Hmm. That thing must weigh a lot. It travled pretty far too. And at a fast speed. But where is the damage to the concrete? And how did it get there if there wasn't a hole in the side of the building? Because we're going to have to make a choice here: Did the plane go through the building or not Seriously. What the hell.
Another analysis of the structural damage from civil and structural engineers. http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/matthys-p-levy.html
You will notice that in this sequence, the radio tower directly over the core starts dropping first. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html
Yeah...that's f'n weird. That thing was bolted to the ground. When it starts free falling, that's when I became a truther. The explosion that brought it down.
You evidently think you know more than the multitude of engineering organizations that have studied the collapse and the cause of the failure. The buildings responded very well to the damage allowing many people to escape, but the damage and resulting fire of the combustibles with fire systems that were not designed to handle total and multiple floor fires all worked together to bring the buildings down. The exterior columns were designed to 20% capacity. The destruction of the exterior columns resulted in close to 100% load capacity on the adjacent columns of the damage. A sequenced study of the failure at impact shows the columns adjacent to the damage failing with the ones next to them going like dominoes since they were already at 100% load capacity. This would not have brought the building down itself but the core damage, floor damage, and heat from the fires all added together to put strains on the buildings that it was not designed for. If you would do some reading, you would find that what you see at the initial collapse is totally consistent with the collapse at that floor, the out rush of smoke.
I know that some people would rather believe the weird than to believe people that actually know something about structural response to damage. http://eng-web.engineering.cornell.edu/EngrWords/issues/ew01/Stevenson_C_final.pdf
Most of the conspiracy theorists have no interest or understanding of physics. Why they wish to hold onto unsupportable claims with no evidence is beyond me.
Well, it's not including the text you added in afterwards, but according to what you posted, the South Tower sustained less damage. So why did it fall first? And why are you ignoring my other posts?
Okay. So what do you say to the men and women that know what they're talking about, but differ in professional opinion? Would you sit there and argue against them, even though they're the expert, and are making a professional estimate, not a personal one.
I know that engineers at Purdue or MIT are not smart enough to know what they are talking about according to you, but I will take their studies any day over half baked truthers.
You truthers are all alike. You make a statement and because you made it you think it is true absent any truth or logic. You assume that believing the engineers at Purdue or MIT over truthers is admitting to arguing against experts in the field? Can you get any more ridiculous?
There are engineers that disagree with the consensus viewpoint, which you know I'm talking about, is clear to discern, and easy to understand, which yes, means that you would be arguing against experts in the fields that are relevant to this discussion. And again, you use that brush.
I mean really, this is the 9/11 conspiracy section, Hoosier, if you don't buy into the conspiracy, then state yer f'n agenda, and if you can't do that, you should be post banned from this section. Because like a lot of your 'friends' here, you deride this section. That is obvious. If a mod is reading this, go through the posting histories of Patriot, Fangbeer, Dave, Hannibal, and a select few that pop in from time-to-time like Hoosier and Bullslaw. They deride this section. I went through Patriot's posts tonight and disliked every one that was in his usual derogatory insultive way. Why aren't these clearly old and compounded issues taken care off? I mean, ask them why they post so vigorously in this section. When you get through their half-truths and propaganda, you find out that they're bullies, sycophants, and enablers. They're the kind of Americans that, because of their deficits, have drug this great nation down into a pit of utter despair. It would take a sledgehammer to wake them up. And hence, they deride this forum. They all should be banned from this section. Because if they don't buy into the conspiracy, you really should ask them of their intentions and motivation in what they do. And really, if they don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy, then what business do they have in the 9/11 conspiracy theory section?
no I mean the eye witnesses and the BODY witnesses that got blown to (*)(*)(*)(*) and were covered in their own blood from bein blown across the room I dont watch tv
Simple. Promote the truth. There is only one truth. One can defend the truth. One cannot successfully defend a lie. How can one identify the lie? Simple. Look at the evidence. There is no evidence of what truthers claim. None. I've asked and I've asked. You get people like Koko who pretend they can redefine the meaning of evidence or people such as yourselves who blindly and willfully dismiss evidence that you don't like because it proves your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agenda is all about your hatred of the US, not the pursuit of the truth. This is a prime example. You have thousands of engineers who agree on what happened. They have the math and the knowledge to back up their claims. Yet you dismiss all them to champion a few renegades that only give you an opinion. They can't show you the math because the math doesn't add up. They can't explain their opinion without exposing the lie. So they can only tell you the lie. If what they are claiming is the truth, why can't they defend the truth? This is the question you CANNOT answer.
You haven't learned a thing since you "became" a truther, have you. You ignore any evidence that doesn't support your conclusion even to the point of utter lunacy. You stop just short of the Let's Roll complete idiot crowd but that's not really saying much. It fell first because the impact zone was lower and there was more of the building's weight above to damaged floors. Tell me honestly that you haven't come across that little fact in your "research" before. And tell me honestly why that would not make sense to you? There are many "experts" who have a title but are not experts in the field that they are giving an opinion on. Richard Gage is an architect. He is not an expert in structural engineering. David Ray Griffen is a theology and religion professor. He is not an expert in ANYTHING related to 9/11 other than separating the gullible from their money. He seems quite accomplished at that. I believe the purpose of this sub forum is the discussion of 9/11. There are multiple view points on the issue. You know, free speech and all? If you want a forum where EVERYONE believes the truther bull (*)(*)(*)(*) go back to Let's Roll. So challenging your views on 9/11 = "deriding the forum"? How very mature of you. Because the topic is interesting? Why do YOU post so vigorously in this section? Now THAT takes some nerve right there. You need to review the definition of half-truths and propaganda. Roof top missile systems on the Pentagon? Video fakery? Pull it? Does the order still stand? I'd say there IS one side of the argument that promotes half truths and propaganda but it surely isn't the side that you are mad at. Yep. When you can't defend your views, lash out at the posters who point out the errors in your arguments. Again, if you're looking for a group that says "Man I know Jango, the government IS evil. They ARE responsible for 9/11 and all the other bad things in the world" go back to Let's Roll. They do a pretty good job of preaching to the choir there. So you don't believe in free speech anymore? Seems like an odd position for an ex Marine to take.
