Real 9-11 Research

[clambake]

I think the voices in my head should count as experts. They seem quite knowledgeable.

after the dragon tenderloin, did you take the floating gazebo tour piloted by tim leary?

[Galileo]

And answer my question.

I answered both of yours twice.

You never answered my questions. Let's go back to the first one; Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition? You simply say that the point of failure was below the camera view. That doesn't answer the question. We had a few office fires on floors 7 through 13. How can these fires simulate a controlled demolition? A controlled demolition takes hundreds of explosive charges strategically placed. How could a few office fires do the damage of hundreds of strategically placed explosives?

Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.

[ChumpDumper]

You never answered my questions. Let's go back to the first one; Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition? You simply say that the point of failure was below the camera view. That doesn't answer the question.

Sure it does. Thanks for agreeing about the piont of structural failure. There may be hope for you yet.

Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.

That's your expert on the determining the iden ies of the hijackers? What is wrong with you?


And what do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Sure it does. Thanks for agreeing about the piont of structural failure. There may be hope for you yet.

That's your expert on the determining the iden ies of the hijackers? What is wrong with you?


And what do you think really happened on 9/11?

What caused the structural failure?

WTC 7 had 81 steel columns, including 24 massive core columns. The small number of office fires would have to knock out a majority of these columns at exactly the same time. No engineer has offered a scientific explanation for how this could happen, nor is an explanation possible from natural causes.

No one knows who the hijackers were. The FBI sent out a press release. Press releases are not evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

What caused the structural failure?

WTC 7 had 81 steel columns, including 24 massive core columns. The small number of office fires would have to knock out a majority of these columns at exactly the same time.

Untrue. Some combination of the truss structure over the ConEd substation and/or other sections are all that really needed to go.

No engineer has offered a scientific explanation for how this could happen, nor is an explanation possible from natural causes.

They already have -- they just don't know exactly where it happened.

No one knows who the hijackers were. The FBI sent out a press release. Press releases are not evidence.

Bull . The hijackers didn't hide their iden ies. They are widely and well known to anyone without his head in the sand.


Answer my question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Untrue. Some combination of the truss structure over the ConEd substation and/or other sections are all that really needed to go.They already have -- they just don't know exactly where it happened.

Bull . The hijackers didn't hide their iden ies. They are widely and well known to anyone without his head in the sand.


Answer my question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

The ConEd substation would only affect a few of the 81 columns. There is no evidence that the ConEd substation affected any column.

We know where the critical failure occurred, it is in the NIST report. It occurred near columns the core columns at the eastern end of the core; columns 76-81.

btw, the initial collapse of the east penthouse on the roof was 8 seconds before the rest of the building came down. How did fires below floor 13 cause the roof to collapse? This was in sight of the cameras.

[ChumpDumper]

Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.

You know what -- Ross doesn't have a CV or list of previously published articles.

AND

on his own site, he makes no claim to having a PhD of any kind. in fact the only specific mention I have seen says he has only bachelor's degrees.

Please answer this question: What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Please answer this question: What do you think really happened on 9/11?

You realize that I am one of the only people on earth who knows the truth about 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

The ConEd substation would only affect a few of the 81 columns. There is no evidence that the ConEd substation affected any column.

You are quite clearly insane. The substation affects the basic structure of the building. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise.

We know where the critical failure occurred, it is in the NIST report. It occurred near columns the core columns at the eastern end of the core; columns 76-81.

You mean the ones above the trusses that transfer the load OVER THE CON ED SUBSTATION.



Thanks for agreeing with me yet again.

btw, the initial collapse of the east penthouse on the roof was 8 seconds before the rest of the building came down. How did fires below floor 13 cause the roof to collapse? This was in sight of the cameras.

You just explained that by saying which group of columns failed. Those columns failed, the loads transfered to and overwhemled the other columns within a matter of second, causing a collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

You realize that I am one of the only people on earth who knows the truth about 9/11?

Why are you holding back?

Do you not think it's important for everyone to know and share the knowledge you have?

[Galileo]

You are quite clearly insane. The substation affects the basic structure of the building. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise.

You mean the ones above the trusses that transfer the load OVER THE CON ED SUBSTATION.



Thanks for agreeing with me yet again.

You just explained that by saying which group of columns failed. Those columns failed, the loads transfered to and overwhemled the other columns within a matter of second, causing a collapse.

There's no evidence the ConEd station has anything to do with the collapse.

If it did blow up, it would not affect the east Penthouse on the roof. It would not collapse the columns on the west side of the building.

If Superman was hiding down in the substation, and yanked everything, it would bend the west columns towards to east.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no evidence the ConEd station has anything to do with the collapse.

There is no evidence controlled demolition had anything to do with the collapse.

If it did blow up, it would not affect the east Penthouse on the roof. It would not collapse the columns on the west side of the building.

Who says the substation blew up? What meds are you currently taking?

[Galileo]

Why are you holding back?

Do you not think it's important for everyone to know and share the knowledge you have?

some can't handle the truth. That even includes many of the Truthers who don't look at both sides of the evidence.

Debating 9/11 is worse than arguing politics. Its more like arguing religion. Most are irrational or ignorant, or both.

Most of the info provided by 9/11 Truthers is non-conclusive filler. There is only a small amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job.

[ChumpDumper]

some can't handle the truth. That even includes many of the Truthers who don't look at both sides of the evidence.

Debating 9/11 is worse than arguing politics. Its more like arguing religion. Most are irrational or ignorant, or both.

Most of the info provided by 9/11 Truthers is non-conclusive filler. There is only a small amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job.

So your reason for keeping the truth of 9/11 a secret from the world is that people will argue with you?

That's weak.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

There is no evidence controlled demolition had anything to do with the collapse.

Who says the substation blew up? What meds are you currently taking?

a video a building that comes down in what looks exactly like a controlled demolition isn't evidence? By itself, it may not be proof, but it is evidence. To claim it is not evidence is dishonest. If people didn't know WTC 7 fell on 9/11, everyone would agree it was acontrolled demolition.

The crux of the issue is whether a building can fall in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition, if its not a controlled demolition. That is the crux of the issue.

This is about as easy as proving that unicorns exist.

[ChumpDumper]

a video a building that comes down in what looks exactly like a controlled demolition isn't evidence? By itself, it may not be proof, but it is evidence. To claim it is not evidence is dishonest. If people didn't know WTC 7 fell on 9/11, everyone would agree it was acontrolled demolition.

So the fact that the columns over the substation failed is evidence that the design of the building over the substation had an influence on the collapse.

The crux of the issue is whether a building can fall in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition, if its not a controlled demolition. That is the crux of the issue.

It didn't fall "exaclty" in the manner of a controlled demolition.

This is about as easy as proving that unicorns exist.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

So the fact that the columns over the substation failed is evidence that the design of the building over the substation had an influence on the collapse.

It didn't fall "exaclty" in the manner of a controlled demolition.


What do you think really happened on 9/11?

There's no evidence there was a fire in the SubStation. We don't know the exact place where the collapse started.

We do know that the east penthouse went down 8 seconds before the collapse started.

A simpler explanation is that the columns below the east penthouse were blown out along the whole length of the columns, creating the implosion that did little damage to nearby buildings. Then after 8 seconds, the rest of the demolition charges went off.

There's no way a fire on floor 13 or lower, can cause the east penthouse on floor 47 to collapse.

You should know about this as you've looked at the NIST report.

[Mavtek]

The Truthers and the debunkers have points. They both fall over in some cases. The Truthers can come up with some pretty outrageous theories and the debunkers try to explain things with insane science that just doesn't work. Before you ask the debunkers actually have a ridiculous equation that attempts to explain the molten steel by kinetic energy. Please..... Even if you do their own equation you come up with a maximum of 1376 degrees. Which at best would make the steel hot and nowhere near molten.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no evidence there was a fire in the SubStation. We don't know the exact place where the collapse started.

And there's no evidence I ever said anything about a fire in the substation.

We do know that the east penthouse went down 8 seconds before the collapse started.

So?

A simpler explanation is that the columns below the east penthouse were blown out along the whole length of the columns, creating the implosion that did little damage to nearby buildings. Then after 8 seconds, the rest of the demolition charges went off.

The Superman pulling on columns is a simpler explanation. Your pulling the building down with the power of your thoughts is a simpler explanation.

There's no way a fire on floor 13 or lower, can cause the east penthouse on floor 47 to collapse.

So you're saying there is no way an explosion on floor 13 or lower could cause the east penthouse to collapse either. Anyway there were multiple fires all over the building and extensive structural damage from the impact of the north tower that fell into the higher floors. Plenty of places where other columns could fail.


What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

And there's no evidence I ever said anything about a fire in the substation.

So?

The Superman pulling on columns is a simpler explanation. Your pulling the building down with the power of your thoughts is a simpler explanation.

So you're saying there is no way an explosion on floor 13 or lower could cause the east penthouse to collapse either.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

you are spewing doubletalk.

