• 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.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Hey, trolls get kittens when they become patronising.
619745818569d4a5d.jpg
 
Wizard said:
I didn't realise I had to have scientific qualifications or rebuttals of NIST and FEMA to join this site. It is not on the joining form. I don't have anything to prove to you
Click to expand...
Based on this response, I see I failed to include poor reading comprehension skills as another attribute of the CTist.

You are welcome to post whatever you like. Should your posts not sink to the level I stated and actually provide coherent and thoughtful ideas, or include intellectually honest arguments, or valid and verifiable evidence, I will apologize directly to you for my hasty judgment.

The ball is in your court.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, you see, the fact that once several floors failed, the whole building would collapse is only seen as a mystery to CTers. Everybody else seem to know that once a weight-carrying structure is seriously compromized, failure will progress catastrophically. Let's talk demolitions. There are exceptions, but most demolitions of buildings go like this: You blow out crucial supports in he bottom of the building, and gravity does the rest. Once a tall building starts falling, it takes unusual circumstances to stop it.

Hans
Click to expand...

Wizard said:
So you agree that crucial lower supports were blown out. Now we are making progress
Click to expand...

Wizard said:
That is one cute kitten. So cute that I will forgive the term troll:D
Click to expand...

Then don't act in a trollish manner by taking something out of context and trying to score points with it. The towers didn't fall because any lower supports were blown out. Didn't work in '93, now did it?

They fell because TWO FRICKIN' HUGE JETLINERS LOADED WITH JET FUEL CRASHED INTO THEM AND WEAKENED THE STRUCTURES SUFFICIENTLY TO CAUSE THEM TO COLLAPSE!
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
Maccy a smiley may well help. I have looked at other threads and they are not being taken seriously atall. Many have this strange posting of cats and many others are full of CTs being ridiculed without provocation.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to anything involving 28th Kingdom, TruthSeeker 1234 or Christophera I'm afraid I'm going to have to return to my previous assessment of your reading comprehension skills.

Many threads persist here to the point where the CTist ignores all arguments put against him or her and just flits to another regurgitated theory that he solemnly announces as gospel; and as if we've never heard it before.

My we aren't here for your benefit and we aren't worried about gaining your respect. Collectively, we're pretty good judges of when all the relevant arguments and information have been put forward, so that no lurker or fencesitter is likely to be confused. We're also aware that we aren't being challenged in any way by, or learning anything from, the nonsensical repetition of people like 28th Kingdom. At that point, we may as well post cats and Monty Python videos. With any luck the CTist will stop repeating themselves and the thread will die.

Ultimately, the world doesn't owe you an explanation for 9/11, the explanation is already there if you take the time to learn enough and think enough to understand it. We can't argue with you ignorance if you refuse to understand the consensus view. And, frankly, we don't care if you're convinced, we're happy for you flounder around ineffectively here while we provide the information. It does the cause of truth no harm at all.

If you can bring evidence, argument, understanding and calculations to the table then it might make a difference, but none of you ever do. It's all videos, "it seems to me", "I'm not convinced" and "common sense".
 
Last edited:
HeyLeroy said:
They fell because TWO FRICKIN' HUGE JETLINERS LOADED WITH JET FUEL CRASHED INTO THEM AND WEAKENED THE STRUCTURES SUFFICIENTLY TO CAUSE THEM TO COLLAPSE!
Click to expand...

You are welcome to believe that but please don't take away my right to disbelieve it
 
CurtC said:
A whistleblower would not be someone with a degree in a relevant field who disagrees. A whistleblower is someone with first-hand knowledge of bad activity, who comes forward with information about it.

I agree that we skeptics are misguided when we ask for even one civil engineer who disagrees with the official version, because every field has a few kooks. But if you can come up with more than a few, that would be something to talk about.
Click to expand...

All they need is for someone to publish a paper that gets taken seriously. Even a favourable article or programme in the popular science media would be something.
 
Wizard said:
You are welcome to believe that but please don't take away my right to disbelieve it
Click to expand...

How the heck do you draw from my post that I am somehow repressing your rights to believe any darned thing you want?
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
You are welcome to believe that but please don't take away my right to disbelieve it
Click to expand...

I've just removed that right.

Do you believe now?





:)


Of course I have no such power, by I am skeptical about the effectiveness of your disbelief.


Oh, and I know I put a smiley in this, but, seriously, you should stop playing the martyr.
 
Wizard said:
The capital letters represent shouting dont they?
Click to expand...

Dude, they're capital letters in a post on the internet. I ain't showing up at your front door in jackboots with a machine-gun and an arrest warrant.

You do realize that two fully-fuelled planes weighing roughly 300,000 lbs each crashed into those towers at 443 mph and 542 mph, don't you?

Can you carry that thought logically to what happened next?
 
Let me reeat myself as you seem to have missed this...

Architect said:
Dearie, dearie me. Wiz and Chris7. You've not really researched your comments about the engineering and archtiectural establishment views of the collapse, have you.

