Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

kylebisme said:
If you watch to the end, you'll see a NASA shot showing the base of all three buildings, with building 7 being the hottest. That is the work of some fancy incendiary used as a corrosive, and I wouldn't be surprised if hydraulics were what brought down the center first.
Click to expand...

We'd be interested to know why, kyle.

It was chance that saw WTC7 hit by debris from WTC1 and fires started there. The large debris could have missed (it nearly did) .... little damage, no fires.
Then what? WTC7 spontaneously collapses hours later for absolutely no reason? They go in and remove the 'fancy indendiaries' and 'hydraulics' because they're no longer needed?

As narratives go, the whole WTC7 demolition business doesn't have one.

(prediction - very shortly we'll be pointing out that shredders are a much more reliable and discreet way of destroying incriminating evidence than blowing up buildings).
 
kylebisme said:
Of course I can say; it should have looked like a standing building with some structural damage and heavy office fires, despite all the falser claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

REally? Your structural engineering degree came from where? Where did you do your internship and understudy?

No these really are valid questions. You are claiming that hundreds of fully qualified structural engineers who worked on the NIST report are wrong. So asking to know your credentials is rather important.

so again, where did you finish structural enginering?

If your contention is correct (it is not btw), then you should easily be able to find OUTRAGED letters and papers saying that NIST is full of crap. I mean if it is so apparent to you, then people with relevant qualifications should be up in arms. You should be able to find dozens of (if not HUNDREDS) letters to the editors of major engineering publications. You should be able to point me to ANY peer reviewed engineering articles... Provide one.
 
It's interesting the contempt and mistrust of academia that many truthers have.
 
GlennB said:
We'd be interested to know why, kyle.

It was chance that saw WTC7 hit by debris from WTC1 and fires started there. The large debris could have missed (it nearly did) .... little damage, no fires.
Then what? WTC7 spontaneously collapses hours later for absolutely no reason? They go in and remove the 'fancy indendiaries' and 'hydraulics' because they're no longer needed?

As narratives go, the whole WTC7 demolition business doesn't have one.

(prediction - very shortly we'll be pointing out that shredders are a much more reliable and discreet way of destroying incriminating evidence than blowing up buildings).
Click to expand...

You mean, a secret organisation that had the influence to capitalise on a planned terrorist plot, couldn't have guessed that some of the tallest towers in NY, were going to fall on WTC7? Are you serious?

For all we know there might have been a truck full of explosives parked nearby ready to ram the end where column 79 was, just in case they sustained no feasible damage. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
You mean, a secret organisation that had the influence to capitalise on a planned terrorist plot, couldn't have guessed that some of the tallest towers in NY, were going to fall on WTC7? Are you serious?

For all we know there might have been a truck full of explosives parked nearby ready to ram the end where column 79 was, just in case they sustained no feasible damage. Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

"Heres a better idea George, how about we just use a paper shredder?"
 
Ragnarok said:
It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.
Click to expand...


When it comes to science? Yes, I'd say I'd trust somebody who has the knowledge and experience over just some irrational guy on the internet. I'll bet you go to your plumber for medical advice, too.
 
Here we go with the ad homs.

In fact that is you derbunker's new name, "The Ad homs Family".

I'm going to keep careful note of all the insults, veiled threats and general slurs in this thread, and name and shame any miscreants.
 
Last edited:
Uh oh, looks like I am going be shamed by a twoofer!!!!! How will I be able to show my face here again!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
TruthersLie said:
REally? Your structural engineering degree came from where? Where did you do your internship and understudy?
Click to expand...
Unfinished due to financial circumstances... [sic]
I've asked him if he got as far as the structures related courses; no answer, and his posts indicate he/she either never got to that point or didn't take in the material he/she learned. Regardless of which is the case, it's not impressing anyone in this thread.


Ragnarok said:
It's interesting the adulation and trust of academia that many derbunkers have.
Click to expand...
Actually yes, particularly when what they have to say pretty well matches up with the content of what I study. College actually pays off as a bonus ;)
 
twinstead said:
It's interesting the contempt and mistrust of academia that many truthers have.
Click to expand...

That coin has 2 sides. Truthers seem to think the engineers could have modeled where every beam, column, and joint went during the collapse with all the forces, etc. the whole way down, but at the same time they believe the engineers were too stupid to see what they claim is blatantly obvious to anyone with a high school education.
 
sylvan8798 said:
That coin has 2 sides. Truthers seem to think the engineers could have modeled where every beam, column, and joint went during the collapse with all the forces, etc. the whole way down, but at the same time they believe the engineers were too stupid to see what they claim is blatantly obvious to anyone with a high school education.
Click to expand...


It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
It's not the engineers that would have been doing the modelling; they just set the parameters. If a computer couldn't do it, it's because they likely didn't apply enough computer to the task. Or didn't even attempt to, which is curious seeing how inquisitive scientists are meant to be!

Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?
Click to expand...

A sufficiently powerful computer probably could have modelled the collapses of the twin towers although it would have taken a very long time. But it is entirely obvious to everybody except twoofer morons that after collapse initiation global collapse was inevitable so this would have been a waste of resources. And twoofer morons would have just ignored the simulations anyway like they do for WTC7.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok
Do you really believe that the best computer in the world couldn't have mapped or modelled what happened after collapse initiation?
Click to expand...

Modelled, yes. "Mapped", whatever that means to you, no.

It's futile to explain to you what the differences is.
 
dtugg said:
A sufficiently powerful computer probably could have modelled the collapses of the twin towers although it would have taken a very long time. But it is entirely obvious to everybody except twoofer morons that after collapse initiation global collapse was inevitable so this would have been a waste of resources. And twoofer morons would have just ignored the simulations anyway like they do for WTC7.
Click to expand...

And so, NIST, the brightest and the best, charged to investigate the towers for use in improving future building's safety standards, hasn't even a cursory interest in how the building behaved all the way down? No thoughts at all for how they might save anyone in a similar situation in the future who might make it two thirds of the way down and then have a building collapse on them. And you don't find that surprising?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom