Just another group of scientists concluding that if these buildings didn't collapse, then neither should have the WTC's (certainly not in an hour). http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html#i911scit_comparison What doe the intelligent reader think? Let me give you the shill response ahead of time. They're ALL kooks, crazy, don't know what they're talking about. I could post endless folks with credentials in their fields who have problems with the 9/11 fiasco and they would ALL be dismissed by shills and these same folks will claim a hacked, edited and filtered report (whose own people said they were obstructed) is the truth and cannot be questioned. Scientists, professional pilots, architects, structural engineers, former military, fireman, physics professors, eyewitnesses, and whomever else from whatever field of expertise they come from (according to these shills) are ALL wrong, and their flawed, obstructed, investigation and "officially" prepared report is correct. Bush REFUSED to testify about 9/11 unless he had Cheney there with him, and both REFUSED to say anything under oath. C'mon folks...wake up and smell the coffee. Trust your own common sense..not the shills. Question EVERYTHING. You'll quickly find NOTHING adds up.
Sorry fraud,everything adds up,unless one is stubborn and doesn't allow it to. Like truthers Face it fraud,the buildings weren't constructed like the WTC,and your 'scientists' are full of it.
Well, I can start by telling you that not a single one of those buildings dealt with the impact of a 767, fully fueled airplane. The impact alone severed columns, and the outer steel shell which provided structural stability. Those buildings are also concrete reinforced buildings (The article does lie when it says that concrete is weaker to fire. That's just stupid.), which makes them more sturdy. They are not 110 storey's high, in fact, not a single one of those buildings are over 50 storeys high. Meaning they weren't even half of the WTC's height. None of them were a tube in tube design, as the WTC were. Basically, none of those buildings can be compared to the WTC because none of them are even close to the same situation. The information on that website is accurate in regards to those buildings enduring fire. However, that's just one factor in regards to the over all picture. This is the biggest problem I have with the way you perceive things. The biggest question is, we provide evidence from all of those same professionals, why do you handwave that away? What makes the professionals at those sites anymore knowledgeable than that professionals at NIST? What gives you the right to say "these professionals are right, and your professionals are wrong"? Explain that to me please. Irrelevant, the president had no background in any of the required fields to assess 9/11. Yes, trust your own common sense. Not the jobbers that are spitting venom with no evidence.
Yeah I saw this line too and I wondered about the knowledge level of these purported 9/11 scientists. It's the opposite. http://www.concretecentre.com/technical_information/performance_and_benefits/fire_resistance.aspx Concrete can't be susceptible to fire damage if it insulates itself against the heat from the fire. This is what "poor conductor" means. How any supposed scientist could make that mistake, I'll never know. Further research reveals that concrete is more than twice as resilient to heating as steel as you can see by comparing this PDF data with the steel modulus data I posted previously. http://www.cement.org/buildings/Fire-Concrete Struc-SEI-08.pdf
I trust my own common sense as an engineer... and that one building collapses and the other one doesn't make perfect sense. The quality of steel is not accurate in the US, unlike in Europe. You can see rust patches on the big bridges around NYC as big as cars. It can deal with all that. It is apparently calculated to do so. You can see the concrete chipped off in a building like the Empire State, to see rebar all over. That too is not a disaster. But when a fire breaks out, a huge one, and the rebar starts to melt because the concrete that otherwise acts like insulation aint there,.. and already has partially rusted because of that. Eventually, it starts to be drastic. And there is no way a building is designed to withstand a fire going on fueled by a boing with full tanks of gas. Eventually the engineers go.. fok it, we're drawing a line here of how strong it must be. Because they can make it, at a cost of money... and mostly space (since stronger = more materials to make it = heavier building = even more materials to make it spiral)... because there really is no end to possible scenario's. Whats next, a boing crashing in a building because of a tornado is going on too? 2 boings in the same building?
Your computer model is just more bukkake. It does not even reflect the way the towers were put together. Latrine is over there.--------->
That you have posted another gish gallop as a prelude to bukkake. None of those jerks have the credentials to address what they are talking about. I don't think that the silly bastard who included Deshore's statement ever wants to be within arm's length of her. She would probably colostomize his head to fix what's wrong with him.
Just the usual shill responses (not that I would call anyone in particular a shill but..just sayin.). I figured as much...just testing the already proven theory one more time. Thanks shills.
It wouldn't have fallen so uniformly had it not been controlled demolition. No word on those computer drives sent to Germany some time ago for data retrieval huh?
They did not fall uniformly. The collapse proceded down a different speed are observed from from different point of view and recodered on video.
anyone who thinks any of the buildings on 9/11 fell 'uniform' or 'symmetric' is either blind, an idiot, or both.
Same old, same old. We didn't actually see what we actually saw. There has to be a "controlled" source to tell us what we saw. Then, anybody that doesn't go along is an "idiot". That's the "official" story.
And the gov paid workers to smeer explosive glue on the wall, that gets to heat steal and cause the whole building to collapse? Not to mention that the gov went around shutting People down? For god's sake, all those fairytales have trickled down to Mainstream just to cover up the fact, that those truthers cannot believe, that Muslims would be able to commit that or the fact, that they despise the gov. You're wasting time of your life thinking about events that aren't even worth a shot.
The Government never could imagine or seen 911 coming but was able to Identify all who done it within days............LOL......
They found the ID of one of the hijackers, unharmed to boot, lying on the sidewalk.................LMFAO.........
Yes, it's so rare for some things to suvive a crash relatively unharmed. http://www.space.com/19538-columbia-shuttle-disaster-worms-survive.html
Some people are kind of slow to pick this up, so I have to keep repeating it. Stuff from the front of the aircraft passed all the way through the building, albeit torn to pieces. Passports are kind of tough, compared to a body, and flexible. Why woud a passport on the person of a hijacker at the front of the plane not pass through the building?
Because they are always mounted in the rear of the aircraft. The tail runs out of go before the nose does. Simple physics,, really.
