Where did the towers go - directed free energy

Dew Drops

King Mob wrote: »

None of the Towers on 9/11 fell in less that 10 seconds.
You'd think someone who did the more detailed forensic investigation would know that.

“None of the Towers on 9/11 fell in less that 10 seconds.”

Correct!!! The towers didn’t fall. They were turned into dust midair. I think you are beginning to understand what the evidence proves.

“You'd think someone who did the more detailed forensic investigation would know that.”

Yes, I most certainly agree! You’d think those who worked on the NIST report would know this. I wonder why they claimed WTC1 “fell” in 11 seconds and WTC2 in 9 seconds when they never "fell" at all? Why do you think they claimed this, King Mob?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team Members
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

Remember that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate HOW the towers fell. Also remember that Dr. Judy Wood filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official WTC NIST report. Incidentally, many of those contractors that Dr. Judy Wood brought suite against were also involved in direct energy weapon research. Fox/Hen-House??? Hai capito adesso?

Monty Burnz

Dew Drops wrote: »

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

So the first exterior panels to hit the ground came from the very top of the buildings? How odd.

Dew Drops wrote: »

Also remember that Dr. Judy Wood filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official WTC NIST report.

How did she get on in court? It must have been an open and shut case if all your her claims were correct?

Dew Drops wrote: »

Incidentally, many of those contractors that Dr. Judy Wood brought suite against were also involved in direct energy weapon research. Fox/Hen-House??? Hai capito adesso?

Any chance of some proof of this claim?

Bigus

What percentage of the volume of the buildings was airspace ?

And look how big the basement was




Before construction could begin, a 70-ft high, 3-ft thick concrete wall was built below ground around an eight-block area by the slurry-trench method. Then, 1.25 million cu yd of rock and earth within were excavated.

In the hole, contractors are building what is undoubtedly the world's largest basement. It is 980 ft long, 510 ft wide and close to 70 ft deep. Its six levels provide a total of 48 acres of floor space and will house, among other things, a 2,000-car garage.

And through the basement now are two ancient subway tubes through which run commuter trains between New Jersey and New York.

New tubes and station. Before the center is finished, and after a new station is built in its basement, the presently exposed sections of the old tubes will be removed.

Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures). Individual columns in the lower core section, measuring 52 x 22 in. in plan, are formed of 5 and 3-in, plate into almost solid steel shafts that weigh up to 56 tons.

Juicee

Jonny7 wrote: »

You do realise that Dr Judy Wood's theory is so ridiculous, even other (equally outlandish) CTer's are attacking it.



In order to explain the above you have to choose the following.

1. Say the photos are fake
2. Make up that this is actually a by-product of the energy weapon, the dustification also creates heat
3. Ignore and cut/paste more stuff from Dr Judy Wood's page.

Hi johnny. Question for you. See that picture of a hydraulic digger moving molten steel? What's the maximum temperature hydraulics can function at? What is this as a % of 1300-1500C, the approximate melting point of steel? Anyone? Also, what's all that unburnt paper doing beside that 1500C molten steel?

(a hint for honest objective readers: hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot... Check the book!)

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

(a hint for honest objective readers: hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot... Check the book!)

Can you offer other reasons why metal might glow brightly in daylight Judy Juicee?? Does it involve invisible superweapons that are unknown to science, by any chance?

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you offer other reasons why metal might glow brightly in daylight Judy Juicee?? Does it involve invisible superweapons that are unknown to science, by any chance?

It's glowing 'hot' (1500C) yet doesn't burn the paper or make the hydraulics fail...can you explain this?

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

It's glowing 'hot' (1500C) yet doesn't burn the paper or make the hydraulics fail...can you explain this?

Yes. Can you explain how metal glows and looks liquid without being hot?

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes. Can you explain how metal glows and looks liquid without being hot?

let's hear it then.

1-Why don't the hydraulics fail?
2-why isn't the paper beside the 1500C 'molten' steel burning?

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

let's hear it then.

1-Why don't the hydraulics fail?
2-why isn't the paper beside the 'molten' metal burning?

You first - my answer is boring and sensible, yours is bound to be much more fun. And I suspect you will ignore my question as you have ignored many others if I go first.

King Mob

Dew Drops wrote: »

Yes, I most certainly agree! You’d think those who worked on the NIST report would know this. I wonder why they claimed WTC1 “fell” in 11 seconds and WTC2 in 9 seconds when they never "fell" at all? Why do you think they claimed this, King Mob?

