Animal
Master Poster
Another troofer fail. The towers did not have precast concrete planks used for flooring. Once again proof that troofers do not have a clue what they are talking about.
Merged So there was melted steel
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
Another troofer fail. The towers did not have precast concrete planks used for flooring. Once again proof that troofers do not have a clue what they are talking about.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Sorry, that's not c-4 coated 4" rebar on 3' center............
ftfy
Sorry, that's not 4" rebar on 3' center............
WTC floors before the concrete is poured.
Why did MM post pre-cast concrete?
Can't believe he posted a corroded gun in WTC debris as melted concrete.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
A given that that is a piece of floor slab. And for the record, the steel is already embedded in the concrete during construction. That's why it's it's called a composite slab.
It's the same with this one. Or do you need another graphic to point it out?
And beachnut, Animal... from this:
It seems to me that he wasn't trying to make a wrong comparison in this case... he just didn't look hard enough for the relevant image so that it'd be more immediately apparent. Just my .02.
There are plenty of images that diagram the floor section adequately though, so using something "abstracted" that much shouldn't have been needed
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Yeah, I was somewhat curious as to why MM posted pre-cast concrete images.
Maybe MM will answer that.....Yeah right, we know that won't happen.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You were curious? I laughed out loud.
Animal
Master Poster
Nope, e clearly doesn't have a clue what he is posting. There are concrete / rebar and composite slab "pre pour photos" all over the place.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
The "defense" I gave goes only as far as a line I thought you misread. And even at that the "correction" is minor. The alternative is I gave too much benefit of the doubt in his knowing what a composite floor slab is. I guess I'll let him speak for himself. Otherwise, the "meteorites" are the same old, same old and the matter of them being massive steel hunks is a settled matter - anyone who thinks they're melted has been utterly conned.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
In true truther form, not only is the observation that everything was pulverized proof for CD, but also the observation that not everything was pulverized!
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Even if it was these are the same fire chiefs truthers will claim covered up the WTC7 demolition and somehow brainwashed all rest of firefighters to think it was perfectly understandable that fire was going to make WTC7 collapse.
I never understand how they can so clearly quotemine them like this and then totally ignore them when it comes to anything else like WTC7. Its like, the opinion of the firefighters is whatever truthers want it to be, or can twist them to say, or they are lying... but thats the last resort and they dont like to admit that one.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
WOW. Looks like MM wants special treatment again where he wins no matter what!
You are claiming the following.
1. That you have a peer reviewed paper and until someone publishes an an official rebuttal you don't have to prove anything and no critic can have any basis to question it.
2. In real respected journals there are around a hundred papers about various aspects of the collapse none of which support truthers and all of them support the understanding that fire brought down the towers without thermite or explosives.
POINT: Instead of applying your own logic in 1 to point 2 and realise that therefore everything else that AE911 must therefore be wrong by the same logic, you decide that because all the professional commentary on the collapses and all the independent studies that have been done and all the papers that have been published on 911 don't support you, this just means that you're even more correct because none of them address your Bentham paper! It doesnt matter how many experts and studies that can be shown to disagree with you, that just means you're even more correct! If you are shown how many professionals and how much the scientific and engineering community don't agree with you, it doesnt matter how the more they ignore how utterly fringe and irrelevant you are, it just makes you think YOU are MORE right!
So MM wins regardless!!! Fantastic! Your mental gymnastics are impressive MM, really impressive.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Miragememories
Banned
I am less concerned about the reputation of the packager than I am about the contents of the package!
The contributing authors to the paper have excellent academic credentials and experience. They have placed their professional as well as personal integrity at stake by publishing such a controversial paper.
Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry, Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977, Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
http://nielsharrit.org/
Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota, Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D, Physics, S&J Scientific Co, Professor Emeritus of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and Journal of Physical Chemistry, B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining the Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship. Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, ** retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978). Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.* Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.
Kevin R. Ryan, Chemist, former Underwriters Laboratories manager
Frank M. Legge, Ph.D, Chemist, Logical Systems Consulting
Daniel Farnsworth, Ph.D candidate, Physics, Brigham Young University
Gregg Roberts, BA Psychology, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
James R. Gourley, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, graduated with Special Distinction
Bradley R. Larsen, M.S. Geology
Until the contents of the package, the paper; Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe has been debunked by comparable research by equally qualified scientists, you and the other Official Story hand wavers really have nothing credible to say.
MM
Miragememories
Banned
It would have to, just like the guns! Once again, YOU FAIL!
Happy Turkey Day Everyone! Off to watch Football, drink, and pig out!
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Whats funny, is you have one "paper" of sorts, published in a pay-to-publish journal, and the commonly held narritive have dozens published in highly respected journals. And yet, not ONE of our papers have had rebuttals published proving them wrong.
Using your logic, fire+impact-water=collapse is absolutely true.
Your turn.
Miragememories
Banned
No it is a valid conclusion based on logic.
Prior to the first collapse, WTC2, the known physical issues with that building were the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires.
With that knowledge, the FDNY Chiefs in their 9:20 a.m. meeting, believed a total collapse of either tower was not possible.
So, if those two causes (aircraft impacts and subsequent fires) are eliminated, and you rule out a pre-planned controlled demolition, what logical possibilities remain for what at that time, 9:20 a.m., would have been a hypothetical total collapse scenario?
I am assuming you have ruled out things like, space invaders, nukes, beam weapons, pixie dust etc etc??
MM
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Experts are human like everyone else, they make mistakes, and their expectations aren't always in line with the truth. Likewise, just as they didn't "expect" collapse, other professionals did.