Let me first be clear; I'm a UK chartered architect who's just finished a contract with one of our leading firms doing tall buildings. If, like, Christophera, you doubt this then Gravy has all my registration details and should be able to give you the nod.

The first thing you have to appreciate is that building design, structural engineering, and fire engineering are necessarily complex issues. It takes a minimum of 5 years of university study to qualify in any of them, followed by several years of practical experience, and those of us who move into specialisms such as tall buildings then do a lot of "on the job" training.

So any suggestion that a comparable level of understanding sufficiently from googling the web, reading the odd book, or having a degree in a largely unrelated area such as physics is just not going to hold water.

Where people do attempt to argue alternative theories regarding the collapse it simply will not hold to make generalisms or talk about lay interpretation of photographic evidence. To be frank, professions will expect the kind of robust and proper analysis that we ourselves use to design and understand the structures.

Such informed papers are simply not available from the CT community; those few engineers (Pegelow, for example) who have weighed in on your side have wholly failed to provide any full written analysis that we can properly consider. Others who claim to have relevant experience (and a few are named by previous posters) clearly have no such thing. I would not employ an expert on low rise structures on my team because he would be of only limited use to my team.

A British analogy (or is it a metaphor?); who would you trust for a medical diagnosis - your consultant surgeon, with all his years of experience and training, or some bloke round the pub who watches Casualty on the telly and browsed google?

Now the fact is that the NIST/FEMA reports and collapses have been widely circulated in the construction community. There is debate around the fringes - for example Arup and Edinburgh University have made well reasoned arguments that fire alone might have induced collapse - however the underlying findings of the report are accepted universally. Let me be clear. UNIVERSALLY.

And I don't just mean in the US. I mean everywhere. The UK and Europe, where we have some of the leading universities in the world and (shock horror) also build tall buildings. Countries opposed to the US. Hell, countries who are close to War with the US.

But no, not a whimper.

Now what conclusion do you expect us to draw from this? You can't argue that we've not thought about it, because I can post you links to a ridiculous number of worldwide learned articles and lectures on the subject. You can't claim that we've been bought off, or are scared, because there's simply too many of us - especially outwith the US. And you can't claim that we're incompetent or sheeple because, frankly, we all hold postgraduate qualifications and have shown that we can cut it academically.

So why, oh why, do you keep trying to resort to this dead end? Get us qualified people! Get us proper structural and fire engineering calculations (I can give you examples, if you want). Don't rely on crappy videos and photographs when we all know that these only form one strand of any evidencial review.

Rant over. For now.
Click to expand...



Read it this time, Wizard.
 
Last edited:
Wizard said:
You are welcome to believe that but please don't take away my right to disbelieve it
Click to expand...

There is only ONE reason to believe that the towers fell from anything other than the damage from the plane crashes. That is that you want the government to be responsible for the attacks, so you look for arguments to counter the "official story".

This desire to blame the government appeared well before any "no planes" or controlled demolition theories sprung up. That indicates to me that the conclusions were reached before the evidence was evaluated.

People around here tend to believe that the towers fell from what appeared to be the obvious cause because the vast majority of experts in any number of fields do not have a problem with this "official story". To have a problem with it requires ignorance, something the troof movement apparently has in abundance.
 
HeyLeroy said:
Dude, they're capital letters in a post on the internet. I ain't showing up at your front door in jackboots with a machine-gun and an arrest warrant.
Click to expand...

But your avatar is kind of scarry. Kind of. :boxedin:
 
Wizard said:
I didn't realise I had to have scientific qualifications or rebuttals of NIST and FEMA to join this site. It is not on the joining form. I don't have anything to prove to you
Click to expand...

Wizard, you seemed to like my point about qualifications being irrelevant.

So how about it? Are you going to point us to evidence that the accepted story is a lie?

Or are your unfounded beliefs all that you've got?
 
maccy said:
I don't know how you can combine such a superior and patronising tone with such utter idiocy.

You either failed the most basic reading comprehension or your playing ridiculous games.

Either way, it doesn't look good.

I'm hoping you're still a teenager and will grow out of this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
I think she is a woman from Austin that claims to be an architect.
 
aggle-rithm said:
People around here tend to believe that the towers fell from what appeared to be the obvious cause because the vast majority of experts in any number of fields do not have a problem with this "official story". To have a problem with it requires ignorance, something the troof movement apparently has in abundance.
Click to expand...

And that's the thing: it isn't an official story, it's a number of different studies that complement each other and all point to the same thing. It is the consensus view in science, engineering, architecture, politics, the demolition industry and the media across the whole world that these accounts describe what happened about as accurately as we can expect, given the chaotic nature of events on that day. Likewise the consensus on the various conspiracy theories is not only that there is no evidence that they did happen but that there is no evidence that they ever could have happened and no plausible political, strategic or psychological reason why they would happen.

The conspiracy theorists can't even agree on the nature of the conspiracy, none of the competing theories give a positive account of everything that happened and all of them still have factual errors in them.

But most of the world still believes it because we love the US Government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom