9/11 photo that kills Anti Science Debunkers

[roundhead]

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/collap2.jpeg





http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/swtcd.jpeg

Please do not hotlink. Thank you.

[JimBenArm]

Wow, so this photograph actually causes people who try to debunk things without using science and stuff to fall over dead?

Why is it you're still alive, then?

[Doctor Evil]

Do you actually have a point to make?

[twinstead]

So all it takes is a single picture? the YouTube Generation and its investigoogle mojo strike again.

So all the experts who can explain this and don't find it unusual given the circumstances anti-science? Wow. I'm sure the folks at the NIST and Perdue University for starters would be shocked to find out they have no idea what they are talking about.

Take that, anti science debunkers!!

[dtugg]

Wow. I wonder what the how this "proves" that the tower collapsed due to a CD or whatever. Do you have an explanation, roundhead?

[Drudgewire]

Do you actually have a point to make?


There were anti-science debunkers in the tower or something? :confused:


Perdue

Purdue. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

[Grizzly Bear]

Forgive me for getting involved in this but roundhead... what does the picture prove again?

[twinstead]

There were anti-science debunkers in the tower or something? :confused:




Purdue. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

Yikes. Purdue it is! :o

[gc051360]

Anti Science Debunkers?

Are we debunkers that are anti-science, or do we debunk anti-science?

[16.5]

9/11 photo that kills Anti Science Debunkers

Cripes, English, do you speak it?

Plus there are two pictures there.

Plus what is your point.

[roundhead]

Now, me, i am a sharp enough guy to read that we had a plane impact WTC2, and because of this had resultant fires.

The "corner" damage we were told had very little if any impact on the core of the building, in the center of the building.

If you look at the above photo, the intact upper structure of the building(above the impact zone)is tilting heavily to one side, yet is "intact" as a "cube" of floors at this instant.

In the second photo, we can see that that intact cube has blown apart.Not toppled further, not fell as an intact piece to one side, not even had its "cubeiness" chipped away floor by fllor as it contacts the lower "cube", no it just blows up and ceases to exist in a second or two.

Intact cubes of steel and concrete dont blow up from fire damage, they blow up from being blown up.

The result of this intact cube above the impact zone being blown up, is that it basically becomes missing, it ceases to exist, and is literally dust and a tiny semblance of its former self in appearance and mass.

That said, the lower, undamaged remaining structure of the building wilts and collapses all the way down anyhow, i spite of the facat there is virtually nothing pushing it down from above at this point, it has ceased to exist.


Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work here, no matter how hot anybody wants to state it was.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. They say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up. One doesnt get a bullet wound from an arrow. A large part of a building doesnt literally evaportate from a fire damage. It may twist, it may sag, heck it might even fall, but it doesnt blow up.

[Drudgewire]

Yikes. Purdue it is! :o


Although the proper spelling on November 2nd will be "Purdookie."

Michigan sucks so bad this year. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/gonk.gif

[bynmdsue]

The upper "cube" is still visible in the second picture.

[dtugg]

Now, me, i am a sharp enough guy to read that we had a plane impact WTC2, and because of this had resultant fires.

The "corner" damage we were told had very little if any impact on the core of the building, in the center of the building.

If you look at the above photo, the intact upper structure of the building(above the impact zone)is tilting heavily to one side, yet is "intact" as a "cube" of floors at this instant.

In the second photo, we can see that that intact cube has blown apart.

Intact cubes dont blow up from fire damage, they blow up from being blown up.

The result of this intact cube above the impact zone being blown up, is that it basically becomes missing, it ceases to exist, and is literally dust and a tiny semblance of its former self in appearance and mass.

That said, the lower, undamaged remaining structure of the building wilts and collapses all the way down anyhow, i spit of the fcat there is virtually nothing pushing it down from above at this point.


Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. they say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up.

Alright, so basically you are saying that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the highly qualified scientists and engineers that studied this for years? Does that sum it up?

[neltana]

Using my uber-elite research skills, I looked around the web site the image is linked from and found this: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69b.html. It says that the picture shows the tower began to collapse "in exactly the way that one would expect a tower to collapse after an airplane had ripped away one corner: the intact upper portion of the building, above the point of impact, began to tilt precariously toward the point of structural weakness. It is perfectly obvious that this was not the onset of a symmetrical, 'pancake' collapse."

So, essentially, the theory is that explosives were used to initiate a CD on a building that was already collapsing anyways!. The bad guys are so evil that they blew up the WTC after it was already falling down!

ETA: let me stress that this isn't roundhead's explanation...it is the guy's theory on the website the image is linked from. I have no idea if they see eye-to-eye.

[twinstead]

Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. they say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up.

Well good thing those who are more qualified than you actually studied the collapses instead of looking a picture and declaring, through ignorant incredulity, they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt something other than a fire is at work.

Of course, any idiot can look at the picture and realize more than fire was at work: It's called the collapse of a 100 story building.

[DC]

the picture is indeed contradicting Bazant somehow.

[Totovader]

Since roundhead is entirely incapable of coming up with his own argument, the website from which he stole these photos from might have a starting point... if you could really call it a "starting point" since it's been long debunked.

Roundhead isn't capable of arguing these issues- so watch as the copy/paste routine comes right from the same website, I'm sure...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69b.html

Photographs reveal that when the south tower first began to collapse, it was definitely not in a symmetrical manner. To the contrary, WTC2 first began to collapse in exactly the way that one would expect a tower to collapse after an airplane had ripped away one corner: the intact upper portion of the building, above the point of impact, began to tilt precariously toward the point of structural weakness. It is perfectly obvious that this was not the onset of a symmetrical, 'pancake' collapse.

This- of course- contradicts roundheads no-planer stance, but as long as s/he gets to call people "anti-science" and "liars", that's really all that's important to him/her.

ETA: neltana beat me to it.

[16.5]

Uhh, that second picture is a wee bit small, champ, yet I can see the upper block.

I notice in the big picture all the debris that is falling a free fall speed, well ahead of the collapse. Thanks.

That Dave's web guy sure is kooky though, Roundhead.

/by the way, if you are not "Dave" you all better copy and rehost those pictures because hot linking is frowned upon.
//And if you are Dave.... well good luck with all of that!

[Bobert]

Roundhead,
I am not necessarily a debunker HOWEVER
if I were to become a "Anti Science Debunkers " would I be allowed to carry a lightsaber and undress woman with my Jedi Mind Tricks?

[Doctor Evil]

So much wrong here.

A couple of quick remarks. Firstly, it is not clear that the whole cube is missing in the second photo, as the dust makes it hard to see.

Secondly, while the top part of the building was falling it collided with the bottom part. This process gives enough extra energy to eject parts of building out. Mostly the parts which are easier to detach, such as the outer windows and metal sheets.

I would imagine all of this is covered by the NIST report, but I am currently at work and have no time to verify.

[bynmdsue]

Of course, any idiot can look at the picture and realize more than fire was at work: It's called the collapse of a 100 story building.

Wellll....maybe not "any" idiot.Maybe most,but 9/11 CT's have produced a special kind of idiocy

C'mon,"no-planers"?That's right there with Tippit in the limo.

[DC]

Roundhead,
I am not necessarily a debunker HOWEVER
if I were to become a "Anti Science Debunkers " would I be allowed to carry a lightsaber and undress woman with my Jedi Mind Tricks?

when you dont know better ways to get a lady underssed, well try it.

[twinstead]

Roundhead,
I am not necessarily a debunker HOWEVER
if I were to become a "Anti Science Debunkers " would I be allowed to carry a lightsaber and undress woman with my Jedi Mind Tricks?

Hell, that's just a normal Saturday night at Debunking Central here in the lovely NWO towers.

[roundhead]

Since roundhead is entirely incapable of coming up with his own argument, the website from which he stole these photos from might have a starting point... if you could really call it a "starting point" since it's been long debunked.

Roundhead isn't capable of arguing these issues- so watch as the copy/paste routine comes right from the same website, I'm sure...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69b.html


The picture is the picture, where it came from has zero to do with the discussion, unless you are inferring this picture is a fake and isnt from 9/11 and that isnt WTC2 in its death throes.

Are you saying that, or just trying poorly to derail the thread?


This- of course- contradicts roundheads no-planer stance, but as long as s/he gets to call people "anti-science" and "liars", that's really all that's important to him/her.


Planes or no planes, fires were in fact present, and they dont blow steel and concrete to smithereens in a second or two


Antiscience is defending the theory that fire blows up a huge "cube" of an intact section of steel and concrete.

This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

[Mercutio]

Roundhead, could you let us in on your secret technology that allows you to look through the dense dust and smoke clouds to confidently claim that the entire cube has been blown to smithereens?

Maybe--just maybe--you would need more than just one still photo in order to draw conclusions about such an event.

[twinstead]

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

It did no such thing. The ejection of material is perfectly accepted by experts who have studied the collapse. You can argue from incredulity all you want, it changes nothing. You might as well be claiming the moon is made of cheese.

Don't you find it odd that the collapse started from the exact place the plane hit?

ETA: Oh yea. I forgot. You don't think a plane hit the building. Never mind.

[Totovader]

Planes or no planes, fires were in fact present, and they dont blow steel and concrete to smithereens in a second or two


Antiscience is defending the theory that fire blows up a huge "cube" of an intact section of steel and concrete.

This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

Holy mother of all strawmen.

If we can just stipulate for a minute that the NIST report is the "official story", then can you please quote the section or passage that claims that the section of WTC2 shown here was "blown up"? Or maybe just anything referencing the steel and concrete being "blown to smithereens"...

Do you even know what you're parroting, here? Do you even understand the argument?

[roundhead]

Alright, so basically you are saying that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the highly qualified scientists and engineers that studied this for years? Does that sum it up?

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Planes or no planes, fires were in fact present, and they dont blow steel and concrete to smithereens in a second or two


Antiscience is defending the theory that fire blows up a huge "cube" of an intact section of steel and concrete.
This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

Who said that anything was 'blowing up' in regard to that photo?

[Totovader]

Though there's some deep-seeded hatred in most conspiracist claims- this idea that the CD of the building not only happened from the top down, but also had such unnecessary sophistication as to blow up the top part of the building after it had already started falling... apparently in order to make it look like a CD... I can't help but laugh at that. I just picture a bunch of Men in Black standing around screaming at eachother "blow the top part! blow the top part! Hurry up you only have 1.2 seconds!"

