Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[CurveLight]

If you are not doubting the design, then why did you ask me to post the link to the blueprints?

To prove you were making claims you could not support.

What claims?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html

 

[Gamolon]

To prove you were making claims you could not support.

What claims?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.

You still don't get it. If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

 

[CurveLight]

What claims?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.

You still don't get it. If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You misunderstand.

I said that CTers try to make the argument that fires could not have caused the collapse of the Twin Towers because nowhere in history has a skyscraper constructed of steel, ever collapsed due to fire alone.

I am saying that if they want to make that comparison, then they need to find a skyscraper that was constructed like the Twin Towers (using a tube in tube design), the same height, width, length, and was hit by a plane in the upper third.

If they can find a skyscraper that matches that criteria and still stood after, then they have an argument.

 

[CurveLight]

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.



Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You misunderstand.

I said that CTers try to make the argument that fires could not have caused the collapse of the Twin Towers because nowhere in history has a skyscraper constructed of steel, ever collapsed due to fire alone.

I am saying that if they want to make that comparison, then they need to find a skyscraper that was constructed like the Twin Towers (using a tube in tube design), the same height, width, length, and was hit by a plane in the upper third.

If they can find a skyscraper that matches that criteria and still stood after, then they have an argument.

I agree with you that is a bad argument and it probably got steam by the dumfuks who did loosechange but at the same time you are giving that argument credibility by looking for a comparison. It's a red herring no matter how it gets served.

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You're not making sense. This is your first statement:

I'm not doubting the structural design. I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support ...

In the quote above, you specifically said "I made a claim about the structural design I cannot support..." I asked you "What claim am I making about the structural design?", to which you reply:

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

How is that "Making a claim about the structural design of the towers"?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

And yes, I am asking for a comparison of the towers. When a CTer says that "No steel skyscraper in history has ever collapsed form fire alone", you damn right I'm going to ask them to provide a tower with the same characteristics that actually stood after a fire. You mean to tell me that it's ok to make that statement as proof that the Twin Tower's collapse didn't happen as NIST describes? Show me a skyscraper that had similar characteristics to the Twin Tower's collapse and still stood after.

 

[Gamolon]

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You misunderstand.

I said that CTers try to make the argument that fires could not have caused the collapse of the Twin Towers because nowhere in history has a skyscraper constructed of steel, ever collapsed due to fire alone.

I am saying that if they want to make that comparison, then they need to find a skyscraper that was constructed like the Twin Towers (using a tube in tube design), the same height, width, length, and was hit by a plane in the upper third.

If they can find a skyscraper that matches that criteria and still stood after, then they have an argument.

I agree with you that is a bad argument and it probably got steam by the dumfuks who did loosechange but at the same time you are giving that argument credibility by looking for a comparison. It's a red herring no matter how it gets served.

How so? I'm showing how dumb of of an argument it is. CTers want to say that history proves the towers collapse couldn't have been from fires because it has never happened to a skyscraper before. Again, they say that "Before 9/11, no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire alone."

First problem with that statement. It wasn't fire alone. I don't understand why people say "fire alone" when talking of the Twin Towers. Planes smashed into them effectively removing part of the perimeter columns, which helped distribute weight and stresses.

Second problem with that statement. Design has quite a bit to do with how things react to outside forces. All buildings are not created equal so why would you make a comparison to skyscrapers of unlike design and make comparisons to skyscrapers that didn't have the same scenarios happen to them? That's why I always ask for whomever makes that statement to show me a skyscraper with the following characteristics:

1. Similar in height, width, and length to the Twin Towers
2. Similar design (tube in tube)
3. Had a jet smash into them at the upper third
4. Had ensuing fires from crash

Show me that skyscraper with those characteristics that was still standing and then we have a debate. Until that happens, the above argument is moot.

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

 

[CurveLight]

Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.



Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You're not making sense. This is your first statement:


In the quote above, you specifically said "I made a claim about the structural design I cannot support..." I asked you "What claim am I making about the structural design?", to which you reply:

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

How is that "Making a claim about the structural design of the towers"?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

And yes, I am asking for a comparison of the towers. When a CTer says that "No steel skyscraper in history has ever collapsed form fire alone", you damn right I'm going to ask them to provide a tower with the same characteristics that actually stood after a fire. You mean to tell me that it's ok to make that statement as proof that the Twin Tower's collapse didn't happen as NIST describes? Show me a skyscraper that had similar characteristics to the Twin Tower's collapse and still stood after.

So apply this to WTC 7. NIST said fire along brought that skyscraper down.

 

[CurveLight]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

We've been over this. My point of referencing Dr. Q is his claim NIST failed to find "definitive cause."

