- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dorian, your picture in the attic must becoming a fearful sight!
Dear God are we going all over this old ground again?
What part of progressive collapse are Truthers still having problems with?
https://bsbgroup.com/blog/progressive-collapse-of-structures/
That link showed the twin towers. Once you look at them, their sheer size, the idea they would completely disintegrate into dust in seconds after being hit by a plane becomes absurd.
“..and if they’d been ten times as tall, they’d have been ten times as strong; any kid who’s built a tower of blocks knows it’s the short ones that are difficult, they just get easier the taller you build them. That’s why bungalows are more expensive than skyscrapers.”
The taller they come, the harder they fall.
C’mon Dave, tell us what you really think; you know your mates will never quote you on it.
Dave, each of the Twin Towers was like a hundred cheap supermarkets stacked in a vertical frame, each one’s heavy concrete floor laid on the fragile corrugated roof of the one below. The top ten of them all fell onto the rest below, smashing through floor after floor until all that churning rubble pulverised itself against the ground.
Are you suggesting that someone has sold their soul, Dave?
As you can clearly see they aren’t collapsing as you suggest but disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base. At least those blaming “direct energy weapons” are less audacious than you, as they can’t be seen (requires an act of faith to believe) whereas your theory defies us to believe our very eyes.
– “…at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base”
Gerry, would you go over these points? Dave thinks I’ve sold my soul.
– “disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed […],your theory defies us to believe our very eyes”
No, trust your own eyes; there are plenty of images. The vast majority of dust welled up as the internal collapses pulverised themselves against the ground. The dust spread all over Manhattan, leaving larger wreckage full of rubble, and sections of steel with all the bolts wrenched out. Just what you’d expect.
Look Dave, there are millions of things that you or I might have difficulty imagining like photosynthesis, DNA replication, nuclear fusion, supernova or plate tectonics, but if that meant they didn’t happen there’d be no life on Earth.
Nullius in verba.
Well they didn’t completely disintegrate into dust. What of the thousands of tons of steel and concrete removed to landfill or re-cycled?
There are two high tides each day, and it’s “hard to imagine” how the Moon’s gravitation could raise the one on the side of Earth furthest from the Moon. So can we conclude that for hundreds of years, the global scientific community have been lying to everyone to conceal the Truth that really, tides are raised by SPECTRE’s energy beams?
Kempe, while we’re all waiting for Gerry and David Chandler, what do you make of my “the fire-fighters did it” theory? It could help explain various odd things that people said, as well as FEMA’s unusual steel samples and WTC7’s remarkably orderly collapse.
– “When Danny Jowenko made the comment about “they must have worked hard” he was being sarcastic”
Can you be sure? Almost the next thing he said was, resignedly, “I can’t explain it”. To have been sarcastic, his earlier comment would have had to have been based on an explanation.
And don’t forget the passport!
A gold medal for gall!
Truther logic – “Looks like a passport being handed in was a set-up. Therefore, claims that the Towers turned to dust are true, so an energy weapon must have been fired at the towers. Therefore all the photos showing rubble and steel wreckage were faked, so there must have been an overarching conspiracy of almost supernatural power. Which proves that the passport was indeed definitely seeded, and anyone who seems unconvinced by all this must be an agent.”
Truther argument method: “…and when you’ve run out of even illogical arguments, always round off with a derogatory imputation.”
Dave, are you the same commenter as on the 9/11 Post, who described the collapses of the Twin Towers as “Jewish lightning”, and recommended The Jewish Plot against America by Victor Thorn, author of “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie”?
If someone in a month long relationship takes out very expensive life insurance on their new partner and adds a clause adding a special bonus pay-out if their partner dies in a freak accident a month before they die in a freak accident, it would look suspicious, especially if they did it twice!
I’ll take that as a yes, then. You consider a Holocaust denier a reliable source of facts, presumably.
Whoever leased the WTC site would have been required to take out insurance. A clause in the insurance contract required Silverstein to rebuild in the event of payout, and rebuild he did. You can show me that he rebuilt for much less than the payout, can you?
What is a “holocaust denier” and what is “Jewish lightning”?
9/11/Silvio, thanks for starting this thread.
Gerry, thanks for your expert input. Delighted to have you here.
Everybody else, please don’t turn this into a slagging match. If you’re interested in the truth, excercise restraint, don’t respond to baiting.
We’ve been waiting for the release of this UAF report for 4 years. I was beginning to think the prof had been nobbled. Now here it is, facts, figures, opensource modelling, and devastating conclusions. This is hard science. It can not be dismissed as unsubstantiated theorising. The authors show ‘their workings’. They say, “This is how we arrived at the conclusion that NIST is wrong. If you disagree, demonstrate where our reasoning is wrong.”
I look forward to the next few months.
Kempe,
Nist merely assert that progressive collapse caused the fall of WTC7. They didn’t model it, or even describe it. They offer no proof.
OTOH, the UAF report demonstrates why it <i>couldn’t</i> have been progressive collapse, and offers for examination all the modelling, engineering, mathematical and physical evidence on which they base their conclusion.
It doesn’t matter whether progressive collapse can sometimes cause the collapse of some buildings. We now have <i>evidence</i> that it couldn’t have been the cause of WTC7’s fall. Now it is up to you to refute that evidence, or accept it.
Please answer my question first; are you the same commenter as that Dave on the 9/11 Post?
Gerry, I second Node’s welcome; I hope you return soon, and I hope David Chandler will join us too.
Node, beware of, er, over-optimism*. As Mike Ruppert warned so long ago, the building wreckage is no longer available, and we should be on our guard against assuming that WTC7 entirely fulfilled its specification in the design documents. Further (and I’m unlikely to read the UAF report in detail) I wonder if their simulation correctly predicts the observed asymmetry ie. the early collapse of one end of the penthouse.
(* I’m not sure that “optimism” is the right word for actually hoping that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives throughout the buildings).
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.