[16.5]

Planes or no planes, fires were in fact present, and they dont blow steel and concrete to smithereens in a second or two

Antiscience is defending the theory that fire blows up a huge "cube" of an intact section of steel and concrete.

Ohmigosh ohmigosh omigosh!

I am agreeing with a No Planer! Fires don't blow up no huge "cube" steel and concrete! That IS Anti-Science!

Fortunately, nobody in their right mind claims that "fire" "blew up" the "huge cube."

So we all agree. Good job, Roundhead, you just debunked da Truthers!

[uruk]

A picture can say a thousand words but it can't say very much about what it does not show.

The are two things that you cannot tell from those two pictures:
1. What is going on behind the dust clouds
2. what is going on behind the walls.

[Totovader]

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/

LMAO.

Do we still have stundies? Because... this is like the best of all time...

:arrow: What does it say about these folks- roundhead- not only that they are in a significant minority, but that they are apparently highly qualified experts... yet they agree with you?

[roundhead]

Holy mother of all strawmen.

If we can just stipulate for a minute that the NIST report is the "official story", then can you please quote the section or passage that claims that the section of WTC2 shown here was "blown up"? Or maybe just anything referencing the steel and concrete being "blown to smithereens"...

Do you even know what you're parroting, here? Do you even understand the argument?


I am blessed with good eyesight. I have my family genes to thank for that.


I have looked at that picure for probably hours with my good eyesight.

I find it impossible to conclude from looking at it(actually there are several other photo's that fill in the time gap between the two i posted)that the cube didnt blow up and cease to exist, "HMS HOOD" like.

The only way one couldnt come to that conclusion is having very poor eyesight.

I dont recall NIST addressing this, they stopped caring, i guess, right before the time in the day this happened.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I am blessed with good eyesight. I have my family genes to thank for that.


I have looked at that picure for probably hours with my good eyesight.

I find it impossible to conclude from looking at it(actually there are several other photo's that fill in the time gap between the two i posted)that the cube didnt blow up and cease to exist, "HMS HOOD" like.

The only way one couldnt come to that conclusion is having very poor eyesight.

I dont recall NIST addressing this, they stopped caring, i guess, right before the time in the day this happened.

I don't think your eyes are the problem - they only receive. I think the problem is with what your over-active imagination is doing with the images once received.

[dtugg]

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/

Maybe the ones at NIST and the ASCE (no ties to the evil government at all), for example.

And are you really linking a site run by a guy who thinks that dropping cardboard boxes "proves" the WTC collapes happened due to a CD. Never mind that very few of the people that signed the moron Gage's petition are experts in the relevant fields and none have come up with calculations that show the collapse couldn't have happened like real experts say it did.

[Totovader]

I am blessed with good eyesight. I have my family genes to thank for that.


I have looked at that picure for probably hours with my good eyesight.

I find it impossible to conclude from looking at it(actually there are several other photo's that fill in the time gap between the two i posted)that the cube didnt blow up and cease to exist, "HMS HOOD" like.

The only way one couldnt come to that conclusion is having very poor eyesight.

I dont recall NIST addressing this, they stopped caring, i guess, right before the time in the day this happened.

That's not even close to an answer to my question.

Come to think of it- you never answer any questions. You're just a rhetoric machine.

If you don't "recall" NIST addressing this, how can you possibly draw a line to the idea that this is a photo that "kills anti science debunkers". If you are arguing a strawman, then you're killing a strawman, kiddo. Way to go.

[Mercutio]

Well, they say believing is seeing...

[16.5]

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/

Heee hee hee! Gage and his boys? Hey Roundhead, I don't see no cardboard boxes in those pictures!

[twinstead]

Well, they say believing is seeing...

That is indeed it in a nutshell.

[roundhead]

LMAO.

Do we still have stundies? Because... this is like the best of all time...

:arrow: What does it say about these folks- roundhead- not only that they are in a significant minority, but that they are apparently highly qualified experts... yet they agree with you?


As far as i am aware..http://www.ae911truth.org/ is the largest engineering group that has taken a stance on either side of the issue. I cant think of another group of Engineers who have publically stated "oneness" on this issue of anywhere near the same size(400+)

Please link me to the public statement of a larger engineering group, that has an opposing statement to http://www.ae911truth.org/ that all have the same opinion.

[beachnut]

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/

lol

the doltish ideas from A&E

not a sane conclusion between the lot

Your photo shows a collapsing building due to gravity, when the WTC tower has completed falling the energy released due to gravity is over 100 TONS of TNT.

You should have take physics instead of making up lies and fantasy about 9/11.

You have a pack of liars (do they know they are liars?) for your experts. You have chosen poorly.

[Pardalis]

I have looked at that picure for probably hours with my good eyesight.

I pity you. :(

[roundhead]

A picture can say a thousand words but it can't say very much about what it does not show.

The are two things that you cannot tell from those two pictures:
1. What is going on behind the dust clouds
2. what is going on behind the walls.


Well, we know fire isnt going on behind those walls, because the fires were below the cube.

I have no problem distinguishing the fact there is nothing left in my second picture, of that cube.

[Totovader]

As far as i am aware..http://www.ae911truth.org/ is the largest engineering group that has taken a stance on either side of the issue. I cant think of another group of Engineers who have publically stated "oneness" on this issue of anywhere near the same size(400+)

Please link me to the public statement of a larger engineering group, that has an opposing statement to http://www.ae911truth.org/ that all have the same opinion.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[roundhead]

Who said that anything was 'blowing up' in regard to that photo?



I did. Have you not looked at the first photo, and second photo, and not been able to determine what was in the first photo, is no longer in the second photo??

You cant blame it on fire, as there was no fire up there, and anyhow, fire doesnt blow things up.

[dtugg]

As far as i am aware..http://www.ae911truth.org/ is the largest engineering group that has taken a stance on either side of the issue. I cant think of another group of Engineers who have publically stated "oneness" on this issue of anywhere near the same size(400+)

Please link me to the public statement of a larger engineering group, that has an opposing statement to http://www.ae911truth.org/ that all have the same opinion.

The ASCE has has a public statement about the collapse of the WTC towers which has nothing do with explosives or thermite. They have tens of thousands of members. Honestly, I can't really be bothered to find a link to their statement right now but I dare you to call me on it.

[The_Fire]

Well, they say believing is seeing...

...Things that aren't there....

[roundhead]

http://wtc.nist.gov



Kindly point me to the "more than 400" engineers at NIST who studied this "POST COLLAPSE INITIATION" and list their 400+ names here for me.


btw Bazant had better not be on that list, he is a graduate of Antiscience Community College.

I honestly wouldnt trust him to assemble a kids bike on Christmas Eve, and expect it to be rideable on Christmas Morning.

[Pardalis]

...Things that aren't there....

Of course, when you stare at a picture for hours, you start seeing "things". ;)

[dtugg]

Kindly point me to the "more than 400" engineers at NIST who studied this "POST COLLAPSE INITIATION" and list their 400+ names here for me.

Kindly list the engineers at ae911truth.org that have come up with calculations showing that the collapse as it happened was impossible without some sort of CD.


(hint: you can't because no such calculations exist)

[WildCat]

Please link me to the public statement of a larger engineering group, that has an opposing statement to http://www.ae911truth.org/ that all have the same opinion.
I believe this has a membership several hundred times that of the A&E dolts, and they're actually all engineers!
http://www.asce.org/responds/

[Totovader]

Kindly point me to the "more than 400" engineers at NIST who studied this "POST COLLAPSE INITIATION" and list their 400+ names here for me.

Kindly stop moving the goalposts.

[X]

In the second photo, we can see that that intact cube has blown apart. Not toppled further, not fell as an intact piece to one side, not even had its "cubeiness" chipped away floor by floor as it contacts the lower "cube", no it just blows up and ceases to exist in a second or two.


No, no we can't see that the intact cube has "blown apart".

We can see debris and dust and smoke.

You attribute it to an explosion. But there is absolutely no evidence of an explosion. And there are many other explanations for the smoke. These explanations are realistic, expected, and suppored by the rest of the evidence.

Your entire argument here boils down to one of incredulity, likely borne from an ignorance of structural analysis.


If you wish to declare that the smoke and debris (barely) visible in that small photo proves the existence of the explosives, you must reconcile that with all the other evidence, analysis and accounts of the event. Further, you will have to explain utter lack of evidence for explosives.

Why must you do this?

Because your argument from incredulity runs directly counter to all these things, and every one of them already has an explanation that is supported by physics, evidence, reality and eyewitness testimony. The current explanations are not accepted because of who made them. They stand on their own merits. They are not perfect, but are realistic.


-----

Additionally, I've uploaded those pictures to my photobucket account.
I don't know it davesweb (which appears to be a truther site) holds any copyright on them or not.
I rather doubt it, as they strike me as commonly available photographs.
Regardless, since hotlinking is against the rules, they are not likely to last long in the OP, so I'm re-posting them below. This is, of course, assuing that davesweb is not a domain belonging to Roundhead. If it is, then I apologize for the sidetrack.
If I am wrong, I will remove them from my photobucket account. Or a mod could edit my post, if they so choose.


Photo 1:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f182/leftieman/collap2.jpg




Photo 2:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f182/leftieman/swtcd.jpg


OP had no text aside from a title: "9/11 photo that kills Anti Science Debunkers"






Edit: I have good eyesight too. I have laser eye surgery to thank for that. What's the point, aside from trying to support incredulity?

[WildCat]

Kindly point me to the "more than 400" engineers at NIST who studied this "POST COLLAPSE INITIATION" and list their 400+ names here for me.
You do know that Gage's group of dolts has very few actual engineers and architects, don't you?

eta: and what the hell is a "post collapse initiation"?

[Björn Toulouse]

.............This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.


Would you mind posting that photo of the HMS Hood blowing up so I can study it for comparison?

[GeeMack]

The result of this intact cube above the impact zone being blown up, is that it basically becomes missing, it ceases to exist, and is literally dust and a tiny semblance of its former self in appearance and mass.

That said, the lower, undamaged remaining structure of the building wilts and collapses all the way down anyhow, i spite of the facat there is virtually nothing pushing it down from above at this point, it has ceased to exist.


Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work here, no matter how hot anybody wants to state it was.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. They say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up. One doesnt get a bullet wound from an arrow. A large part of a building doesnt literally evaportate from a fire damage. It may twist, it may sag, heck it might even fall, but it doesnt blow up.


(Bolding mine.) Of course proper forum decorum prohibits me from flat out calling you an idiot, so I won't. But you have demonstrated again, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you don't have the slightest clue about physics. It would require magic to make your above claims true, roundhead. It isn't magic. It's physics.

Bring on the laughing dogs!

[Pardalis]

eta: and what the hell is a "post collapse initiation"?

Collapse continuation, duh! :rolleyes:

[roundhead]

http://wtc.nist.gov



http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_baker.htm

The structural engineers who assisted at the WTC site were often IN UNCHARTERED TERRITORY with respect to PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY. There should be appropriate national "Good Samaritan" legislation to promote the assistance of structural engineers in such situations. While such legislation exists in high seismic states such as California, all states are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters and should have appropriate legislation. Federal "good Samaritan" legislation may be appropriate.

At this point, I would like to focus my comments on the efforts of the ASCE/FEMA Building Assessment. The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), a division of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), was responsible for organizing this effort and bringing together the relevant professional societies with support from FEMA, for an assessment of the WTC site. Under the leadership of ASCE, a team of structural engineering and fire engineering experts from around the country were brought together. Because of my expertise in tall buildings, I was asked to join the effort and be on the FIVE-MEMBER core group that directed the assessment.

[dtugg]

Oh yeah, I forget to mention that the photo that roundhead claims as proof of a CD is something that I have seen many times, as I am sure many people on this site have. It is featured on the main page of www.debunking911.com. The person that runs it is a member here although I forget who he is (great site if you are reading this). He also gives proper attribution to the photo unlike the site that roundhead got it from

[Pardalis]

Because of my expertise in tall buildings, I was asked to join the effort and be on the FIVE-MEMBER core group that directed the assessment.

Your expertise in tall buildings? Can't you use the quote function like everybody else when you're quoting somebody?

[16.5]

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing1/witness_baker.htm

the structural engineers who assisted at the wtc site were often in unchartered territory with respect to professional liability. There should be appropriate national "good samaritan" legislation to promote the assistance of structural engineers in such situations. While such legislation exists in high seismic states such as california, all states are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters and should have appropriate legislation. Federal "good samaritan" legislation may be appropriate.

At this point, i would like to focus my comments on the efforts of the asce/fema building assessment. The structural engineering institute (sei), a division of the american society of civil engineers (asce), was responsible for organizing this effort and bringing together the relevant professional societies with support from fema, for an assessment of the wtc site. Under the leadership of asce, a team of structural engineering and fire engineering experts from around the country were brought together. Because of my expertise in tall buildings, i was asked to join the effort and be on the five-member core group that directed the assessment.

face palm...

[roundhead]

Well good thing those who are more qualified than you actually studied the collapses instead of looking a picture and declaring, through ignorant incredulity, they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt something other than a fire is at work.

Of course, any idiot can look at the picture and realize more than fire was at work: It's called the collapse of a 100 story building.


Well as you slurp the OCT, there better be nothing more in your playbook than fire and displaced fireproofing. Thats exactly the OCT, right.

My playbook differs, mine has to include something else, because fire doesnt blow things up.

[bje]

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

And this is the picture showing the debris exploding upward and outward, right, roundhead?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593948e52a2763e0c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13986)

[Pardalis]

My playbook differs, mine has to include something else, because fire doesnt blow things up.

Keep telling yourself that, nothing is "blowing up" in that picture. It's billowing down if anything.

[Totovader]

face palm...

Notice how he actually changed some of the wording to make it look like his own?

Sad. I've seen him plagiarize other peoples work half a dozen times here... it just keeps getting worse.

[roundhead]

It did no such thing. The ejection of material is perfectly accepted by experts who have studied the collapse. You can argue from incredulity all you want, it changes nothing. You might as well be claiming the moon is made of cheese.

Don't you find it odd that the collapse started from the exact place the plane hit?

ETA: Oh yea. I forgot. You don't think a plane hit the building. Never mind.


Actually, if were planning this, i would want the collapse to start where the plane impacted, so as to actually make the plane impact appear as the culprit to the sheeples.

[applecorped]

This bears repeating...................."cubeiness"

[DC]

those noplanes left behind big noholes.

[dtugg]

Actually, if were planning this, i would want the collapse to start where the plane impacted, so as to actually make the plane impact appear as the culprit to the sheeples.

How did they know exactly where the planes would impact? How did the explosives/super thermite survive the impact and fire? Or are they just that smart and cunning?

[roundhead]

And this is the picture showing the debris exploding upward and outward, right, roundhead?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593948e52a2763e0c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13986)


That picture isnt particularly helpful, at least to me.

The ones i posted are, however.They clearly show an intact cube, a cube that is gone, and the still intact lower structure.

[twinstead]

Actually, if were planning this, i would want the collapse to start where the plane impacted, so as to actually make the plane impact appear as the culprit to the sheeples.

Yea. Sounds good. And the NWO could easily solve the problem that the absolute WORST place to hide explosives would be right where a huge airliner crashes into the building by using reverse-engineered alien technology.

Jeeze. Well, I guess were back to your not believing there was a plane at all. Then all you'd have to do is provide evidence of explosives and evidence of how they could have been sneaked into the buildings. Both of them.

But I guess that alien technology works wonders, huh?

[bynmdsue]

I have no problem distinguishing the fact there is nothing left in my second picture, of that cube.


HOLY CHRIST ON A CRACKER!!

Are you ***** kidding me?

It's right goddamn there.

If you can't see it you are blind or lying.

Being a Twoofer tho,it's probably a little of column A,a little of column B.

[roundhead]

How did they know exactly where the planes would impact? Or are they just that smart?


If the whole tower was wired, where the "impacts" were wouldnt matter, now would they?

It can be concluded planes couldnt have impacted them a heck of a lot lower than they did, because of obstacles, etc.


My guess is that the explosives were in the core, a sake place where there integrity could be maintained. The antenna drop is certainly good support of that idea.

[Pardalis]

This bears repeating...................."cubeiness"

Please try to keep up with the new engineering terminology.

The cubeiness of the upper thingy fell down on the whatchamacallit under it and then everything blew up.

It's not difficult. :rolleyes:

[roundhead]

those noplanes left behind big noholes.


Planes, no planes, the holes are there, how they got there is another day.Internal explosions, planes, i honestly dont know.

I do know that upper cube was blown up, and fire didnt do it.

[DC]

If the whole tower was wired, where the "impacts" were wouldnt matter, now would they?

It can be concluded planes couldnt have impacted them a heck of a lot lower than they did, because of obstacles, etc.


My guess is that the explosives were in the core, a sake place where there integrity could be maintained. The antenna drop is certainly good support of that idea.

maybe you want to take a closer look into the antenna drop, FEMA was kinda confusing me there.

[twinstead]

My guess is that the explosives were in the core, a sake place where there integrity could be maintained. The antenna drop is certainly good support of that idea.

Of course you DO know that much of the core actually stood for a few seconds after the building collapsed, right?

Regardless are you saying the explosives where 'built' into the building? How on Earth could the entire core be wired with explosives without anybody catching on?

Do you even realize the implication of what you are claiming?

[DC]

Planes, no planes, the holes are there, how they got there is another day.Internal explosions, planes, i honestly dont know.

I do know that upper cube was blown up, and fire didnt do it.

Well i admit i am and always was a plane huger.

and about the upper block, i would not call this "blowed up", but it sure did not stay as uniform as Bazant wants us to belive. His crush down - crush up thngy is nonsence in my eyes.

[Totovader]

If the whole tower was wired, where the "impacts" were wouldnt matter, now would they?

It can be concluded planes couldnt have impacted them a heck of a lot lower than they did, because of obstacles, etc.


My guess is that the explosives were in the core, a sake place where there integrity could be maintained. The antenna drop is certainly good support of that idea.

Planes? What planes?

I thought you said there weren't any planes...

[roundhead]

I believe this has a membership several hundred times that of the A&E dolts, and they're actually all engineers!
http://www.asce.org/responds/


Kindly show me a sttement where more than 400 have signed on to a common statement that they officially slurp the OCT lie.

I am a member of the Republican party, but aint voting McCain, get my drift??


See that what you said means squat?

[CurtC]

I did. Have you not looked at the first photo, and second photo, and not been able to determine what was in the first photo, is no longer in the second photo??

You mean the top part of the building? But I'm looking at it, right there in the second photo. Are you blind or something?

Here - can you see a cat in this picture?

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/FAIL.jpg

[roundhead]

(Bolding mine.) Of course proper forum decorum prohibits me from flat out calling you an idiot, so I won't. But you have demonstrated again, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you don't have the slightest clue about physics. It would require magic to make your above claims true, roundhead. It isn't magic. It's physics.

Bring on the laughing dogs!


No magic, just explosives.

[roundhead]

Planes? What planes?

I thought you said there weren't any planes...

I dont know if there were or not, each arguement has its merits.

[Totovader]

No magic, just explosives.

Come on- be honest... they were magic explosives. They don't make any sound, they have no shockwave, they leave absolutely no trace, and don't behave at all like explosives.

I've seen others call those hushaboom explosives. Very top secret...

[uruk]

Well, we know fire isnt going on behind those walls, because the fires were below the cube.

I have no problem distinguishing the fact there is nothing left in my second picture, of that cube.

The upper section of the "cube", as you put it, is still quite intact.
What you can't see inside that upper section is the steel "hat truss" structure
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

This is the stucture that connected the core column structure to the perimeter column structure. The hat truss strengthened the whole core/perimeter column structure.

When the upper section tilted and fell, the hat truss disconnected from the rest of the structures thus removing an important structural support from the rest of the core and perimeter columns.

Without that extra support the rest of the column structure could not withstand the force of the mass of the upper floors impacting on the floors below. As each floor disintgrated the mass in motion increased and the support for the structures below decreased.

[roundhead]

Notice how he actually changed some of the wording to make it look like his own?

Sad. I've seen him plagiarize other peoples work half a dozen times here... it just keeps getting worse.


I put a link to it, and used capitals on the important points(or thought i did)

My earnest apology if i didnt.

