There is no evidence on earth for someone who willfully denies what his own eyeballs and a physics professor are telling him in graphic detail. You should take my advice and go back to sleep.
Read the section on the twin Towers here, not that it's especially any better than what's already been posted. https://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-1/ Have you watched these two videos? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-10#post-1074163852 Start watching the first one at the 2:39:45 time mark.
At the 10 minute mark into this video link below is all you need to know about how our government "megalomaniac puppets" "SACRIFICED" just about 3,000 innocent civilians with "their" planned 9/11/01 slaughtering. RING OF POWER - A great educational documentary (Complete) 2007
Nothing about the official 9/11 fairy tale made for children makes any sense, yet there are so many posters who infest forums trying to convince members that everything about that insane story is true. They try to invent all sorts of excuses, outright lies, contradict eyewitness testimony and use pseudo-science they believe sounds reasonable, even challenging experts who have done the research over 2 decades, pretending they know better than these experts. They'll tell you what you're seeing on multiple videos is not actually what you're seeing and all the impossibilities and hundreds of amazing coincidences are all "expected" and/or not unusual under the circumstances. Instead of questioning everything as any intelligent person who is not gullible should do, they defend everything and have ready made insulting labels for anyone who refuses to believe this official insanity.
the troofer ship has sailed Bob. Wake the **** up and join the sane world. None of your whacko theories have evidence backing them. Just charlatan “experts” to feed your confirmation bias. It’s sad to watch an old man being fooled by money grabbing snake oil salesman… no controlled demolitions Bob. No fake planes. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Is there some purpose to your game? Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question. There is no serious purpose to any of your posts in this section of the forum, that has long been established. It's all just some kind of silly game that you try to use as a distraction from real 9/11 issues. You also validate what I posted (Post #279).
I will "bother,"! You inflate the importance of Chandler by labelling him a professor, an informal title given to college teachers. He obtained a bachelor of science degree.
YOU brought up his "title" - YOU made the strongly implied suggestion that because he was a "physics professor" this somehow gave his "graphic detail" some sort of extra credence! So he got a bachelor degree and taught in college. Wow. You have simply done what you always have done. You assume his assessments are correct because of "reasons" that support your "observational skills" concerning the tower collapses. We are back to the 45000 ton elephant in the room that Chandler didn't even address. You ignore assessments written by people who have phD qualifications because of "reasons". The same thing I have said - YOU keep validating MY posts, it's your basic assumption that your cited experts are right and contradictory ones are all wrong. The "911-truther" ship HAS sailed, then sank like a lead balloon. No amount of angry foot stamping and posturing by you is going to drag it from the bottom of the swamp.
What I do not understand is why "experts" on both sides of the argument do not want and expect steel and concrete distribution data. There are skyscrapers all over the world that must cope with the same gravity. There should be lots of people who know how to make reasonably good distribution estimates. Try finding such data on any skyscraper. LOL The silence is deafening, even from AE911Truth. Why do they only have 3000 scientists and engineers? I even got into an argument with Tony Szamboti back around 2009. 2001: A Specious Odyssey is more of a psyop than a physics issue for most people. They are dummies. The physics does not give a damn about who did what. But how do you make an accurate physics simulation without accurate data on the building? Why don't all of the "experts" want it? Trying to order people to see what they have decided not to see is a problem for psychiatrists. I would bet most of them are not smart enough to do physics however.
I agree with you that all the data should be made available. Richard Gage is no longer CEO of AE911Truth, try contacting Roland Angle, perhaps he'll be more amenable. That said, all studies conducted and papers written that do not take into account steel and concrete distribution data still paint quite a graphic picture. Perhaps you can elaborate as to what you would anticipate would change if that data was available. In my estimation, NIST's study and reports are all fraudulent, without or without that data. There's a lot more that NIST omitted than steel and concrete distribution data and most papers focus specifically on NIST's fraud. They don't really have over 3,600 active architects and engineers, those are the number of signatories to their petition for a "new" (official) investigation. I put "new" in quotations because no legitimate official investigation was ever conducted into the events of 9/11. How many architects and engineers are even aware of the facts and science about 9/11? And even if they are and agree, why would they all sign the petition? How many architects and engineers are employed under government contracts? Why would they want to expose themselves to the potential loss of their jobs and possible termination of lucrative government contracts?
Google is your friend … the WTC structural drawings are easily accessible … having said that, plans are not always followed as value engineering comes into play … when are you going to address an earlier question I had about what a fulcrum has anything to do with this? …
You are full of crap. The diagrams do not show the horizontal beams in the core much less any variations in thickness down the building.
The amount of pseudo-logic that goes into explaining the rapid destruction of the Twin Towers is so obviously stupid I am mentally gridlocked. ZERO thought or fact checking. Take for instance the reason the South Tower came down so much sooner than the North Tower. Many people say that since it was lower down it had to support more weight so it gave way sooner. But the designers knew it had to support more weight so there was more steel. But more steel would mean it would take longer to heat up. Also the fuselage of the plane did not go into the core. It scraped a corner of the core and slid into the office space on one side of the core. That is why we see a huge fireball exploding out of one side of the building and then the columns on that side hardly look damaged at all. Air fuel explosions barely do anything to steel. So without lots of fuel in a nearly undamaged core how could the South Tower come down first. But no "experts" say that, even in principle, much less relative data. How much steel was in the vicinity of the impact in the South Tower compared to the North? Did level 5 have the same amount of steel as level 105 even though it had to support 21 times as many stories? That is why I point out the Eiffel Tower, everybody has at least seen pictures. But most people still seem to be able to see and not think. Of course after Two Decades how do engineers explain not pointing it out two decades ago. Kind of painted themselves into a corner.
show me the “diagrams” you are looking at … btw, diagrams is not a word used in engineering, architecture or construction… look at the plans and drawings … tool …
I am getting very tired of people who don’t understand construction and physics … not a single truther here understands the weight distribution that radiates from the central core … still waiting on you to bring up the fulcrum issue so I can blow that out of the water of your uninformed understanding of physics …
Oh wow, the word blueprints is SACRED! All you can do is play psychological games with words. You are hardly worth the time it takes to read. I burned the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST to DVD in 2007. I am not spending time scrounging around because of some drivel from YOU. Anybody that really cares can do it for themselves.
go ahead and be lazy with your research … not that you would understand what you are looking at anyway …
Ok, you're going under the assumption that IF the twin towers collapsed, a valid investigation would require an assessment of the steel and concrete distribution data and I agree. So for NIST, the entity tasked with investigating the "collapse" of the twin towers, that would be 100% true and they did not do their job. As already explained multiple times in multiple threads, that was far from the only fraud they committed. As to the researchers at AE911Truth and all others who have challenged NIST, it's irrelevant. Why? Because their investigations concluded that these were not at all collapses, they concluded that the twin towers were blown apart. So why would one need to know the steel and concrete distribution data when it's irrelevant to a building being blown apart? The same applies to the question of why the South Tower "came down" (was blown apart) first. IMO they blew it (pun intended) and they somehow inadvertently triggered the South Tower first. So bottom line, researchers don't care about the steel and concrete distribution because they know from the overwhelming evidence that these were not collapses. That's of course my opinion.
Yeah, I'm so lazy. Modeling & Testing Impact Test Link us to your models on YouTube. Your vastly superior blather is so much more impressive.
If the buildings were blown apart didn't the people who did the demolition have to figure out where to put the explosives? So the perpetrators had to know things that the people analyzing the crime don't, but the people who claim that they analyzed the event can just say "global collapse was inevitable" and a he'll of a lot of people appear to accept that. The dozens of skyscrapers around the world that deal with the same gravity don't matter. It is just that the Eiffel Tower is Visible. I do not understand how you think but I woke up on 9/12 thinking "that is not possible" it just took about 3 weeks to consciously figure out why. At the time I expected "experts" to solve it quickly. Now the fact that "experts" do not bring it up is an additional issue. I was really surprised by Richard Gage's reaction when I confronted him in Chicago in May of 2008.
you asked about steel and weight distribution and you post up a troofer vid? … look at the the ****ing plans and get back to me on topic
If you mean the people who planned the demolition, of course. This had to be planned well in advance by controlled demolition experts and of course those who contracted them. The only thing I would change above is that no one actually analyzed the crime. NIST was funded by Congress to analyze the "collapse" of the 3 towers on 9/11, not to investigate the crime. Even though the destruction of the twin towers looked suspicious to me when I first saw the videos on 9/11 it took me 3 years after 9/11, after I first saw a video called "9/11 Mysteries", the first edition, followed by another video called "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw". I also first heard about WTC7 and watched what looked to me instantaneously like an obvious controlled demolition. Well that's not true. Experts have analyzed it, created websites and bring it up regularly. Just not the official experts one would expect to bring it up. I'm thinking perhaps because of the reason I posted why the steel and concrete distribution is irrelevant in a controlled demolition. But I can't speak for Gage or anyone else.
