Mr Crabster Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 These theories are invented by the enemy to draw fire. It is very easy to manipulate people in the privacy of their own homes or behind an office computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 If WTC7 was taken down by explosives then where did they get the time from to rig it in say 7 hours it must have been the fastest controlled demolition in history. Belive what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 It's not the sort of thing anyone should mock. After all, there were nearly 10,000 Manx voters in that building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 If WTC7 was taken down by explosives then where did they get the time from to rig it in say 7 hours it must have been the fastest controlled demolition in history. Belive what you will. According to Einstein, time has existed for about 15 billion years, including the weekend before it all happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I still want to get at Albert, I'm afraid. I assume if he is an engineer then like me he has spent his entire professional life relying on expert opinion. If I'm designing a new product I have to rely on the specification of the materials and sub components used in the product. I go to standard charts and tables etc etc. This is what engineering is! Now for some reason Albert isn't willing to rely on the vast amount of expert testimony on the collapse of WTC 7. He seems to be willfully ignoring evidence presented about damage to the South side, and is clinging to photo's of the West and north sides to claim there was little damage ... a bit like looking at the rear of a volvo that's been involved in a head on collision and claiming the car can't be a right off because the brake lights are fine! I post a 40 slide powerpoint presentation with huge amounts of metalurgical and finite element analysis of the collapse which is consitent with the observations of witnesses etc. And Albert goes ... I'm not convinced. Albert if you aren't convinced how can you do any part of the engineering in your job that relies on these identical techniques. If you are involved in engineering you'll rely upon these types of things 100 times a day. What makes you so sceptical in this case? Engineering is about using and relying on expert testimony and results ... they've done the research ... you rely on the results. $24 million; several 100 research scientists and phd's working for 5 years ... and you go ... No I'm not convinced. Seems a very strange way for an engineer to behave. We all like a little mystery in our lives, but ffs you've picked an odd one to claim there's a mystery that's worth preserving in the collapse of WTC 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 There is little point in trying to argue with those who believe that it was a conspiracy as they dig out the odd sentance here and there that they have heard and then use that to "spin" a tale or jump to a conclusion. It is simple and quick to do so and requires no proof. Just an ability to add 2 and 2 to make 5. The basis seems they believe that it is for others to disproove rather than them to prrove. I see a fair bit of evidence on here here disproving "facts" stated by the conspiracy believers but very few the other way around. For very few i mean none. There is an interesting article in the guradian under this link by a journalist whose words have been used by those believing there may be a conspiracy in respect of July 7th. http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/s...1806794,00.html This is in respect of a theory that the bomb was not in the train but under it and therefore thoses named as the bombers are incorrect as the bomb was under the train not under it. The article explains how and why the journalist believed this initially and how quickly he realised he was incorrect. The conspiracy theorists though use his initial confused quotes to back up there theory. They include Cozzer who on these pages on Feb 5 2006,9.09 PM stated "I also have audio of a Guardian reporter saying he spoke to a survivor saying the metal was pushed up through the train." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I still want to get at Albert, I'm afraid. I assume if he is an engineer then like me he has spent his entire professional life relying on expert opinion. Albert if you aren't convinced how can you do any part of the engineering in your job that relies on these identical techniques. If you are involved in engineering you'll rely upon these types of things 100 times a day. What makes you so sceptical in this case? Seems a very strange way for an engineer to behave. We all like a little mystery in our lives, but ffs you've picked an odd one to claim there's a mystery that's worth preserving in the collapse of WTC 7. I maybe doing Albert a disservice but I can not be bothered reviewing his posts however has he ever said what type of engineer he is. Structural, mechanical. etc? He has has said he is an Engineer and you are presuming that this means he is an engineer as you or I might understand it. However an Engineeer in the US is a train driver, you can also be a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and it is even used by firms to desribe the youths who come and look at your printer or photocopier when it goes on the blink. I used this ruses as a kid when little old ladies threatened to call the police as I dared to kick a ball about in front of their hose. My reply was fine my dad is an inspector. As a vet he also had a been trained as ameat inspector so this was technically not a lie. Was it my fault that when I said inspector just because she had said police she might assume I meant police inspector. I wonder if Albert is doing similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I still want to get at Albert, I'm afraid. I assume if he is an engineer then like me he has spent his entire professional life relying on expert opinion. I post a 40 slide powerpoint presentation with huge amounts of metalurgical and finite element analysis of the collapse which is consitent with the observations of witnesses etc. And Albert goes ... I'm not convinced. Seems a very strange way for an engineer to behave. We all like a little mystery in our lives, but ffs you've picked an odd one to claim there's a mystery that's worth preserving in the collapse of WTC 7. Chinahand, those reports apply equally to the design of many such buildings that have been severely damaged by fire. I can't find one metal framed building that has ever collapsed due to fire, though there is much evidence of many such buildings burning for hours with very severe fires and not collapsing. On this basis, you would have to ask yourself: 'What is the probability of three metal framed buildings collapsing due to fire, all falling exactly straight down, all on the same day?'