Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Oystein]

I have no desire to respond to that double drivel diatribe.

[FONT=&quot]mañana[/FONT]

You are a man of poor character, no spine and little integrity.
Shame on you. Running away like a weasle. It's men like you who give the word "truther" the sound of a slur.

 

[triforcharity]

You made the claim that it was full of explosives. You prove it.

Where did I ever make that claim? (Not that I wouldn't, because it is true)

Bullets?

Yes, do you know what bullets do when heated in a fire? I'll give you a hint.
It has the word explode in it.

 

[NoahFence]

Chris - you're just in way too deep. You won't concede defeat, so you keep pushing and making more and more outlandish statements.

It is my opinion that you just bail from this thread, this forum, and create a new screen name. The damage you do to yourself is irreparable.

 

[NoahFence]

There is no assurance that TFC is a professional, much less an expert, and my "blather" is quotes from reliable sources.

As someone who can read AND understand what's written, I find it very, very easy to determine who is an expert by Google, and who actually IS an expert. The difference is how well Tri responds with things that are off the top of his head. How many links does he provide to back up his claims? Not nearly as many as you.

He doesn't need to. You on the other hand, for whatever reason, use the NIST report as your primary tool, which is strange because you seem to have many sleepless nights grunting and groaning about how bad it is.

This is not a criteria for fighting a fire. Firefighters fight fires after the people leave. They seem to have this thing about putting fires out. Go figure.

That sentence alone proves you have no idea what you're talking about. A truther favorite. It's the same thing as the explosives theory. You people go on and on as to how it looks like a CD, but you won't EVER answer the most basic of questions regarding explosive demolition.

How the hell did they survive the massive fires and aircraft impacts? Unless you can answer that one, all other questions are moot.

 

[NoahFence]

So what? That's not what they were doing and you have no clue what they were doing or why.

AND YOU DO!?!

The audacity.

 

[NoahFence]

Firefighters entered WTC 7 and rescued people from the 7th and 8th floors about noon. They reported a cubicle fire on floor 7 and no fire on floor 8.

I've hilited the part that you seem to keep forgetting.

If there's a fire on floor 7, but the firefighters leave the building, I guess it just goes out on its own. 'Cause fire's nice like that.

 

[NoahFence]

Fact
The Harvey could easily produce enough water to fight WTC 5, 6 and 7 at the same time. [20 fire engines]

FACT:
The Hudson river contains enough water to put out ALL the WTC Complex fires, even if all 7 buildings were totally engulfed in flames from top to bottom, with plenty of water left over to fight the untold amount of vehicles that were on fire.

(then there's the whole problem of getting it there, because you can't pick up the buildings and dunk them in the river)

 

[Mr. Skinny]

It's interesting watching Christopher7 try to be a firefighter and fire protection engineer.

Chris, could you calculate (not estimate) the friction and elevation losses from the Harvey to the point of discharge onto the fire? I'd be interested in the answer.

Show your work. Number of pumps operating, flow and pressure of each pump, diameter of hose lines, length of hose lines from the boat to the fire, etc.

If you can't do that, can you give me the data so I can calculate it myself?

Thanks.

 

[NoahFence]

i have no desire to respond to that double drivel diatribe any direct questions. :d

ftfy

 

[beachnut]

...
Please look at the NIST model above. ... Their model does not do what the building did.

You don't understand models. Are you an engineer? A structural engineer with a building like WTC 7 would understand why the model does not match a collapse, why can't you understand? Have you tried to learn more about models like this? There are models for the weather, why don't they match what happens?

 

[tempesta29]

You. Either it looked like a standard CD, which is what most Truthers claim, or it didn't. You said that the hypothetical conspirators would have no reason to make the collapse follow the safety standards of a CD, and didn't, which means that all the Truthers who say the collapse(s) looked like a CD (and that it therefore was) are wrong.

What is it? Which collapse are we referring to here?

Aside from the fallacy of assuming something is what it appears to be on first glance, without considering actual physical evidence and opinions, either it looked like a CD because it was a CD (standard Truther claim, and you've admitted they wouldn't bother to care about normal safety standards), or it doesn't look like a CD because They took pains to disguise it or simply didn't care (which makes all the other Truthers wrong).

If it walks like a duck...

If one gets hit on the right side of the head, would one necessarily topple to the right after the concussion causes you to collapse several hours later?

An awful analogy. This is a modern steel framed skyscraper whose north face was unscathed by debris, but whose south side, we are told, was heavily damaged. When this type of damage occurs and a building fails, it topples over. That's what happens.

Yes, they would. They would say that it looked like a demo. However, if they have any competency at all, they would not conclude that it was a demo without evidence.

I disagree, for the reasons previously stated. Rushing to judgement based on first impressions leads to disaster.

I suspect they would say it "IS" a controlled demolition. Again, steel will always resist collapse more than air, unless there are controlled demolitions involved.

