Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:
[quote="chipmunk stew"]
chek wrote:
chipmunk stew wrote:
About the failure of the columns, chek. What's their working hypothesis? You do know what their hypothesis is, right?
Unless they've had a Damascene conversion since I last looked Aug 2005 wasn't it some rubbish roughly along the lines of the 'massive' fires on the east side, by means of a complex mish-mash of horizontal and vertical progressions, helped by the damaged south columns, proceeded to drag the otherwise undamaged north and west sides down performing all this smoothly at freefall speed because buildings can only go straight down and there's absolutely nothing, no really you're imagining it, abnormal about it at all?
chipmunk stew wrote:
Not even close. If you don't understand the current working hypothesis, then you're in no position to state:
So they've dropped the House of Cards theory then? Do tell.
"But apart from that, a sh*tload of columns don't fail in exactly the right sequence to produce a CD like result by themselves.
That's what the Roberts [=NIST] Hypothesis fails to account for."
Quote:
I'm not expecting anything radically different in the final version.
(Although I'm sure New Reich Systems will invent some fancy computer animations to justify their multi-million dollar contract).
chipmunk stew wrote:
Your disdain for professional civilian engineers is astonishing.
No, the disdain's for the astonishing 'right before our eyes' cover-up CS.
How does a building perform an almost free-fall impersonation of a controlled demolition again?
You are such a shill I will be asking the forum admin to remove you from this site. I'm aware that you'll just create another account and probably have the ability to randomize your IP address for each login but I don't think any of us here should have to tolerate such extreme shilling.
_________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
So they've dropped the House of Cards theory then? Do tell.
C'mon, chek. Show me you understand NIST's hypothesis. No strawmen. No hyperbole. What's their hypothesis for the column failure mechanism? _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
You are such a shill I will be asking the forum admin to remove you from this site. I'm aware that you'll just create another account and probably have the ability to randomize your IP address for each login but I don't think any of us here should have to tolerate such extreme shilling.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:
chipmunk stew wrote:
chek wrote:
So they've dropped the House of Cards theory then? Do tell.
C'mon, chek. Show me you understand NIST's hypothesis. No strawmen. No hyperbole. What's their hypothesis for the column failure mechanism?
CS - if you refuse to jump through my hoops (explain the CD like behaviour) - which incidentally is rather the whole point, then I sure as hell refuse to jump through yours.
Either you, or all the president's horses and all the president's men, explain the symmetrical almost to the second free fall collapse, or stop with the distraction tactics.
You are such a shill I will be asking the forum admin to remove you from this site. I'm aware that you'll just create another account and probably have the ability to randomize your IP address for each login but I don't think any of us here should have to tolerate such extreme shilling.
Who's that? Your Al Qaeda handler? _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
So they've dropped the House of Cards theory then? Do tell.
C'mon, chek. Show me you understand NIST's hypothesis. No strawmen. No hyperbole. What's their hypothesis for the column failure mechanism?
CS - if you refuse to jump through my hoops (explain the CD like behaviour) - which incidentally is rather the whole point, then I sure as hell refuse to jump through yours.
The whole point is, NIST's hypothesis explains rather well the "CD like behaviour", but you haven't shown you understand it yet, so it's no wonder you think no one has explained it.
Quote:
Either you, or all the president's horses and all the president's men, explain the symmetrical almost to the second free fall collapse, or stop with the distraction tactics.
I thought I told you: no strawmen. The collapse was not "almost to the second free fall", even if you ignore the east penthouse, which fell several seconds before the global collapse began.
Quote:
Looks like that gun's still smoking to me.
I know.
How does NIST explain the "CD like behaviour" of the collapse? _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:
chipmunk stew wrote:
chek wrote:
chipmunk stew wrote:
chek wrote:
So they've dropped the House of Cards theory then? Do tell.
C'mon, chek. Show me you understand NIST's hypothesis. No strawmen. No hyperbole. What's their hypothesis for the column failure mechanism?
CS - if you refuse to jump through my hoops (explain the CD like behaviour) - which incidentally is rather the whole point, then I sure as hell refuse to jump through yours.
The whole point is, NIST's hypothesis explains rather well the "CD like behaviour", but you haven't shown you understand it yet, so it's no wonder you think no one has explained it.
Quote:
Either you, or all the president's horses and all the president's men, explain the symmetrical almost to the second free fall collapse, or stop with the distraction tactics.