. Do you really think people would be willing to work in skyscrapers, or even build them, if that probability was 'quite high' - as those reports unintentionally would suggest? I think not. That probability alone is a major factor for my remaining 'undecided' - repeat - 'undecided'. For those that doubt my engineering qualifications I actually have two degrees, including a Batchelors of Engineering Honours degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 But Albert ... the building wasn't just on fire ... it was damaged by falling debris ... as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. For you to continue to ignore this is little short of incredible. If you were to say you don't believe the evidence it was damaged, at least you'd be able to claim to be sceptical, but to ignore it is being willfully blind. After WTC 2 collapsed: Some south face glass broken at lower floors Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3 Power on in building, phones working No fires observed After WTC 1 collapsed: Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18 South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known South Face Damage – • middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground • large debris hole near center around 14th floor • 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact • 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 On this basis, you would have to ask yourself: 'What is the probability of three metal framed buildings collapsing due to fire, all falling exactly straight down, all on the same day?'. Do you really think people would be willing to work in skyscrapers, or even build them, if that probability was 'quite high' - as those reports unintentionally would suggest? I think not. Utter rubbish. The probability of any one metal building being on fire on one day is tiny. QED the probability of any one building being on fire and then falling down is also tiny. If it was not then nobody would work or build such a building and not because it might collapse after it was on fire but simply because it was likely to catch fire. You seem to saying that people would be fine if it was expected that the building would catch fire, not if after it caught fire it was expected to collapse. On the other hand the probability of a very tall building which has been hit by a large aircraft at high speed and is on fire isI would contend very high. Equally the probablity of a 47 storey building which is on fire and has had its structural intergrity damaged by being hit by another buliding next to it falling are also fairly high. What you are arguing is that on any given day the chances of three metal framed buildings collapsing due to fire, all falling exactly straight down are very low. I totally agree and would guess roughly somewhere along the odds of two aircraft crashing into a couple of towers on the same day. However that is a total red hearing as the argument is of the chances of collapsing after being on fire, hit by an aircaft, another building and structurally damaged. In that scenario I reckon the odds are pretty high! Again though I note you also conventiently ignore the fact the WC7 had been damaged by the fall of the two towers. If you read the various reports and documents that Chinahand has put up you would be aware that it is this damage that is crucial. You continue to argue that fire could not have caused WC7 on its own to collapse. Everybody agrees that and does not argue it was fire alone. It is only you who say "fire on its own would not cause the collpase and therefore I am undecided" But it was not fire alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 For you to continue to ignore this is little short of incredible. I haven't ignored it - as I said I remain undecided - that is a different position to saying 'I suspect it was a conspiracy' or 'I know it wasn't a conspiracy'. ...and I do appreciate the effort you have gone to on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 For you to continue to ignore this is little short of incredible. I haven't ignored it - as I said I remain undecided - that is a different position to saying 'I suspect it was a conspiracy' or 'I know it wasn't a conspiracy'. ...and I do appreciate the effort you have gone to on this. Your posts do and contually ignore it as they are argue that the collapse of WC7 could not have been caused by fire. The belief of the official reports were a result of the fire and damage to the ingreity of the structure bue to being hit from falling debris resulyted in the collapse. You continually argue that fire could not have caused the collapse not the fire and damage to the building. Therefore you are ignoring the building damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Ok folks in modern buildings most of them made of fire retardant materials right? WTC7 was the building furthest from the towers, yet it fell and all the other buildings stood, one building even had debris fall on it and it didnt even flinch. sky scraper fire 1 sky scraper fire 2 Make your own mind up. All us nutters are doing is trying to show you what might have happened. As for the offical (whitewash) inquiry, belive what u want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Sigh. Do you have to get someone to cook your dinner for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 All us nutters are doing is trying to show you what might have happened. No you're not. You're sytematically ignoring real evidence that people are showing you time after time after time, repeating the same tired old inaccurate bullshit and then somehow turning it around and making out that everyone else is crazy. You people are the same as the moon landing conspiracy nutcases and the neanderthals who deny evolution. You grab onto the tiniest inconsistencies in accepted accounts, ignore mountains and mountains of facts, and then you blow it out of all proportion. If you'd just take five minutes to lift the tinfoil cap back from over your eyes and do some real research you would see that most of what you claim is utterly baseless. Instead you spend hours in your revolutionary command centre, diligently memorising diatribes and arguments from websites that give equal space to "Zionist New World Order" articles, or rampant UFO speculation. YOU are the real enemy. YOU are the danger. Because your half arsed, moronic theories detract from what is really happening and allow those who order illegal invasions and torture to dismiss any dissent by lumping it in with the crackpots. Look around you chump, there is some real life Tom Clancy shit happening. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.