Here is the NIST report on WTC 7:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

All of the damage to WTC 7 is outlined starting on pages L-17.

There is debris damage and fire damage.

If you look at the debis damage, it has nothing to do with the collapse, so the scientists are focusing on the fire damage.

Most of the fire damage is from before 3 pm. Steel near a fire at 3pm would cool down by 5:20, the time of collapse.

If you look on page L-24, it tells where the fires were after 3:00 pm. There was a fire on floors 7, 8, 12, and 13 on the north face. That's it.

That doesn't explain how a gigantic steel building fell down in 6.6 seconds. It doesn't explain why the east penthouse fell down on the roof. A controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.

The other obvious problem with WTC 7, is that we are talking about reletively small office fires. Office fires, paper burning, carpeting, etc, has little effect on steel beams.

Another problem is that we are told the twin towers fell from an airplane impact, big fires, and fire-proofing loss from impact. None of this applies to WTC 7. Yet we are supposed to belive that it wasn't a controlled demoliton.

Not sure how it could be more obvious that WTC 7 was controlled demolition just from the visual data. I haven't even gotten into the eyewitnesses.

There is no point discussing anything else to do with 9/11 if you can't see WTC 7 for what it is.

If a controlled demoliton company was contracted to take down WTC 7, they couldn't do better than to take the NIST report as a guide of where to set all the thousands of explosive charges.

[ChumpDumper]

small office fires.

You are full of .

Another problem is that we are told the twin towers fell from an airplane impact, big fires, and fire-proofing loss from impact. None of this applies to WTC 7. Yet we are supposed to belive that it wasn't a controlled demoliton.

A World Trade Center Tower fell on it and it burned uncontrolled for several hours.

Not sure how it could be more obvious that WTC 7 was controlled demolition just from the visual data. I haven't even gotten into the eyewitnesses.

I haven't even gotten into all the eyewitnesses who describe the structural damage and fires and the ones who measured the deformation of the building and determined it would collapse so they evacuated the area. Why would they do that if a sudden explosion and structural failure is your only possible explanation

So please, let's get into the quotes from eyewitnesses. I am looking forward to it.

There is no point discussing anything else to do with 9/11 if you can't see WTC 7 for what it is.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]

You are full of .

[QUOTE]

That photo is from before 3 PM, not relevant to a collapse at 5;20. Also, most of the smoke is from WTC 5 and WTC 6 which were engulfed in flames. Not to mention smoke from the collapsed twin towers.

Go read the NIST report. It says where all the fires were.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

See pages L-22 to L-26.

I'm not full of . Neither is the NIST report. Nor does that smoke explain why WTC 7 fell down in 6.6 seconds.

In your other point, you say a World Trade Center fell on it. That's a total lie. Look on page L-19 of the NIST report. Nothing fell on the roof.

WTC 7 was 355 feet away from WTC 1, more than the length of a football field. Some debris hit the side of the building, that's it. Most hit the SW corner which has nothing to do with the collapse. The debris damage is outlined in the NIST report, starting on page L-17.

As far as the eyewitnesses, the damage and fires explained in the NISt report is based on all known photos and eyewitnesses.

[ChumpDumper]

That photo is from before 3 PM, not relevant to a collapse at 5;20.

Of course it is relevant. It's not like the building repaired itself in the meantime.

Also, most of the smoke is from WTC 5 and WTC 6 which were engulfed in flames. Not to mention smoke from the collapsed twin towers.

This one I love. "The smoke was generated in the fires in buildings 5 and 6, went across the street at ground level, entered building 7 perfectly without any smoke passing the building and rising on the west side of the building where there was no skyscraper to get in its way, and finally came back out of the top of the 47-floor building after waiting to travel up the elevators and staircases and coming back out the windows.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk

In your other point, you say a World Trade Center fell on it. That's a total lie. Look on page L-19 of the NIST report. Nothing fell on the roof.

WTC 7 was 355 feet away from WTC 1, more than the length of a football field.

WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall, more than the length of four football fields. WTC 7 was 610 feet tall, about the length of two football fields

.Some debris hit the side of the building, that's it. Most hit the SW corner which has nothing to do with the collapse. The debris damage is outlined in the NIST report, starting on page L-17.

Yes, and you just lied about where most of the damage was -- it was in the middle.



Thanks for throwing out such bald-faced lies. This is too easy.

[ChumpDumper]

And answer my question.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a nice article written by real people whose credentials can actually be verified -- not some guy with a PhD that doesn't exist and you lied about.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf