MK,
you have been given quotes from on scene firefighters of the collapse was going to happen.
Why do you ignore and try to spin this into something of a big deal. Yes , engineers and some fire specialists on site stated it was clear at some point the buildings were coming down.
There is not conspiracy behind those statements.
So YOU PERSONALLY endorse the idea that in response to chaotic damage,
WTC 1, 2 & 7 could "collapse" at the rate & in the manner observed without
help from an additional source of energy ( ie: explosives )
what?
Yes.
No explosives , other than what occurred during the burning of the building and its contents.
Since you did not refute my statement, then you now admit engineers and some fire specialists on scene made the correct statement that collapse was inevitable.
Thank you.
"We" are not data starved because "we" includes me and I am not data starved. Data is available for every question I need to answer. You may be data starved because you want more for some reason of your own. I know exactly what objectives I have - they are two areas of interest:I agree and my only remaining interest IS the details.. a theoretical... only because we are data starved on the detail level... to detail the sequence of all three collapses...
"We" are not data starved because "we" includes me and I am not data starved. Data is available for every question I need to answer. You may be data starved because you want more for some reason of your own. I know exactly what objectives I have - they are two areas of interest:
1) Demonstrate whether or not there was CD. There wasn't; AND
2) Explain why the Towers collapses the way they did. Can do that with available data.
As a professional civil and military engineer I have enough data to explain both to a professional standard to both lay and professional persons. I have done so on many occasions.
As for your need to go further the two problem issues are that the data is probably not recoverable and the broad policy issue of "Why should a community spend money to satisfy SanderO's curiosity?" And that has nothing to do with the technical issues of WTC collapses.
Not my fault that YOU do not get it
that is the fact that complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day
is VERY suspicious + the fact that in order to do what was done, that is destroy the twin
towers & WTC 7 in the short time it took to do the job = controlled demolition.
This is NOT a game of "my experts are better than YOUR experts"
its about individuals actually getting it, the fact that you still cite "experts"
rather than YOUR own logic & reasoning speaks volumes.
Correct. It's relatively easy with honest people who want to learn."2) Explain why the Towers collapses the way they did. Can do that with available data."
The simple answer is that a ruddy great big building collapsed. Actually your logic is arse-about. The puzzle or magic would be if a lot of those items were recognisable. And your discussion procedure also back asswards. I normally don't fall for the JAQing trick - so this is a rare exception.Do tell, YOU can explain WHY it is that nobody could find any recognizable remnant of a copy machine or other office equipment, no junk food machines, no refrigerators or Kitchen gear from the restaurant at the top of the north tower, What magic destroyed all that stuff? + the total destruction of the tower itself.
They didn't fail. They chose not to go there. A legitimate choice but intriguing when juxtaposed against their respond to the nonsense from Chandler. Anyway you have a professional level explanation part 1 posted on another thread. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.The NIST with all their PHD power, failed to explain the post-collapse-initiation
event(s) that led to the complete & total destruction of the building(s)
No. Medium weightHeavy stuff ...... no?
Correct. It's relatively easy with honest people who want to learn.
The simple answer is that a ruddy great big building collapsed. Actually your logic is arse-about. The puzzle or magic would be if a lot of those items were recognisable. And your discussion procedure also back asswards. I normally don't fall for the JAQing trick - so this is a rare exception.
They didn't fail. They chose not to go there. A legitimate choice but intriguing when juxtaposed against their respond to the nonsense from Chandler. Anyway you have a professional level explanation part 1 posted on another thread. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.
No. Medium weight
I don't know and don't much care. Reason being that you are coming at the logic from the opposite end. I don't. You can never prove OMHI by building on anomalies which "you" dont comprehend. The bit will never prove CD. So start the right end...prove CD and all the anomalies will fall into place. If you can do it. I've tried - on two sequences I worked with two different truthers to help them build a coherent pro CD argument worthy of debate. Ironic that I have possibly put more effort into constructing a proper CD argument than most truthers. It's an Army technique also put yourself in the enemies boots and work out how he would do it. I've got several 'plans' of how to demolish the 'Twin Towers'. :roll:Look up an episode of "TOP GEAR" where the guys get a Toyota pick-up truck placed on top of a building about to be demolished, the truck not only survived in recognizable form, but was able to start up and drive away under its own power.
