Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 761434 Views
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #990 on: February 24, 2017, 04:40:10 AM »
Quote from: Master_Evar
it is pretty much still for 0.7 seconds before it starts visibly falling.

No way man, that's what I've been saying.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #991 on: February 24, 2017, 04:43:26 AM »
See disputeone? This is what I'm talking about, BHS says he's an authority on this but I'm the one who has to correct the terms he's using.

Get bent (see what I did there)

If I meant allowable stress that is what I would have said. These numbers are estimates given by the manufacturer based on metallurgical qualities. Such as a992 vs A521....Then you add in thickness.

Certification loads is based on an entirely different system, will change on the design of the building, country, and region. For example a high heat area with large seismic activity will be different than an area which is cold and dry. These ratings are sometimes to the city only, other times by state, just depends on structure. There are too many laws to list and variables.

Unless you are in Tehran...Then as long as it doesn't fall in 90 days you pass lol..


Make an argument or f off master... Seriously.


*Edit* I am talking about in the states...Things could be different in other countries. Also your supposed "rebuttal" completely ignored the assembled certification which would veto your definition in the first place, and would have saved me typing.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 04:49:45 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #992 on: February 24, 2017, 04:50:06 AM »
Well, I knew what he was talking about...

In Australia its similar to what we used to call it a SWL safe working load.

Now we call it a WLL working load limit (cause Australians tend a little to be a little "she'll be right mate.")

Wasn't hard.

Other synonyms include Working Load Limit (WLL), which is the maximum working load designed by the manufacturer. This load represents a force that is much less than that required to make the lifting equipment fail or yield, also known as the Minimum Breaking Load (MBL).

www.google.com
Yes, that's another term for it. But "Cert load" is not a real term, and even though I guessed what it meant, I don't like to just throw guess like that. And if we use either of the terms WLL or allowable stress, it eases the discussion as both are defined as yield strength (or minimum yield strength) divided by safety factor. So the safety factor decides how many times the designed maximum stress can be put unto the material. And did you realise how easy it was for us to give citations, but BHS STILL didn't give any?

But BHS has not proved anything. He's proved just about as much, as he did when he claimed that "the whole of history says that socialism is a disaster".

If I meant allowable stress that is what I would have said. These numbers are estimates given by the manufacturer based on metallurgical qualities. Such as a992 vs A521....Then you add in thickness.

Certification loads is based on an entirely different system, will change on the design of the building, country, and region. For example a high heat area with large seismic activity will be different than an area which is cold and dry. These ratings are sometimes to the city only, other times by state, just depends on structure. There are too many laws to list and variables.

So it isn't WLL or allowable stress, in which case both me and disputeone actually guessed wrong. See, that's why I don't want to guess. Then, can you tell me the criteria for determining certification load (i.e. a formula) and give a citation?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #993 on: February 24, 2017, 04:51:41 AM »
Quote from: Master_Evar
it is pretty much still for 0.7 seconds before it starts visibly falling.

No way man, that's what I've been saying.
No, you've been saying it goes from totally intact to falling instantly. Footage shows that doesn't happen (if nothing else, the penthouse proves that).

Also, I really hope that both of you remember I'm not saying it's absolutely not controlled demolition.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #994 on: February 24, 2017, 04:58:30 AM »
The penthouse is evidence for a controlled demolition....

Edit master evar, it's still pretty much the same thing how much load something is rated to hold in a specific use or circumstance.

It is always much lower than the failing point of the material, joint, weld etc in some cases 30+ times stronger.

Geez man.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 05:03:27 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #995 on: February 24, 2017, 04:59:49 AM »
The penthouse is evidence for a controlled demolition....
It's evidence for nothing. No, actually, it's just evidence that the interior collapsed before the exterior. But that's it.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #996 on: February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM »
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #997 on: February 24, 2017, 05:08:25 AM »
I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.

Based.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #998 on: February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM »
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #999 on: February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM »
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.

Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?

That would be great...I along with many others would pay a tidy some for such info.

