It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That thread was specifically about collapse continuation. He stated that he agrees with his maths, etc. No where does he say that he disagrees with the conclusion that the collapse would continue, that I can find. Nowhere has he stated that "the collapse defied physics by collapsing through the path of most resistance", or any other similar stupidity.

However, he clearly states that he disagrees with NIST's initiation. This is clearly a different scenario than continuation.


I have no need to argue about what Griff's position was. I talked to him both on and off the forums and considered him a friend. He believed there were additional sources of energy placed within the towers and he stated this often. Specifically, within the core structure. Bazant's MATH may be right but even NIST debunked pancake theory and there is no other model (except "chaos") available to describe global collapse, and so what collapse model he is basing his math on is beyond me, let alone what the actual forensic evidence is to support that model. That is why the MATH can be right but the big picture is still completely skewed, has giant holes, missing information, predicts incorrect data, etc.


So again, I'll ask. What in your c.v. would trump the collective experience of those that have clearly demonstrated expertise?


I don't change my opinions simply because someone disagrees with me. I change them based on why they disagree, and whether or not I personally see any sense in it. In other words I am not a sheep. No Bah Bah.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You sir, are a loser.


This wasn't directed at me but I couldn't help but have to quote it.

I'm pretty sure this is going to be moderated. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

You need to learn how to conduct a civil argument, and make logical arguments, as opposed to fallacious reasoning and personal attacks. If you REALLY feel the need to call people "losers" on the internet, as you spend hours of time on here, to make a point, then you might want to reconsider why you post here and what kind of message you are really sending. I learn more about YOU from reading your posts than I do what you're posting about. What's that saying about fighting on the internet being like performing in the Special Olympics? Aw, now I know that's not politically correct but it's still true in essence.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Boy Donny, do you have a LOT to catch up on. Like try reading into the official fire exposure limit for fire-proofing. Usually most are rated for a few hours. NOT for 7 hours. Also, some was knocked off the beams on impact from debris from the South Tower collapse.

also there was no real firefighting effort later in the day since there was no hope for the building. And lets not forget damage to one critical beam. The rest was thermal expansion and creep of the steel beams exposed to fire. Donny, please if you are going to act incredulous, then please at least be SOMEWHAT informed of the facts.



Your back paddle is working overtime here again.
So, I guess you can prove that one particular beam was melted by fire?
Please apply all those previous pages of scientific knowledge to that one beam. Tell us step by step how it got so melted. Should be simple. One beam one very precise scientific explanation.
thanks in advance



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Your back paddle is working overtime here again.
So, I guess you can prove that one particular beam was melted by fire?
Please apply all those previous pages of scientific knowledge to that one beam. Tell us step by step how it got so melted. Should be simple. One beam one very precise scientific explanation.
thanks in advance


Again, enough with the incredulity.

NIST has traced the structural failure to a key transfer beam that was damaged and exposed to high temps. Who said anything was melted? Way to read things that arent there. Reading comprehension is a must in today's society. Especially when trying to have a debate or understanding facts, or what is written. For some reason, its always lacking in the "truther" camp.

So I take it, you have never bothered doing any real research outside the conspiracy world have you? No surprise.

The combination of impact damage, and fires that went pretty much unchecked for 7 hours, was more than enough to warrant full structural failure and collapse. The fact that fire-proofing is rated for only a few hours should be a clue, because that is based on the understanding that there will be a firefighting effort with water to put the fire out. Once the limit is up the steel is at the mercy of the fires. Steel loses integrity from the heat and begins to succumb to a property of steel exposed to fire which is known as creep. It is the deformation of the steel when exposed to high temps, which does not need to be melted, but exposed to temps of 400C. Seeing as regular fires can easily exceed this, the steel was under these conditions for 7 whole hours.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're all over the map, mate. Try reading for context. The discussion was clearly about 1 and 2, and now you're bringing up TE, which isn't a major part of that collapse scenario.


You are a delight. Do you read for context? You have already been corrected a few times so let me jump on the bandwagon. The discussion, as I followed it, was about NIST and their misrepresentation of natural laws. You needed some clarification and 'thermal expansion' was raised as an example. Did I miss something here? Now that your assumptions have been settled and things explained and re-explained to you, you try to just wave off the entire concept of failed physics in the NIST report. Interesting tactic. I cannot wait to see where it goes.


