Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[eots]

the very small portion of the core appears to be standing for one frame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGelvjIuANo&feature=feedrec_grec_index]YouTube - ‪Wearechange interviews BBC's Phil Hayton about WTC 7‬‏[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

YouTube - ‪9/11 Physics 101; Air, Water, or WTC Steel? You decide.‬‏

Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

 

[eots]

Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

 

[Gamolon]

the very small portion of the core appears to be standing for one frame

YouTube - ‪Wearechange interviews BBC's Phil Hayton about WTC 7‬‏

A SMALL portion of the core?

The building on the left is the 2 world Financial Center at 645 ft high (about 44 stories). Your talking about half the height if the towers. You consider that a "small portion"?

So how did the "smaller" upper block fall THROUGH lower larger block if half the core still stood AFTER the floors are gone according to the picture above?

 

[Gamolon]

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?

 

[eots]

Simple question for you eots about this video. Are you telling me that you believe that the ENTIRE portion of the tower shown below that 10 floor block is what any engineer should use to show how that lower portion should have resisted the upper block coming down?

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

 

[Gamolon]

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core

You mean to tell me you think the remnants of the core in the picture is only 1/3 of the total core???? Only 453 feet (the towers were about 1360 ft high each)? The 2 World Financial Center in the foreground of my photo was 645 feet tall. The core was BEHIND that in relation and was STILL taller.

Is this the kind of "facts" you use to make your claims? No wonder you perpetuate fantasies on the board.

 

[Rationalist1016]

Eots?

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?

Gamolon, I would say the picture in your last post should put to bed the theories that the core was taken out by explosives........wouldn't you say? Also, I wonder if the "truthers" know that a few people survived the collapse of WTC 2 inside the core. Admittedly, they were much lower in the core, but that still shows that the core was intact.

 

[Gamolon]

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

So you think that the lower block should provided resistance for the upper block and should have arrested the fall?

So do tell. How should these connections circled in red...

...have provided resistance to this block circled in red...

 

[Gamolon]

what happened to the first 2/3 of the core ? why did the rest crumble secs later ? where is the core in the seconed tower ?

Is this what you do when you have no answer? Ask derailing questions?

Gamolon, I would say the picture in your last post should put to bed the theories that the core was taken out by explosives........wouldn't you say? Also, I wonder if the "truthers" know that a few people survived the collapse of WTC 2 inside the core. Admittedly, they were much lower in the core, but that still shows that the core was intact.

I agree.

The problem with them is they think that the towers were solid block rather than a compilation of integrated structural components designed to hold up STATIC loads and not the mass and energy of a falling upper third of the building. They refuse to look at the actual connections that held the towers together as the weakest link/s when resisting a gravity load.

I would like any truther to explain to me what they think would be the first structural component contacted by the upper lock circled in red below, that would provide enough resistance to arrest the descent.

 

[Rationalist1016]

Exactly!
For example, Richard Gages model of dropping 2 cardboard boxes..........one over nothing, and the other over a much larger cardboard box. And then he claims that experiment proves that the lower block would resist the upper block. Man!..................that is powerful stupid! And he is an Architect!!

 

[Mr. Jones]

LOL, I don't have the time nor the desire to continually walk you through the vast amount of opposition that has been accumulated in the last decade concerning NIST and the attacks on 9-11.

NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??

Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.

Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?

Another one who can't make sense of what he reads.Is this all you people have? Making things up as you go along. Distorting things people say because you have nothing useful or insightful to post?
Here's a newsflash for you, the NIST report has been found to contain flaws, there is documented rebuttals of it by credible independent engineers and scientists, and your attempt at creating strawman arguments all fail.
If you don't think these good people have a legitimate basis on which they make these claims, then perhaps you could show us the undisputed evidence that NIST has and used. You could start with the test they did to prove the fire retardant blew off..?You know the one with a shotgun blast??
No that's not a good one, that one failed..How about the fire test that showed the floors DIDN'T SAG?
Nope that one failed too..How about the testing for explosive materials or incendiaries?... Nope they didn't bother to do one of those, even though the WTC had a prior bomb attempt in '93..
Well I'm sure you can find something that NIST did other then fudging around with computer models, and exaggerating the fuel loads.
Let us know what you have.
Perhaps you can also explain how NIST came to the conclusion the "buildings fell essentially in free fall"-NIST
Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
And I'll round up all my articles, and link you to them, but I'll be asking questions, so you'll have to read and study them....no cheating.

