Warrior General Games

Also with that footprint bullshit..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg

Does that look like they fell into their own footprints? The answer is no.

Watch the building collapse and come back after.

Originally posted by rams78110
We have thrown up close to 40 pages of factual information. Ignorantly claiming it's speculation in the face of what that word actually means changes nothing.

I haven't seend those factual informations first hand, it could be all made up for all I know... That's what good ol' Thomas would of said.

Originally posted by issacar
I could also claim that What you are saying is theory and speculation. Unless you were in one of those planes and can offer factual évidences of your claims.

You could claim it, although it would defy logic on your part to do so. Unless you believe that 9 jihadists hijacked only 2 planes AT THE SAME TIME our government flew 2 remote controlled 'copies' into the WTC. Is that your supposition?

'That factual information could be made up but the only thing capable of burning on earth is jet fuel, and thats a fact'

Originally posted by teebee
yes, RIOT, things have weight, but they also have structure, and they've been designed according to a long and intelligent tradition of structural engineering to withstand all kinds of stresses. you have to remember that EVERY building of even small height places great strength at the bottom and makes the upper stories as light as possible. so breaking downward through that great strength--again, at the incredible SPEED everyone witnessed--is nothing short of impossible, given even an elementary understanding of structural engineering.

if you take the trouble to examine the tremendous amount of evidence developed in recent years by the truth movement, you'll find ample explanation for what really happened, right down to the diagonal cutting of vertical columns that's typical of controlled demolition by thermite. kerosene can only burn as hot as 1800F, under optimum conditions--charged with forced air, as in a blast furnace or a jet engine, and then it isn't hot enough to melt well-engineered metal (do jet engines melt?). but thermite, the preferred agent for controlled demolitions, instantly hits 4500F and cuts through steel like butter.

lol none of those people or you understand what goes into designing a building...

lighter floor weights as they go up is inaccurate

Jet engines do not melt, but they also aren't load bearing... the only stresses an engine experiences are a result of vibration and internal/external pressures.

And just an fyi... when things shear, it typically happens at an angle.

Originally posted by rams78110
There is no engineer or construction crew in this entire world that can make a building withstand hundreds of thousands of pounds of swiftly moving mass..

ignorance.

millions of pounds.

I invite all of you debunkers to come along and enjoy trying to keep your assertions in a different forum, or two. First, come on to this one. These are aviation specialists. Perhaps Baum would like to tell them how easy it is to fly a 767, like his source claims. That will be fun to see. Maybe you can try to tell them that the fuel would not have burned outr within a few minutes, leaving only office supplies and furniture to burn , even though it met NYC fire code. Maybe you can all go there and claim that the events of the day regarding the exercises being run at the same time were not so far beyond normal that it made them suspicious of the totality of the events.

Or my fellow truthers would like to come along to the forum and find further relevant information on these topics related to the planes and exercises that occurred that day.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=21 You debunkers are so deeply uneducated that I know none of you have the courage to go there.


I would like to specifically offer a challenge to Baum and Homage... You claim to have some sort of understanding of the structures and the reasons for the collapse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that it was not possible. Since I know that neither of you actually has the education you claim, or were absent the day the taught everything, perhaps you would like to come and debate in a different forum.

http://archinect.com/

You will find debunkers as well as truthers there... It is a more educated group, that I am sure you will enjoy debating.

on the topic of the planes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRKGA8mTpug 9/11 intercepted

Originally posted by teebee
yes, RIOT, things have weight, but they also have structure, and they've been designed according to a long and intelligent tradition of structural engineering to withstand all kinds of stresses. you have to remember that EVERY building of even small height places great strength at the bottom and makes the upper stories as light as possible. so breaking downward through that great strength--again, at the incredible SPEED everyone witnessed--is nothing short of impossible, given even an elementary understanding of structural engineering.

if you take the trouble to examine the tremendous amount of evidence developed in recent years by the truth movement, you'll find ample explanation for what really happened, right down to the diagonal cutting of vertical columns that's typical of controlled demolition by thermite. kerosene can only burn as hot as 1800F, under optimum conditions--charged with forced air, as in a blast furnace or a jet engine, and then it isn't hot enough to melt well-engineered metal (do jet engines melt?). but thermite, the preferred agent for controlled demolitions, instantly hits 4500F and cuts through steel like butter.

Metal didn't have to be melted to make the buildings collapse. All it had to do was be weakened to the point that the remaining undamaged structure couldn't hold up the extra mass that was being shifted on to it. Even with a building designed with a decent safety factor if you remove multiple supports so that weight is shifted to the remaining supports and then add fire to it you are going to have a weakening in the structure to the point that the building collapses.

Thermite is also not the preferred agent for controlled demolitions, explosives are. I don't know where you ever read that thermite is the preferred agent. I mean even a large portion of CT'ers are now swaying away from the thermite scenario, because they realize that it would be way too big of an undertaking, and are starting to talk about nuclear demolition now.

Originally posted by issacar
Watch the building collapse and come back after.

The debris from the building goes all over the place. lol

Originally posted by baumusc
Metal didn't have to be melted to make the buildings collapse. All it had to do was be weakened to the point that the remaining undamaged structure couldn't hold up the extra mass that was being shifted on to it. Even with a building designed with a decent safety factor if you remove multiple supports so that weight is shifted to the remaining supports and then add fire to it you are going to have a weakening in the structure to the point that the building collapses.

Thermite is also not the preferred agent for controlled demolitions, explosives are. I don't know where you ever read that thermite is the preferred agent. I mean even a large portion of CT'ers are now swaying away from the thermite scenario, because they realize that it would be way too big of an undertaking, and are starting to talk about nuclear demolition now.

As for your first point... The steel that had to be weakened was the steel that was not destroyed by the planes. I have brought that up to you before. You fail to comprehend the fact that 2 buildings, with completely different impact zones and angles, would have needed to have the high temperature fires reach steel that needed to be weakened, through obstructions, like walls and bathrooms, elevator shafts, stairwells etc. You love talking about the fire and how it spread, yet you have zero... ZERO background in thermodynamics, much like homage, and as such your claims need you to find anyone with that background who supports that theory. Fire is not like steel. It is a transforming beast. Heat does not immediately transfer into steel. There are several variables in the transfer of heat, such as the nature of the fire, fireproofing,air flow, vicinity to the fire, type of metal etc. that you have never given thought to.

As for the second point... I have shown you the devices that are patented for the task, and used because they are efficient with the minimum amount of thermite needed.

As for nuclear detonation... again, you show that you are not in any way having a serious discussion here.

Originally posted by wormser1971
I invite all of you debunkers to come along and enjoy trying to keep your assertions in a different forum, or two. First, come on to this one. These are aviation specialists. Perhaps Baum would like to tell them how easy it is to fly a 767, like his source claims. That will be fun to see. Maybe you can try to tell them that the fuel would not have burned outr within a few minutes, leaving only office supplies and furniture to burn , even though it met NYC fire code. Maybe you can all go there and claim that the events of the day regarding the exercises being run at the same time were not so far beyond normal that it made them suspicious of the totality of the events.

Or my fellow truthers would like to come along to the forum and find further relevant information on these topics related to the planes and exercises that occurred that day.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=21 You debunkers are so deeply uneducated that I know none of you have the courage to go there.


I would like to specifically offer a challenge to Baum and Homage... You claim to have some sort of understanding of the structures and the reasons for the collapse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that it was not possible. Since I know that neither of you actually has the education you claim, or were absent the day the taught everything, perhaps you would like to come and debate in a different forum.

http://archinect.com/

You will find debunkers as well as truthers there... It is a more educated group, that I am sure you will enjoy debating.



My father was an airline pilot for 30 years with Eastern Airlines. My Uncle just retired after 40 years with United Airlines. They flew a DC10, L1011 and a 757. According to them it isn't that much more difficult to fly a jet liner than it is to fly a multi engine piper. So I will defer to their expertise. The only thing that he mentioned was that flying into the Pentagon would have been fairly difficult for an untrained pilot. Personally I got to fly a 757 simulator and the only difficult part is the takeoff and landing. I flew it out of Chicago Ohare and I am pretty sure I could have flown into the Sears Tower if I wanted to.

You act like if you dump a bunch of fuel into a house that once the fuel burns off the fire will go out or not burn hot. That is just idiocy. Structures burn especially when you add an accelerant to it and they burn hot enough to weaken steel. Why do you think they put fire protection on steel beams in the first place?

As far as your overwhelming evidence goes I believe we have showed overwhelming evidence showing how the collapses could have occurred from an airplane colliding with and damaging the structures followed by an intense fire that weakend the remaining structures. You can't compare any other burning skyscrapers with the WTC buildings because, 1) they aren't designed like other skyscrapers and 2) no other skyscraper has been hit by a commercial jet liner and then allowed to burn. Really the only building you can compare WTC 1 to is WTC 2 and they both reacted in the same way after being hit by a plane.

Originally posted by wormser1971
on the topic of the planes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRKGA8mTpug 9/11 intercepted

Hmm. A new unwitting shill of the Muslim brotherhood trying to divide America. Your whole theory falls apart from the DNA identification at the other 2 attack sites. I'll pass on your bullshit forums you anti American hack. If I want to read that crap I'll check out MSLSD.

Originally posted by wormser1971
I invite all of you debunkers to come along and enjoy trying to keep your assertions in a different forum, or two. First, come on to this one. These are aviation specialists. Perhaps Baum would like to tell them how easy it is to fly a 767, like his source claims. That will be fun to see. Maybe you can try to tell them that the fuel would not have burned outr within a few minutes, leaving only office supplies and furniture to burn , even though it met NYC fire code. Maybe you can all go there and claim that the events of the day regarding the exercises being run at the same time were not so far beyond normal that it made them suspicious of the totality of the events.

Or my fellow truthers would like to come along to the forum and find further relevant information on these topics related to the planes and exercises that occurred that day.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=21 You debunkers are so deeply uneducated that I know none of you have the courage to go there.


I would like to specifically offer a challenge to Baum and Homage... You claim to have some sort of understanding of the structures and the reasons for the collapse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that it was not possible. Since I know that neither of you actually has the education you claim, or were absent the day the taught everything, perhaps you would like to come and debate in a different forum.

http://archinect.com/

You will find debunkers as well as truthers there... It is a more educated group, that I am sure you will enjoy debating.



Why would I go to a site with a bunch of pilots who have 0 concept of the complexities that are involved in designing a building and how an entire structure behaves?

I can prove my education. Can you?

And there is no overwhelming evidence that it couldn't happen. You're merely picking and choosing what you want to hear.

Comparing fires and how structures react in different locations is a very slippery slope and as someone who has taken a course in forensic structural analysis and interned for a forensic engineer... crazy shit happens. Even when it's not supposed to happen that way.