You catch on quick. Good job.
There is a distinct smell of the air around here that is so totally reminiscent of government tactics that ---no one denies.
Example-- dubya lies about seeing plane on TV, rummy lies to cover up what he said about the missile hitting the pentagon, scooter lies about and outs cia operative. (takes a fall for the big guys).
And on and on. So why should a GL be any different than the goment that employs em?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Your back paddle is working overtime here again.
So, I guess you can prove that one particular beam was melted by fire?
Please apply all those previous pages of scientific knowledge to that one beam. Tell us step by step how it got so melted. Should be simple. One beam one very precise scientific explanation.
thanks in advance


Again, enough with the incredulity.

NIST has traced the structural failure to a key transfer beam that was damaged and exposed to high temps. Who said anything was melted? Way to read things that arent there. Reading comprehension is a must in today's society. Especially when trying to have a debate or understanding facts, or what is written. For some reason, its always lacking in the "truther" camp.

So I take it, you have never bothered doing any real research outside the conspiracy world have you? No surprise.

The combination of impact damage, and fires that went pretty much unchecked for 7 hours, was more than enough to warrant full structural failure and collapse. The fact that fire-proofing is rated for only a few hours should be a clue, because that is based on the understanding that there will be a firefighting effort with water to put the fire out. Once the limit is up the steel is at the mercy of the fires. Steel loses integrity from the heat and begins to succumb to a property of steel exposed to fire which is known as creep. It is the deformation of the steel when exposed to high temps, which does not need to be melted, but exposed to temps of 400C. Seeing as regular fires can easily exceed this, the steel was under these conditions for 7 whole hours.


Oh! So now your saying silverstine is a liar for saying Pull It just before SEVEN is demolished.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Oh! So now your saying silverstine is a liar for saying Pull It just before SEVEN is demolished.


*headslap*



Lordy lordy lordy.


What the heck did you do? Just come off a conspiracy site, and regurgitate the same garbage word for word as if you know all? You are not really up to date on facts, are you?

LS was speaking to the fire commander on site. He was talking about how the building is not going to be saved. So LS was talking about pulling the firefighters out of WTC7 so that no more lives would be put in jeopardy.
At best you are poorly informed of the facts, at the worst you are the liar for perpetuating this outright lie.

I dont recall seeing cables attached to WTC7 prior to the "pulling". Also I wonder why so many firefighters at WTC7 mentioned getting PULLED from 7. gee because they did get PULLED from 7 by the commander?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

what collapse model he is basing his math on is beyond me


Are you familiar with upper and lower bounding? Szamboti's paper was regarding an upper bound case that Bazant explored. In this context, upper bound = the maximum theoretical resistance to collapse progression that could be hypothesisized. Therefore, there are no, as in zero, other models that could offer more resistance to collapse progression. You should be familiar with this. If you do a power supply examination, and a 6 ga wire supplies power with an acceptable voltage drop, then a 4 ga wire will be more than fine.

Now, this twoof agrees with this upper bound case, while, according to you, he at the same time believes that more energy was needed. If what you say is true, then he has either contradicted himself, or has changed his mind after examining and/or being made aware of Bazant's paper. Both cannot be true. If he currently backs both statements, then he's in conflict. I'll let you work out which it is.


I don't change my opinions simply because someone disagrees with me. I change them based on why they disagree, and whether or not I personally see any sense in it.


While it's commendable that you don't listen to just ayone, I personally give more weight to those with demonstrated expertise. As far as WHY they disagree with troofers.... they have shown it with facts.



You need to learn how to conduct a civil argument


He lost the argument regarding the whole new/false/violated physics statement. Your friend provides the statements needed.

He lost. Therefore......

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Oh! oh! I got it teach!!! Why are they coated in fireproofing?
I got it, I got it!!! SO buildings like BUILDING SEVEN won't fall down.
AM I right, am I right teach


No, you're incorrect.

They get fire protection so that the fire brigades have enough time to go fight the fires before the buildings are in danger of collapse.



And so the fire fighters were there most of the day. YOU sayin they did a bad job?
Take note NEW YORK!!!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Oh! So now your saying silverstine is a liar for saying Pull It just before SEVEN is demolished.


*headslap*



Lordy lordy lordy.


What the heck did you do? Just come off a conspiracy site, and regurgitate the same garbage word for word as if you know all? You are not really up to date on facts, are you?

LS was speaking to the fire commander on site. He was talking about how the building is not going to be saved. So LS was talking about pulling the firefighters out of WTC7 so that no more lives would be put in jeopardy.
At best you are poorly informed of the facts, at the worst you are the liar for perpetuating this outright lie.

I dont recall seeing cables attached to WTC7 prior to the "pulling". Also I wonder why so many firefighters at WTC7 mentioned getting PULLED from 7. gee because they did get PULLED from 7 by the commander?


From one side of your mouth you say there were Fireman in SEVEN.
From your backside you say there were no Fireman for seven hours.
Take a look back there, smarty pants they are on fire.

I wouldn't call for a NEW YORK CITY Fireman for help to put them out.
Your headslap might not be from yourownself .



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


From one side of your mouth you say there were Fireman in SEVEN.
From your backside you say there were no Fireman for seven hours.
Take a look back there, smarty pants they are on fire.

I wouldn't call for a NEW YORK CITY Fireman for help to put them out.
Your headslap might not be from yourownself .


Where did I say there were no firefighters in WTC7?
ahh I get it, once again, your poor reading comprehension skills are showing through.

Notice I said there were no firefighting operations going on inside WTC7. There was little to no water pressure in the pipes to fight the fire. Firefighters DID in fact go into WTC7 to look for anyone that may have been trapped after the collapses, and to see the condition of WTC7 and what can be done to save it. However, there was no active firefighting, using water lines to put out the fire. If you are going to make an argument, then please know what the heck you are arguing about.

In the afternoon, the firefighter commander on site ordered all firefighters AWAY from WTC7. They were told that because it is in danger of collapse, there will be no more firefighters in or around WTC7. Hence, being PULLED away from the site. As such, any and all firefighting efforts were pulled from WTC7, to allow it to burn itself out, and eventually collapse.

And again, ENOUGH WITH YOUR INCREDULITY. Or I will alert the mods of your childish antics.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are you familiar with upper and lower bounding? Szamboti's paper was regarding an upper bound case that Bazant explored. In this context, upper bound = the maximum theoretical resistance to collapse progression that could be hypothesisized. Therefore, there are no, as in zero, other models that could offer more resistance to collapse progression.


That's according to Bazant. You don't seem to realize that he makes up numbers until he gets results that fit certain measurable data from 9/11, and then declares on that basis alone that his model is accurate. You can't say he bases his bounds on "structural engineering" either because steel impact-loading is a dynamic system while structural engineering deals almost exclusively with statics, and steel impact-loading isn't a well-understood phenomena to begin with. Mainly because the only alleged instances of a "pancake collapse" in a steel high rise building all happened on 9/11, at least until that theory was scrapped by NIST. No one has even tried to explain the mechanics of the global collapse. All global collapse arguments so far have been based on energy calculations alone, like Bazant's. In the process they simply have to estimate how much energy would have been lost to the steel because they really have no idea, like I said, because it is not a well-understood phenomena. Add to that the fact that the structural documentation isn't even available to accurately assess how much steel there was on each floor and the sizes of the cross-sections, etc. All of that data has to be estimated, and it's Bazant's method of finding what numbers he can use in his model, and which he can't, that make his model irrelevant, since he makes up all his own data.

And I know Bazant fudges numbers until he gets the results he wants, because I've read his papers and SEEN him do it, admit to it, and then try to justify his made-up numbers based on the results they produce in his model. I could quote the sections where he tries to justify it for you, and we can discuss how justified it is ourselves. It's exactly the same as when he says when figuring KE losses, 'We don't see 50% of the mass still in the footprints of either tower, but we will assume AT LEAST that much was there anyway because it's the minimum amount we have to have before our collapse time figure matches reality.' When you take 60, 70, 80, even 90% of the mass out of the footprints as Ground Zero photos show, his energy model no longer reflects reality, and like I said, he freely admits this himself in his paper but argues that his model producing accurate data is more important than matching photographic evidence, etc. So he stands by his LIE that 50% OR MORE of the mass of each tower (equivalent to 55 floors) was still within the footprints upon collapse completion. You "duhbunkers" often defend this reasoning, because you are too ignorant and faithful in your pet scientists to understand why it is wrong. Bazant would probably be the first to admit his models are not rigorously proven, but you all seem to fall under false impressions when you start talking about it as if it's proof of something.

Steel impact-loading is not a well-understood phenomena. Look up the subject yourself and see what you can find. There are only 2 or 3 studies in existence where steel frames were dropped onto one another and data taken, and the only one relevant to the "pancake theory" was conducted a couple of months before 9/11 by one of the lead investigators of the FEMA BPAT, a Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. Even from these studies there is still no clear-cut way to predict how much energy the WTC would have absorbed mechanically or exactly how. Bazant uses a guess-and-check method of plugging in a range of figures and then focusing on the ones that give the results he is looking for in his model. Which is the "bounding" you are talking about. But what you are neglecting to mention is that when he does this, other dependent variables come out that are in direct contradiction to reality, such as collapse times or the amounts of mass left over after collapse. He can have one or the other but not both within the same model, which is why it fails.


Now, this twoof agrees with this upper bound case while, according to you, he at the same time believes that more energy was needed. If what you say is true, then he has either contradicted himself, or has changed his mind after examining and/or being made aware of Bazant's paper. Both cannot be true.


Or a third option: You don't really understand Griff's understanding of the problem, and you are putting a lot of words in his mouth. Unless you are saying he's a "debunker" I think you have your answer as far as what Griff believed. I think you're just mad that a licensed, professional structural engineer is a "twoofer," and that he knows more than you about buildings.



While it's commendable that you don't listen to just ayone, I personally give more weight to those with demonstrated expertise. As far as WHY they disagree with troofers.... they have shown it with facts.


So you pretend you are looking solely at the facts but simultaneously admit you are really only looking at your perception of an "expert" consensus. If 9/11 was an inside job, do you realize how angry people would be, and how much they would want to deny it until it was absolutely undeniable anymore? Anytime anything controversial comes out, there is always a swarm of status-quo scientists trying to uphold status-quo simply because it IS the status-quo. You have to expect as much, and remember that even majority opinions are very often shown to be completely wrong, especially in controversial issues. Not always. But often. So that it really IS a logical fallacy to side with a majority simply because it is a majority.



He lost. Therefore......


So you think of this like a game. Rather than an intellectual discussion. You come here to 'fight' us 'stupid twoofers'. How courageous of you. That would explain the depth of your posts.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I dont recall seeing cables attached to WTC7 prior to the "pulling".

LOL. No, no cables attached to the building. That tactic is called strawman. Seem to find alot of those ridiculous assertions in your posts lately, it must be frustrating to have to rely on them. It's a pretty low stoop though.

No cables, but oddly enough, I do recall however that after insurance payyee Larry Silverstien said Pull it, and after someone had warned NYC Mayor Ghouliani to evacuate the building because it was GOING to collapse, the BBC and CNN both reported the building's collapse (Look for yourself), BEFORE it collapsed. I'm guessing that you also know full well that 'Pull it' is also term widely used in controlled demolitions for bringing down the structure.

The dude says pull it, the news reports that it HAS COLLAPSED, Rich and Powerful people are told to get out of the building, then this happens...



Look at that .gif, watch the center buckle first, then it collapses perfectly into it's footprint. That's a fire related collapse??



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
ABSG-QRVZ-WRWG-7PGL-36Z5
No cables, but oddly enough, I do recall however that after insurance payyee Larry Silverstien said Pull it, and after someone had warned NYC Mayor Ghouliani to evacuate the building because it was GOING to collapse, the BBC and CNN both reported the building's collapse (Look for yourself), BEFORE it collapsed. I'm guessing that you also know full well that 'Pull it' is also term widely used in controlled demolitions for bringing down the structure.

The dude says pull it, the news reports that it HAS COLLAPSED, Rich and Powerful people are told to get out of the building, then this happens...



Look, this is going to get insulting. You're still on LOOSE CHANGE Vol 1. Vol 3 has been out for years. Like everybody over 15 knows the "Pull it" remark was for the Firemen to pull out of operation, not to pull down the building. Like, think for a minute.

Everybody knows Reuters reported the building as already down half an our before it totally collapsed.

The reason Truthers get no respect is they repeat and repeat and repeat the same disinformation factoids again and again and again.

Try some other information source beside the made in mom's basement websites and Youtubes, if you really do have any interest in 9/11.

Lots to learn.

M



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


First off, the only pulling done in or around the WTC were the firefighters from 7. Check the records and accounts. They all said the same thing, they were PULLED from WTC7.

The only demolition related pulling done at WTC, was 5 and 6 I believe WITH CABLES and no explosives. Yeah and the guys "pulling" them even said they were going to "pull" 5 and 6 during clean up. So no, pull it is not about blowing it up.

And why the hell would LS admit on TV he "blew up" his own building?
And another thing which I'll bet you cant even answer coherently, how did they manage to rig up the WTC7 in a few hours, while its burning, leaning, and completely unsafe to be around? LS was referring to the Firefighting effort being pulled. You do know that "pull" is also firefighter lingo? It means to pull out the firefighters or pull the firefighting effort. Maybe you can answer this, since when do firefighters do commercial demolitions of highrises? And if you can also please point to me in LS's quote, WHO made the decision to pull? I love this one.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The reason Truthers get no respect is they repeat and repeat and repeat the same disinformation factoids again and again and again.


And you're so much different, jumping on the bandwagon of calling us "truthers" even though I really doubt most people here associate themselves with that term. Don't act like you haven't been taking pointers from your JREF'er brethren yourself.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


So now your telling us that fire trucks have no water on them. You are telling me fire fighters have no hydrants to pump from.

