9/11 Conspiracy

[Gamolon]

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You dodging because you don't know.

It's not how I think it happened. Steel buildings do not collapse under their own load without eliminating many, many key structure points throughout the structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.

I have, several times now. Because steel buildings don't just collapse under their own weight at free fall speed without a perfectly executed demolition plan.

You've done nothing of the sort. You have no examples of buildings similar to WTC1 or WTC2 that were impacted by a jet in the upper third and remained standing thus I have asked you to explain how these buildings (since there are no prior examples) should have resisted and you can't do it.

BTW, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speeds. Sorry. Yet another half truth.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

so low as to be immeasurable

That would be your IQ.-- Integrity Quotient

 

[daws101]

ah.... obviously they do...

Yeah, in the NIST imaginationland.

says the queen of imagination land.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You dodging because you don't know.

It's not how I think it happened. Steel buildings do not collapse under their own load without eliminating many, many key structure points throughout the structure.

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.

I have, several times now. Because steel buildings don't just collapse under their own weight at free fall speed without a perfectly executed demolition plan.

You've done nothing of the sort. You have no examples of buildings similar to WTC1 or WTC2 that were impacted by a jet in the upper third and remained standing thus I have asked you to explain how these buildings (since there are no prior examples) should have resisted and you can't do it.

BTW, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speeds. Sorry. Yet another half truth.

Impacted by a jet makes no difference, as I already said. Damage is damage. You're just talking in circles now. I also showed the free fall analysis already as well.

 

[daws101]

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

false comparison
did any planes crash in or in proximity of that building?
if not it's meaningless..

Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.

Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.

I have, several times now. Because steel buildings don't just collapse under their own weight at free fall speed without a perfectly executed demolition plan.

false the only record freefall speed was 2.5 seconds wtc7 .
so you are lying about the towers.

 

[Jackinthebox]

ah.... obviously they do...

Yeah, in the NIST imaginationland.

says the queen of imagination land.

I am not imagining anything. Not imagining missiles, and not imagining that a fire brought down a building without any evidence to support that claim.

 

[daws101]

3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.

that's exactly what you and your pals are doing.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Telling stories is what these guys do best -- they love their fiction

 

[Jackinthebox]

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.

that's exactly what you and your pals are dong.

What claims have I made other than to say that NIST has failed to explain the collapses?

 

[daws101]

so low as to be immeasurable

That would be your IQ.-- Integrity Quotient

another no integrity slapdick opines about a thing he doesn't have.

 

[daws101]

another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.

that's exactly what you and your pals are dong.

What claims have I made other than to say that NIST has failed to explain the collapses?

the back peddling begins.

 

[Capstone]

what's possible and what occurred are to separate things ...

Not where the actual events of the day were concerned. One thing we all know for sure is that, whatever happened on that fateful morning, it HAD to have been physically possible.

...put another way the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable

Well, however low you claim the probabilities of occurrence were for apparently all of the "conspiracy version(s)" (other than your preferred conspiracy theory, of course), their unlikelihoods don't approach the big fat 0% chance (read: no possibility whatsoever) of reinforced concrete bearing walls pulverizing themselves without creating physical resistance to the downward motion for any length of time.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

nice try, you treacherous criminal

 

[Jackinthebox]

How is NIST any more credible than A&E?

one does actual science the other does not. That's how.

Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.

that's exactly what you and your pals are dong.

What claims have I made other than to say that NIST has failed to explain the collapses?

the back peddling begins.

I can speculate as to what happened, how, why. But the onus was on the government to tell us what actually did happen. They failed, miserably. Their version is no more credible than any other theory out there.

 

[SAYIT]

As far as Silverstein goes with his pull it comment, there was never an interior firefighting attack to begin with, so there was no operation to "pull" at all.

Another of your 9/11 CT half-truths. There certainly were firefighters in WTC7 who were "pulled" because the situation was deemed too dangerous. Two hours after they were pulled WTC7 collapsed. If your CTBS had any basis in truth, you would not need to lie so often.

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. - Interview with Chief Peter Hayden (Firehouse.com. September 9, 2002)

During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. - Interview with Captain Chris Boyle (Firehouse.com. August 2002)

Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. - Interview with Chief Daniel Nigro (The New York Times. October 24, 2001)

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - ex-"Truther" Charlie Veitch

There was no interior attack made. Operations around the building is not an interior attack operation.

So you are claiming there were no fire or other rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11? "Truthers" say the silliest things.

There was no interior fire fighting attack operation at WTC7. The building had been declared evacuated. NIST even says that.

Evacuated at 3:30 pm, and didn't you just claim there were no fire/rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11. Perhaps you should think BEFORE you post your contradictory CTBS.
Do you have any facts which conflict with these because they certainly conflict with your fairy tales:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 533 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 510 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 552 pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Jackinthebox]

As far as Silverstein goes with his pull it comment, there was never an interior firefighting attack to begin with, so there was no operation to "pull" at all.

Another of your 9/11 CT half-truths. There certainly were firefighters in WTC7 who were "pulled" because the situation was deemed too dangerous. Two hours after they were pulled WTC7 collapsed. If your CTBS had any basis in truth, you would not need to lie so often.

