September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

a reply to: Helious

The denial of a real truther but,but, but . Lesson to be had here everyone you cannot confront people with evidence that deal in speculation as fact.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Helious

The denial of a real truther but,but, but . Lesson to be had here everyone you cannot confront people with evidence that deal in speculation as fact.

Except, you are completely wrong and I just proved it and I'm the one in denial?

No steel framed building has ever collapsed in the entire world in human history because of fire, ever, except WTC building 7.

You're wrong, I'm right.

a reply to: Helious

You proved it how? You made a ridiculous claim with no links or no evidence to present except yeah but.


Unless you can link me to a source for the structural analysis on that building proving how it was built you're just taking another guess.

And before you take the next truther tactic and asked me for the link the burden of proof is on your claims.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Actually you corrected someone else and you've called me ignorant twice.
So if you don't buy the official story what do you believe? You purposely remain vague and then get all pissed if you're misunderstood. So clarifying up a bit would you?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Helious

You proved it how? You made a ridiculous claim with no links or no evidence to present except yeah but.


Unless you can link me to a source for the structural analysis on that building proving how it was built you're just taking another guess.

And before you take the next truther tactic and asked me for the link the burden of proof is on your claims.

The video you linked was the Faculty of Architecture Building at Delft University. It was not a steel framed high rise. What it was specifically was a concrete and steel reinforced structure. If you fail to understand the difference between steel frame and steel reinforced then I fear you should not be having this conversation with me.

Link

That link should be thorough enough for you and once you acknowledge it is, I think you will have to agree that what I stated was completely accurate and you were mistaken.

a reply to: bobbypurify

I'm so sure you're a physics expert and are not just repeating some stuff you heard or saw on a YouTube video. I'm sure you understand all the physics involved and have studied and verified the findings that support the claim of demolition. I bet you even know architecture and building engineering and can verify everything you've ever heard on the subject and that is how you come to know this is all true and correct.

a reply to: Helious

The source would not allow me to copy so I took a screen grab.




That describes it as a unusual circumstance. For load values are you making the claim that that building didn't have any steel or the World Trade Center's didn't have any concrete? Lol

Because splitting hairs on that statement is ridiculous.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Helious

The source would not allow me to copy so I took a screen grab.

That describes it as a unusual circumstance. For load values are you making the claim that that building didn't have any steel or the World Trade Center's didn't have any concrete? Lol

Because splitting hairs on that statement is ridiculous.

Here let's just cut to the chase.

One of the arguments that have been raised over the years by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement in regards to the collapse of the three WTC buildings is that they were the first steel-framed high-rise skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire. Indeed, in all of the history of structural engineering, not a single steel-framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed due to fire [1]. However, in an attempt to invalidate this argument, numerous defenders of the official story of 9/11 have pointed out that there are several smaller steel structures that have collapsed due to fire. Journalist Chris Mohr, for example, cited numerous steel structures in his recent debate with architect Richard Gage [2]. Here are the most often cited steel structures that have collapsed due to fire (Chris Mohr referenced the first six in his debate with Richard Gage):

• Site and Sound Theater
• McCormick Place
• Kader Toy Factory
• Mumbai High North Platform
• Interstate 580
• World Trade Center 5
• Dogwood Elementary School
• Windsor Tower
• Faculty of Architecture Building

Here I will show why these structures cannot be justifiably used as comparisons to the WTC buildings, based on the estimated damage parameters and fire severity for these structures.

source


14Th

a reply to: Greathouse

He's done you good and proper! So can we move on to the next argument?

Last line of your quote was cut short, here is why the buildings can't be compared to WT7.... Why can they not?

a reply to: Greathouse

I'm most certainly am not splitting hairs. WTC building 7 was a steel framed building. The building you linked in you're video was not steel framed. There is a monumental difference in the two when talking about structural integrity.

What I said is correct, no steel framed high rise in history has been brought down by fire, ever. The video you linked showed a non steel frame building.

a reply to: Forensick

Better read my edit it first! Lol

a reply to: Helious

You too!

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Actually you corrected someone else and you've called me ignorant twice.
So if you don't buy the official story what do you believe? You purposely remain vague and then get all pissed if you're misunderstood. So clarifying up a bit would you?

You want me to post a "theory" eh?

No.
I just chalked it up as more of the usual lies and cover ups. I cannot remember where I heard this but if 9/11 was not a false flag used as a precursor for the war on terror, then it would be the exception to the rule.

Watch the OP's video . Good day.

a reply to: Greathouse

Would you please quit throwing all of your opinions responses and threads at me. Come out in one line in plain English so I can research the building you're talking about that was demolished from the top instead of the bottom. Please name the structure.

Last link I already gave you. View the French video in the first part already of that post.

The official story is that the North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed due to gravity. This has been critiqued in an analysis by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, and in a related analysis by David Chandler (both in the Journal of 9/11 Studies). The Balzac-Vitry demolition was a true gravity-driven collapse. The same analysis that was applied to the World Trade Center is here applied to this known demolition, with contrasting results. This analysis supports the conclusions of both papers referred to above: the North Tower of the World Trade Center was NOT a natural, gravity-driven collapse.

Because the Balzac-Vitry video showed, after analyzing by Chandler, a slowing, even shortly halting acceleration in its gravity graph, when the top portion met the lower portion and decelerated suddenly.
While the WTC1N Tower its gravity graph showed a constant acceleration, no discernible slowing down, when a constant visible point on top of the debris portion should have slowed down because it met the first still standing portion of the underlaying floors that were still massively sturdy and supposedly not failing yet.

And lo and behold, the Chandler WTC1N graph showed STILL ongoing, unhindered acceleration.
Which means there was no deceleration, thus the resistance was blown away. As seen as rings of white smoke spitting out each second floor under the collapse fronts at all four sides. All the way down.

a reply to: LaBTop

•Verinage demolition technique •All columns on the collapse floor were broken in unison to control debris field •Concrete structure with relatively heavy and strong floor systems •Upper portion falls distance of two floors without any significant contact •Drop was followed by a square, uniform impact between portions, with no visible tilt

source


The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence anywhere. All theories on 911 on both sides deal in speculation. Nobody has proof of anything under.


You do realize that Dr. McQueen has also claimed to have figured out the anthrax attacks? To me he is nothing more than the David Wilcox of truther's.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: LaBTop

•Verinage demolition technique •All columns on the collapse floor were broken in unison to control debris field •Concrete structure with relatively heavy and strong floor systems •Upper portion falls distance of two floors without any significant contact •Drop was followed by a square, uniform impact between portions, with no visible tilt

source


The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence anywhere. All theories on 911 on both sides deal in speculation. Nobody has proof of anything under.


You do realize that Dr. McQueen has also claimed to have figured out the anthrax attacks? To me he is nothing more than the David Wilcox of truther's.

There is proof that the Bush administration sent American to war against 2 innocent nations without any proof.

originally posted by: LaBTop
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: jaffo

Dr Graeme McQueen, a professor in Scotland and he teaches engineering at a university in Edinburgh, if I remember it right.
He has published some well written papers regarding his critique on the NIST report its engineering parts.

jaffo :

"If I remember it right." How about proof?

LaBTop :

"Edinburgh, if I remember it right." Could be Aberdeen instead.

There's a post of mine explaining in detail about the huge misrepresentation of the WTC 7 blueprints by NIST. A famous US lawyer representing A&E filed a lawsuit based on this.
By the way, NIST's whole ridiculous theory of thermal expansion is based on this misrepresentation of the seats of the crossbeams holding column 79 up on each floor of WTC 7.
That whole NIST theory is now toast. On top of the real blueprint, a photo has also been found of the real dimensions of that seat, showing column 79 and that seat while the crossbeam rests on it. From just after completion of WTC 7.

I'll try to find that post for you. The ATS Search engine keeps mixing my screen name up with the word "laptop", which makes it impossible to click on the next ATS search-page in every query I do. It's utterly ANNOYING.

www.consensus911.org...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

One at least I agree.

A reply to: Greathouse

I don't see any significance in what you quoted from your source, compared to the quintessence of what I told you.

The Verinage demolition showed already slowing acceleration after 1 second, when debris was impacting the still sturdy lower floors. And that was a natural collapse, as the North Tower one also should have been.

However, the WTC1N demolition showed ongoing steady acceleration during the full measurable 3 seconds. No deceleration at all. Thus, no CHANGING (higher) resistance at all.

Building 7 was purposely brought down. Whether that plays into the conspiracy theories or not, nothing whatsoever can change the fact that it was purposely brought down in a professional demolition manner. ~$heopleNation