Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2011 - 11:06am PT
|
Big scientist can't do the experiment.
Instead makes a virtual experiment.
Mental speculation on a computer with data inserted to to dove-tale with the mental speculation.
Then tries to dazzles us with bullsh'it.
Even they lap it up.
No real world experiment ever made.
All tools parading as experts .......
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
According to Monolith's video links--the ONLY way that buildings fall down upon themselves is when they are in demolition phase with pre-planted charges and cuts...
How is Werner wrong on this again?
Really Mono; he asked to see it happen as "they" said it did, pancake due to weight collapse from upper floors ALONE.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
No charges planted Mojede. Did ya hear any explosions?
That's the whole point. They use hydraulics or cables to pull those floors slightly off center to initiate the collapse.
Only the floors at which the collapse is initiated are weakened, just like what the aircraft did to the collapse point floors in the WTC towers. They eventually gave way after the fires continued the deformation process.
The rest of the building is not weakened, one of the advantages of this method. They will remove glass, drywall, etc.
Of course, I understand that Truthers will not get it, due to their inability to transfer concepts. They need an exact duplication and even then they will complain.
And Mojede, Werner claimed no top-down total progressive collapse example exists. Those videos show otherwise.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
I don't claim shite, Mono--just that the buildings in your videos were planned demolitions (I said charges, but was wrong there...); meaning that they were engineered from the ground to fall down.
edit: I'm SURE that Mono's vid buildings were built with main central columns like the WTC towers, right, Mono?
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
Nope, not from the ground. Only at the collapse point.
And Mojode, didn't you know that much of the core of the WTC's stood for a while after the floors collapsed? See RokJox's photos.
Yep, Truthers need exact duplication, yet can't provide exact duplication for their theories.
Dang, I need to get some work done. See ya tomorrow.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2011 - 12:06pm PT
|
Werner claimed no top-down total progressive collapse example exist
Never ever claimed such bullsh'it.
See how your mind is fooling.
That quote:
And the idea that the very tops of the buildings could have crushed them all of the way to their bases is utterly unscientific, given that no experiment has been able to replicate the alleged phenomonon of top-down total progressive collapse.
Came from some other guy and that's why it's in quote.
What a tool .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2011 - 12:14pm PT
|
And you love JOKES !!!!!!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Man, you Believers are ALL OVER THE PLACE now. Focus folks, focus.
Riley, you especially have seemed to have gone nuts. You say this:
Folks keep asking the same questions over and over instead of objectively looking at rhe evidence.
First, the same questions I ask are "Why do they not release the tapes showing what hit the Pentagon?" and "Why do they not test for explosives?"
Why was Mineta's testimony ingored?
I admire Werner wanting to do the experiment of flying the plane into a building. But why do the expensive experiment when the real live thing has already been done, and there are tapes of the event. It is highly suspicious, to me, when they don't release the tapes.
Next, you say "instead of objectively looking at the evidence." Yet a paragraph later you say: "there are literally millions of professional engineers..." My friend, that is not objectively looking at the evidence. That is letting those who have come down on one side of this debate sway your opinion. Think about it.
I objectively look at the evidence of 7 WTC and say: no way small fires can make a building come down uniformly like that. That is my belief from my objective observations. I objectively look at the evidence that NIST provides, and I say BullShit! The Official Story is CRAP!
monolith, your two videos prove nothing. The first one, who knows squat about how those twin buildings came down. All we see is them collapsing, there is no visual explanation for the method used in their demolition. The second, you see a bulldozer. But LO! Stop the video at 31 seconds and you will see a great example of why the Truthers don't believe the Official Story. The building did not collapse in its entirety. Very obvious that this bolsters the objective idea that fires alone could not have brought 7 WTC down.
Riley, again who is claiming that Bush and Cheney engineered the attacks? I saw Dingus try to pull that trick, and now you too. And then you go into this big spiel about how incompetent was GWB. In my critical thinking class, we learned to call this type of argument a straw-man, you set up fallacious argument that you can easily knock down.
Riley, you say "You really think they had time to wire a building that was on fire and unstable?" But look at who made that statement. It was coz, a staunch Believer, who also said:
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see WTC7 was taken down with explosives.
Like I said, try to find the footage of the day, and you will see all kinds of drama about it being pulled for safety.
And lastly, monolith puts this out for us: No charges planted Mojede. Did ya hear any explosions?
Well, actually on several tapes, yes. I did hear explosions. And MANY eye witnesses reported multiple explosions, in ALL THREE WTC BUILDINGS.
However, you DENY that these explosions occurred, proving that you do not take an "objective" look at the evidence.
So, in a couple of dozen posts, The Believers are scrambling around like ants trying to nail anything down to help them along with their strong beliefs. How's that working?
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
HaHa Werner, but you quoted it, silly boy. It's what you believe too. Dang I got to stop peeking here.
Such silly semantic games you play, Werner.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2011 - 02:51pm PT
|
No silly boy monolith. It's what you want to believe.
Do the experiment with a real steel building with jet A fuel just like the trade center.
But you never did.
Just some bullsh'it demolition unlike the trade center building and make comparisons.
Totally unscientific.
But that's how you present your unscientific science as bonafide science.
You're going down in flames and soon nothing is left of you but ashes ......
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
Do the experiment with a real steel building with jet A fuel just like the trade center.
Here
This is the same idea Klimmer had to investigate the alien spaceship on the moon. He wanted to spend NASA tax payer money on investigating the crashed space craft.
Its a truly moronic idea to spend 100s of millions, if not billions, to reconstruct the towers to bring them down again. Or to waist money looking for spaceships.
Totally unscientific
I always thought you were averse to scientific thought? Now you want it on your side?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2011 - 03:54pm PT
|
Port another mental speculator with foolish ideas in his head.
Now on to the Hutchison effect.
Oh boy they're gonna love it .....
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
FLASHBACK: The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse.
What a lie, Rox.
The Madrid building had a concrete reinforced steel core, which protected the steel from the fire, plus several firewall/strength floors. And the steel only portion still collapsed, despite massive firefighting efforts.
Guess what Rox? The new WTC's will have a concrete reinforced steel core.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
No Rox, you got sucked into Christopher Browns delusions.
That page was devoted to Christopher trying to convince the world that the WTC's had a concrete core, because thats where the demolition charges were hidden since construction.
It's so funny you got conned by him.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
Yep, that's all the core was. Steel box columns. I gotta work too.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
All three WTC's were steel only core.
The concretecore.741.com is a Christopher Brown page.
Yep Rox, there's lots of crap on the net.
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
Those are the BBC graphics put up quickly after 911. They are wrong regarding the concrete core.
And your quote is Christopher Brown claiming that a documentary says the core was concrete, but no ones ever been able to find it.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The only concrete in the WTC was the lightweight concrete decking in the floors and the foundation.
The core was conventional steel box girder construction with a special dry wall enclosure to contain the air pressure differential from the high speed elevators. It doubled as fireproofing and was blown off by the impact of the aircraft.
Covered to death years ago.
Just one example from 02.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/enr_silverstein1.html
But, the true believers will hold this up as one more piece of evidence for a Zionist plot just on the basis of the commissioning parties sir name.
you guys are certifiable.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
So TGT, what about the explosions? Got a nifty explanation for those?
Let me guess, you deny they happened.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!