...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.

Ditto... with emphasis being on the bold section
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1000 on: February 24, 2017, 05:20:44 AM »

It is always much lower than the failing point of the material, joint, weld etc in some cases 30+ times stronger.



Ditto...

A weld is always stronger than the material being welded (of course a proper weld, an improper weld is a different story).. Thus, why in the states there are 1000s of inspections on a high rise being built...Usually running about 280-400 dollars a pop. Yikes.

Also, some of the joints, can approach up to 80 times over on fail rate, especially on older buildings before computer aided design. Once the math keeps multiplying on itself, if you look at the total weight allowed on certain joints after the completed certification, it is child's play to what it could handle before complete failure if you broke it down to individual pieces again
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 05:23:04 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1001 on: February 24, 2017, 05:24:49 AM »
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1002 on: February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1003 on: February 24, 2017, 05:30:50 AM »
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1004 on: February 24, 2017, 05:33:42 AM »
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.

Kindly point out where I stated Master Evar is on drugs.

I did not.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1005 on: February 24, 2017, 05:33:53 AM »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1006 on: February 24, 2017, 05:35:21 AM »
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as a mirage.

What part of that do you not understand?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1007 on: February 24, 2017, 05:35:50 AM »
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.
Maybe, the interior got more damaged because most of the load of the building was loaded unto the interior supports? So once something was going to fail, it was an interior column?

Why wouldn't the interior be more damaged?

P.s., marked where you state I'm on drugs.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1008 on: February 24, 2017, 05:36:21 AM »
I give what is received like a mirror..If you want to come with nonsense that is what I put out.

Leave rayzor out of your post...Him and I are a perfect example. There was nonsense in and nonsense out at one point.

Now we have settled to a calm question answer/answer question type of communication platform. I even admitted information he presented a few pages back that I didn't know about. See what can come from a real conversation?

So nonsense in nonsense out?? Pretty easy huh... As for any sort of certification specifications you need to be more specific as I told master a few posts ago.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1009 on: February 24, 2017, 05:37:55 AM »
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as amirage.

What part of that do you not understand?
so If I claim I have a pen, unless I prove I have a pen I haven't claimed I have a pen? Neat, that would also mean I could slander anyone, but because I don't have evidence for my slander I haven't slandered anyone.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1010 on: February 24, 2017, 05:41:11 AM »
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.
Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great.

And still, I really REALLY hope you can cite some guidelines for it. Surely there must be some official guidelines for calculating cert load, so that people can't just build however they want?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1011 on: February 24, 2017, 05:45:27 AM »
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.
Maybe, the interior got more damaged because most of the load of the building was loaded unto the interior supports? So once something was going to fail, it was an interior column?

Why wouldn't the interior be more damaged?

P.s., marked where you state I'm on drugs.

I asked what you smoke prior to posting.

You interpret that as an accusation of drug use?

Explains your reliance on the OS.

Nobody denies the interior of WTC 7 suffered damage.

It is why and how the damage was inflicted we disagree about.

You forget the building served as the Emergency Center for NYC.

You forget entire floors were built to withstand coordinated bombing attacks.

There is no proof presented in the OS concerning the causes of interior column collapse in WTC 7, leading to what witnesses can only call a perfect example of a controlled demolition.   
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 05:53:40 AM by totallackey »

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1012 on: February 24, 2017, 05:48:51 AM »
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as amirage.

What part of that do you not understand?
so If I claim I have a pen, unless I prove I have a pen I haven't claimed I have a pen? Neat, that would also mean I could slander anyone, but because I don't have evidence for my slander I haven't slandered anyone.

You would deny that slander, and cling to that denial much the same as you cling to a non-scientific (therefore useless as tits on a penguin) NIST report.

Linus.

Quit engaging in such equivocation.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1013 on: February 24, 2017, 05:50:47 AM »
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.
Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great.

And still, I really REALLY hope you can cite some guidelines for it. Surely there must be some official guidelines for calculating cert load, so that people can't just build however they want?