I thought I told you: no strawmen. The collapse was not "almost to the second free fall", even if you ignore the east penthouse, which fell several seconds before the global collapse began.
Quote:
Looks like that gun's still smoking to me.
I know.
How does NIST explain the "CD like behaviour" of the collapse?
Ah - the 'east penthouse strategy' which seeks to prolong the collapse time, by suggesting that somehow CD is an instantaneous process.
It isn't.
The interior of the building (according to it's design) is first destroyed, then the rest follows to fall in the neatest possible pile of debris.
Which it did - a 47 story 500ft. builing landed in perimeter +70ft.
The time for the roofline i.e. the top of the building, to drop to the ground is practically free fall - almost to the second.
Now enough of the distraction tactics and rationalise that.
If so can someone point me in it's direction. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
What that fantasy organization created by the American government! I've seen plenty of documentaries, made by the BBC and others, that have proved beyond reasonable doubt that such an organization does not exist.
But of course you like your little fantasies don't you. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Thanx chek I'm sure it will make me laugh. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
The interior of the building (according to it's design) is first destroyed, then the rest follows to fall in the neatest possible pile of debris.
Which it did - a 47 story 500ft. builing landed in perimeter +70ft.....
Incidentally where do you get the 70' figure?
Would that be 70' max in all directions? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
chek wrote:
The interior of the building (according to it's design) is first destroyed, then the rest follows to fall in the neatest possible pile of debris.
Which it did - a 47 story 500ft. builing landed in perimeter +70ft.....
Incidentally where do you get the 70' figure?
Would that be 70' max in all directions?
Basically the author of this report: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf , Mark Roberts, which I took those accounts from is a shill. Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno. It's ironic that Robert's goes to such great lenghs to prove Silverstein said “they” instead of “we” yet can't even quote a few eyewitness reports without making it all snakey!
That is very interesting, can you give us some figures to demonstrate what you mean by most, and some examples of this "snakey" behaviour, please.
This quote sited by Robert's:
Quote:
I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY
Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110055.PDF
Should read:
Quote:
I LEFT THEN. I WALKED AROUND THE BUILDING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMAND POST AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE WAITING FOR 7 WORLD TRADE TO COME DOWN. DIDNT KNOW THEY WERE WAITING AT THAT TIME. I CALLED IN. THEY HAD THREE FLOORS OF FIRE ON THREE SEPARATE FLOORS PROBABLY 10, 11 AND 15 IT LOOKED LIKE, JUST BURNING MERRILY. IT WAS PRETTY AMAZING YOU KNOW ITS THE AFTERNOON IN MANHATTAN MAJOR HIGH-RISE IS BURNING AND THEY SAID WE KNOW. THINK THEY SAID THEY HAD SEVEN TO TEN FLOORS THAT WERE FREESTANDING AND THEY WERENT GOING TO SEND ANYONE IN.
That is it, is it? That is the whole of your evidence that "Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno."
Who do you think you can possibly fool with that? No one apart from your fellow self-deceiving truthshirkers could possibly be taken in.
Basically the author of this report: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf , Mark Roberts, which I took those accounts from is a shill. Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno. It's ironic that Robert's goes to such great lenghs to prove Silverstein said “they” instead of “we” yet can't even quote a few eyewitness reports without making it all snakey!
That is very interesting, can you give us some figures to demonstrate what you mean by most, and some examples of this "snakey" behaviour, please.
This quote sited by Robert's:
Quote:
I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY
Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110055.PDF
Should read:
Quote:
I LEFT THEN. I WALKED AROUND THE BUILDING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMAND POST AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE WAITING FOR 7 WORLD TRADE TO COME DOWN. DIDNT KNOW THEY WERE WAITING AT THAT TIME. I CALLED IN. THEY HAD THREE FLOORS OF FIRE ON THREE SEPARATE FLOORS PROBABLY 10, 11 AND 15 IT LOOKED LIKE, JUST BURNING MERRILY. IT WAS PRETTY AMAZING YOU KNOW ITS THE AFTERNOON IN MANHATTAN MAJOR HIGH-RISE IS BURNING AND THEY SAID WE KNOW. THINK THEY SAID THEY HAD SEVEN TO TEN FLOORS THAT WERE FREESTANDING AND THEY WERENT GOING TO SEND ANYONE IN.
That is it, is it? That is the whole of your evidence that "Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno."
Who do you think you can possibly fool with that? No one apart from your fellow self-deceiving truthshirkers could possibly be taken in.
