Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
OK I'll bite. (you have to understand I have a life and I might not respond right away). When you say "pancake collapse theory" I have to assume you're referring to the FEMA theory that you and I know has be demised. You wouldn't bore me with that old argument would you? So putting that aside........WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT?
Click to expand...

I haven't put a single condition on you for timeframe regarding replies so why do you need to ask this?

I'm glad we both know that the FEMA theory has demised, so why are you still advocating "pancake collapse"?
 
TexasJack said:
I'll alert the media.
Click to expand...

The media has been alerted, and is collectively unimpressed by releaseeabode's assertioin that he has put someone on ignore on the Internet. Who would have ever thunk it? ;)
 
releaseeabode said:
I haven't put a single condition on you for timeframe regarding replies so why do you need to ask this?

I'm glad we both know that the FEMA theory has demised, so why are you still advocating "pancake collapse"?
Click to expand...

I think you will find that no one is advocating the "pancake collapse". What has been described is known as a progressive collapse. It is a different thing. Look it up.
 
releaseeabode said:
, so why are you still advocating "pancake collapse"?
Click to expand...
Only because it was inevitable during the collapse progression. Most people when they have read the NIST report and the FEMA report are familiar with the fact that this refers to the collapse initiation mechanisms. Still confused after 8 years I see... You really need to keep up

Brainache said:
I think you will find that no one is advocating the "pancake collapse". What has been described is known as a progressive collapse. It is a different thing. Look it up.
Click to expand...
Like I'm addressing to releaseeabode, the FEMA report was talking about collapse initiation (something which he's still having trouble grasping). It inevitably happened during the progression of the collapse. A lot of CT's like to confuse the initiation and progression mechanisms to discount the domino effect of the collapse
 
Last edited:
releaseeabode said:
I don't do strikes.
Click to expand...
You may not have realized it yet, but most people posting in this thread are already aware of your confusion between the collapse initiation and progression mechanisms, and you have -- of course -- just done exactly as predicted in the preceding page
 
Brainache said:
I think you will find that no one is advocating the "pancake collapse". What has been described is known as a progressive collapse. It is a different thing. Look it up.
Click to expand...

You describe "pancake collapse" and call it "progressive collapse"? A rose by any other name...

The reason FEMA failed was because "pancake collapse" seemed like a great idea until they realise that the WTC was designed as a structure of core and tube and not discrete floors "pancaked" upon each other.

I have no problem with you describing "pancake collapse" just don't dress it up as progressive collapse and use it as an analogy for the WTC.
 
releaseeabode said:
You describe "pancake collapse" and call it "progressive collapse"? A rose by any other name...

The reason FEMA failed was because "pancake collapse" seemed like a great idea until they realise that the WTC was designed as a structure of core and tube and not discrete floors "pancaked" upon each other.

I have no problem with you describing "pancake collapse" just don't dress it up as progressive collapse and use it as an analogy for the WTC.
Click to expand...

Translation: You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dave
 
link

Cl1mh4224rd said:
Holy mother of God... I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. He's seriously under this epic delusion that everyone who visits the BBC website passes through the comments section of this single blog post?

Can anyone quickly drop me the link to that post? I know Steve posted it a while back, but I think it's buried in the thread; I can't seem to locate it (also, I have him on ignore...).
Click to expand...
Here is a direct link to page 8 of the comments, which are numbers 3500+ for your your perusal. Why not drop in and say a few words. The 3 or 4 commenters left seem to like the company. Sadly, the guy who was posting poetry appears to have gone away.
 
releaseeabode said:
You describe "pancake collapse" and call it "progressive collapse"? A rose by any other name...

The reason FEMA failed was because "pancake collapse" seemed like a great idea until they realise that the WTC was designed as a structure of core and tube and not discrete floors "pancaked" upon each other.

I have no problem with you describing "pancake collapse" just don't dress it up as progressive collapse and use it as an analogy for the WTC.
Click to expand...

That will teach me to go posting engineering stuff.
I'll shut up now.
 
releaseeabode said:
You describe "pancake collapse" and call it "progressive collapse"? A rose by any other name...

The reason FEMA failed was because "pancake collapse" seemed like a great idea until they realise that the WTC was designed as a structure of core and tube and not discrete floors "pancaked" upon each other.

I have no problem with you describing "pancake collapse" just don't dress it up as progressive collapse and use it as an analogy for the WTC.
Click to expand...

Uhhh........you might want to move on to a different topic. Have you heard of the pentagon flyover theory?
 
carlitos said:
Here is a direct link to page 8 of the comments, which are numbers 3500+ for your your perusal. Why not drop in and say a few words. The 3 or 4 commenters left seem to like the company. Sadly, the guy who was posting poetry appears to have gone away.
Click to expand...


I'll pass. I just wanted to see if I could get Alexa to give me any traffic stats for the main article, but it doesn't look like I can. Maybe I'm just not pushing the right buttons.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'll pass. I just wanted to see if I could get Alexa to give me any traffic stats for the main article, but it doesn't look like I can. Maybe I'm just not pushing the right buttons.
Click to expand...

No, I tried the same thing. Honestly, that's probably why Mr. Austin brought his initial numbers the way he did. I think that you have to pay alexa for a service to get traffic #'s on sub-domains. Really, though, I'd pop in and ask them for their theory about what really happened on 9/11. They love that question.
 
So Richard Gage and his 700 architects are finally zoming in on NIST. How long cn Shyam Sunder delay this very neccessary conversation ?

Request for meeting regarding NIST Reports - WTC7 and Twin Towers

[Ed: Copy of original letter dated July 20, 2009]

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing – as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse – that the structure had to have been removed – forcibly – by explosives. (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel – because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion.)

Read full letter:-
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_-_7-20-09.pdf
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Here is a direct link to page 8 of the comments, which are numbers 3500+ for your your perusal.
Click to expand...

The direct link will be necessary, because as far as I can tell the regular interface doesn't give a link to anything beyond page 6. That alone suggests that viewing figures probably aren't quite into the millions.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom