Towers Of Lies

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

So you dont even need to know how it was built for you to know weather or not the damage was enough to compromise the structural integrity ?

Do you? Just curious, because you seem to be making the opposite assumption that I am. The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic.

Oh , you`re really losing grip of your stance -V- , i thought you knew what you were talking about but to just keep saying childish things like this in response to a decent question just goes to show that you do not have a clue.

Tell me where i have mentioned " secret explosives " , infact - quote the post you`re referring to .

And alot of people heard the explosions , but because Fox news and CNN arent telling you there was explosions , you dont beleive there was explosions ........ but Fox and CNN tell you Bin laden is behind it all , and you lap it up.

Baaaaaaa.

Originally posted by RockLobster
Oh , you`re really losing grip of your stance -V- , i thought you knew what you were talking about but to just keep saying childish things like this in response to a decent question just goes to show that you do not have a clue.

Tell me where i have mentioned " secret explosives " , infact - quote the post you`re referring to .

And alot of people heard the explosions , but because Fox news and CNN arent telling you there was explosions , you dont beleive there was explosions ........ but Fox and CNN tell you Bin laden is behind it all , and you lap it up.

Baaaaaaa.

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Once again with the assumptions. Do you ever stop making assumptions? You make them about that day, you make them about me. Where does it end?

Originally posted by Varemia

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you keep using your model in your arguments if it proves nothing?

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend the difference between evidence and proof.

Just because there is evidence does not necessarily mean it is sufficient to qualify as proof. Where is the counter evidence of a model that can completely collapse?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you keep using your model in your arguments if it proves nothing?

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend the difference between evidence and proof.

Just because there is evidence does not necessarily mean it is sufficient to qualify as proof. Where is the counter evidence of a model that can completely collapse?

psik

But you just said your model doesn't stand as evidence of the towers being unable to collapse! You're making no sense at all.

reply to post by Varemia


- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -


Isnt that an assumption ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -


Isnt that an assumption ?

Since I've watched the video of WTC 7 collapsing with sound. I can verify that there were no explosive sounds that one hears in literally every single video of a demolition. I'm not assuming that I didn't hear them. I really didn't hear them.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -


Isnt that an assumption ?

Since I've watched the video of WTC 7 collapsing with sound. I can verify that there were no explosive sounds that one hears in literally every single video of a demolition. I'm not assuming that I didn't hear them. I really didn't hear them.

So what did you hear then ? the explosion of concrete hitting steel ? C`mon -V- , you can do better than that.

What about the people who were there who heard explosions before and during the collapse ?

Are you saying they are liars ?

EDIT : And actually , you were assuming that i beleive secret silent explosives were used .

Originally posted by RockLobster
So what did you hear then ? the explosion of concrete hitting steel ?

C`mon -V- , you can do better than that.

What about the people who were there who heard explosions before and during the collapse ?

Are you saying they are liars ?

EDIT : And actually , you were assuming that i beleive secret silent explosives were used .

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Quote one person who heard explosions just before the collapse. If it's while the penthouse was collapsing inside WTC 7, that doesn't count.

reply to post by Varemia


Why doesnt it count ? ................. because you say so ? Do you realize how petulant you are being ?

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.” - Barry Jennings

Now , about this - the explosion sounds were the sounds of rubble - , dribble , Is this your new stance ? so that anyone who claims there was explosions during the collapse of the towers has no arguement ?

EDIT : i must say , i`m very surprised at the amount of stars your recent posts have received , especially when you are just talking utter cack.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

Why doesnt it count ? ................. because you say so ? Do you realize how petulant you are being ?

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.” - Barry Jennings

Now , about this - the explosion sounds were the sounds of rubble - , dribble , Is this your new stance ? so that anyone who claims there was explosions during the collapse of the towers has no arguement ?

EDIT : i must say , i`m very surprised at the amount of stars your recent posts have received , especially when you are just talking utter cack.

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that one person who agrees with me is such a riot. You're just like every other poster who finds out about 9/11, doesn't research anything thoroughly, only watching the conspiracy theorist propaganda, and then comes on here and blabs on about how "I don't understand how this could happen. This doesn't make sense to me. Explosions, pull it, evil super-government."