 

[Gamolon]

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

You're not making sense. This is your first statement:


In the quote above, you specifically said "I made a claim about the structural design I cannot support..." I asked you "What claim am I making about the structural design?", to which you reply:


How is that "Making a claim about the structural design of the towers"?

You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

And yes, I am asking for a comparison of the towers. When a CTer says that "No steel skyscraper in history has ever collapsed form fire alone", you damn right I'm going to ask them to provide a tower with the same characteristics that actually stood after a fire. You mean to tell me that it's ok to make that statement as proof that the Twin Tower's collapse didn't happen as NIST describes? Show me a skyscraper that had similar characteristics to the Twin Tower's collapse and still stood after.

So apply this to WTC 7. NIST said fire along brought that skyscraper down.

NIST explained how it happened in detail within their report. Am I correct in saying that you don't agree with the explanation in the WTC7 report? If you don't agree with it, can you please point out one section they they got wrong?

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

We've been over this. My point of referencing Dr. Q is his claim NIST failed to find "definitive cause."

Since you seem to put your faith in Dr. Q in that he knows what he is talking about, then you must agree with him that the Twin Towers collapsed due to floor trusses failing because of heat due to the fires.

Do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion? You obviously do since you say he provides the information that shows NIST "FAILED to find a definitive cause" and provides his own alternative based on the evidence he used.

 

[eots]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”


and goes on to say...


I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers


“I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'


also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information
instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”


and goes on to say...


I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers


“I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'


also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information
instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Dr. Q also says this:

Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal.

He mentions CTers and then says "Yet responsible criticism has been minimal." I guess he considers CTer's fluff "irresponsible criticism"?

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”

Ok. Show me the other example/s he has come forth with. Your statement above claims that there are more than one he has made.

and goes on to say...


I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers

Ok? Both he and NIST say the towers collapsed from structural failure due to heat from fires and he has evidence that agrees with his theory that it was the floor trusses that failed due to heat from fires. What's your point?

“I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'

Funny how you left out the rest of that quote:

“I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

Why'd you leave that part out? What do you suppose he meant by that?


Sloppy work eots. Just sloppy.

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”

Let's have at it eots.

In the above statement, you say it's one example he offers. Please show me the "other" example/s he has used. That's like me saying that Nike is one brand of shoe that Foot Locker offers. So let's see these "other" theories he has.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Curve. The end conclusion from Dr.Q is that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing from heat due to the fires. You agree with everything else he says. Both NIST and now Dr. Q both agree that heat from the fires caused SOME TYPE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FAILURE.

Now what eots? Are you saying that you get to pick and choose what parts of Dr. Q's paper and which statements are true and which are not based on when it suits your argument?

 

[Gamolon]

Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.

An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?

 

[Gamolon]

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?

this is is one example he offers of an alternative scenario

“I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”


and goes on to say...


I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers


“I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'


also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information
instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Simple question for both eots and Curvelight.

Do you both agree with NIST and Dr. Q that the Twin Towers collapsed because of a structural failure caused by heat from fires?

Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral

Awwwwww. What 's the matter Terral? Poor baby doesn't like being ignored? Need attention?

All I have to say is that I tried discussing things with you before, like your WTC7 topic, and you ran away with your tail between your legs and wouldn't answer any more questions about your claims. That was AFTER I handed your ass to you when I proved you were completely wrong about one of your photos containing thermite cuts. Is that why you don't post about WTC7 anymore?


Then you admit to succumbing to the "over-hyped" H1N1 bullshit (just look at my sig).

The above, coupled with the fact that you make predictions that never come true, puts you in the category of "complete asshole".

You aren't worth my time going forward as you are admittedly gullible and stupid.

 

[CurveLight]

You're not making sense. This is your first statement:


In the quote above, you specifically said "I made a claim about the structural design I cannot support..." I asked you "What claim am I making about the structural design?", to which you reply:


How is that "Making a claim about the structural design of the towers"?


And yes, I am asking for a comparison of the towers. When a CTer says that "No steel skyscraper in history has ever collapsed form fire alone", you damn right I'm going to ask them to provide a tower with the same characteristics that actually stood after a fire. You mean to tell me that it's ok to make that statement as proof that the Twin Tower's collapse didn't happen as NIST describes? Show me a skyscraper that had similar characteristics to the Twin Tower's collapse and still stood after.

So apply this to WTC 7. NIST said fire along brought that skyscraper down.

NIST explained how it happened in detail within their report. Am I correct in saying that you don't agree with the explanation in the WTC7 report? If you don't agree with it, can you please point out one section they they got wrong?

¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Now to your question.....when you answer mine I will answer yours. You claim a skyscraper comparison is legit so what skyscrapers have you compared wtc 7 to?