Still no answer?? From anyone ?

 

[Gamolon]

Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST

Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.

Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?

 

[Gamolon]

Eots,

Do you believe that the video you have linked is an accurate representation of what occurred? The a smaller upper solid block hit a larger lower solid block and that the upper block should have been resisted by the larger lower block??

Eots?

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

Is this how you answer questions?

Your reasoning is mind boggling.

I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."

 

[Mr. Jones]

Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST

Let's discuss this Mr. Jones.

Please explain how you think the "lower, more robust structure" should have performed in your eyes. Can we start there?

Hello Gamolon, yes this seems to be one of the biggest problems with the demise of the towers that other engineers have, from what I have read.
It is the opinions that while the gravitational collapse indeed took place-
1) something other then fire initiated the collapse, or "kicked started it"
2) the times of the collapses should have taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 secs,
This is from the opinion of and a rebuttal for the NIST and the Bazant theories. From reading it, considerations were taken into account of the counter resistance of the lower structure, and its many components, the fact that the building was constructed with a degree of extra safety factors, and the fact that the lower parts of the towers were more robust, as it was responsible for holding up a huge amount of static weight loads.
I have also delved a little deeper, and found that there are also opinions that not a lot of explosives/incendiaries would necessarily have been required to kick start the gravitational collapse events.
For the record, the 9-11 commission has excepted that, the towers fell in about 10 secs.
I don't hold the theory that every single floor had to be wired, or rigged, as the planes penetrated a significant portion of the buildings, to provide a "projectile" using the kinetic energy, to use as a destructive force.
The question is, and has always been, what initiated the collapse, and why was it allowed to progress almost unimpeded?
As NIST said "the buildings fell, essentially at free fall" and "the lower structure provided minimal resistance"
But they proceed no further to explain "why"?

That's about the towers of course, and WTC 7, is a different animal, as there has been no rational explanation as to what, or how fires started in the sporadic places it did.
The fact that 2 witnesses were inside the building, and heard explosions, and were trapped in it, until finally being rescued, is also not taken into consideration.
Free fall being at first ignored, then admitted to, but not even explained by NIST is another mystery. Column 79 "walking" is not explained IMO, and NIST had to make a huge correction about the shear studs too...
All in all there are too many things left unexplained and the reports make for even more questions left unanswered.
RE: Another poster--
I don't understand why certain ignorant people want some sort of proof that there are any anomalies in the NIST and 9-11 theories, as there have been many documented articles written about the inconsistencies of the OCT version for a while now. In other words there is proof that there are objections to the OCT everywhere.
From the discovery of chemicals in the WTC dust, to the calculated collapse times, and the "inconsistent" testimony from pentagon personnel, as well as NORAD, as well as the Mineta testimony
There is sufficient "proof" of inconsistencies and disputes to warrant a new independent investigation.

Gamolon-How is it that Bazant and co. could come up with the collapse theory in only 2 DAYS, were it took NIST years to come to their conclusion? Most of the early rebuttals and counter views were established based on the Bazant theory, but have since been extrapolated on.


My question:

What creditable and indisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be disputed?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Eots?

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

Is this how you answer questions?

Your reasoning is mind boggling.

I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."

That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice
WTF is the point of this anyway?
Gage using the boxes was his way of making fun of those that don't get it. I found it hilarious.
The lower part of the building was designed to support huge static loads for years, the collapse of the floors in between them, was not enough to crush and pulverize the lower more robust part of the building at "essentially free fall"--NIST
and could not possibly provide
"only minimal resistance"-NIST
So why does NIST say this and walk away?

 

[SFC Ollie]

NIST's final report was released in November 2008. Are you now trying to claim that a decade is 31 months long??

Maybe the other 89 months were blown up with nano-therm*te. Or Dr. Judy's space beams.

Or did Bushcheneyhaliburton use their NWO connections to just make them vanish, like the Pentagon plane, into another dimension?

Another one who can't make sense of what he reads.Is this all you people have? Making things up as you go along. Distorting things people say because you have nothing useful or insightful to post?
Here's a newsflash for you, the NIST report has been found to contain flaws, there is documented rebuttals of it by credible independent engineers and scientists, and your attempt at creating strawman arguments all fail.
If you don't think these good people have a legitimate basis on which they make these claims, then perhaps you could show us the undisputed evidence that NIST has and used. You could start with the test they did to prove the fire retardant blew off..?You know the one with a shotgun blast??
No that's not a good one, that one failed..How about the fire test that showed the floors DIDN'T SAG?
Nope that one failed too..How about the testing for explosive materials or incendiaries?... Nope they didn't bother to do one of those, even though the WTC had a prior bomb attempt in '93..
Well I'm sure you can find something that NIST did other then fudging around with computer models, and exaggerating the fuel loads.
Let us know what you have.
Perhaps you can also explain how NIST came to the conclusion the "buildings fell essentially in free fall"-NIST
Or why the lower more robust structures "provided only minimal resistance"-NIST
And I'll round up all my articles, and link you to them, but I'll be asking questions, so you'll have to read and study them....no cheating.

Still no answer?? From anyone ?

Eots provided the link, you really should read more.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3771837-post1159.html

 

[Gamolon]

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

Is this how you answer questions?

Your reasoning is mind boggling.

I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."

That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice
WTF is the point of this anyway?

The point is that I asked him a direct question as to whether or not the video he posted was an accurate representation of what we saw and how the towers reacted and he answered with a comparison to what he already thinks is a bad one.

I guess he thinks his his video is also inaccurate, but just a little more than Shyam's. Nice to see uses information that he considers inaccurate to come to his conclusions.

 

[Patriot911]

Still no answer?? From anyone ?

Why do you demand anything from anyone when you can't even produce the evidence you claim you have? Seriously. Are you somehow better than everyone else where you demand (and receive) evidence from them, but despite your constant claims of having evidence, you refuse to show us this self-proclaimed evidence?

Or is the fact of the matter that you HAVE no evidence and are bullshitting everyong by claiming to have something you do not have?

So once again I will ask you for a single piece of real, hard evidence that backs up your bullshit fantasies. Remember, opinion isn't evidence, but then again, your claims should have left behind numerous pieces of hard evidence, so it shouldn't be hard to produce some, right?

 

[Rationalist1016]

it is more accurate than shyam sunders..."think of opening a tight jar by running it under hot water"

Is this how you answer questions?

Your reasoning is mind boggling.

I guess if your girlfriend/wife asked you how you thought she was in bed, you'd reply "Well, you're better than my last girlfriend/wife."

That answer would probably be a very good one! The best I ever had would be my choice
WTF is the point of this anyway?
Gage using the boxes was his way of making fun of those that don't get it. I found it hilarious.
The lower part of the building was designed to support huge static loads for years, the collapse of the floors in between them, was not enough to crush and pulverize the lower more robust part of the building at "essentially free fall"--NIST
and could not possibly provide
"only minimal resistance"-NIST
So why does NIST say this and walk away?

If Gage wanted to prove his point to those that "don't get it", shouldn't he build a real model and prove his theory? Not some silly demonstration? He is an Architect, that shouldn't be an unreasonable request. The only thing his cardboard demo showed was that gravity does indeed work.
Also, you just said that the Towers were designed to support a "static" load. Once the upper block started to move, it is obviously not static anymore. Now you are dealing with an accelerating mass. You can break ANYTHING with enough mass and/or speed.