I'm done with it for now. I'm going to take another short hiatus from this site to catch up on my schoolwork. Toodles.

reply to post by Varemia


Yes , you just run away, while your gone you should do some research of your own .

Assuming that i have not researched the attacks , whilst sitting there with no answer to any of my questions , is pathetic. Just like your replies.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you keep using your model in your arguments if it proves nothing?

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend the difference between evidence and proof.

Just because there is evidence does not necessarily mean it is sufficient to qualify as proof. Where is the counter evidence of a model that can completely collapse?

psik

But you just said your model doesn't stand as evidence of the towers being unable to collapse! You're making no sense at all.

Great demonstration of intellect you have there.

You assume that evidence must be PROOF. You can't cope with a complicated reality that contains degrees of uncertainty. You can't accept that evidence must be evaluated with intelligence and logic. But I suppose in this case the physics would have to be understood to evaluate the evidence. Like comprehending the square cube law.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But all you can do is claim that the buckling difference would matter in a test versus my paper loops. You have NO EVIDENCE. But buildings are not constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

If you're so eager to build such a model, I just told you how to do it. use columns instead of paper loops that are wider than their height.

I have carefully explained why your model cannot exhibit the behavior you seem to expect of it. So will you please stop posting about it now that you concede that it constitutes "NO EVIDENCE"?, or will your argument remain "AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE"?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But all you can do is claim that the buckling difference would matter in a test versus my paper loops. You have NO EVIDENCE. But buildings are not constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

If you're so eager to build such a model, I just told you how to do it. use columns instead of paper loops that are wider than their height.

I am not eager to build such a model. I do not think it is possible. So if it is I want to see it. That is supposedly what happened to the north tower. The top destroying everything below from above by falling on it even though what was below had to be strong enough to support the static load. And it would not have been designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

And it would not have been designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

No, it would have been designed to be as strong as necessary. And necessary does not include the conditions created on 9/1/2001. Its really that simple.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

And it would not have been designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

No, it would have been designed to be as strong as necessary. And necessary does not include the conditions created on 9/1/2001. Its really that simple.

So the steel on the 81st level of the south tower weakened in less than ONE HOUR.

There had to be enough steel to support another 29 stories of static load.

How many tons of steel did the NIST say was on level 79 and 80 and 81 and 82 and 83? How much on each level? Does steel conduct heat?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The top destroying everything below from above by falling on it even though what was below had to be strong enough to support the static load.

Finally a point we can agree on.
"enough to support the static load"

What hit the undamaged floors below was not static. We can both agree that the floors were not designed to handle thousands of tons of debris moving at 'x' mph vertically.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So the steel on the 81st level of the south tower weakened in less than ONE HOUR.

There was a lot more going on then just "weakened" steel. They put together this whole big report on it, you should take a look at it some time.

There had to be enough steel to support another 29 stories of static load.

Well there had to be "enough" steel to transfer the static load to the foundation.

How many tons of steel did the NIST say was on level 79 and 80 and 81 and 82 and 83?

Read the report.

How much on each level?

Read the report.

Does steel conduct heat?

Yes. But that does not mean that steel is thermally transparent.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So the steel on the 81st level of the south tower weakened in less than ONE HOUR.

Look up the I580 collapse in CA.
The 'undamaged' steel 'I' beams of the overpass warped and collapsed in 15 minutes with a gasoline fire below it.

I had my small wedding reception at Windows of the World in 1977. We were the first 'public' group to use the restaurant.
The building(s) were very empty.

Everyone wanted to rent space on the top floors (why else be in a sky scrapper with a panoramic view?) so the bottom floors have almost always stayed unoccupied.

And by the mid 1990's a lot of offices were leaving Manhattan due to the very high rent and were sashaying over to Jersey leaving the towers even more empty.

It is my understanding the two towers were roughly 50-70% vacant at the time of this incident. Regardless if they were 50 or 70 percent empty, that's still a lot of overhead for Silverstein (lights, window washing, elevator maintenance etc) to maintain without revenue/rent.
Especially seeing he was facing millions of dollars in restoration cost---- in order to be in compliance with the dangerous asbestos-removal in the buildings.

My personal opinion is Silverstein looks, acts and sounds very shady and I don't have a single doubt that he valued money over people.