[Totovader]

I dont know if there were or not, each arguement has its merits.

Wow.

Each argument is equally stupid, maybe- each argument has the same amount of merits: 0...

But it's been over 7 years... when do you think you'll come up with a consistent theory at least?

You do understand that claiming there were no planes, but when the planes hit there were perfectly planted explosives is a contradiction, right?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I did. Have you not looked at the first photo, and second photo, and not been able to determine what was in the first photo, is no longer in the second photo??

You cant blame it on fire, as there was no fire up there, and anyhow, fire doesnt blow things up.

Oh, well - that seals it then, I'm now a truther. :rolleyes:

It would appear you did all your research at the School of "The Bloke in the Pub told Me", and have a diploma in "Well, it looks to me like..."

It's fairly simple; top of building collapses downward and begins to break up, dust cloud expands and rises, obscuring remnants of top of building collapsing downward.

[Totovader]

I put a link to it, and used capitals on the important points(or thought i did)

My earnest apology if i didnt.

You decapitalized it from the quoted section- which seems to be your trademark. To me, it looks like you were trying to make it your own writing- which would certainly not be the first time you've been caught plagiarizing other peoples work.

[uruk]

My playbook differs, mine has to include something else, because fire doesnt blow things up.
That's great because the NIST report doesn't say that fire blows things up either. Fire heats, expands, and weakens things like steel.

[rwguinn]

Of course you DO know that much of the core actually stood for a few seconds after the building collapsed, right?

Regardless are you saying the explosives where 'built' into the building? How on Earth could the entire core be wired with explosives without anybody catching on?

Do you even realize the implication of what you are claiming?

Jessus on a pogo stick
we are back to
c-* coa**d *inch **-*** on *foot ce****s

[uruk]

those noplanes left behind big noholes.

Holograms don't kill people, people with holograms kill people.

[applecorped]

Ahem..............................cubieness.

[roundhead]

Let me ask a speculative question.


Lets assume Demartini and Skilling were correct(and i am not saying they werent, they didnt count on explosives AND planes)


Lets say the buildings were impacted by planes, and still stood, fires were put out, we are left with two buildings with damage that would obviously be fixable.

Do you think they would have been demolished, or fixed.



That question, i think, is a proposition the culprits surely didnt ever want to have to consider.

As i think its a safe bet they didnt want to spend hundreds of millions on buildings that were already generally unliked, had asbestos issues, and were undertenanted.

They were not moneymakers.

My guess is that, going in, there had to be enormous doubt the planes alone, and resultant fires, would fell both buildings.

The planes would certainly do what they did, create a memorable shock and awe, but the buildingds still standing would have nowhere near the effect on the US people then collapsing in fact did.

My theory is that the buildings were rigged, most likely by Controlled Demolition(our old buddy Mark's outfit)his "cleanup" work goes back to OKC days, and the final end of the days events accomplished two goals.


1. A never to end military presence in the Middle East

2. A big favor to NYC that got rid of asbestos ridden buildings that couldnt otherwise have been scuttled.

Literally, kill two birds with one stone.

How great an idea Silverstein had, invest modestly in buildings that were losing money, get to replace them, and make a bundle to boot.

[uruk]

Ahem..............................cubieness.

As in "cubieness" of someones roundhead?

[Grizzly Bear]

Wow this got to 3 pages awfully quick.... :eye-poppi

No magic, just explosives.

Oh you mean those explosives that were so powerful they sent 20ton chunks of debris out 500 ft yet didn't blast out the eardrums of the thousands of people running for cover.... Also didn't break all the glass on all sides of surrounding buildings....

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6563/wtcwindowsin9.jpg

[beachnut]

He doesn't need a tractor to keep moving the goal posts, he need motorized goal posts! Who has a pair?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My playbook differs, mine has to include something else, because fire doesnt blow things up.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/02-10-08_1450.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/02-10-08_1451.jpg

Is anyone else here unsurprised that roundhead has apparently never laid eyes on a can of deodorant before?

[dtugg]

roundhead, Silverstein didn't make any money off of 9/11, he actually lost a lot. He doesn't get rent from the WTC since it is no longer existent but he still has to pay rent for site to the Port Authority. Any money that he received from insurance is going back to the rebuilding which will not be complete for years.

[roundhead]

Of course you DO know that much of the core actually stood for a few seconds after the building collapsed, right?

Regardless are you saying the explosives where 'built' into the building? How on Earth could the entire core be wired with explosives without anybody catching on?

Do you even realize the implication of what you are claiming?


I dont claim to be an ex WTC building superintendant, but my guess is that very few people hung out in the core. they probably spent their time in their offices:boggled:

[roundhead]

Well i admit i am and always was a plane huger.

and about the upper block, i would not call this "blowed up", but it sure did not stay as uniform as Bazant wants us to belive. His crush down - crush up thngy is nonsence in my eyes.


Just because i like you, how about i redo my statement to say"In a matter of a second or two, it went from an intact block of a number of floors, to nothing discernable except dust and debris".

[Grizzly Bear]

I dont claim to be an ex WTC building superintendant, but my guess is that very few people hung out in the core. they probably spent their time in their offices:boggled:

Except the typical floor plan was open (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_plan.jpg), meaning just about the only partitions standing between the exterior perimeter columns and the core were cubicles...

[bje]

That picture isnt particularly helpful, at least to me.

It's what you truthers rely on to claim there were 'explosions" even when the videos show it is dust being sucked in behind the collapse front.

The ones i posted are, however.They clearly show an intact cube, a cube that is gone, and the still intact lower structure.You cannot make any such claim as videos quite clearly show that dust obscures the view

I don't know what you hope to achieve by bringing something easily debunked back in 2002.

[Mancman]

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/collap2.jpeg





http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/swtcd.jpeg

In the first photo, the top section has a kink.

This means it was meeting substantial resistance from below. Nothing was being blown up. Massive fail from you.

Bigger version of the second photo:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc2_mill3.jpg

Oops! The top section hasn't been blown to dust. I guess you'll readily admit this lie/error since you care about the truth, right?

[MIKILLINI]

Planes or no planes, fires were in fact present, and they dont blow steel and concrete to smithereens in a second or two


Antiscience is defending the theory that fire blows up a huge "cube" of an intact section of steel and concrete.

This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

So this is your evidence? A picture(s) that you compare to a battleship sinking? This is your total analogy? WOW!

There is your non-convincing research abilities I put in bold above.
It appears you are spamming again RH, much like your rivet hole thread.

[roundhead]

roundhead, Silverstein didn't make any money off of 9/11, he actually lost a lot. He doesn't get rent from the WTC since it is no longer existent but he still has to pay rent for site to the Port Authority. Any money that he received from insurance is going back to the rebuilding which will not be complete for years.


Yeah, sure.

I got this off whatreallyhappened, as i dont want to dig up the Forbes article:


A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]


Not too shabby on a 200 million investment, he made loads off the deal, and leased the building in the first place when the Real Estate people in NYC considered the place a loser.


As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

[MIKILLINI]

I dont claim to be an ex WTC building superintendant, but my guess is that very few people hung out in the core. they probably spent their time in their offices:boggled:

Wow, is this the most compelling evidence you have? More like a Poe.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah, sure.

I got this off whatreallyhappened, as i dont want to dig up the Forbes article:


A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]


Not too shabby on a 200 million investment, he made loads off the deal, and leased the building in the first place when the Real Estate people in NYC considered the place a loser.

A new york tmes article pblished in 2003 estimated the cost of replacing the towers to at least $10 billion dollars
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E1DF173EF935A25756C0A9659C8B 63

Up to $15 billion dollars according to a more recent article from June of this year... source (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/higher-costs-and-delays-expected-at-ground-zero/)

So do the math, how much did Silverstein gain?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yeah, sure.

I got this off whatreallyhappened, as i dont want to dig up the Forbes article:

Going to Forbes for info is bad, so you went with the neo-nazi site instead?

What?

[DC]

Just because i like you, how about i redo my statement to say"In a matter of a second or two, it went from an intact block of a number of floors, to nothing discernable except dust and debris".

:)

would already be alot better for me, but will change nothing for the others here :)

and you are free to say or belive whatever you want.

Im not one of those that claim to know exactly what happened :)

[Drudgewire]

I got this off whatreallyhappened


Well, if you can't trust thejewsdidit.com, who can you trust? :rolleyes:

[peteweaver]

That photo is actually evidence that the building suffered a top down collapse due to structural failiure.

It debunks da troofers.

[uruk]

How great an idea Silverstein had, invest modestly in buildings that were losing money, get to replace them, and make a bundle to boot. Only thing wrong with that idea is that Silverstien isn't making all that much of a bundle just yet.

Of the 7.1 billion he asked for in insurance he only recieved 4.6 billion. The towers cost him 3.5 billion when he bought them. So he only made 1.1 billion obstensibly in the insurance deal. On top of that, some of the insurance companies are not paying up. And you know that has gotten worse with the bail out deal falling through recently.

The money he did make from the insurance is going into the building the new buildings. And as Grizzly Bear pointed out, it is going to cost him 10 to 15 billon to rebuild.

It is also costing him 102 million a year in base rent and another 10 million a month in rent from the Port authority. On top of that the Port Authority is taking tower one from him (the freedom tower)

So did Silverstien not quite make the huge bundle you seem to think he has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

[doobiedoright]

Let me ask a speculative question.


Lets assume Demartini and Skilling were correct(and i am not saying they werent, they didnt count on explosives AND planes)


Lets say the buildings were impacted by planes, and still stood, fires were put out, we are left with two buildings with damage that would obviously be fixable.

Do you think they would have been demolished, or fixed.



Do you have any clue of what the word assumption is?
I would wonder if the impacts of the planes had done major damage to the core and if it would of had to benn CD'Ed in the end.
That was a lot of energy they had to take and my bet or guess is that was the beginning of the end for the buildings!
Can you prove me wrong round one?

[nicepants]

No magic, just explosives.

How much energy/how many pounds of TNT would it take to do what you're claiming happened, Roundhead?

[DC]

the plane impacts caused only local damage according to Bazant.

[dtugg]

the plane impacts caused only local damage according to Bazant.

Yeah, local damage leading to global damage.

[DC]

Yeah, local damage leading to global damage.

well bazant says actually the stripping of of the steel insulation leeded to the global collapse. Would the Insulation not have been stripped of , the fire would propably not have caused a collapse.

[nicepants]

the plane impacts caused only local damage according to Bazant.

Structurally, that's probably correct...if the plane impacts had caused global structural instability, the towers would probably have collapsed immediately after impact.

ETA: Reading what I wrote, I probably should clarify, that global structural instability, in the case of the towers, would not have been a pre-requisite for global collapse.

[DC]

Structurally, that's probably correct...if the plane impacts had caused global structural instability, the towers would probably have collapsed immediately after impact.

yes i think this can be said.

ETA: which is the reason i belive in the Skilling 600 MPH impact analysis over Robertsons 180 mph analysis.

[GeeMack]

Is anyone else here unsurprised that roundhead has apparently never laid eyes on a can of deodorant before?


Laid eyes on one? What with his belief in magic as evidenced by his commentary in this thread, I think it's safe to say he's been inhaling the stuff!

[beachnut]

yes i think this can be said.

ETA: which is the reason i belive in the Skilling 600 MPH impact analysis over Robertsons 180 mph analysis.

Skilling never said 600 mph is why you never get anything right.

The study was done by Robertson, Skilling never said 600 mph

You have never, will never, can never produce a quote of Skilling saying 600 mph.

At least your sig is right.


Produce the quote or retract the lie.

[MIKILLINI]

yes i think this can be said.

ETA: which is the reason i belive in the Skilling 600 MPH impact analysis over Robertsons 180 mph analysis.

Really? When did Skilling do a 600 MPH impact analysis? I haven't seen it.

ETA: Beachnut beat Me to it.

[Quad4_72]

Again, roundhead has managed to disgrace the entire human race via internet forum. The only people who even slightly agree with you roundhead are LUNATICS who use cardboard boxes to model 110-story skyscrapers and completely deranged old hags who like to say "clunkity clunk".

[Bobert]

when you dont know better ways to get a lady underssed, well try it.

Nice one!
That made me giggle!

[Bobert]

Hell, that's just a normal Saturday night at Debunking Central here in the lovely NWO towers.

I was kicked out of the NWO tower for peeing on the George Bush urinal cake.

[OneShotKi11]

Now, me, i am a sharp enough guy to read that we had a plane impact WTC2, and because of this had resultant fires.

The "corner" damage we were told had very little if any impact on the core of the building, in the center of the building.

If you look at the above photo, the intact upper structure of the building(above the impact zone)is tilting heavily to one side, yet is "intact" as a "cube" of floors at this instant.

In the second photo, we can see that that intact cube has blown apart.Not toppled further, not fell as an intact piece to one side, not even had its "cubeiness" chipped away floor by fllor as it contacts the lower "cube", no it just blows up and ceases to exist in a second or two.

Intact cubes of steel and concrete dont blow up from fire damage, they blow up from being blown up.

The result of this intact cube above the impact zone being blown up, is that it basically becomes missing, it ceases to exist, and is literally dust and a tiny semblance of its former self in appearance and mass.

That said, the lower, undamaged remaining structure of the building wilts and collapses all the way down anyhow, i spite of the facat there is virtually nothing pushing it down from above at this point, it has ceased to exist.


Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work here, no matter how hot anybody wants to state it was.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. They say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up. One doesnt get a bullet wound from an arrow. A large part of a building doesnt literally evaportate from a fire damage. It may twist, it may sag, heck it might even fall, but it doesnt blow up.

In the 2nd picture you still do see that large portion of the building that originally toppled over still intact and falling.
Most of it is hidden behind the debris and dust, but you can still make out the "cube" that originally collapsed over.
So what are you talking about?

Did you purposely make the 2nd photo smaller so it would be harder to see?

[DC]

Skilling never said 600 mph is why you never get anything right.

The study was done by Robertson, Skilling never said 600 mph

You have never, will never, can never produce a quote of Skilling saying 600 mph.

At least your sig is right.


Produce the quote or retract the lie.

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson's 600 MPH analisys then.
which is obviously not the Robertson analisys as Robertson is talking about a slow flying plane.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-110341.html

[beachnut]

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson's 600 MPH analisys then.
which is obviously not the Robertson analisys as Robertson is talking about a slow flying plane.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-110341.html

What a lie.

Produce Skilling saying 600 mph or retract it.

[DC]

What a lie.

Produce Skilling saying 600 mph or retract it.

it is not a lie, it is based on information from the NIST report which based this on a whiterpaper from 1964.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/myPictures/impactreports.jpg

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am a member of the Republican party, but aint voting McCain, get my drift??

Given that you consider whatreallyhappened.com (a nazi sympathizer website) a superior source of information to Forbes magazine, can I ask if you came to that decision before or after McCain was endorsed by a jew?

[pomeroo]

Which qualified engineers???


These dont say that, they agree with a layman like me


http://www.ae911truth.org/



Gage's fraudulent list contains the names of many people who have no idea that they're listed. It also contains names of fools and incompetents who wouldn't dream of debating a well-informed rationalist. I've phoned several of them. They're not coming out to play.

[twinstead]

It appears that roundhead believes that Gage's list is legit no questions asked, not even a cursury investigation into if those on that list really are what Gage wants us to believe they are.

Isn't that the kind of unquestioning, sheepfull behavior folks like him accuse us of?

[pomeroo]

Actually, if were planning this, i would want the collapse to start where the plane impacted, so as to actually make the plane impact appear as the culprit to the sheeples.


Hey, great thinking! Now, how would you manage to place the explosives exactly where the plane hit? Oh, and how would you prevent the impact and resultant fires from destroying those explosives?

You say that it could not possibly be done. Yes, for once you are correct.

Your repeated humiliations here have reduced you to a sorry state.

[pomeroo]

Kindly show me a sttement where more than 400 have signed on to a common statement that they officially slurp the OCT lie.

I am a member of the Republican party, but aint voting McCain, get my drift??


You've been caught lying again. You are not a Republican.



See that what you said means squat?


Speaking of "squat," how's the supply-and-demand thing coming along? Still can't make heads or tails of it? Too bad.

[pomeroo]

I dont know if there were or not, each arguement has its merits.


The no-planes insanity has no merits apart from its entertainment value. Tens of thousands of eyewitnesses observed Flight 175 hit the South Tower; aircraft debris was found on rooftops and in the streets; remains of passengers and crew were identified by DNA analysis; air traffic controllers tracked the planes right to the doorstep of the WTC complex.

You are done.

[pomeroo]

Wow.

Each argument is equally stupid, maybe- each argument has the same amount of merits: 0...

But it's been over 7 years... when do you think you'll come up with a consistent theory at least?



The liars will never produce any sort of coherent hypothesis.



You do understand that claiming there were no planes, but when the planes hit there were perfectly planted explosives is a contradiction, right?


An important point, Totovader. He does not understand this: he is not capable of understanding the hopeless logical tangles his fantasies suck him into.

[MIKILLINI]

If the whole tower was wired, where the "impacts" were wouldnt matter, now would they?

If they were wired? Here's one for you to ponder...A bomb was detonated in the basement of tower one in 1993. Why didn't it collapse?

It can be concluded planes couldnt have impacted them a heck of a lot lower than they did, because of obstacles, etc.

You actually have something correct.

My guess is that the explosives were in the core, a sake place where there integrity could be maintained. The antenna drop is certainly good support of that idea.


There you are again...speculating without any substantial research.

[applecorped]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2391548e56e833ea66.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13988)

[kookbreaker]

It appears that roundhead believes that Gage's list is legit no questions asked, not even a cursury investigation into if those on that list really are what Gage wants us to believe they are.


He was maybe skeptical at first, but the listing of that fine engineering family the Jablowmes must have convinced him of its authenticity!

[beachnut]

it is not a lie, it is based on information from the NIST report which based this on a whiterpaper from 1964.


NO, you are wrong, Skilling never said 600 mph, you have to retract the 600 mph! You produced a white paper, a talking paper (talking), with 600 mph, not Skilling. The white paper was done by the Port Authority, they did not building the WTC, and like you they put in error 600 mph, a speed only done at 27,000 feet.

Produce Skilling saying 600 mph or retract it. Please stop pushing hearsay.

[johnny karate]

Let me ask a speculative question.


Lets assume Demartini and Skilling were correct(and i am not saying they werent, they didnt count on explosives AND planes)


Lets say the buildings were impacted by planes, and still stood, fires were put out, we are left with two buildings with damage that would obviously be fixable.

Do you think they would have been demolished, or fixed.



That question, i think, is a proposition the culprits surely didnt ever want to have to consider.

As i think its a safe bet they didnt want to spend hundreds of millions on buildings that were already generally unliked, had asbestos issues, and were undertenanted.

They were not moneymakers.

My guess is that, going in, there had to be enormous doubt the planes alone, and resultant fires, would fell both buildings.

The planes would certainly do what they did, create a memorable shock and awe, but the buildingds still standing would have nowhere near the effect on the US people then collapsing in fact did.

My theory is that the buildings were rigged, most likely by Controlled Demolition(our old buddy Mark's outfit)his "cleanup" work goes back to OKC days, and the final end of the days events accomplished two goals.

What part do you speculate the FDNY played in this scenario? Do you maintain they were merely after-the-fact complicit cowards, or did they perhaps perform a more sinister role in attempting to dupe the entire planet into believing the fires were sufficient to aid in collapse?

[kookbreaker]

So is this some new use of the word 'kills' that I am previously unaware of?

[AJM8125]

This looks like what happened to the HMS Hood after taking a Bismarck shell in her magazine and literally ceasing to exist in mighty short order. She literally blew up, after suffering an explosion.

This section of WTC 2 literally blew up, and suffered an explosion, much like Hood did.

Would you mind posting that photo of the HMS Hood blowing up so I can study it for comparison?

Well, this is a sketch of HMS Hood's destruction from Captain J.C. Leach, who witnessed it from HMS Prince of Wales:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683248e583da0c057.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13989)

This is quite consistent with other ships that have been destroyed by a magazine explosion.

USS Princeton, October 1944

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683248e584835bec5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13990)

USS St. Lo, October 1944

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683248e584cb73a86.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13991)

IJN Battleship Yamato, April 1945

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683248e5850a8739b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13992)

It is absolutely astonishing how much these examples do not resemble the collapse of WTC 2 in any manner. :rolleyes:

And just so Applecord is made aware, none of the aforementioned ships don't seem to have retained any of their cubiness.

[Corsair 115]

This is quite consistent with other ships that have been destroyed by a magazine explosion.

USS Princeton, October 1944

USS St. Lo, October 1944

IJN Battleship Yamato, April 1945One could add the USS Arizona to that list. This would have the added benefit of opening the door for Pearl Harbor conspiracists to join the fray.

[AJM8125]

One could add the USS Arizona to that list. This would have the added benefit of opening the door for Pearl Harbor conspiracists to join the fray.

Quite right, in every regard.

[BazBear]

Planes? What planes?

I thought you said there weren't any planes...
Well since Roundhead thinks it looks like the HMS Hood blowing up, maybe he thinks they were actually 16 inch battleship shells in disguise as Boeing airliners?

I demand an investigation of the whereabouts of the four retired Iowa class BBs on 9/11!:D;)

[Björn Toulouse]

Well, this is a sketch of HMS Hood's destruction from Captain J.C. Leach, who witnessed it from HMS Prince of Wales:.......

This is quite consistent with other ships that have been destroyed by a magazine explosion...........


It is absolutely astonishing how much these examples do not resemble the collapse of WTC 2 in any manner...........



I think he is recalling the movie Sink the Bismarck! from 1960 when he says it looks like the HMS Hood. I saw it too. I think he's seen another movie called Loose Change and its spawns.

Sometimes people confuse cinema with reality.

[AJM8125]

I think he is recalling the movie Sink the Bismarck! from 1960 when he says it looks like the HMS Hood. I saw it too. I think he's seen another movie called Loose Change and its spawns.

Sometimes people confuse cinema with reality.

Agreed. That and the fact that Leach was killed in action on December 10th, 1941 aboard HMS Prince of Wales, only deepens the conspiracy.

You sir, have opened an entirely new can of worms.

Dammit.

[Jedi_Master]

In the first photo, the top section has a kink.

This means it was meeting substantial resistance from below. Nothing was being blown up. Massive fail from you.

Bigger version of the second photo:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc2_mill3.jpg

Oops! The top section hasn't been blown to dust. I guess you'll readily admit this lie/error since you care about the truth, right?

Hey...roundhead...

How about a response to this post...

It explodes your OP out of the water. As it clearly shows the top section intact and not blown to smithereens...

[DC]

NO, you are wrong, Skilling never said 600 mph, you have to retract the 600 mph! You produced a white paper, a talking paper (talking), with 600 mph, not Skilling. The white paper was done by the Port Authority, they did not building the WTC, and like you they put in error 600 mph, a speed only done at 27,000 feet.

Produce Skilling saying 600 mph or retract it. Please stop pushing hearsay.

Cant find english speaking paper atm.....

Show evidence that the whitepaper is wrong :)

[beachnut]

Cant find english speaking paper atm.....

Show evidence that the whitepaper is wrong :)
I spent a lot of time researching this issue; Skilling never said 600 mph, you and other truther use hearsay and that white paper by the Port Authority; You make it up; you said Skilling and you are wrong!

There are no other language papers with Skilling saying 600 mph. The paper may say it, but Skilling did not say it. Do you understand the 600 mph was put in the white paper and news people by accident. Just like your sig, you go look up the top speed and use it.

Robertson was the chief Structural engineer on the WTC, he is the one who designed the structure.

Leslie E. Robertson: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" ... The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). ..."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtckcrobertson.jpg
Roberson design point! Robertson WTC chief structural engineer.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/designimpact.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg
11 times the design impact in energy! Significant, like a 2000 pound bomb!. An order of magnitude bigger impact energy event!

You want a 707 fully loaded at 600 mph, 14, FOURTEEN, times greater than Robertson's design, more damage, 3 more core columns gone, 4 engines instead of two, so more distributed major damage.

As we can plainly see, Mr. Robertson does not support Dr. Griffin’s assertions. He suggests that the WTC Towers were designed to handle a 707 impact, but that the actual requirement stipulated a much lower speed collision, with “absolutely no comparison” between the requirement and the actual events of September 11th. Mr. Robertson also indicates that a thorough analysis would have been impossible with the tools of the time. It also bears pointing out that his firm LERA was a contributor to the NIST report, rather than disputing it, as Dr. Griffin suggests. (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey)

I told you all of this before; you ignore evidence you ignore facts. Why do you think people call you a troll?

You can't find Skilling saying 600 mph, so you put it on me to prove a white paper by the Port Authority wrong. It is wrong because a 707 does not go 600 mph at 1000 feet for an accident.
You don't understand flying, or know what questions to ask so you can discuss speed.
I found with research, Skilling never said 600 mph! You have to look harder and comprehend better if you want the truth; how can you waste so much time and not get better at understanding 9/11? I had to confirm Skilling never said 600 mph to be sure I could say it!

[DC]

I spent a lot of time researching this issue; Skilling never said 600 mph, you and other truther use hearsay and that white paper by the Port Authority; You make it up; you said Skilling and you are wrong!

There are no other language papers with Skilling saying 600 mph. The paper may say it, but Skilling did not say it. Do you understand the 600 mph was put in the white paper and news people by accident. Just like your sig, you go look up the top speed and use it.

Robertson was the chief Structural engineer on the WTC, he is the one who designed the structure.







I told you all of this before; you ignore evidence you ignore facts. Why do you think people call you a troll?

You can't find Skilling saying 600 mph, so you put it on me to prove a white paper by the Port Authority wrong. It is wrong because a 707 does not go 600 mph at 1000 feet for an accident. But you don't understand flying.

no evidence here :)

i never said Skilling said.....
it was his company doing this Analysis.....

when you can prove it wrong, pls present your evidence :)

[beachnut]

no evidence here :)

i never said Skilling said.....
it was his company doing this Analysis.....

when you can prove it wrong, pls present your evidence :)
What a big quibbler.
Then who posts for you!
yes i think this can be said.

ETA: which is the reason i belive in the Skilling 600 MPH impact analysis over Robertsons 180 mph analysis.

I proved it! You can't understand it! At least your sig is right.
Not 600 mph, a 707 does not go 600 mph at 700 feet.

You prove a 707 goes normally 600 mph at 700 feet. Good luck

Prove a 707 can be landing at 600 mph, or do 600 mph cruising through NYC.

yes i think this can be said.

ETA: which is the reason i belive in the Skilling 600 MPH impact analysis over Robertsons 180 mph analysis.
Who posted this. BTW, this is you saying Skilling said 600 mph! If you can't figure this out get help.

You are unable to learn simple stuff. Skilling did no study, Robertson did. Why can't you figure it out.

[DC]

What a big quibbler.
Then who posts for you!


I proved it! You can't understand it! At least your sig is right.
Not 600 mph, a 707 does not go 600 mph at 700 feet.

You prove a 707 goes normally 600 mph at 700 feet. Good luck

Prove a 707 can be landing at 600 mph, or do 600 mph cruising through NYC.


Who posted this. BTW, this is you saying Skilling said 600 mph! If you can't figure this out get help.

You are unable to learn simple stuff. Skilling did no study, Robertson did. But you can't figure it out.

my sig is an expression to show your arrogance and your self overestimation and your huge huge ego's (yes, that must be more than one ego, one ego cant get that big)

so show some evidence that the Skilling analysis is wrong.

But pls do it in a new or in the old 600MPH thread so we dont further derail this one.

ETA: That the towers stood atleast 1 hour after the impacts is for me a very good indication that they indeed used the 600 MPH, yet again i want to point out, that this does not mean for me the towers could NOT have collapsed, In an Interview Skilling pointed out that indeed the Fire would be the big problem, while he assumed that the towers would whitstand those fires, this part seems to be wrong, the Fire seem to have brought down the towers.

[jhunter1163]

Roundhead, your thread is failing! Eject, eject, eject!

Oh, wait, he already did...

[beachnut]

my sig is an expression to show your arrogance and your self overestimation and your huge huge ego's (yes, that must be more than one ego, one ego cant get that big)

so show some evidence that the Skilling analysis is wrong.

But pls do it in a new or in the old 600MPH thread so we dont further derail this one.

ETA: That the towers stood atleast 1 hour after the impacts is for me a very good indication that they indeed used the 600 MPH, yet again i want to point out, that this does not mean for me the towers could NOT have collapsed, In an Interview Skilling pointed out that indeed the Fire would be the big problem, while he assumed that the towers would whitstand those fires, this part seems to be wrong, the Fire seem to have brought down the towers.
Do you know the difference between hearsay and evidence from a first person source?

Your sig proves to a pilot you lack knowledge on flying issues; True airspeed vs. indicated airspeed, etc. Your sig is correct for the value you display, you looked up the bomber, picked as speed at random and said it was the speed. I think flying high performance jets for a several months could affect my ego; but then they did what the plane back in one piece and not understanding flying would have killed me. So I do have a huge ego when needed but extremely shy otherwise. But to me your sig is great, and the first thing true you post every time you post. Thank you very much.

Skilling never said 600 mph, he never did a study at 600 mph. Why the Port Authority picks a speed impossible for a 707 to cruise at 700 feet MSL. Why? Why can’t you explain why they picked 600 mph? Why is it right or wrong?

The WTC did not survive the impacts of 9/11. They were not designed for impacts of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, they were designed for 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy.

Zero chance to survive a 707 fully loaded 14 times impact energy form the design of 180 mph; at 2620 pounds of TNT kinetic energy.

Proof is Robertson presenting his study. Robertson's paper proves your idea on 600 mph wrong. The Port Authority, put in the 600 mph by mistake. A 707 does not cruise at 700 feet MSL at 600 mph. But please feel free to tell me how a 707 can accidentally be going 600 mph and hit the WTC at 700 feet, almost perpendicular to the face.

You need to find Skilling's report (there is not one), or Skilling saying he did the study for 600 mph, not hearsay.

I have Robertson with 180 mph, he designed the building. You have hearsay from the Port Authority who did not design the building, and not one quote from Skilling saying 600 mph.

The OP is pure fantasy, and so is 600 mph.

Robertson is the proof, he was the guy who did the structural design.
The source an engineering Journal
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument The source proving you wrong.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement the paper proves you wrong. The source an engineering Journal; refute this.