Re read what I wrote...it is obvious people don't just build what they want (unless you are in Tehran lol)...I was very clear on how many facets there are in the determination of such factors. I have also explained other areas of this as well.

This is exactly the shit I am talking about which is why I speak to you with disrespect...I say something in clear written language and you completely ignore it and say what you want.

So before I waste another second of my time with you please observe what Rama set posted.

A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I hate copy and paste or just posting links, but don't want to waste any more time with you, at least currently.

This is only a small fraction of information...More specific can be had, but it would take a minimum of an hour, more than likely more since I hate communicating through text. There is no quick way to present information like that.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1014 on: February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM »
I asked what you smoke prior to posting.

You interpret that as an accusation of drug use?
Actually, Rama Set did it. However, it certainly implies that I smoke, and smokable substances are considered drugs.

Nobody denies the interior of WTC 7 suffered damage.
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling, implying that this includes the interior.

The rest is nothing I directly disagree with, except for that you imply that I'm forgetting things, as if I've ever claimed otherwise. And it wouldn't be a "perfect" example of a controlled demolition, as it did damage neighbouring buildings. A perfect controlled demolition would not do that.

You would deny that slander, and cling to that denial much the same as you cling to a non-scientific (therefore useless as tits on a penguin) NIST report.
Would I deny the slander? How do you know?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1015 on: February 24, 2017, 06:00:45 AM »
Re read what I wrote...it is obvious people don't just build what they want (unless you are in Tehran lol)...I was very clear on how many facets there are in the determination of such factors. I have also explained other areas of this as well.

This is exactly the shit I am talking about which is why I speak to you with disrespect...I say something in clear written language and you completely ignore it and say what you want.
You said:
"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."

Ergo, I did what you ask me for. Then you accuse me of ignoring it. Pathetic. Put up or shut up.

And you don't want to do the work? Fine, there's an easy solution: Cite a source that agrees with you.

So before I waste another second of my time with you please observe what Rama set posted.

A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I hate copy and paste or just posting links, but don't want to waste any more time with you, at least currently.

This is only a small fraction of information...More specific can be had, but it would take a minimum of an hour, more than likely more since I hate communicating through text. There is no quick way to present information like that.
If only it contained the elusive "Cert load"... But it doesn't, so you still have to provide your own citation.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1016 on: February 24, 2017, 06:07:58 AM »
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling

Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1017 on: February 24, 2017, 06:10:57 AM »
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1018 on: February 24, 2017, 06:12:53 AM »
Actually, Rama Set did it. However, it certainly implies that I smoke, and smokable substances are considered drugs.

Okay, you smoke nothing.

Drug use is not an explanation for why you cling to fairy tales.

Do you have an explanation?

I could keep guessing, but I do not want to be accused of faulty conjecture.

Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling, implying that this includes the interior.

I did not see this claim by disputeone.

Maybe I missed it.

The rest is nothing I directly disagree with, except for that you imply that I'm forgetting things, as if I've ever claimed otherwise. And it wouldn't be a "perfect" example of a controlled demolition, as it did damage neighbouring buildings. A perfect controlled demolition would not do that.

You do realize when a building is slated for a controlled demolition, announcements are made and precautionary measures are taken, correct?

Large areas of the neighboring areas are cordoned off, traffic re-routed, fences erected, surrounding buildings are boarded up, etc.?

Even then, there is collateral damage.

Unpreventable.

Only distance away from the site is fool-proof.

By "perfect," I meant the building dropped the very same way any building would drop when a building is purposefully demoed.

When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that goddamn thing is fucking duck.

WTC 7 was most definitely a controlled demolition.

Would I deny the slander? How do you know?

Part of the conjecture I referenced earlier.

No definitive proof, but with you tossing around the NIST like it is the Bible, I figured you would not mind me doing the same shit.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:31:04 AM by totallackey »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1019 on: February 24, 2017, 06:14:17 AM »

"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir