stated EXPLICITLY that the towers collapsed like they expected them to. He has stated for the record in the videos I posted (which I know Red didn't even bother to watch... did you watch the one about wtc not being controlled demolitions yet red???? of course not) and in other locations that they built the towers in a certain way with the expectation that if they collapsed they would collapse in a very specific order. He then states (in the first video I posted) that the video and photographic evidence demonstrates that is EXACTLY what happened.

so in truther speak
big jets go fast
towers not built for fast jets
jets go boom
fires burn.
towers fall down.
bye bye towers
many people die.
very sad.

maybe that is the reading comprehension level red needs. But again, I can recommend some online programs to help with that red. Just ask and I'll let you know.

 

[RedIbis]

beachnut posts this style of post all the time. When he says he asked Leslie Roberston he means he looked at Robertsons words or reads them or listens to them. You have been here long enough to know that he was not making a claim that he actually spoke to Robertson to ask him that question.

True, the very last thing I should be doing is to try to make sense of Beachnut's posts. I guess we can assume this is a bit of a fib as well:

"he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense"

It's always funny to me how ardently you guys will defend one of your own, but when twoofies say goofy stuff there's a monthly contest for it.

 

[RedIbis]

Have you apologized to TRI yet for your slander?

First, you don't understand the definition of slander. Secondly, there's a thread specifically for Tri to provide the info he claimed he would. I'll apologize when his outlandish story is verified. Until then I'll remain skeptical.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You can yell and scream and bold all the font you want, but Beachnut did not say designed against collapse, or designed to fall in such and such a way. He said "built" to fall in this way. He's saying it was built to fall in a particular way.

That is a massive non-sequitor... So the difference is he used the word "built" instead of "designed" in his sentences? What's the difference between the two in the context the words were used?

 

[Justin39640]

True, the very last thing I should be doing is to try to make sense of Beachnut's posts. I guess we can assume this is a bit of a fib as well:

"he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense"

It's always funny to me how ardently you guys will defend one of your own, but when twoofies say goofy stuff there's a monthly contest for it.

robertson doesnt like you people

if a truther said something that made sense ever
everyone here would agree with them

thats the difference between debunkers and truthers
truthers have a crazy way of not being able to let go of things even though its obviously wrong (like your little "exposed as a fabrication" display the other day)

 

[TruthersLie]

First, you don't understand the definition of slander. Secondly, there's a thread specifically for Tri to provide the info he claimed he would. I'll apologize when his outlandish story is verified. Until then I'll remain skeptical.

to directly claim that he FABRICATED his information and to state that it was PROVEN to be a fabrication is slandering his name (or is that libel.. I always get them mixed up). You didn't state you were skeptical, you called him an outright liar.

As for this, yet again you are showing that you lack critical reading comprehension skills.

All structural engineers examine what they build, they try to make sure it doesn't collapse, but at the same time they examine HOW IT WILL behave in a collapse situation and make sure it isn't going to go all over the place.

Skyscrapers are designed to collapse down and not topple over and hit other buildings.

so I provided you with evidence which supports the claim made by beachnut. Yet you dodge and handwave it away. Nice try. Yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty and academic ignorance.

I would love to see if Beachnut has an email from Leslie robertson which fully discusses the collapse. I have a nice email from him, but i wasn't asking indepth technical quesitons.

But if it bothers you so much, feel free to write to him. Post a response here. I'm sure we'd all LOVE to read it.
(but you won't, any more than you will bother to watch the videos which have been spoon fed to you, or you will contact the airlines to find out what is left of the flights, or any other issues.. is it too hard? Or just too scary?)

 

[funk de fino]

True, the very last thing I should be doing is to try to make sense of Beachnut's posts. I guess we can assume this is a bit of a fib as well:

"he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense"

It's always funny to me how ardently you guys will defend one of your own, but when twoofies say goofy stuff there's a monthly contest for it.

I am not defending his use of this style of posting. It is what he does. You know this. You are trying to pick him up for lying because you have misrepresented what he actually said about re building.

Too transparent even for you.

 

[Justin39640]

First, you don't understand the definition of slander. Secondly, there's a thread specifically for Tri to provide the info he claimed he would. I'll apologize when his outlandish story is verified. Until then I'll remain skeptical.

you understand that you just admitted you lied in that thread

you claimed he was "Exposed" (past tense)
now its "when his story is verified"

youre a liar and either too proud or stupid to apologize

 

[TruthersLie]

you understand that you just admitted you lied in that thread

you claimed he was "Exposed" (past tense)
now its "when his story is verified"

youre a liar and either too proud or stupid to apologize

I think it is the second option there.

 

[stateofgrace]

True, the very last thing I should be doing is to try to make sense of Beachnut's posts. I guess we can assume this is a bit of a fib as well:

"he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense"

It's always funny to me how ardently you guys will defend one of your own, but when twoofies say goofy stuff there's a monthly contest for it.

Let me set the record straight for you pal. I will defend to the end somebody who as more knowledge about this event that the entire truth movement put together. Somebody, all be it his posts are sometime harsh but are always well intended. Somebody who has explained on many occasions the details of this event in plain and simple language and somebody who as furthered my understanding of this event.Somebody who is far more qualified and experienced than you.

I will not tolerate, somebody like you making unfounded accusations against such an individual, nor will I tolerate you failing to apologies for doing so. Equally so if this is all you have, then you are beaten, you have thrown the towel (opps did I say you had thrown the towel in? My bad I have no proof you actually threw a towel anywhere) All you have is a desperate attempt to mock those that knock your silly theories into touch.

Is that clear enough, Red or do you wish me to go on?

 

[johnny karate]

So Red, can I assume you've conceded to the arguments I made here and here?

 

[funk de fino]

First, you don't understand the definition of slander. Secondly, there's a thread specifically for Tri to provide the info he claimed he would. I'll apologize when his outlandish story is verified. Until then I'll remain skeptical.

You told a lie in the thread. A normal and honourable person would apologise and then say that they were sceptical of the claim. Not post that it was a proven fabrication and then refuse to back down.

 

[TexasJack]

So Red, can I assume you've conceded to the arguments I made here and here?

He concedes every time he runs away.