From the link you provided after 2 minutes of reading (but for some reason you decided to leave out):

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

As monty points out, they were referring to the first exterior panels to fall off of the building.

Can you please go back and address the questions and points I've made which you've ignored?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Hi johnny. Question for you. See that picture of a hydraulic digger moving molten steel? What's the maximum temperature hydraulics can function at? What is this as a % of 1300-1500C, the approximate melting point of steel? Anyone? Also, what's all that unburnt paper doing beside that 1500C molten steel?

(a hint for honest objective readers: hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot... Check the book!)

You realise it is possible for:

• It not to be the same temperature everywhere?
• That steel can glow at lower temperatures?
• That other metals and materials can glow or melt at lower tempuratures?

Right?

And what is the space laser theory explanation for all of this?

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You first - my answer is boring and sensible, yours is bound to be much more fun. And I suspect you will ignore my question as you have ignored many others if I go first.

My god how incredibly childish, but seeing as you want to go there, who asked the question first?

Regardless of what caused the metal to glow, if you are claiming its molten, you really need to explain why it's not burning the paper or causing the hydraulics to fail

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

My god how incredibly childish, but seeing as you want to go there, who asked the question first?

Regardless of what caused the metal to glow, if you are claiming its molten, you really need to explain why it's not burning the paper or causing the hydraulics to fail

You have ignored a host of questions on this thread - I'm not answering this one until you address mine. It's not childish to adapt to the tricks people use to evade questions, it's common sense.

So?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

You realise it is possible for:

• It not to be the same temperature everywhere?
• That steel can glow at lower temperatures?
• That other metals and materials can glow or melt at lower tempuratures?

Right?

And what is the space laser theory explanation for all of this?

Your attempts to obfuscate here and in all of your previous postings on this thread are hilarious and ridiculous in equal measures.

But tell me this, what's the lowest temperature steel can melt/glow at and why isnt this hot enough to burn paper or seize hydraulics?

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You have ignored a host of questions on this thread - I'm not answering this one until you address mine. It's not childish to adapt to the tricks people use to evade questions, it's common sense.

So?

The only thing I've ignored is obfuscation from yourself and others.

It's clear you can't answer the question.

I wonder can anyone else?

Monty Burnz

Juicee wrote: »

But tell me this, what's the lowest temperature steel can melt/glow at and why isnt this hot enough to burn paper or seize hydraulics?

Ok, at this point I am reporting your posts for trolling as you demand answers from others while refusing to address questions put to you.

Juicee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, at this point I am reporting your posts for trolling as you demand answers from others while refusing to address questions put to you.

Seriously I am quaking over this.. :-)

you think you can continually evade a question I asked first and then have me banned for not answering your counter question first?? Yeah that makes sense.

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Your attempts to obfuscate here and in all of your previous postings on this thread are hilarious and ridiculous in equal measures.

But tell me this, what's the lowest temperature steel can melt/glow at and why isnt this hot enough to burn paper or seize hydraulics?

Lol, only ones avoiding and dodging questions here are the conspiracy theorists.
I can provide you a list of questions you specifically have refused to even acknowledge.

And now you to have boldness to demand we answer a question to which the answer is blatantly obvious.
This is either because you are not capable of basic logic or more likely you are trying to dodge a simple question you cannot answer.

It doesn't matter what temperature steel can glow at as no one is saying that it was that temperature everywhere on the site.
There is no reason to assume that as the are other explanations for the problems you are desperate to find in the official story so you can shove your silly space laser theory in.

So again, what is the explanation for those pictures in your theory that a fictional weapon destroyed the towers?
If you again refuse to answer the question, I think it will be clear that you can't as you have no explanation.
Your theory doesn't make sense.

Jonny7

Juicee wrote: »

Hi johnny. Question for you. See that picture of a hydraulic digger moving molten steel? What's the maximum temperature hydraulics can function at? What is this as a % of 1300-1500C, the approximate melting point of steel? Anyone? Also, what's all that unburnt paper doing beside that 1500C molten steel?

(a hint for honest objective readers: hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot... Check the book!)

Why do you question the photo..


yet not ask a single question about the direct energy weapon?

Who built it, where did it come from, who designed it, how does it function, where was it located, how was it hidden, what powered it


If I say the Twin Towers were dustified by magic invisible unicorns, will you just accept that and not ask a single question about the unicorns?