 

[NoahFence]

What is it? Which collapse are we referring to here?

Take your pick. You people say all 3 looked like a CD.

An awful analogy. This is a modern steel framed skyscraper whose north face was unscathed by debris, but whose south side, we are told, was heavily damaged. When this type of damage occurs and a building fails, it topples over. That's what happens.

It would appear not. Anyway, the building DID lean to the south, and DID buckle and collapse in that fashion. You're looking for it to lean over like a domino. Trouble is, the collapse happened in NYC, that's a REAL city. It was a REAL building damaged beyond repair by a REAL fire. Not a fantasy world which is where you people live.

Again, steel will always resist collapse more than air,

Still going with that? Pathetic.

 

[000063]

What is it? Which collapse are we referring to here?

Here's an idea; scroll up and look for yourself instead of the disingenuity gambit.

If it walks like a duck...

An awful analogy. This is a modern

Irrelevant.

steel framed skyscraper whose north face was unscathed by debris, but whose south side, we are told, was heavily damaged. When this type of damage occurs and a building fails, it topples over. That's what happens.

You're assuming a direct connection between the damage and the collapse that the OS claims. The OS says that the fire was the primary cause, not the damage. Nice straw man. Again.

EDIT: And as Noah has pointed out, what, twice now?, it did fall to the South, just not in the fashion you seem to expect.

I suspect they would say it "IS" a controlled demolition. Again, steel will always resist collapse more than air, unless there are controlled demolitions involved.

Or the steel fails. The steel doesn't have to "resist collapse more than air". That's another one of your straw men.

 

[leftysergeant]

Big help, I don't know Chris well enough to just take his word for it.

You made the claim that it was full of explosives. You prove it.

Bullets?

Seriously, dude. Bullets, a chem lab and possibly a bomb or two in the evidence locker.

This is not difficult to research on the internet.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-wtcsite-0609.html

 

[leftysergeant]

An awful analogy. This is a modern steel framed skyscraper whose north face was unscathed by debris, but whose south side, we are told, was heavily damaged. When this type of damage occurs and a building fails, it topples over. That's what happens.

Bull feathers. In order to topple it, damage must be done to both sides or the weight must be enormously greater on the side that fails and it must be firmly attached to the undamaged side.

The south side papears to have rather thoroughly discombobulated before the north side started to move. Central elements fell into the interior at the start of collapse. Nothing to pull the north side over. Eventually, the process of collapse caused the bottom of the north face to failand it did what those sorts of things usually do. It fell straight down and crumbled from the bottom up.

 

[leftysergeant]

A void? All four sides? For 100 feet? Of course dear. The problem is - that's NOT what the NIST model is doing. Look at the NIST graphic again.

You see that big fold near ground level in the 14 second image? Those columns had all totally failed before the wall fell that far out. The columns on the other three sides were effctively gone,so, yeah, there was nothing to hold up the wall.

Lose the attitude.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Seriously, dude. Bullets, a chem lab and possibly a bomb or two in the evidence locker.

This is not difficult to research on the internet.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-wtcsite-0609.html

Where do you get the chops to make up ridiculous assertions day after day?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You see that big fold near ground level in the 14 second image? Those columns had all totally failed before the wall fell that far out. The columns on the other three sides were effctively gone,so, yeah, there was nothing to hold up the wall.

Lose the attitude.

You must be kidding. All the columns failed? I think it's more like a bunch of your neocon buddies made a wish.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWvwuEmUfx8


"Our purpose was to document the event."
Their purpose was to document the event.

 

[leftysergeant]

Where do you get the chops to make up ridiculous assertions day after day?

US Air Force, 1966-70, AFSC 57150, Fire Protection Specialist. Three years of college. US Army, 1977-88, PMOS 94B30 (Food Service Sergeant) SMOS 51M30 (Fire Protection Sergeant.)
Part of that time in the Army was in an engineer unit, part of it with infantry units. Spent a lot of time in the field watching people blow **** up. Made a few ANFO bombs and a few types of thermite. Took a bit of college-level training in arson investigations.

Your credentials?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Seriously, dude. Bullets, a chem lab and possibly a bomb or two in the evidence locker.

This is not difficult to research on the internet.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...site-0609.html

Where do you get the chops to make up ridiculous assertions day after day?

CM, where do YOU get the "chops" to make ridiculous statements like this?!?

Unlike you, many of us actually click on links put forward as backing up various assertions, and checking up on them.

It's clear to anyone who bothered to follow up that there IS confirmation of leftysergeant's claim that there were "Bullets, a chem lab and possibly a bomb or two in the evidence locker" in WTC 6.

Were you unwilling to follow the link the the Wall Street Journal site? Are they "NWO"? Tell us why, please.

Or were you simply unable to follow through? (i.e. incompetent.)