National Geographic on 9/11

[Gamolon]

The debunking propaganda intentionally misleads by not addressing the vertical core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.

Did you read the report at all? I just looked at it and found all kinds of references to the core columns. Are you being dishonest for a reason?

 

[creativedreams]

This is how the NIST Report ended up literally rewriting physics when trying to explain how the top floor in each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it..........while somehow crushing straight down through 47 vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.

I spoke of this before, but you conveniently ignored it. Please explain to or show me how you are getting the idea that the floors were supported by 47 steel columns from below thus creating the "crushing down" of the floors on top of the 47 columns.

As shown here:

The floor trusses were connected to the OUTSIDE faces of the core columns and perimeter columns. You keep saying that that top floor reached the ground as fast as a ball being dropped next to it, and I quote, "crushing straight down through through 47 vertical support columns". If the floors were constructed AROUND the 47 core columns, how did they then CRUSH them down?

Furthermore, if your claim that the "top floor" fell all the way down to the ground and crushed the 47 vertical columns, how come this portion of the core still stood in this photo?

That photo right there PROVES that your claim, that the top floor crushed the core columns all the way down to the ground, is pure idiocy.

Your little deal there does nothing to explain the interior vertical core columns that are the 47 treetrunks of the building.

You little deal there does explain the horizontal floor trusses on the outside of the vertical core structure.....

even if the floor trusses collapsed it woulded have looked like snow falling off a pine tree where the lower branches shed the weight off to the sides.

I'll bring up a diagram of this when I come back....

 

[CurveLight]

gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....

There was no investigation into why they collapsed. You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?

You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

 

[Gamolon]

They place a 1/2" thick horizontal metal beam over the fire with no fireproofing and the same alleged heat. Not only is this a farse because it was NOT placed vertical like the actual support columns....but it was only 1/2" thick compared to the actual vertical core columns that are up to 4.91" thick........that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down so the top floor of each building would hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside them.

We will get more into how much fireproofing could have been lost and what sides, areas, etc later.

This has nothing to do with the 47 tree trunks, vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one tree trunk each or 47 tree trunks all the way up.

The horizontal beam they heat up could only represent a tree branch, floor truss on the perimeter of the core columns.

You have no clue do you? Do you understand structural design and loads? How does a tree trunk and branches come close to representing the towers structure and the loads it handle and redistributed?

Let's make this simple for you.

Let's take a 500 lb. block of cement and put five steel rods under it. One in the center of the block and the other four under each corner. Is the 500 lb. load being shared by all five rods? If I pulled the four corner rods out, does the single rod in the middle now support all of the 550 lb. load? Now let's apply a fire to it and WEAKEN the rod by 60%.

Now what?

Some line of reasoning. If you take out some of the columns due to the impact of the planes and then weaken others due to fire, where does the load get redistributed to? What columns? The perimeter columns?

You obviously haven't read the NIST report.

 

[CurveLight]

The "body" represents the collapsed towers. If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation. For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why). They made their conclusion before any investigation could start. Thank you for revealing your stupidity again. Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.

WRONG!!!!

You're forgetting one important piece. The witnesses to the act.

As I said in my previous post, if there was a witness or witnesses that said they saw someone shoot this person in the head with a gun, why would they look for a knife? Unless the autopsy showed a knife wound.

How many people saw the planes hit the towers?

Thanks for playing.

I don't remember seeing your analogy to a shot in the head but if I had I would have pointed out it is a horrible comparison. Seeing the planes hit the two towers does not automatically provide an unquestionable conclusion on the cause for collapse. It was not the first time planes hit skyscrapers. It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes. It was also the first time fire alone was blamed for bringing down a skyscraper, WTC 7. When FEMA first made that claim everyone was so shocked the job of explaining the collapse was handed to NIST, as well as several other agencies. It took seven fucking years for them to try and give an explanation that fit with the premature conclusions.

 

[Gamolon]

There was no investigation into why they collapsed. You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?

You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

You didn't huh?

For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).

Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body".

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES.

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.

 

[Gamolon]

It was not the first time planes hit skyscrapers. It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes.

Really? Was it the first time lets of that size hit a steel, tube in tube design, 110 story tall skyscraper or are you going to tell me that structural design doesn't matter as to how a structure will react to outside forces?

Show me these other similarly designed buildings that were hit by planes please.

 

[Gamolon]

It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes.

Again, you make two mistakes.

Show me the buildings that were similar in design to the WTC towers that were also hit by planes.

The buildings did NOT collapse from the planes alone. There were also fires.

 

[CurveLight]

gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....

no plane hit the wtc 7 fire alone is what NIST claims caused the collapse

Are you claiming that it's 100% impossible for ANY steel framed structure to collapse due to fire?

Why is it you assholes have to create false claims about what others say? I never said that. Shit creeks of lumpy green oatmeal wouldn't stop you guys from swallowing the propaganda pushed by the government.
In case you try to hide behind the "I just asked a question" bullshit....think twice. There is nothing in my post that justifies your response. Hell, you have yet to even acknowledge I answered your original "question."

 

[slackjawed]

national Geographic was spot on. The twoofers don't want to discuss anything, they just want to argue and insult those that don't believe the looniness they do- which is the majority of the american people.

Treasonous twoofers work for osama.....

 

[Gamolon]

There was no investigation into why they collapsed. You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?

You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

Look.

You claim that they made an immediate conclusion by seeing the body only.

What you failed to point out is that there were tons of people who saw the planes hit the towers, the ensuing fires, the tilt of the tops of the towers, the bowing perimeter columns, etc.

You you STILL go on to claim that they had drawn their conclusion on the "body".

My point is, if you have a body, and five witnesses say they saw someone shout the person in the head with a gun, what the fuck do you think the immediate conclusion would be? Death by stabbing?

What the hell is the matter with you?

 

[Gamolon]

no plane hit the wtc 7 fire alone is what NIST claims caused the collapse

Are you claiming that it's 100% impossible for ANY steel framed structure to collapse due to fire?

Why is it you assholes have to create false claims about what others say? I never said that. Shit creeks of lumpy green oatmeal wouldn't stop you guys from swallowing the propaganda pushed by the government.
In case you try to hide behind the "I just asked a question" bullshit....think twice. There is nothing in my post that justifies your response. Hell, you have yet to even acknowledge I answered your original "question."

Hey fuckstick.

READ before opening your mouth.

Which post did I quote? Curvelight's or eots's?

What an idiot you just made of yourself.

 

[CurveLight]

You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

You didn't huh?

For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).

Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body".

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES.

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

 

[Gamolon]

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

You didn't huh?

For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).

Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body".

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES.

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

 

[CurveLight]

You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

Look.

You claim that they made an immediate conclusion by seeing the body only.

What you failed to point out is that there were tons of people who saw the planes hit the towers, the ensuing fires, the tilt of the tops of the towers, the bowing perimeter columns, etc.

You you STILL go on to claim that they had drawn their conclusion on the "body".

My point is, if you have a body, and five witnesses say they saw someone shout the person in the head with a gun, what the fuck do you think the immediate conclusion would be? Death by stabbing?

What the hell is the matter with you?

First of all, not all gunshots to the head cause death. Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.

 

[CurveLight]

You didn't huh?



Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body".

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES.

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

You must be right. Those idiot cops and firefighters have no idea what explosions look or sound like.

 

[candycorn]

You didn't huh?



Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body".

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES.

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

Some people on here sound like a broken record.

 

[eots]

cornytcunt

 

[Gamolon]

No I never came close to saying that. Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly. You will prove it again with your response.

Look.

You claim that they made an immediate conclusion by seeing the body only.

What you failed to point out is that there were tons of people who saw the planes hit the towers, the ensuing fires, the tilt of the tops of the towers, the bowing perimeter columns, etc.

You you STILL go on to claim that they had drawn their conclusion on the "body".

My point is, if you have a body, and five witnesses say they saw someone shout the person in the head with a gun, what the fuck do you think the immediate conclusion would be? Death by stabbing?

What the hell is the matter with you?

First of all, not all gunshots to the head cause death.

The point of the comparison is that 5 people witnessed the person get shot in the head. The conclusion at that point is that the cause of death was a gunshot to the head so they wouldn't look for a knife.

Are you that fucking stupid?

Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.

No, you're wrong. I'm trying to equate that you saying they based their conclusion on seeing a body only and totally leaving out the fact that there were EYEWITNESSES to the planes hitting the towers AND ENSUING fires is complete idiocy. You're trying to say that they had only a body and no other evidence to make an assumption that the planes and fires caused the collapse even though people SAW the planes hit the towers and ENSUING FIRES.

 

[Gamolon]

There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings. Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?

Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train?

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?

You must be right. Those idiot cops and firefighters have no idea what explosions look or sound like.

Are you saying the only way to generate something that SOUNDED like an explosion or bomb is with explosives? I suggest you read a little bit.

Newbiggin cliff collapse 'sounded like an explosion' says witness - Northumberland communities - Ashington
City's logic stumps driver - Los Angeles Times