Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The building will still not fall until you have reached a critical limit.

Yes indeed.

Now, if only truthers could admit that fire and physical damage from plane impacts can do this very thing, then this sub-forum would cease to exist due to a lack of interest.

I'll be happy to admit it as soon as you can show me where it has been proven.


I notice you're never anywhere to be found when we actually debate things like what the NIST report did or did not prove, etc. You just come along after all that in blissful ignorance with your fairy tales still intact, don't you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you talking about? Conspiracy websites are claiming there were no explosions now?

Well, *somebody* among you is spreading the propaganda that the 9/11 commission report is claiming there were no explosions

Yeah, it was the person who was using the term "hushaboom" earlier as if you could hear a pin drop throughout that day.

You really need to learn how to differentiate between different people. You are arguing with things other "debunkers" have said yet you think I had something to do with it?


And for all the straw-men you incessantly post, you still haven't proven that King Kong destroyed the Twin Towers like all your damned fool websites claim.

reply to post by bsbray11


Ok, please explain how it is that you "reach" a critical limit? A table has four legs it stands, three legs and it wobbles, two legs and it falls. If you are removing two of the legs with explosives then soon as the explosives goes that's when the table falls. Not half an hour later. This is really simple stuff, you can weaken a building over time with rust but not with explosives. Please help me help you. Tell me what is confusing you about this.

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, please explain how it is that you "reach" a critical limit?

By compromising enough columns that the loading on the remaining columns exceeds their safety factor.

A table has four legs it stands, three legs and it wobbles, two legs and it falls.

That's one reason they used 50 core columns and hundreds of perimeter columns.




Hooper, if someone destroyed only one column with a bomb, do you think the whole building would ever collapse just from that alone? Yes or no, please.

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't think so, but I can't say for sure.

Originally posted by hooper
I don't think so, but I can't say for sure.

Okay, well you "don't think" that the WTC Towers would fail from just one column out of hundreds being compromised.

Then why did you just say earlier that the buildings would not be able to stand for any length of time after an explosion went off that damaged the structure?


The point is, skyscrapers are built with redundancy to avoid them collapsing instantly if a disaster happens. That's why they didn't immediately collapse when the planes hit them. If you are going to demolish such a building then you would have to compromise all of this redundancy, and there is no reason it could not be done over time, until the building was gradually weakened to the point of total failure.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you talking about? Conspiracy websites are claiming there were no explosions now?

Well, *somebody* among you is spreading the propaganda that the 9/11 commission report is claiming there were no explosions

Yeah, it was the person who was using the term "hushaboom" earlier as if you could hear a pin drop throughout that day.

All right then, let's settle this once and for all- do you fully admit on the record then that when your fellow conspiracy mongers post "witnesses heard explosions" it's an attempt at a strawman argument becuase noone is denying that witnesses heard explosions?

And for all the straw-men you incessantly post, you still haven't proven that King Kong destroyed the Twin Towers like all your damned fool websites claim.

I never mentioned anything about King Kong. I asked whether you will be equally as intellectually honest about renouncing these controlled demolitions claims for the exact reason I renounced the Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 claim- there is precisely zero tangible evidence proving either. You're not going to go phony on me and pull some double standard out of your pocket, are you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, let's settle this once and for all- do you fully admit on the record then that when your fellow conspiracy mongers post "witnesses heard explosions" it's an attempt at a strawman argument becuase noone is denying that witnesses heard explosions?

When one of your "fellow" "debunkers" is posting nonsense about "hushabooms," it's not a straw-man at all.

Maybe you should respond to them instead of me, about their confusion as to there being explosions.

And for all the straw-men you incessantly post, you still haven't proven that King Kong destroyed the Twin Towers like all your damned fool websites claim.

I never mentioned anything about King Kong.

And I've never mentioned anything here about space beams either but you have a lot of trouble understanding that, don't you?

Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't have hospital records.

No Kiddin? Try Google : 'wtc injuries' gives me this cdc document:

www.cdc.gov...

