Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Sorry, Jesus...you have provided absolutely nothing in the way of science or research. You are very, very late to the game, with nothing new to add. Use the elephant's Google and Internet to do better. Is this your idea of science, George? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 No fire huh.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html Here is one fairly experienced eyewitness who probably knows a little about fires. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/next:whatreallyhappenedatwtcbuilding7on9 I never said "no fires". Look at the videos of 7 just before the collapse. There are almost no windows broken, no extensive fires. Compare that to the much much more serious fires in other buildings that never collapsed. Other Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Building 7 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Google's in on the conspiracy, Dontcha know. Is this science, Boges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Is this your idea of science, George? Why, yes, Jesus...it is. The elephant's Google and TCP/IP protocol are both science and engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I never said "no fires". Look at the videos of 7 just before the collapse. There are almost no windows broken, no extensive fires. Compare that to the much much more serious fires in other buildings that never collapsed. Other Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Building 7 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html Your sites there try to say no widows broken, and of course they use pictures of areas on the north side of the building were there were still windows. You can quite clearly see lots of widows missing o various floors on the north side, and huge smoke and fire coming from many additional floors on the east side. And of course all the real action is taking place on the south side, which is actually facing towards #1. Of course the conspiracy flggers are quite famous for such selectivity when trying to promote their stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Nope, not this one either. Why are so few willing to discuss the science? O come on, im just having a little fun with you, there can be no alternative version of events unless you believe there are alternatives to the perpetrators, which is always the point of this nonsense, so why don't you just skip right to that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 "Huge smoke" does not indicate raging fires. Look at the link to see raging fires that burned for many hours in many steel framed high rises. None of them collapsed. How do you explain the free fall speeds? How do you explain the symmetric collapse? How do you explain the molten steel? How do you explain the iron microspheres? You still haven't read David Chandler's paper. How do you explain any of the scientific issues he has raised that show that the pile driver theory is proven impossible by long established scientific principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 O come on, im just having a little fun with you, there can be no alternative version of events unless you believe there are alternatives to the perpetrators, which is always the point of this nonsense, so why don't you just skip right to that stuff. That is nonsense, Poochy. Scientific principles can't be applied to questions like that. But scientific principles can easily be applied to building science, physics and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I thought you were Bob Macadoo, but now I'm thinking... Ghosthacked? No, I'd provide links at the least. And probably something way crazier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Why, yes, Jesus...it is. The elephant's Google and TCP/IP protocol are both science and engineering. You still don't understand 'elephant' or you are just being purposefully obtuse. Actually I've used Google a lot, to present scientific evidence from 2300 plus architects, engineers and scientists. What have you used it for but to expose your own fictions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) It's all well and good to debate the "science" behind 2 skyscrapers collapsing under their own after being hit by commercial airliners full of jet fuel and another falling later that afternoon. But to narrow the debate to just that is impossible. Because to believe that 9/11 was an inside job you'd have to explain how the explosives were installed and who were involved in it. AND WHY!!! It defies logic to believe that such an elaborate plan could have happened in the heart of New York without anyone noticing it. Edited April 1, 2015 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) It's all well and good to debate the "science" behind 2 skyscrapers collapsing under their own after being hit by commercial airliners full of jet fuel and another falling later that afternoon. But to narrow the debate to just that is impossible. Because to believe that 9/11 was an inside job you'd have to explain how the explosives were installed and who were involved in it. AND WHY!!! It defies logic to believe that such an elaborate plan could have happened in the heart of New York without anyone noticing it. No physical scientist would consider taking on such a task because that is not their area of expertise. But what they have taken on is the sheer impossibility that the official version of events regarding 1, 2 & 7 are simply not scientifically possible. Just this one thing is enough: Nothing can explain the molten steel found and witnessed within the confines of those three buildings because there was no fuel that should/could have been there that could do what was done to said steel. Please address this one issue, Boges, Argus, ... . Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well, that big damn monkey couldn't bring it down, so I expect a plane was no problem for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 We've already been over this many times. The buildings were actually designed to delay such a collapse to permit evacuation of the structure. Any such building wants to collapse because of static and dynamic forces. Two Boeing 767-200s laden with fuel sealed the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) We've already been over this many times. The buildings were actually designed to delay such a collapse to permit evacuation of the structure. Any such building wants to collapse because of static and dynamic forces. Two Boeing 767-200s laden with fuel sealed the deal. Research Your PostIf you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I apologize for feeding the troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Nothing can explain the molten steel found and witnessed within the confines of those three buildings because there was no fuel that should/could have been there that could do what was done to said steel.There are always alternative explanations. What is missing is why your alternative explanation should be taken seriously given the lack of corroborating evidence such as testimony by whistle blowers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 A trip down Memory Lane....why did the WTC structures collapse.....science....and engineering !!!! The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I apologize for feeding the troll Now this is science. Splendid, Mandy! Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: play the ball, not the person (i.e. Tackle the argument, not the person making it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 This is in reference to the controlled demolitions that took place on September 11, 2001, where three buildings, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished by as yet unknown individuals. I really have to wonder why so many individuals are completely reluctant to discuss these scientific issues. As one engineer from A&E for 911 Truth has stated, and I paraphrase, You don't need to be an architect or engineer to see that these buildings were brought down by explosives. The conspiracy of silence reminds one of a totalitarian society. Surely that's not what we have become, is it? I am a believer in Occam's Razor. One reason I don't believe in these conspiracy theories is that too many people would have had to be involved to keep it silent. This is unprovable, unfalsifiable palpable BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) I am a believer in Occam's Razor. One reason I don't believe in these conspiracy theories is that too many people would have had to be involved to keep it silent. This is unprovable, unfalsifiable palpable BS. SCIENCE!!!!! Where's your SCIENCE???? Edited April 1, 2015 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Nothing can explain the molten steel found and witnessed within the confines of those three buildings because there was no fuel that should/could have been there that could do what was done to said steel. I heard that fuel burned in a forge burns at exactly the same temperature as in does in free air. OMG DA SCIENCE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I am a believer in Occam's Razor. One reason I don't believe in these conspiracy theories is that too many people would have had to be involved to keep it silent. This is unprovable, unfalsifiable palpable BS. Do you also believe in Intelligent Design, jbg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I heard that fuel burned in a forge burns at exactly the same temperature as in does in free air. OMG DA SCIENCE! And what is your point, Poochy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Steel looses about 50% of its strength at 1100F, jet fuel burns at up to 1500F. So take a huge slice out of a building with a fuel laden airliner and then dump the burning fuel vertically through the structure including the elevator shafts, and just wait a while. Voila, pancaked building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.