BTW: where are the HAT TRUSSES? ......
Live with it - I am usually conscious of the words I choose and on that occasion the choice was deliberate and the signal sent also intended. He is incompetent or dishonest. I suspect the former - driven like Szamboti by some underlying obsession. I see them as very similar types except Szamboti has the courage to confront his opponents. Unwisely iMO but he does it. A long story there for later. Early in both Chandler's publishing career and mine I often used one of his videos. (BTW I used it as part of "Global collapse was inevitable" explanations." nonsense from Chandler" .... your attitude is showing, ....
I don't know and don't much care. Reason being that you are coming at the logic from the opposite end. I don't. You can never prove OMHI by building on anomalies which "you" dont comprehend. The bit will never prove CD. So start the right end...prove CD and all the anomalies will fall into place. If you can do it. I've tried - on two sequences .
Not my fault that YOU do not get it
that is the fact that complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day
is VERY suspicious + the fact that in order to do what was done, that is destroy the twin
towers & WTC 7 in the short time it took to do the job = controlled demolition.
This is NOT a game of "my experts are better than YOUR experts"
its about individuals actually getting it, the fact that you still cite "experts"
rather than YOUR own logic & reasoning speaks volumes.
wait. its is ok for your to cite a source to back up a statement, but others can't?. You said you learned something in a physics class that you said shows the crash at the Pentagon was not possible. and then you try and diss me because I site experts that back up my statements.:lamo
Try it sometime MK, by the way Jones disagrees with your pulverized concrete statement. Have you personally analyized the dust. Jones did.
What "pulverized concrete" statement? & also its irrelevant if any given "expert" disagrees with anything at all.
Really, its not a matter of working from one "end" or another, the evidence is what it is and
the problems with the evidence stem from tampering that is the non-documentation of what
was at ground zero before the hasty clean-up effort ordered by the Mayor of NYC.
The fact is that save for the actions of explosives, the stuff at the top of the heap
in a CD are less pulverized than material lower down, so one may expect to find more
intact or closer to recognizable materials near the top of the heap, but owing to the
hasty "clean-up" effort, we may never know exactly what was present there.
.....
You need to study the debris photos because you are talking out of complete ignorance. Spend some time with the visual record:
Evidence based research
WTC Photographic Record
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
and in ALL of these pix, is there anything that can be pointed to as
a recognizable remnant of a HAT-TRUSS or office gear? or?
and in ALL of these pix, is there anything that can be pointed to as
a recognizable remnant of a HAT-TRUSS or office gear? or?
Connecting dots is not the objective.Wilkliam Blum does some excellent dot connecting:
The Anti-Empire Report #121 – October 7th, 2013 – William Blum
Connecting dots is not the objective.
PLEASE don't anyone challenge me to show what is right and wrong with Mr Blum's selection of dots or the validity of how he links them. It's too late and the job would be...err....hummm...err..."tedious".
Where is the HAT-TRUSS?
you did state a "or".. did you not? Therefore there was no need to answer both parts of your question. Now if you would have asked you wanted a H-Truss and office gear, but you didn't.
Since you don't care if it was a nuke or other explosives, why do you care about a hat-truss? Prove it is not in the rubble somewhere,
No need to prove a negative... The hat truss was composed of steel beams... they broke apart and are strewn about the rubble pile... just like the rest of the steel.
so ALL of the connections were broken, because if there had been some connections still intact, there would be the opportunity to see the pattern of connections that would indicate the bits you were looking at had been the HAT-TRUSS.
The very fact of the totality of destruction such that the HAT-TRUSS was totally destroyed ( for both buildings ) clearly indicates some additional source of energy had to have been present.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?