It seems there is only 2 members bravely trying to fight the corner of the 911 truth movement, but as always facing stiff opposition, they could do with a bit of help from those who have a good command on what happened to WTC 1,2 & 7.
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: Free-fall...
Some good arguments going on, but it does stagger me with some of these (scientific??) members just how lacking in thinking through the physics they are doing. But it also shows me just how 'brainwashed' these peope, are, as indeed are most people.
Concentrate on the free-fall aspect, because that is the proof that the official explanation is a lie, in my opinion anyway.
And of course, their arguments are based on a 'weakening' of the steel throughout the building, and we know that fire-fighters and others were at quite high floors without being burned alive, by the survivors and also the radio transmissions from some who perished during the collapse.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject:
The NIST report shows the fires cooling before collpase in the North Tower, therefore the steel should have been getting stronger.
Also worth noting the molten metal escaping the builidng jsut prior to collapse.
Bazant has just released a paper trying to deal with the cloopase that NIST conveniently ignored. He relies on the top section to remain intact whilst breaking through the entire lower section before then collapsing upon hitting the ground. Gordon Ross has rubbished this, see photo's below.
_________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject:
andyb wrote:
Also worth noting the molten metal escaping the builidng jsut prior to collapse.
It's also highly significant that the molten steel flow is from the corner of the building.
I haven't got my refs to hand right now, but I recall that the redundancy of the Towers was such that the outer corner columns alone were said to be sufficient to support the outer facade.
Mind you, I've searched in vain for years for any other simultaneous shots of the other three corners to no avail, but the thermite burns (and let's not kid ourselves that any other metal would exhibit that luminosity) would have to have been more or less simultaneous for the symmetrical collapse to initiate. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: All over now....
Oh dear, we're all wrong, all the questions concerning the free-fall collapses of the World Trade Centres have been debunked in one small article written by one of the members of the forum BiosBlake refers to at the top of this thread.
We must all pack our bags and go home, it's all over, CPE has done in a few short lines what many physicists, engineers and architects are unable to explain.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: All over now....
spiv wrote:
Oh dear, we're all wrong, all the questions concerning the free-fall collapses of the World Trade Centres have been debunked in one small article written by one of the members of the forum BiosBlake refers to at the top of this thread.
We must all pack our bags and go home, it's all over, CPE has done in a few short lines what many physicists, engineers and architects are unable to explain.
Ah nostalgia! Hadn't heard the 'natural kiln theory' explaining the molten iron mooted for years now! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
When doesn't it glitch? I'll never live hat 15 minutes waiting for my humble post to download again you know? Time is money in these cyber cafes! Thanks for the 'youtube' tip showing my ignoance tsk!
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: Can't rebut the papers...
Ah-ha, as is not uncommon when one is arguing the discrepancies amongst "scientists", "engineers" or whomever, the above debate in the science forum page has been closed by the administrators.
And it is very noticeable just how these "scientists" used every tactic to dodge around having to answer those scientists who don't believe in the 'official' 911 story concerning how the Twin Towers fell at close to free-fall speeds. Oh yes, we've also been branded the usual "nuts", "conspiracy theorists" etc etc. (and even quite a bit more derogatory than that)
However, point them to 'conspiracy' scientists work, and they dodge, dive and duck, "It's not a peer reviewed paper", "It's a blog", "That's just a conspiracy theorist website" and so forth.
Attention was brought to your website because of your comments about 9/11.
It would appear that you have taken the Keane Commission/NIST approach of choosing a destination and then planning a route to get there - taking shortcuts and leaps of imagination. As you will be aware, science does not operate like a GPS navigation system and that conclusions are the product of analysis and not vice-versa.
Furthermore, the analysis you have provided is flawed to the point of irrelevance and in some cases downright dishonesty.
You open with the attributed claim, 'no building has ever collapsed from a fire'. No 9/11 researcher has ever made this claim. What is claimed is that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire. But having made this opening gambit and state, 'let's start with the 'no building has ever collapsed from a fire' argument you don't even address the point. So, the fact remains, no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire.
The suggestion that the WTC fires were fuelled by jet fuel is false. Most of the jet fuel burned off in the first few seconds, the ensuing fire was fuelled by office furnishings - not unlike any other fire.
You then raise the argument that, 'the Sears Tower got hit by a plane in the 1950s and it didn't collapse'. I've been researching 9/11 for over five years and in all that time I have only ever heard the Sears Tower mentioned once - and that was to illustrate that there were no similarities between the two events. So, even mentioning this as an argument is entirely disingenuous.
You finally ice the cake with the response to the 'claim' that, 'the temperature of a jet fuel fire isn't high enough to melt steel'. The mendacity of attributing this statement to 9/11 researchers is wilful - if you really knew your onions about 9/11, you would know that this 'claim' was never made by a 9/11 researcher and that its origin lies within the 9/11 Commission Report which sought to debunk a strawman argument of its own creation in exactly the same way that you are doing.
You frequently refer to 'real scientists' but if anybody looks like a phoney here - it's you. In purporting to debunk 9/11 truth seekers you lined up three false arguments and haven't even addressed a single one of them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