As I've already said wacker:
The statements of the firefighter are hearsay as his information was obtained over the radio and not first hand. Roberts edits the comments of the firefighter to give the impression that he is witnessing the events. Just read and notice the difference.
Now go play with munky boy! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Basically the author of this report: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf , Mark Roberts, which I took those accounts from is a shill. Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno. It's ironic that Robert's goes to such great lenghs to prove Silverstein said “they” instead of “we” yet can't even quote a few eyewitness reports without making it all snakey!
That is very interesting, can you give us some figures to demonstrate what you mean by most, and some examples of this "snakey" behaviour, please.
This quote sited by Robert's:
Quote:
I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY
Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHI C/9110055.PDF
Should read:
Quote:
I LEFT THEN. I WALKED AROUND THE BUILDING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMAND POST AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE WAITING FOR 7 WORLD TRADE TO COME DOWN. DIDNT KNOW THEY WERE WAITING AT THAT TIME. I CALLED IN. THEY HAD THREE FLOORS OF FIRE ON THREE SEPARATE FLOORS PROBABLY 10, 11 AND 15 IT LOOKED LIKE, JUST BURNING MERRILY. IT WAS PRETTY AMAZING YOU KNOW ITS THE AFTERNOON IN MANHATTAN MAJOR HIGH-RISE IS BURNING AND THEY SAID WE KNOW. THINK THEY SAID THEY HAD SEVEN TO TEN FLOORS THAT WERE FREESTANDING AND THEY WERENT GOING TO SEND ANYONE IN.
That is it, is it? That is the whole of your evidence that "Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno."
Who do you think you can possibly fool with that? No one apart from your fellow self-deceiving truthshirkers could possibly be taken in.
As I've already said wacker:
The statements of the firefighter are hearsay as his information was obtained over the radio and not first hand. Roberts edits the comments of the firefighter to give the impression that he is witnessing the events. Just read and notice the difference.
Now go play with munky boy!
The edit does nothing of the sort of course. It is quite unclear who he called, but he says "it looked like" three separate floors were on fire, so he clearly saw that.
But leaving that aside, how does that show "Most of the eyewitness reports are taken out of context or edited in such a way as to give the impression 7 WTC was an inferno." It just doesn't, does it?
The interior of the building (according to it's design) is first destroyed, then the rest follows to fall in the neatest possible pile of debris.
Which it did - a 47 story 500ft. builing landed in perimeter +70ft.....
Incidentally where do you get the 70' figure?
Would that be 70' max in all directions?
Er, no it doesn't. It says the average debris field was 70'.
30 W Broadway was a good deal further away than this and had lumps of WTC7 embedded in its side. That debris would have been much further away had 30 W Broadway not stopped it.
Meanwhile to the W only the Verizon building stopped a 4-storey chunk of braced girder falling even further.
WTC7's fall was nothing like "into its own footprint". Even your deceptive 70' figure is approx half of the building's depth.
Why are you lying in public when there is such abundant evidence to prove your lies? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
chek wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
chek wrote:
The interior of the building (according to it's design) is first destroyed, then the rest follows to fall in the neatest possible pile of debris.
Which it did - a 47 story 500ft. builing landed in perimeter +70ft.....
Incidentally where do you get the 70' figure?
Would that be 70' max in all directions?
Er, no it doesn't. It says the average debris field was 70'.
30 W Broadway was a good deal further away than this and had lumps of WTC7 embedded in its side. That debris would have been much further away had 30 W Broadway not stopped it.
Meanwhile to the W only the Verizon building stopped a 4-storey chunk of braced girder falling even further.
WTC7's fall was nothing like "into its own footprint". Even your deceptive 70' figure is approx half of the building's depth.
Why are you lying in public when there is such abundant evidence to prove your lies?
My lies Ignatz? Tut tut - that's FEMA's figure.
If you find that deceptive you should email them.
Anyway stop with the huffing and puffing and get on with explaining how -by chance - a 47 storey building, 500+ft, drops straight down in near freefall time into perimeter +70ft average
Happy now? That should make any of your 'explantions' much easier.
All I seem to get are distractions, nitpicking and can you repeat the question tactics - I thought you guys claimed to have vented the smoking gun?
Sure doesn't look like it from where I am.
I'm beginning to wonder if even you critics really believe it either.
I'm beginning to wonder if even you critics really believe it either.
Are you serious? You thought they EVER believed it???!!! Come on. These people aren't stupid and you would have to be a moron to believe any of those buildings were not controlled demolitions. They are playing a sordid game - they never believed it for a moment.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject:
blackcat wrote:
Quote:
I'm beginning to wonder if even you critics really believe it either.
Are you serious? You thought they EVER believed it???!!! Come on. These people aren't stupid and you would have to be a moron to believe any of those buildings were not controlled demolitions. They are playing a sordid game - they never believed it for a moment.
I always envisioned them as being some sort of weird medieval
self- flagellation type cult who had to force themselves to believe no matter what.
I'm beginning to wonder if even you critics really believe it either.
Are you serious? You thought they EVER believed it???!!! Come on. These people aren't stupid and you would have to be a moron to believe any of those buildings were not controlled demolitions. They are playing a sordid game - they never believed it for a moment.
We can all name call, blackcat, but huff and puff as much as you like, there is not a shred of actual evidence for controlled demolition that stands up to a moment's examination. Simply wanting it to be true does not make it so, unfortunately for you.
I'm beginning to wonder if even you critics really believe it either.
Are you serious? You thought they EVER believed it???!!! Come on. These people aren't stupid and you would have to be a moron to believe any of those buildings were not controlled demolitions. They are playing a sordid game - they never believed it for a moment.
We can all name call, blackcat, but huff and puff as much as you like, there is not a shred of actual evidence for controlled demolition that stands up to a moment's examination. Simply wanting it to be true does not make it so, unfortunately for you.
What that fantasy organization created by the American government! I've seen plenty of documentaries, made by the BBC and others, that have proved beyond reasonable doubt that such an organization does not exist.
But of course you like your little fantasies don't you.
It's your fantasy. I'm just playing along.
I'm the paid gov't disinfo agent, and you're the paid Al Qaeda operative. It's like cops and robbers back in grade school. It's more exciting than real life, right? _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
According to official investigations, this is probably molten aluminum from the plane mixed with other substances. Of course, the troofers believe it is thermite/thermate with the following properties:
1. It is pure thermite, which is non-volatile enough to survive the crash and fire, but not volatile enough to be an effective demolition tool.
2. It is some form of thermate, which might work for building demolition, although it's never been used this way, but it would not survive the fire because it is more volatile.
3. According to your resident structural expert James C., it was placed on the columns at the base of the building, not at the site shown in the video.
So none of these possibilities fits reality. Fortunately, in the magical world of The Troof, you can take the AVERAGE of several different implausible arguments to make one plausible one. Isn't fantasy grand?
According to official investigations, this is probably molten aluminum from the plane mixed with other substances. Of course, the troofers believe it is thermite/thermate with the following properties:
1. It is pure thermite, which is non-volatile enough to survive the crash and fire, but not volatile enough to be an effective demolition tool.
2. It is some form of thermate, which might work for building demolition, although it's never been used this way, but it would not survive the fire because it is more volatile.
3. According to your resident structural expert James C., it was placed on the columns at the base of the building, not at the site shown in the video.
So none of these possibilities fits reality. Fortunately, in the magical world of The Troof, you can take the AVERAGE of several different implausible arguments to make one plausible one. Isn't fantasy grand?
You might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the strange coincidence that just after the appearance of the dripping molten metal the tower falls down! The tower that was hit second and had less time to burn.
Why would the tower fall just as we begin to see molten metal dripping? Because it was a smoking gun and the perpetrators didn't want the world to be left wondering about the molten metal dripping from the tower.
You might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the strange coincidence that just after the appearance of the dripping molten metal the tower falls down! The tower that was hit second and had less time to burn.
Why would the tower fall just as we begin to see molten metal dripping? Because it was a smoking gun and the perpetrators didn't want the world to be left wondering about the molten metal dripping from the tower.
Yes of course, now you explain it all becomes clear, the alien lizard hiding in the next building with binoculars saw that the entire plan was going to be revealed and pressed the big red button with his claw. They would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for them pesky troofers!
You might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the strange coincidence that just after the appearance of the dripping molten metal the tower falls down! The tower that was hit second and had less time to burn.
You really find it suspicious that the second tower that was hit fell first?
Did you consider these two factors:
1. The south tower collision damaged the corner columns of the building, while the north tower collision hit the building dead center and left the four corners undamaged.
2. There was much more mass above the damaged area in the south tower, meaning the damaged portion had to support much more weight.
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 cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
