Reply With Quote
What engineering report?Of course you do. Luckily for me, I'm not at all bound by your refusal to acknowledge the widely-held scientific beliefs about what happened, from an engineering standpoint, in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
The NIST report on WTC7 collapse has yet to be released, unless Chumpy has it.
What engineering report?Of course you do. Luckily for me, I'm not at all bound by your refusal to acknowledge the widely-held scientific beliefs about what happened, from an engineering standpoint, in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
What do you expect? Did you think that any of these buildings would simply fall over on their sides? I know that I did on the morning of September 11. But I've taken the time to listen to a significant number of engineers explain the physics of what took place that morning. In listening to those explanations, I'm struck by the consistency with which those learned professionals conclude that the failures within the building exacerbated the structural damage to the framework of the building and caused the columns, which held the building upright while carrying virtually all of the substantial vertical loads that such a building exerts. When the frame couldn't hold the upper floors in place any longer, those floors began to collapse downward, one on top of the next. The reaction was more like a zipper being undone, which readily explains why the sides of the building appeared to peel away as its inner structure fell straight downward.
I'm not a structural engineer. As noted, I'm struck by the consistency of that explanation -- and the implausibility of a conspiracy being able to convince the larger engineering community to devise and promote an explanation that is anything other than the truth.
The oft-repeated and mostly universally expressed explanations for the mode of collapse of the WTC buildings.
Look, even if you believe that fire brought down WTC7, the speed in which the structure collapsed was free-fall, that means that there was a total and complete and simultaneous collapse of all the support columns and all at the same time.
Now's the part where dan calls me a sheep but refuses to offer any opinion about what actually happened on 9/11 or to debunk the science that establishes the widely-held view of the collapses that day.
The POP science article? Please, that been debunked so often even Anna Nicole is envious.
I didn't say that fire brought down WTC 7. I'm not sure that I've heard anyone ever try to explain it -- which I suspect is true because most of the sane, non-conspiratorial world thinks of the collapse of WTC 7 as an historical footnote that isn't particularly relevant to anything that occurred on 9/11.
Frankly, it would stand to reason -- from my perspective -- that the same pathology that existed with regard to WTC 1 and 2 made some impact on the ultimate demise of WTC 7. Fires damaged internal structures, which, in turn, placed greater loads on the weight-bearing elements of the building, which were already damaged and ultimately failed when the loads became too great. And, in that scenario, the notion of a free-fall would, indeed, be perfectly consistent with the mode of failure in WTC 1 and 2. Remarkably enough.
I'm not talking about any article. I'm talking about the multiple engineers who've appeared on television in the aftermath of 9/11 to diagnose the structural failures of those buildings and explain their collapses.
Moreover, the mere fact that your conspiratorially-inclined mind is willing to accept the views of those who disagree with the engineering mainstream on this issue doesn't convince me that the conclusions have in any way been "debunked."
If you could find an author willing to say that the literature concerning the moon landings was somehow inaccurate, that statement would hardly convince me (or most sane people, I suspect) that there were no moon landings.
At first we couldn't explain a lot of thing FWDT, but as time has shown, secrets don't last forever. For now, it would be help-ful if the Bush administration declassified all of it's information regarding the collapse of WTC7.
well there are many ways it can collapse besides "falling over its side"
a few questions
Can you imagine wtc 7 collapsing in a "cleaner", "quicker", more efficient way?
I would say thats the cleanest, quickest, most controlled, most efficient way I could possibly imagine a building collapsing from fire and "structural damage"
Would not the government give us an official story?, would not the liberal media give us a theory?, would not it get mentioned ONCE on cablenews, network news after september 12th 2001 until now?
Bet I can match you engineer for engineer. There were many global scientists, many who supported the govt. position, who denied the existence of global climate change too.I'm not talking about any article. I'm talking about the multiple engineers who've appeared on television in the aftermath of 9/11 to diagnose the structural failures of those buildings and explain their collapses.
It seems from this thread that those who oppose the mainstream view of the events of 9/11 can't (or won't) explain what actually happened to those of us who have taken the time and effort to try to understand those occurrences.
The unwillingness (or inablility) to explain what actually happened is a rather striking flaw in the conspiracy-oriented arguments.
Does anyone here know what goes into a controlled demolition of a building? I already know the answer as I've been involved first hand with the controlled demolition of a building, but I'm just curious if Dan and his little brother Mookie know.
I've grinded by teeth in this forum pointing out inconsistences in the M$M, and moreover than not, I turn out to be right, and the M$M turns out to be liers.Moreover, the mere fact that your conspiratorially-inclined mind is willing to accept the views of those who disagree with the engineering mainstream on this issue doesn't convince me that the conclusions have in any way been "debunked."
If you could find an author willing to say that the literature concerning the moon landings was somehow inaccurate, that statement would hardly convince me (or most sane people, I suspect) that there were no moon landings.
LINKS PLEASE.
I'm using the plural on link too because hey, the sun even shines on a dog's ass every once in while.
By the way, how's the foreclosure going?
That's like trying to do complex math with only half the equation. give us all the info on the collapse of WTC so we can complete the math. If truth is on the government side, they certainly shouldn't oppose that, right?
Dude, they want the truth.
What other way did you expect it to collapse?
You mean as clean, as quick, and as efficiently as its sister structures? It would make sense to me that the collapse of WTC 7 would have appeared cleaner and more efficient because: (1) it was built with different materials that didn't produce the same quantum of pulverized material that the towers did; (2) it wasn't as large as the towers were and, thus, didn't take as long to collapse; and (3) by the time WTC 7 had collapsed, the entire world had witnessed the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and had a point of reference that hadn't existed before that.
I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.
So what's your point john-boy? I've never seen the inside of a gay bath-house either.
Look it up chief and tell me if you still think it was a controlled demolition. Oh, and try and avoid the conspiracy websites when googling your information.
Actually, that sort of dodging is like assuming that there's more to discover when all of the facts are already there.
I find that hard to believe by the way.
What world do you live in? Poll after poll has shown that the world thinks the official govt. 911 story is a farce.I still think that part of the reason that there's little reporting on WTC 7 is that most of the world doesn't honestly care about why WTC 7 failed -- because most of the world isn't looking around for some opportunity to scream conspiracy. Most of the world believes (and with good reason, I think) that a well-organized group of 19 Muslim young men decided to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, causing unprecedented and catostrophic damage to those buildings and others which were in close proximity.
Then why has Dubya classified so much info regarding the towers collapse? what's to hide? Doesn't that help feed conspiracy theories? Where's the NIST report, it's been 6 years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