You are telling us firefighters spend from 9am evacuation time till after 3pm just pulling there pump in SEVEN.

Now tell me what caused the damage to the water supply before 1 and 2 fell?

Your right I shouldn't have to check the back of your pants when I address your deceit.

Every one here that reads your attempt at intellectual poppy cock already has your number.



Fires

Photographs of Building 7 prior to its collapse show only small areas of fire.

Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and apparently did not suffer massive damage from the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers. Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its "collapse." Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph.

Evacuation
Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. 1
There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7. Tom Franklin did not take any photos of the building before heeding firemen's orders to evacuate the area. Had there been large fires, one would expect that the professional photographer would have documented them.

Destruction
arently did not suffer massive damage from the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers. Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its "collapse." Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph.

Evacuation
Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. 1
There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7. Tom Franklin did not take any photos of the building before heeding firemen's orders to evacuate the area. Had there been large fires, one would expect that the professional photographer would have documented them.

Destruction
Building 7 underwent a total structural collapse at 5:20 PM. 2 Although there were few people in the area to witness its destruction, several videos captured the event. Like the collapses of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7 commenced suddenly and was over in seconds. At first the penthouse, which rests on central columns, began to drop. Within a second the entire building began to drop as a whole, falling into its footprint in a precisely vertical fashion. The destruction of Building 7, which is not explained by the official theory, looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition.


In under seven seconds Building 7 was transformed from a skyscraper to a tidy rubble pile.
It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7. In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

1. Getting the photo of a lifetime, arlingtoncemetary.net, 9/13/01 [cached]
2. September 11: Chronology of terror, CNN.com, 9/12/01



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Read This


GET ON TOPIC AND STOP THE INSULTS

Post bans will be handed out from this post on.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by CameronFox
This looks like it is going to be rather informative:

At the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in New Mexico, the remains a steel column in an open field after of a thermite test.:



Oh wow, you are just going to swallow this info up without raising any questions?

Did you happen to see the youtube video of some thermite eating through
and engine block which is much more dense than that piece of steel in
your photo?

I'll be watching this 'documentary'...


Hey turbo, refer to the MYthbusters episode of thermite. Why couldnt 1,000lbs of thermite cut through a pickup truck?

Who says it didn't? You are being spoon fed B.S. and you are eating it right up.

Just because the SUV wasn't "cut in half" doesn't mean anything, contrary to what the show's producers want you to think. You can clearly see in their own video, the liquid thermite falling straight through the truck in thin vertical streams. The thermite is just punching holes in the truck because it is a liquid.

So all those bricks on the SUV that were supposed to create a "river" of thermite were completely useless, because the thermite that they were using was just creating liquid hole punches through the truck.

Notice in the show how they didn't flip the truck sideways and inspect those holes you saw being created? Notice how they didn't show you the ground underneath the truck?

They tricked you through the power of suggestion. They suggested to you that thermite (that they created - not telling you what the blend exactly was) was supposed to cut the truck in half. It didn't cut the truck in half. So you are lead to conclude that thermite can't cut things in half.

But if you actually think about it, why would you expect it to cut through the truck like a knife, instead of punching holes through it like spears?

[edit on 29-8-2009 by harrytuttle]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


So you're assuming, or asserting that the term 'pull it' is exclusive to firefighting?
How do you reckon they knew the building was going to collapse? Why did they report it had already collapsed when it had not? What are the odds against three steel framed structures all collapsing neatly into their own footprints that day when it had not happened before in the history of construction? More importantly, if unprecedented, and it was, how the hell did they know it was GOING to collapse with the kind of certainty to evacuate key personell and go ahead and release it to the press before the fact? Explain their pyschic ability, or begin to realize what the term foreknowledge implies in this situation.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Hey Joey, you might be interested in this video on progressive collapse:

two very interesting videos showing progressive collapse, without explosives. Feel free to use these at your pleasure!


You are not serious with these videos are you? As much as I have not agreed with you, I at least pegged you as one of those thay shies away from the petty personal attacks and sticks to facts and logic. Where did logic go?

These videos show buildings that have been prepped and then acted on by an outside force to take advantage of the specific style pf preparation. Do either of these videos prove anything about 9/11?

They simply prove that the OS folks are getting desperate. This is the fourth set of collapses being held up as an example that proves the 9/11 OS. Where are these pre-weakened floors, cut columns, missing supports on 9/11? Your logic is pretty off to when you think that no explosions means anything when you still have all kinds of outside forces being exerted onto the building.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join