... hearsay falls short. ; Do you have original words from the man? No

[DC]

Do you know the difference between hearsay and evidence from a first person source?

Your sig proves to a pilot you lack knowledge on flying issues; True airspeed vs. indicated airspeed, etc. Your sig is correct for the value you display, you looked up the bomber, picked as speed at random and said it was the speed. I think flying high performance jets for a several months could affect my ego; but then they did what the plane back in one piece and not understanding flying would have killed me. So I do have a huge ego when needed but extremely shy otherwise. But to me your sig is great, and the first thing true you post every time you post. Thank you very much.

Skilling never said 600 mph, he never did a study at 600 mph. Why the Port Authority picks a speed impossible for a 707 to cruise at 700 feet MSL. Why? Why can’t you explain why they picked 600 mph? Why is it right or wrong?

The WTC did not survive the impacts of 9/11. They were not designed for impacts of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, they were designed for 187 pounds of TNT kinetic energy.

Zero chance to survive a 707 fully loaded 14 times impact energy form the design of 180 mph; at 2620 pounds of TNT kinetic energy.

Proof is Robertson presenting his study. Robertson's paper proves your idea on 600 mph wrong. The Port Authority, put in the 600 mph by mistake. A 707 does not cruise at 700 feet MSL at 600 mph. But please feel free to tell me how a 707 can accidentally be going 600 mph and hit the WTC at 700 feet, almost perpendicular to the face.

You need to find Skilling's report (there is not one), or Skilling saying he did the study for 600 mph, not hearsay.

I have Robertson with 180 mph, he designed the building. You have hearsay from the Port Authority who did not design the building, and not one quote from Skilling saying 600 mph.

The OP is pure fantasy, and so is 600 mph.

Robertson is the proof, he was the guy who did the structural design.
The source an engineering Journal
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument The source proving you wrong.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement the paper proves you wrong. The source an engineering Journal; refute this.

... hearsay falls short. ; Do you have original words from the man? No

you lack evidence. :)
finally i can say that to you :)

[beachnut]

you lack evidence. :)
finally i can say that to you :)
Evidence again; showing the design point is not 600 mph.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
The paper, more evidence.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement)
You still have hearsay and lack the ability to identify evidence.

Proof 600 mph was not the design speed; that is evidence. But truthers can't see evidence. Are you a truther?

You post is wrong, but your sig is correct.

Don't get upset, try to find a quote from Skilling with 600 mph instead of your hearsay source. Calm down, you can do it. You are in error, you are the one without evidence, you have hearsay. Do you understand your lack of evidence I due to your hearsay?

[DC]

Evidence again; showing the design point is not 600 mph.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
The paper, more evidence.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement)
You still have hearsay and lack the ability to identify evidence.

Proof 600 mph was not the design speed; that is evidence. But truthers can't see evidence. Are you a truther?

You post is wrong, but your sig is correct.

Don't get upset, try to find a quote from Skilling with 600 mph instead of your hearsay source. Calm down, you can do it. You are in error, you are the one without evidence, you have hearsay. Do you understand your lack of evidence I due to your hearsay?

still no evidence.

try harder.

[beachnut]

still no evidence.

try harder.
I already succeeded; your opinion is based on hearsay.

It takes ignorance on flying, reading comprehension and pure lack of logical thinking to miss the evidence presented. Why do truthers have problem recognizing evidence? I have tried to help, but you can't grasp the details.

Please present Skilling's 600 mph study, in his own words, or anyone he worked with to prove your opinion is correct. Opinion? Based on hearsay and lack of knowledge on physics, flying, and engineering. That is okay, you have not figured this out yet; maybe it will take you another 7 years to learn what it takes days to understand for most.

Wait, I am sorry, it is what you think because you have hearsay that Skilling used 600 mph.

I am sorry, you have hearsay, and just an opinion. Sorry again, I thought you were interested in evidence you are not.

You are calling my evidence, not evidence to get me to post to your pathetic hearsay opinion based on your lack of knowledge, logic, inability to accept evidence and some hearsay that you like more than facts and evidence.

Standard failed truther trait I am sorry you opinion is not correct, you can't be expected to do better; why?

If you need help again just ask; but I proved your opinion is based on hearsay, and false. But your sig is correct; good job

[DC]

I already succeeded; your opinion is based on hearsay.

It takes ignorance on flying, reading comprehension and pure lack of logical thinking to miss the evidence presented. Why do truthers have problem recognizing evidence? I have tried to help, but you can't grasp the details.

Please present Skilling's 600 mph study, in his own words, or anyone he worked with to prove your opinion is correct. Opinion? Based on hearsay and lack of knowledge on physics, flying, and engineering. That is okay, you have not figured this out yet; maybe it will take you another 7 years to learn what it takes days to understand for most.

Wait, I am sorry, it is what you think because you have hearsay that Skilling used 600 mph.

I am sorry, you have hearsay, and just an opinion. Sorry again, I thought you were interested in evidence you are not.

You are calling my evidence, not evidence to get me to post to your pathetic hearsay opinion based on your lack of knowledge, logic, inability to accept evidence and some hearsay that you like more than facts and evidence.

Standard failed truther trait I am sorry you opinion is not correct, you can't be expected to do better; why?

If you need help again just ask; but I proved your opinion is based on hearsay, and false. But your sig is correct; good job

gsus, still no evidence? I thought you would do a better job than we truthers in finding evidence.
try even harder.

[bonavada]

I find it impossible to conclude from looking at it.....that the cube didnt blow up and cease to exist

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

it just blows up and ceases to exist

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

it has ceased to exist

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

The only way one couldnt come to that conclusion is having very poor eyesight

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

I am blessed with good eyesight. I have my family genes to thank for that

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

I have looked at that picure for probably hours with my good eyesight

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874848e5dcad09b80.jpg

I have no problem distinguishing the fact there is nothing left in my second picture, of that cube

I think Roundhead needs a new pair of specs. Ma always said that staring at certain pictures (along with other distasteful activities) would "ruin my eyesight". Perhaps Roundhead should invest in a pair of boxing gloves?

BV

[Sunstealer]

What's the difference between a popular 80's toy and the OP? One's a Rubiks-cube, the other's a cubic-rube.

[Crazytimes]

You guys have been arguing with a used car salesman. He posts this nonsense on a Michigan State message board and always does the same thing. He cuts and pastes long winded BS and then when you ask him to answer questions he either ignores the question completely or WILL NOT give a direct answer to your question.

[dudalb]

You guys have been arguing with a used car salesman. He posts this nonsense on a Michigan State message board and always does the same thing. He cuts and pastes long winded BS and then when you ask him to answer questions he either ignores the question completely or WILL NOT give a direct answer to your question.

That's Standard Operating Procedure for a Truther.
We really argue not to convice the Truther..in most cases they are a lost cause...but to any third parties who might be following the thread.
I hope the can can shoot a more effective line of BS as a Used Cars Salesman then he does as a Truther.

[Bobert]

my sig is an expression to show your arrogance and your self overestimation and your huge huge ego's (yes, that must be more than one ego, one ego cant get that big)
So you are willing to spread lies about him to make your point that you feel he has a big ego?
Big surprise that a truther would do this
:rolleyes:
Yet another example of why truthers never venture out into the real world.

[Bobert]

gsus, still no evidence? I thought you would do a better job than we truthers in finding evidence.
try even harder.

You are the one making the claim that Skilling said this so......
Please present Skilling's 600 mph study, in his own words, or anyone he worked with to prove your opinion is correct. Opinion? Based on hearsay and lack of knowledge on physics, flying, and engineering. That is okay, you have not figured this out yet; maybe it will take you another 7 years to learn what it takes days to understand for most.

[Bobert]

You guys have been arguing with a used car salesman. He posts this nonsense on a Michigan State message board and always does the same thing. He cuts and pastes long winded BS and then when you ask him to answer questions he either ignores the question completely or WILL NOT give a direct answer to your question.

Do you have a link?

[DC]

So you are willing to spread lies about him to make your point that you feel he has a big ego?
Big surprise that a truther would do this
:rolleyes:
Yet another example of why truthers never venture out into the real world.

what lies ?

[Crazytimes]

Do you have a link?

He posts as Donnyrotten but used to post as roundhead until he was either banned or sick of taking the abuse.

Here are some of the 9/11 threads he has been a part of.

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1120648

[DC]

You are the one making the claim that Skilling said this so......

where did i say Skilling said? That is Beachnut's strawman....
i said Skillings Analysis, and then made it clearer by using the full company name, Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson's.

I still miss the evidence that the whitepaper from 64 used the wrong speed.

[Grizzly Bear]

where did i say Skilling said? That is Beachnut's strawman....
i said Skillings Analysis, and then made it clearer by using the full company name, Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson's.

I still miss the evidence that the whitepaper from 64 used the wrong speed.

As far as I'm aware NIST did mention that paper with the 600 MPH figure but as to the documentation used to determine how the designers reached those figures, it's unclear if any such analysis was done at the time

That's my recollection....

[Gravy]

That's Standard Operating Procedure for a Truther.
We really argue not to convice the Truther..in most cases they are a lost cause...but to any third parties who might be following the thread.Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. There wouldn't be a thread to follow if you weren't arguing. Leave a moronic OP alone and it will slide into the dustbin with thousands of others. The few lurkers who ever see it will know by its content and lack of responses that it's not worthwhile. Instead, all the debunkers participating in soon-to-be-banned roundhead's thread give him credibility by spending time on him.

You're being played by this "used car salesman," and he's winning. With ease.

[applecorped]

Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. There wouldn't be a thread to follow if you weren't arguing. Leave a moronic OP alone and it will slide into the dustbin with thousands of others. The few lurkers who ever see it will know by its content and lack of responses that it's not worthwhile. Instead, all the debunkers participating in soon-to-be-banned roundhead's thread give him credibility by spending time on him.

You're being played by this "used car salesman," and he's winning. With ease.

Isn't credibility earned, not given?

You posted in this thread. Are you giving him credibility?

[Gravy]

Isn't credibility earned, not given?Not in the eyes of truthers. You should know that by now.

You posted in this thread. Are you giving him credibility?I posted to encourage people not to engage with kooks or trolls, especially regarding issues that have been discussed hundreds of times here. I did not engage with the trolls. See the difference?

[leftysergeant]

I am trying to figure out the dynamics of this, but, looking at the picture in the OP of the initiation of collapse, using the corner of the building below the zone of collapse as a gudie, it looks as though the bottom margin of the upper block is moving toward the camera. This tells me that when the core failed on the impacted floor, the upper part slid off on the direction of the cameras.

Thus, you have not only the floors impacting each other and forcing the lower perimeter columns outward, and the upper perimeter columns crumpling as they fall onto the slowly-collapsing lower sections, but you also have a big spike being driven up the center of the top and one down the center of the bottom.

This would produce some of the same effects as an explosion. An explosive charge, of course, would also throw smaller objects out on different trajectories from the dust plume.

So these photos still better support a progressive collapse.

[jhunter1163]

What's the difference between a popular 80's toy and the OP? One's a Rubiks-cube, the other's a cubic-rube.

Today's Golden Guffaw winnah!

[beachnut]

As far as I'm aware NIST did mention that paper with the 600 MPH figure but as to the documentation used to determine how the designers reached those figures, it's unclear if any such analysis was done at the time

That's my recollection....
the design point is not 600 mph.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
The paper,
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement)
Truther like hearsay, remain in ignorance, ignore the evidence sure is easier than facing it.


The white paper is hearsay on what Skilling's team did; produced by the Port Authority! They, like most truthers must of picked the top speed erroneously.

Things truthers fail to do!
1. Present evidence to support their opinion 600 mph was used. No first person evidence, like Skilling, Robertson, or the Team
2. don't realize their your opinion is based on hearsay.
3. never present why a 707 is doing 600 mph at 700 feet MSL.
4. fail to present the top speed of a 707 at 700 feet MSL.
5. fail to prove Robertson is wrong.
6. fail to realize the towers did fail due to the impacts.
7. fail to realize the design impact at 180 mph would have the WTC surviving, only some local damage and fires that can be put out. Tail section on the ground, wings on the ground, 3 small holes in the WTC shell, parts falling all over the ground, no major damage to the core.

Truthers can't find the speed a 707 would be doing at 700 feet and why.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're being played by this "used car salesman," and he's winning. With ease.

I respect your work on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm afraid I disagree with you on this point.

This thread has been going for five pages now and no debunkers have been killed. :D

[A W Smith]

I am trying to figure out the dynamics of this, but, looking at the picture in the OP of the initiation of collapse, using the corner of the building below the zone of collapse as a gudie, it looks as though the bottom margin of the upper block is moving toward the camera. This tells me that when the core failed on the impacted floor, the upper part slid off on the direction of the cameras.

Thus, you have not only the floors impacting each other and forcing the lower perimeter columns outward, and the upper perimeter columns crumpling as they fall onto the slowly-collapsing lower sections, but you also have a big spike being driven up the center of the top and one down the center of the bottom.

This would produce some of the same effects as an explosion. An explosive charge, of course, would also throw smaller objects out on different trajectories from the dust plume.

So these photos still better support a progressive collapse.

this video illustrates the tilt and the progression of crush, which pretty much debunks Dawnald ducks op assertion

XotvgJW0BSY

I respect your work on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm afraid I disagree with you on this point.

This thread has been going for five pages now and no debunkers have been killed. :D

But Gravy is correct. I am reluctant to post in threads started by proven liars. this liar has been proven to be disingenuous in the past. specifically the rivet thread where he purposely cropped a photo of flight 77s wreckage in a failed and debunked attempt to show that the wreckage was never riveted together and planted. Note the similarity in the op. he had to find two images of the collapse that were obscured by a building in the foreground. he has been shown to be as trustworthy as a used car salesman who would place a large cardboard sign over a cars broken windshield to conceal damage and sell another car. this Donald is the lemon of the truth movement and deserves no respect.

[technoextreme]

Do you think they would have been demolished, or fixed.


Demolished.As far as i am aware..http://www.ae911truth.org/ is the largest engineering group that has taken a stance on either side of the issue. I cant think of another group of Engineers who have publically stated "oneness" on this issue of anywhere near the same size(400+)

Please link me to the public statement of a larger engineering group, that has an opposing statement to http://www.ae911truth.org/ that all have the same opinion.
This is the same group that tried to prove that a WTC 7 fell down at free fall speed with compressed videos right. Yeah... As an engineer moronic would fit quite aptly for what they tried to do.

[Grizzly Bear]

the design point is not 600 mph.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
The paper,
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement)
Truther like hearsay, remain in ignorance, ignore the evidence sure is easier than facing it.


The white paper is hearsay on what Skilling's team did; produced by the Port Authority! They, like most truthers must of picked the top speed erroneously.

Things truthers fail to do!
1. Present evidence to support their opinion 600 mph was used. No first person evidence, like Skilling, Robertson, or the Team
2. don't realize their your opinion is based on hearsay.
3. never present why a 707 is doing 600 mph at 700 feet MSL.
4. fail to present the top speed of a 707 at 700 feet MSL.
5. fail to prove Robertson is wrong.
6. fail to realize the towers did fail due to the impacts.
7. fail to realize the design impact at 180 mph would have the WTC surviving, only some local damage and fires that can be put out. Tail section on the ground, wings on the ground, 3 small holes in the WTC shell, parts falling all over the ground, no major damage to the core.

Truthers can't find the speed a 707 would be doing at 700 feet and why.

I was talking about the statement NIST made regarding the viability of the
600 MPH figure:
A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that “…such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”8 Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited.

Of course, many truthers tend to glaze over the part about the availability of documentation regarding how those figures were reached. That's what I was highlighting... Many trot it out as if it were a verified design figure when it's not, as you alluded too: The white paper is hearsay on what Skilling's team did;...

[UNLoVedRebel]

That OP put Mackey's to shame.

[MIKILLINI]

That OP put Mackey's to shame.

Nope. The OP doesn't even qualify as junk. Junk is more qualified than the OP.

[applecorped]

Not in the eyes of truthers. You should know that by now.

I posted to encourage people not to engage with kooks or trolls, especially regarding issues that have been discussed hundreds of times here. I did not engage with the trolls. See the difference?

roundhead gets/recieves credibility from like minded individuals and there is nothing surprising about that. I agree that ignoring truthers is the best course but I have not seen that happen in the many previous times that recommendation has been suggested. I am not optimistic that many will refrain from the bait. I myself am consciously trying to not be snarky and not engaging needlessly, but it is hard sometimes. I am working on it though.

[A W Smith]

That OP put Mackey's to shame.
Nope. The OP doesn't even qualify as junk. Junk is more qualified than the OP.
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

[twinstead]

roundhead gets/recieves credibility from like minded individuals and there is nothing surprising about that. I agree that ignoring truthers is the best course but I have not seen that happen in the many previous times that recommendation has been suggested. I am not optimistic that many will refrain from the bait. I myself am consciously trying to not be snarky and not engaging needlessly, but it is hard sometimes. I am working on it though.

Dude. You are SO going to lose your corner office here at NWO Towers and your hot personal secretary over that attitude! :cool:

[applecorped]

Dude. You are SO going to lose your corner office here at NWO Towers and your hot personal secretary over that attitude! :cool:


Is there an NWO Reeducation program available?

[Travis]

Do we even have any Anti-Science Debunkers here to be killed by this picture? How would the killing happen if such a person were to be located and brought here?

*crossing fingers that their faces melt like the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark*

[Gravy]

I respect your work on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm afraid I disagree with you on this point.

This thread has been going for five pages now and no debunkers have been killed. :D
:eek: I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Smackety]

The thread will kill people who debunk anti-science? Isn't debunking anti-science a good thing?

[Zipster]

Anti-Science Debunkers... Is that a bomb that destabilizes science being done in bunkers or something?

[KTB]

Typical roundhed loserism, to not answer the questions about the pictures actually still containing "the cube". Great eyesight there, roundhead!
Why do all the truthers have to be such sissies that they can't admit it when they are plainly wrong (unless they are lying again...). They just curl up in silence and try to blab about some other missunderstandig they have. Nasty people.

[Travis]

Typical roundhed loserism, to not answer the questions about the pictures actually still containing "the cube". Great eyesight there, roundhead!
Why do all the truthers have to be such sissies that they can't admit it when they are plainly wrong (unless they are lying again...). They just curl up in silence and try to blab about some other missunderstandig they have. Nasty people.

Roundhead is going to be gone a few days so that he might stop trying to pass off the work of others, as pathetic as that work usually is, as his own.

[1337m4n]

Now, me, i am a sharp enough guy to read that we had a plane impact WTC2, and because of this had resultant fires.

The "corner" damage we were told had very little if any impact on the core of the building, in the center of the building.

If you look at the above photo, the intact upper structure of the building(above the impact zone)is tilting heavily to one side, yet is "intact" as a "cube" of floors at this instant.

In the second photo, we can see that that intact cube has blown apart.Not toppled further, not fell as an intact piece to one side, not even had its "cubeiness" chipped away floor by fllor as it contacts the lower "cube", no it just blows up and ceases to exist in a second or two.

Intact cubes of steel and concrete dont blow up from fire damage, they blow up from being blown up.

The result of this intact cube above the impact zone being blown up, is that it basically becomes missing, it ceases to exist, and is literally dust and a tiny semblance of its former self in appearance and mass.

That said, the lower, undamaged remaining structure of the building wilts and collapses all the way down anyhow, i spite of the facat there is virtually nothing pushing it down from above at this point, it has ceased to exist.


Anyhow, seeing this picture, and the upper cube's destruction, convinces me, beyond even a resonable doubt, that something other than a mere fire is at work here, no matter how hot anybody wants to state it was.
It tells me the whole story has yet to be told as to what happened here. They say a picture tells a story, i agree.

No fire blows stuff up. One doesnt get a bullet wound from an arrow. A large part of a building doesnt literally evaportate from a fire damage. It may twist, it may sag, heck it might even fall, but it doesnt blow up.

I'm thoroughly interested in YOUR explanation for this alleged anomaly.

[Safe-Keeper]

(On OP)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/USS_Arizona_burning-Pearl_Harbor.jpg
omg proof of insidejob!!!111

And
http://www.timegun.org/hiroshima_bomb.jpg
O.o evidence 4 controlled demolichun!11!11

See, we can do it too:rolleyes:.