Where it says:

Among 790 survivors with injuries, 386 (49%) had inhalation injuries and 204 (26%) had ocular injuries (Table 1). Most inhalation and ocular injuries were attributed to smoke, dust, debris, or fumes. A total of 443 (56%) survivors were treated for inhalation injury, ocular injury, or a combination of both without additional injuries. Among survivors hospitalized with injuries, 52 (37%) sustained inhalation injuries and 27 (19%) sustained burns. Most survivors with fractures (59%), burns (69%), closed head injuries (57%), or crush injuries (75%) were hospitalized for additional treatment. The injury pattern among rescue workers differed from the pattern among other survivors (Table 2). A significantly higher percentage of rescue workers sustained ocular injuries (39% versus 19%; p

Originally posted by bsbray11

if someone destroyed only one column with a bomb, do you think the whole building would ever collapse just from that alone? Yes or no, please.

NIST did this for building 7.

Guess what results they got?

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'll be happy to admit it as soon as you can show me where it has been proven.

Just to be clear here, you agree to the theory that plane impact damage and fire, or fire alone can cause the 'critical limit' to be reached?

But you are unconvinced that this limit was ever reached?

Or just that NIST hasn't proven it?

I notice you're never anywhere to be found when we actually debate things like what the NIST report did or did not prove, etc. You just come along after all that in blissful ignorance with your fairy tales still intact, don't you?

Proven to you? Of course they haven't. For you are the electrical engineering student that has seen through the smoke screen all by yourself....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Nothing about barotrauma/hearing loss.

Thank you for the argument from authority on behalf of the CDC.

I really don't care.

To learn? Obviously........

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
if someone destroyed only one column with a bomb, do you think the whole building would ever collapse just from that alone? Yes or no, please.

NIST did this for building 7.

Guess what results they got?

This?:

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'll be happy to admit it as soon as you can show me where it has been proven.

Just to be clear here, you agree to the theory that plane impact damage and fire, or fire alone can cause the 'critical limit' to be reached?

Just to be clear here, you can show me where I have ever actually stated such a thing?

Or you are showing an over-active imagination again?

But you are unconvinced that this limit was ever reached?

Or just that NIST hasn't proven it?

Why don't you start with what NIST actually proved instead of asking me a million questions. Then at least you would be oriented in the right direction.

Originally posted by bsbray11

When one of your "fellow" "debunkers" is posting nonsense about "hushabooms," it's not a straw-man at all.

Sure it is.

Hush-a-Booms is a tongue in cheek reference to the appeal to magic that truthers employ when it is pointed out to them just HOW loud any explosive capable of cutting columns would be vs what is actually heard/lack of barotrauma by those who heard them.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Just to be clear here, you can show me where I have ever actually stated such a thing?

If you don't want to answer, don't deflect.

Sack up and just say you don't want to answer.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

Just to be clear here, you can show me where I have ever actually stated such a thing?

If you don't want to answer, don't deflect.

Sack up and just say you don't want to answer.

Why don't you take your own advice?

I asked you what the NIST report proved and you automatically started asking me what I believe.


If you can't post what I ask for then just "sack up and just say you don't want to answer."

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Hush-a-Booms is a tongue in cheek reference to the appeal to magic that truthers employ when it is pointed out to them just HOW loud any explosive capable of cutting columns would be

According to NIST it would be the same decibel level as a jackhammer. And have you proven that any of the reported or recorded explosions were any quieter than that? No. So you are arguing from ignorance once again.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Thank you for the argument from authority on behalf of the CDC.

Merely pointing out to you that this wasn't hard to find. In fact, it was the first one in the Google search.

Which shows just how thorough and comprehensive your search for truth is.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

It's plainly obvious.

This?:

Yep. the building collapses.

Originally posted by bsbray11


If you can't post what I ask for then just "sack up and just say you don't want to answer."

I can answer just fine.

But you need to answer what amount of evidence and corroboration will convince you that something has been proven.

If I say that there are scores of peer reviewed papers that deal with the collapses that agree with NIST that plane impacts and fires caused the collapse, will this be enough?

If I show you a few of the independent studies carried out that show the NIST study to be correct, will this be enough?

Or will you be the typical truther and use your proven ignorance to claim that you are smarter than all these professional organizations and individuals? And that nothing has been proven?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Merely pointing out to you that this wasn't hard to find. In fact, it was the first one in the Google search.

Which shows just how thorough and comprehensive your search for truth is.

Googling information from the CDC and then presenting it as an incorruptible authority has nothing to do with "truth."

This?:

Yep. the building collapses.

Problem is, that simulation has nothing to do with reality.

Did you actually look at that image for any length of time?