GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Slaughtermeyer]

Atrocities said:
Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed

That's a nice flashy animation how the planes collided with the towers. Now they need to illustrate for us step by step how those same buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed. While they're at it, they should also account for the initial drop of the north tower's antenna right before the collapse, the 500 ft. lateral explosions spewing out enormous hunks of steel columns (all because of fire no less), the squibs seen almost 30 floors below the collapse wave (especially considering NIST's complete rejection of the "pancake theory" of collapse), the molten metal found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and don't forget the virtually complete pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic materials! Also, they should show us how the plane that collided with WTC 7 -- oh, wait a minute! No plane hit WTC 7! Isn't that strange? How then did it collapse in 6.6 seconds? HOW INDEED?

For a detailed debunking of the Purdue "simulation" look here: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...f-hot-air.html

[Edi]

Your appeals to your own ignorance are completely irrelevant, Slaughtermeyer. Anyone with basic knowledge of physics and any sort of familiarity with the properties of metals and how they behave under stress can explain to you how and why the WTC came down, including building 7. This has been explained to you time and again in this thread, but you seem to only see and read those things you want to hear and ignore everything else.

It just happens that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is a FACT of life that if people cannot logically justify their opinion and have no idea what they are talking about, their opinions are completely worthless.

[Gandalf Parker]

Edi said:
It just happens that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is a FACT of life that if people cannot logically justify their opinion and have no idea what they are talking about, their opinions are completely worthless.

Thats not true. They are worth quite abit. Sell it to Hollywood and find out.

[Marek_Tucan]

Atrocities said:
Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed

And their models back this up.

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report. Along with scores of other experts all over the world. Heck, at my university they even did an experiment simulating influence of "regular" office fire on WTC-like structure. Just in one room. Yet, the buckling of ceiling was notable and fell neatly to what was observed in WTC during a mediocre fire in 1980's.

But don't try to explain this to conspiracy theorists. Dont even try to say show them the hole in the Pentagon wall was large enough for the most massive parts of 757. don't try to send them footage of F-4 smashing into concrete wall at similar speed to Flight 77. Because they will explain away any contradicting facts as 'gubmint set up.

Though I admit I do clash with them sometimes, just for entertainment purposes

[Phoenix-D]

Thank you so much for bringing back this 4 month old dead thread.

[Atrocities]

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report.

There are hundreds of architects and engineers who disagree with the conlusions of your two Czech engineers. They have concluded that the complete collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 resulted from demolition charges based on the fact that jet fuel and office furniture cannot possibly burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (yes, molten steel was found in the debris) and also from numerous eyewitness reports of secondary explosions coming from the buildings. The possibility of demolition charges being the cause of the building collapse was not even considered by the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.ae911truth.org/



And Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was able to conclude that WTC7 was imploded just by watching video footage of its collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

[lch]

I am not an expert, but molten steel doesn't convince me. During the disasters in the Alps tunnels and similar disasters like that where things worked like a chimney there were extreme temperatures, too. It might have come from one of the elevator shafts. I didn't see this WTC7 collapse thing before, but that one the other hand is really a troublesome video. It looks exactly like a controlled implosion, and AFAIK those really aren't easy to do, you need experts so that it doesn't collapse to one of the sides.

[lch]

Browsing through these forums again, I see that this post is still at the top... I've just entered "controlled demolition wtc" into google because I was curious what the word out there was, and among the top links is this one: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by lch

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire. You really believe that's what happened? Why in that case doesn't the fire department admit that there was a controlled demolition?