Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Animal said:
Because 99.9999% of the information has been gone over too many times.
The few troofers that remain wish to remain willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I know the feeling all too well having been on the whole thing for the last 3 years. I know how annoying it is to repeat information, and the whole thing with most new "truthers" arriving already having been decided. I just don't like the idea of taking out my impatience on someone who hasn't warranted it yet, since there are sometime people who are asking genuine questions. That's just how I am... :P



Animal said:
On a lighter note......Autocad for 7 years? I have been using it since 1984 :eek: release 1.3.....or was it 1.9......can't remember it has been so long.
Click to expand...

[derail]Release 14 was my first time. It was pretty old still by the time I used it (2004'ish) but that's what the high school I went to had available when they taught the class. I've used every version so far since 2006 :D[/derail]
 
aggle-rithm said:
Here's the link:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html

ROOSD stands for "Runaway Open Office Space Destruction".
Click to expand...

I wonder why he is looking for public (i.e. any fool's) review rather than peer-review by peers of the relevant engineering science departments?

aggle-rithm said:
My favorite part is here:

His way of saying: "I don't know how to do the math. Can someone do the math for me?"
Click to expand...

Hehe
Has he asked the 1480 or so architectural and engineering professionals over at Gage's business outfit who are all oh so professionally qualified to assess forensic structural engineering reports? Surely one of the lot would lend a helping hand?
 
NoahFence said:
I can't see how they would. It's simply the dust that all that steel is passing through.

Although I'm sure that now that it's been pointed out, it'll be THE definitive proof that twoofers are after. If it hasn't been identified as such already....
Click to expand...
LOL... very funny. That's the bad thing about pictures, it captures a single moment in time. Some people take bad pictures, so I guess the same holds true for falling debris.
 
ozeco41 said:
Greetings ladmo. I see that you are trying to do some reasoned exploration whilst battling through the very high noise level on this forum.

If you have any specific area of interest in the WTC1 or WTC2 collapses I may also be able to provide either information or links.
Click to expand...
Thanks ozeco41... I will take all input.
 
Major_Tom said:
SO, 2 110 story buildings collapse in front of our eyes.

Few people were able to discern the basic mechanism by which each collapsed for 8 years.

They are kind of big, no? Of you coundn't figure out the collapse mechanisms, how do you claim to know what initiated the collapses?


If you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for 9 years, how can you claim any certainty concerning the initiation mechanisms?

Is there a single professional journal or a single academic paper in existence that identifies ROOSD as the collapse mechanisms for WTC1 or 2?

No. Our pros seem to have no clue. ROOSD is known through internet forums only.
Click to expand...

And yet, you have "proof" that Dr. Bazant and other were wrong. Yet for some reason you refuse to get it published in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

I would LOVE to see it in JEM (I don't have any problem with your ROOSD explaination, other than your backdoor attempt to sneak in CD in your conclusions, which doesn't get mentioned at any time in the rest of the "paper.")

Get it published, and let Bazant and others have a look. I'd love to see that discussion (really i would)
 
Major_Tom said:
How could you forget about months of your own lying?

We have it all recorded if you forgot. Shall we review your previous opinions?


Is R Mackey still lying or did he quietly switch collapse mechanics also?
Click to expand...

I just noticed your posts.
Months later, mine must have hit their mark; what with your spittle all over the screen.
 
Last edited:
ladmo said:
I don't have a dog in this race (debunkers/truthers)... so my question is not one that I know. Do the "trails" have any significance? At what point of the collapse were these images captured? thx

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_373684db710456824b.jpg
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
I can't see how they would. It's simply the dust that all that steel is passing through.

Although I'm sure that now that it's been pointed out, it'll be THE definitive proof that twoofers are after. If it hasn't been identified as such already....
Click to expand...

ladmo said:
The humor is appreciated, however I will look into trails... however insignificant they are.
Click to expand...

the exterior columns were clad in sprayed on fireproofing, (38) they are shedding that fireproofing as they fall.
wall-column.gif
 
ladmo said:
Chemtrails? Never thought about that, that sounds a little extreme.
Click to expand...

It's a reference to one of the common but more extreme extreme concerns of the rabid fringe conspiracy nutters.

The idea is that the NWO or the Illuminati - I cannot remember which - is taking over our governments and they are using aerial chemical spraying from high flying aircraft as a means of bulk medicating us plebs into submission to their world domination goals.

That is my recollection of the general idea. It may not be accurate because for some reason I don't believe it and therefore don't pay much attention to details.
 
Last edited:
Oh I thought David Chandler and Gage's group were claiming the trails were still burning/exploding nanothermite...

whatever....
 
A W Smith said:
the exterior columns were clad in sprayed on fireproofing, (38) they are shedding that fireproofing as they fall.
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wall-column.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Thanks... the sounds plausible as it would be trailing the structure.
 
Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the World Trade Center Disintegration. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total and whole WTC disintegration, just blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
 
walkyrie said:
Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the World Trade Center Disintegration.
Click to expand...

Why would the NIST attempt to explain something that didn't happen?


NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total and whole WTC disintegration, just blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
Click to expand...

What, you cannot handle the truth? :eye-poppi
 
walkyrie said:
Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the World Trade Center Disintegration. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total and whole WTC disintegration, just blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
Click to expand...

You sound more and more like the village idiot who proclaims day in day out that the Kaiser will be back soon and the village beauty was promised to him at birth.
Nobody believes you, you make no attempt to convince anybody, and you don't listen to anybody.
(Our village idiot, or actually small town idiot, is a war refugee from Sri Lanka who yells his nonsense in Tamil - it makes no difference)
 
Oystein said:
You sound more and more like the village idiot who proclaims day in day out that the Kaiser will be back soon and the village beauty was promised to him at birth.
Nobody believes you, you make no attempt to convince anybody, and you don't listen to anybody.
(Our village idiot, or actually small town idiot, is a war refugee from Sri Lanka who yells his nonsense in Tamil - it makes no difference)
Click to expand...

We don't have a village idiot,walkyrie is welcome to apply for the post.
 
walkyrie said:
Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the World Trade Center Disintegration. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total and whole WTC disintegration, just blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
Click to expand...
Instead of responding snarkly at your copypastafu, I'll make a proposal. If you can answer the following questions concisely, and convincingly I will unconditionally support truth movement cause:

Can you explain how explosives are an unusual event in a large fire? Can you explain or detail otherwise how you arrived at the conclusion that "bombs" are the only causes that can be ruled in? Can you support your contention - in your own words - without copying your favorite prepared statement?

Can you explain in clear engineering terms, how the design of the WTC made collapse progression nearly impossible after initiation set in? What engineering qualifications can you provide to justify this belief? I don't want to hear amateur statements such as "it fell at free fall," I'd like you to talk specificaly about how the buildings should have behaved, based on an in-depth study of their designs to support it.

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom