Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

BigAl said:
Yes. I ran floors full of "battery-looking things" and the computers they ran for big NYC banks.

You reveal greater ignorance and gullibility here with each post.
Click to expand...

But would you describe the floors where you worked like this:

"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.

Sounds to me like he was describing objects that were all of the same type. Not computers, but 'battery-looking things'; solid, heavy. A computer is not solid.

And then he said:

"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
 
Anders Lindman said:
But would you describe the floors where you worked like this:

"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.

Sounds to me like he was describing objects that were all of the same type. Not computers, but 'battery-looking things'[/B]
Click to expand...

That's because they were batteries. Tons of huge lead-acid batteries.

What's strange about using the freight elevator in a 24x7 building at night? Freight elevators can be very busy and in demand.

You are gullible.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
No plane.
Click to expand...

WtcUA175debris.jpg


picture.php
 
ergo said:
Please read the thread. I've posted the link at least three times, and have excerpted from it twice.
Click to expand...

You mean like witnesses claiming that it sounded like the 1993 bombing? Oh wait, you claimed this but never provided the quotes.
 
Architect said:
Okay, what do you know about safety factors in the design of large-scale structures?

Hint: I'm going to be questioning you closely on this. You've made a very bold - and wrong - assumption and I want to test how much you really understand the issues you're so confident about.
Click to expand...

The buildings must have been designed to withstand decades if not centuries of aging, severe hurricanes and even minor earthquakes. This means that they must have been designed for that, roughly 5 times the needed strength. Or something like that.
 
Originally Posted by Architect
Okay, what do you know about safety factors in the design of large-scale structures?

Hint: I'm going to be questioning you closely on this. You've made a very bold - and wrong - assumption and I want to test how much you really understand the issues you're so confident about.
Click to expand...
Anders Lindman said:
The buildings must have been designed to withstand decades if not centuries of aging, severe hurricanes and even minor earthquakes. This means that they must have been designed for that, roughly 5 times the needed strength. Or something like that.
Click to expand...

Okay, what do you know about safety factors in the design of large-scale structures?
 
Bell said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/WtcUA175debris.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=492&pictureid=3731[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So those parts, flew out from the inside of the building, through the fireball, and landed on the roof of another building? :rolleyes:
 
BigAl said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Man View Post
Should I take that to mean that no inner core elements struck surrounding buildings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAl
No.
Originally Posted by Java Man
Which inner core beams hit which surrounding buildings?
Read English much?.
__________________
Click to expand...

If you respond no to my question then you're saying I should NOT take to mean that "no inner core elements struck surrounding buildings".

Thus NOT "no inner core elements struck surrounding buildings" equals "inner core elements struck surrounding buildings". Double negation equals assertion.

So please tell us what inner core elements and what surrounding buildings.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So those parts, flew out from the inside of the building, through the fireball, and landed on the roof of another building? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, it was an event, the impact, equal to a 2000 pound bomb. E=1/2mv2, can't you do physics?

The impacts were 7 and 11 times the impact design. If the planes had been going 200 mph, instead of 470 and 590 mph, they would have failed to do substantial damage. You have not researched the WTC towers, so you fall for lies and post them due to ignorance.

If you were going 590 mph, how far would your parts fly if you hit something that is 95 percent air?

Take a physics course and try again.
 
Java Man said:
If you respond no to my question then you're saying I should NOT take to mean that "no inner core elements struck surrounding buildings".

Thus NOT "no inner core elements struck surrounding buildings" equals "inner core elements struck surrounding buildings". Double negation equals assertion.

So please tell us what inner core elements and what surrounding buildings.
Click to expand...


I never made any claim, either way about ejected core beams.
 
BigAl said:
Then what happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt?
Click to expand...

Why has no truther ever answered this question?

I'll answer. Ed Felt got caught up in the events of 9/11 when United 93 was hijacked. Some time into the hijack he managed to lock himself into the bathroom and dial 911 to report the hijack. Shortly after this phone call the passengers of United 93 attacked the hijackers, who then crashed the plane in a field outside Shanksville. None of the passengers and crew survived.

To paraphrase Beachnut:

United 93 passengers and crew: heroes
9/11 truth movement: zeroes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom