• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

RedIbis said:
So since Dave Rogers claimed that NIST backed up their WTC 7 report with physical evidence, whatever he thinks about 9/11 is also wrong?
Click to expand...
Can you explain how the thermal properties of steel aren't already documented through physical experimentation and evidence?
 
Miragememories said:
Well Senator Mike Gravel has come up with what appears to be a truly effective means of investigating 9/11.



You can read the rest of his speech here;

http://9-11cc.org/index.php/2011/08/30/a-new-path-to-peace-and-prosperity/#more-708

MM
Click to expand...
Maurice Robert Gravel doesn't have a clue on 911, but he has rock and fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRwizmuCnOw&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8&feature=player_embedded#!

Fire, Rock, and the same evidence Gage's 1500 failures have presented in the thread's moronic video; zero.
 
 
 
Miragememories said:
It may come as a big surprise to you A. W., but just about everyone knows that steel expands when heated.

Sorry to spoil all your special links.

MM
Click to expand...
The common 911 truth stand, thermal expansion is new. 911 truth trying to imply heating steel can not cause structural failure. Good to see you are letting reality leak into your failed claims on 911. A little more knowledge and you will be free of the ignorance and lies of 911 truth. Dropping the thermite delusion and understanding Gage's failed signers video is nonsense.
 
Clayton and MM,

You do realize that CCR (The Center for Constitutional Rights) is a non-profit* orginization that has no special law enforcement power, and as such, couldn't do a damn thing about George W. Bush, right?

Since you're both clamoring on about Bush's "supposed" injunction from visiting Europe, I figured you should both know this.




*The CCR is a political group that is by definition a NPO, however, almost every one of their employees make well above $100,000 a year. And I did the math, something like 1 out of every 7 dollars that comes into the NPO, goes out to it's officers. (about 14%) Whereas other NPO's like Lukemia and Lymphoma Society it's something like 1 out of every 65 or about 1.53%.
 
RedIbis said:
He's going to post the collapse of the roof of a steel framed warehouse. Just remind him it's not a high rise. For some reason he seems to think this refutes NIST's admission that before 9/11 no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
Click to expand...

No high rise has ever been CDed either.
 
A W Smith said:
thermal expansion of steel is a given and well documented in the construction industry outside of the NIST well you are attempting to poison.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2009/04/construction-concerns-expansion-of-metals.html

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Thermodynamics-2200/coefficeint-expansion-steel-cast.htm

http://michiganstate.academia.edu/M...s_subjected_to_fire-induced_thermal_gradients

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel#Fire_resistance

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/JSepturo.pdf
Click to expand...
It seems to escape the 9/11 "activists" that what educated people post comes from a variety of sources, not one. NIST's report is essentially investigative, based on research from existing sources which have -for example - analyzed specific material properties for use in construction practices. And the basic concepts they predicate their research on can be crosschecked by the professional community quite easily. If red's ignoring these things because he thinks he's getting baited then that's his thing, however treating two similar cases with completely different thought process demands some explanation beyond selectively casting doubt. It's apparent that his argument hasn't changed since a couple years ago, and it'd be nice to hear some actual feedback rather than the cliche "faith" BS that he and other "skeptics" of the collapse theories like to abuse.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Since there is also absolutely no actual physical evidence for any other method of collapse, where does put you?
Click to expand...


I don't think RedIbis really cares. He's trying to play on the same level as the rest of the world. Most people would achieve that by pulling themselves up to the level of the rest of the world, but I think RedIbis would be OK with dragging the world down to his level.
 
It’s over Truthies. Train left the station years ago.

Engineers in the adult real world have decreased the likelihood of fire disproportionate collapse by revising building codes for high rise buildings to increase life safety as a result of the 9/11 WTC1,2,7 collapses.

The years-late Truthies resemble the WWII Japanese holdout soldiers;
“Hiroo Onoda (小野田 寛郎, Onoda Hiroo, born March 19, 1922) is a former Japanese army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and did not surrender until 1974, having spent almost 30 years holding out in the Philippines. He held the rank of Second Lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army.” wiki

Except the Japanese holdouts are to be poignantly respected, the truthies despised.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
He's going to post the collapse of the roof of a steel framed warehouse. Just remind him it's not a high rise. For some reason he seems to think this refutes NIST's admission that before 9/11 no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
No high rise has ever been CDed either.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Around here that's called lying. I just think you're misinformed, wrong, incorrect or too lazy to find out for yourself.
Click to expand...


Show me where anyone has demoed a 110 story building
 
The tallest building to have been demolished is only 47 stories high, and 612 ft tall. It was the Singer building in Manhattan. Doesn´t ANYONE of the CTs find it a wee bit fantastic or unbelievable that suddenly one is fully capable of demolishing not one but TWO 110 stories buildings, apparently without a hitch??
It takes months and the use of a pretty big work force to rig a building much lower than the twin towers, and tons of dynamite and miles of fuses.... Just think about it - does it really sound plausible that this could have been hidden from the security staff, the maintenance staff and the regular workers in the twin towers? Really; get a grip.
 
minnemouse said:
The tallest building to have been demolished is only 47 stories high, and 612 ft tall. It was the Singer building in Manhattan.
Click to expand...
This wasn't explosive demolition, it was "jackhammered, and dumped down the elevator shaft", which took about a year.

minnemouse said:
Doesn´t ANYONE of the CTs find it a wee bit fantastic or unbelievable that suddenly one is fully capable of demolishing not one but TWO 110 stories buildings, apparently without a hitch??
It takes months and the use of a pretty big work force to rig a building much lower than the twin towers, and tons of dynamite and miles of fuses.... Just think about it - does it really sound plausible that this could have been hidden from the security staff, the maintenance staff and the regular workers in the twin towers? Really; get a grip.
Click to expand...
Much of the time and effort of explosive CDs goes into making sure the demolition is indeed Controlled, and environmentally safe - two objectives the perpetrators of 9/11 would not have had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom