Eye Witness Testimony: North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

[bigfish]

But seeing as you clearly think yourself more knowledgeable than professionals who have made a career out of their specialised expertise, perhaps you might point out the errors in these two analyses please:

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Feel free to tell me where they've got it wrong.

Ooh, look, its the old coil dump trick. Feel free to precis your argument from the links and get back to us wont you?

 

[editor]

I think we have covered useful discussion on this now, I know where further discussion with you would lead, and to be honest I can't be fucked.

Is there any chance of you - with your fantastic A level - providing a scientific, peer-reviewed rebuttal of the analysis presented in those two links?

 

[bigfish]

Do you dispute that large explosions occur when fucking massive fully fuel-laden jetliners are crashed into skyscrapers by suicidal terrorists at several hundred mph?

But that didn't happen to building 7 did it?

So how did it manage to collapse into a heap when all the buildings adjacent to it didn't, any idea?

 

[Loki]

Haven't we discussed this very same issue countless times before?

Yes we have.

 

[bigfish]

...you utterly clueless eejit.

PROJECTION!

 

[bigfish]

Haven't we discussed this very same issue countless times before?

Yes we have.

Well, go away then.

 

[Loki]

Well, go away then.

Make me.

 

[Jazzz]

Is there any chance of you - with your fantastic A level - providing a scientific, peer-reviewed rebuttal of the analysis presented in those two links?

Well I've just skated through them and there hardly seems to be any analysis of the collapses in there! The second just quotes 'leading to a pancake-like collapse'.

Perhaps you would like to say how anything in those links addresses my objections in post #70? If you can do that I'll be happy to comment further, but to be honest I can't be bothered to do your work for you if you're just pulling up (largely irrelevant) links. Oh, and using words like 'peer-reviewed' because they appear to have gravitas

 

[bigfish]

Is there any chance of you - with your fantastic A level - providing a scientific, peer-reviewed rebuttal of the analysis presented in those two links?

Is there any chance of you - with your fantastic art degree - providing a precis of the analysis in those two links? Thanks.

 

[editor]

Perhaps you would like to say how anything in those links addresses my objections in post #70?:

There's absolutely nothing of substance in your ragbag of evidence-free, amateur conjecture that's worth bothering with.

So why do you think all the leading experts in related fields - including the architect of the WTC - don't agree with your analysis?

Go on. Give me a straight answer. Are they all "in on it" too?

 

[editor]

Is there any chance of you - with your fantastic art degree - providing a precis of the analysis in those two links? Thanks.

All the salient points have been repeated here many many times before. I have no inclination to repeat them all over again for your benefit, although I was rather hoping you'd have the courtesy to provide a straight answer instead of embarking on a marathon weaselling session.

Why do you think all the leading experts in related fields - including the architect of the WTC - aren't sharing your theories about the collapse of the WTC? Any ideas?

 

[editor]

Haven't we discussed this very same issue countless times before?

Yes we have. :

Indeed we have.

I've had enough of this deluded conspiraloon bullshit piggy backing on the popularity of this site.

I'm going to propose banning any more 9/11 threads unless there's some credible new information from non-fruitloop sources being served up.

 

[Lock&Light]

I'm going to propose banning any more 9/11 threads unless there's some credible new information from non-fruitloop sources being served up.

I had hoped that that was already the policy.

 

[tangentlama]

There's absolutely nothing of substance in your ragbag of evidence-free, amateur conjecture that's worth bothering with.

So why do you think all the leading experts in related fields - including the architect of the WTC - don't agree with your analysis?

Go on. Give me a straight answer. Are they all "in on it" too?

Cummon Dr. Jazzzzzzzzzz

Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes. http://www. paranoiamagazine.com/paulsleg.html

It's Paul Laffoley, for goodness sake.
Do a bit of research on him.

 

[editor]

After about 10 minutes a fire marshal came running into the building screaming that the gas lines were exploding and that we had to get out immediately.
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.com/news01/wtc8.shtml

So. That's the explosions taken care of then.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I still reckon it was the Klingons that did it. They could have beamed the explosives into the WTC. Well it makes more sense than some of the conspiraloon explanations.

 

[editor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

It must be noted that the demolition of a building requires extensive planning and placement of a large number of explosive charges, a process that takes several days. ... New York City fire department personnel did not have the proper qualifications for such demolition, nor did they have reasonable access given the significant damage and ongoing large fires in the structure to conduct such a controlled demolition.

...Another frequent claim in the theory that 7 WTC was intentionally demolished was the nature of the collapse of the building, in that it collapsed mostly within its own footprint. However, NIST has stated the collapse sequence within their working hypothesis "is consistent with all evidence currently held by NIST, including photographs and videos, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records." (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm).

Thus, according to the NIST the building could indeed fall within its own footprint without there being a controlled demolition.

So, that's the ridiculous 'demolition' theory taken care of, then and - quite probably - the swansong of these fucking idiotic threads.

 

[Jazzz]

Right. So the hero William Rodriguez is not only going to be censored by the mainstream media but the alternative media also?

 

[Jazzz]

You should also note that security for the WTC was run by a company with links to the Bush family, they would have had plenty of time to put up the charges, and while buildings certainly can fall into their own footprint the problem with WTC7 was that there seemed to be nothing to cause it to fall in any direction!

(Indeed, that has to be the most outrageous 'straw man' ever )

 

[editor]

You should also note that security for the WTC was run by a company with links to the Bush family...

Oh well, that's all the proof you need then, isn't it? Of course!!!

PS Were all the office staff, porters, janitors, cleaners, security staff, office managers, lift attendants, doormen, parking attendants, health and safety staff etc all "linked" to the Bush family and thus paid to ignore the evil workforce carting in tons and tons of explosives, wires and cables - or were they using the invisible variety with the workmen and technicians all wearing invisibility cloaks?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Oh well, that's all the proof you need then, isn't it? Of course!!!

PS Were all the office staff, porters, janitors, cleaners, security staff, office managers, lift attendants, doormen, parking attendants, health and safety staff etc all "linked" to the Bush family and thus paid to ignore the evil workforce carting in tons and tons of explosives, wires and cables - or were they using the invisible variety with the workmen and technicians all wearing invisibility cloaks?

Who knows what the CIA have developed? With all their money and secrecy I'm sure that invisibility cloaks can't be far off. Some of them can walk through walls just using the power of their minds, at least, that's what some bloke down the pub said he'd read on the internet.

 

[editor]

Who knows what the CIA have developed? With all their money and secrecy I'm sure that invisibility cloaks can't be far off. Some of them can walk through walls just using the power of their minds, at least, that's what some bloke down the pub said he'd read on the internet.

Curse their clever-clogs evil technology!

 

[Jazzz]

Oh well, that's all the proof you need then, isn't it? Of course!!!

PS Were all the office staff, porters, janitors, cleaners, security staff, office managers, lift attendants, doormen, parking attendants, health and safety staff etc all "linked" to the Bush family and thus paid to ignore the evil workforce carting in tons and tons of explosives, wires and cables - or were they using the invisible variety with the workmen and technicians all wearing invisibility cloaks?

I refer you to my post #44

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh, this is just going round in circles AGAIN. There's nothing new coming out. Fine, people may not have seen the original link. This is no longer about the original link, just the same stuff that's been batted back and forward for the last million fucking years.