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. - Interview with Chief Peter Hayden (Firehouse.com. September 9, 2002)

During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. - Interview with Captain Chris Boyle (Firehouse.com. August 2002)

Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. - Interview with Chief Daniel Nigro (The New York Times. October 24, 2001)

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - ex-"Truther" Charlie Veitch

There was no interior attack made. Operations around the building is not an interior attack operation.

So you are claiming there were no fire or other rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11? "Truthers" say the silliest things.

There was no interior fire fighting attack operation at WTC7. The building had been declared evacuated. NIST even says that.

Evacuated at 3:30 pm, and didn't you just claim there were no fire/rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11. Perhaps you should think BEFORE you post your contradictory CTBS.
Do you have any facts which conflict with these because they certainly conflict with your fairy tales:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 533 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 510 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 552 pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Rescue efforts ended with Barry Jennings, that morning, just after the first tower collapsed. There was no interior attack made in WTC7. There were also no ongoing interior ops of any kind underway when Silverstein said "pull it." The building was not evacuated at 330 pm. That is outright false.

 

[SAYIT]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

The fact that even a CD can go horribly wrong would lead any rational adult to question the ability of a demo company to discreetly rig those enormous buildings and have it not melt in the chaotic, uncontrolled fires or just explode willy-nilly.
I mean, wouldn't simply blasting a critical point - if such a point was known or even existed - and then blaming it on some nefarious terrorist group have done the dirty deed?

 

[Jackinthebox]

A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

The fact that even a CD can go horribly wrong would lead any rational adult to question the ability of a demo company to discreetly rig those enormous buildings and have it not melt in the chaotic, uncontrolled fires or just explode willy-nilly.
I mean, wouldn't simply blasting a critical point - if such a point was known or even existed - and then blaming it on some nefarious terrorist group have done the dirty deed?

It is still more plausible than the critical points in all three buildings failing in each building simultaneously.

Maybe there is another explanation besides a demo team. I can't really say. That seems like a reasonable theory, but for all I know, the buildings were built to fail right from the start. What I do know is that NIST failed to prove their case.

EDIT to add: There is no such thing as any one single critical point that will bring down a building.

 

[SAYIT]

Another of your 9/11 CT half-truths. There certainly were firefighters in WTC7 who were "pulled" because the situation was deemed too dangerous. Two hours after they were pulled WTC7 collapsed. If your CTBS had any basis in truth, you would not need to lie so often.

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. - Interview with Chief Peter Hayden (Firehouse.com. September 9, 2002)

During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. - Interview with Captain Chris Boyle (Firehouse.com. August 2002)

Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. - Interview with Chief Daniel Nigro (The New York Times. October 24, 2001)

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - ex-"Truther" Charlie Veitch

There was no interior attack made. Operations around the building is not an interior attack operation.

So you are claiming there were no fire or other rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11? "Truthers" say the silliest things.

There was no interior fire fighting attack operation at WTC7. The building had been declared evacuated. NIST even says that.

Evacuated at 3:30 pm, and didn't you just claim there were no fire/rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11. Perhaps you should think BEFORE you post your contradictory CTBS.
Do you have any facts which conflict with these because they certainly conflict with your fairy tales:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 533 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 510 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 552 pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Rescue efforts ended with Barry Jennings, that morning, just after the first tower collapsed. There was no interior attack made in WTC7. There were also no ongoing interior ops of any kind underway when Silverstein said "pull it." The building was not evacuated at 330 pm. That is outright false.

Wow. You've been claiming that the fires were minor, that no fire or rescue peeps entered WTC7 on 9/11 and that there wasn't significant damage to the structure, all of which is directly contradicted by statements from professionals who were there, witnessing the events and making the decisions. Furthermore, it was FDNY Chief Nigro who stated he "pulled" everyone out at 3:30 pm but only an arrogant, desperately shrill CT would claim to know better. The only problem with Nigro's account is that it tips your silly little house of 9/11 CT cards. Tough titties.

 

[SAYIT]

Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?

Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.

I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction backup right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?

The fact that even a CD can go horribly wrong would lead any rational adult to question the ability of a demo company to discreetly rig those enormous buildings and have it not melt in the chaotic, uncontrolled fires or just explode willy-nilly.
I mean, wouldn't simply blasting a critical point - if such a point was known or even existed - and then blaming it on some nefarious terrorist group have done the dirty deed?

It is still more plausible than the critical points in all three buildings failing in each building simultaneously.

Maybe there is another explanation besides a demo team. I can't really say. That seems like a reasonable theory, but for all I know, the buildings were built to fail right from the start. What I do know is that NIST failed to prove their case.

EDIT to add: There is no such thing as any one single critical point that will bring down a building.

That also would lead any rational adult to doubt the CT account of events. There was no way to know how the passenger jets would impact the Towers and no way of knowing that large chunks of the North Tower would fall hundreds of feet onto WTC7. It seems you have enough info to reject your 9/11 CT silliness but neither the ability nor the integrity to.