Are you Dr Judy Wood?

King Mob

Jonny7 wrote: »

....what powered it

Magic hurricane powers, remember?

Juicee

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, only ones avoiding and dodging questions here are the conspiracy theorists.
I can provide you a list of questions you specifically have refused to even acknowledge.

And now you to have boldness to demand we answer a question to which the answer is blatantly obvious.
This is either because you are not capable of basic logic or more likely you are trying to dodge a simple question you cannot answer.

It doesn't matter what temperature steel can glow at as no one is saying that it was that temperature everywhere on the site.
There is no reason to assume that as the are other explanations for the problems you are desperate to find in the official story so you can shove your silly space laser theory in.

So again, what is the explanation for those pictures in your theory that a fictional weapon destroyed the towers?
If you again refuse to answer the question, I think it will be clear that you can't as you have no explanation.
Your theory doesn't make sense.

Oh lord..go ahead and paste the questions and I'll answer them. You too monty. The thread and discussion has moved on a few pages on since I've last been on here (been busy) but I'll humour you.

By the way, several of my questions and points made on this thread have gone ignored, including the latest ones, which have reduced monty burnz's tactics to tell tale tattling and yours to obvious evasion, but also a number of earlier points so drop the self righteous indignation - its very transparent.

Anyway, it's late so I'm signing off (just in case you think I'm ignoring you :-) ) but I will get back to this shortly..

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Oh lord..go ahead and paste the questions and I'll answer them. You too monty. The thread and discussion has moved on a few pages on since I've last been on here (been busy) but I'll humour you.

Well basically every single question and point in every post I have made.

King Mob wrote: »

So how big should the rubble pile have been if the towers were collapsed by the impacts of the planes?

You have failed to answer my first question aside form a percentage plucked from the air which you have not actually backed up despite me repeatedly asking.

You refused repeatedly to provide an exact figure for the rubble pile, despite knowing that it was too short and refused to address the myriad of issues I and others raised about it.

King Mob wrote: »

But the photos you are posting are not an accurate method of determining how tall the pile of rubble is.
How do you know that the rubble pile is too small when you can't actually say how tall it is in the first place.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, how do you know that the pile would be "10% of the original height" in the first place? What is this assertion based on.
.

Then as you went on making more points you couldn't defend you had to ignore more and more of our points:

King Mob wrote: »

The report you linked to specifically says that the basement and bathtub had been damaged.
They were worried that the large machinery would cause more damage to the all ready weakened structures.

You then simply ignored and left out large chunks of my posts you were uncomfortable thinking about.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80951854&postcount=64
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80966630&postcount=67
Then you simply gave up all together:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80969249&postcount=73

And these are just the points about the topic you demanded we focus on. There's plenty more about the nature of the fictional weapon which you clearly stated you were going to ignore.

Juicee wrote: »

By the way, several of my questions and points made on this thread have gone ignored, including the latest ones, which have reduced monty burnz's tactics to tell tale tattling and yours to obvious evasion, but also a number of earlier points.

But I've addressed it directly twice.

But it's ok, by refusing again to answer a simple direct question, you've admitted you cannot provide an answer.
You cannot explain those photos with your inane laser theory.

Juicee wrote: »

You have both continued to use loaded and derogatory terms like space beams even though it was clarified very early on that neither judy wood or myself or any proponents of this evidence have ever claimed that space had anything to do withe the 911 attacks.

I'm simply being honest about what it is. Calling it a space laser isn't what is making it silly.
How does saying the laser came from space make it some how silly, yet claiming it was powered by a hurricane that the conspirators could control does not?

Juicee wrote: »

Seriously, drop the self righteous indignation - its very transparent.

lol :rolleyes:

Juicee

Km, every single point you re-raise has been responded to in detail, and the linked ones also show examples of your own evasion.

One final point... A challenge.

I will answer the glowing steel counter question in my very next post (tomorrow) - the essence of the counter question essentially boils down to "what could possibly make steel glow at low temperatures"

are you willing to answer my initial question on glowing steel in your next post?

how come hydraulics work/paper doesnt burn at 1500C?

King Mob

Juicee wrote: »

Km, every single point you re-raise has been responded to in detail, and the linked ones also show examples of your own evasion.

Except than none of them have been.
You have not once substantiated you claim that the rubble pile is of inadequate height, neither supplying a figure for the rubble pile, how high the rubble pile should be and ignoring repeated points about rubble falling into the basement.
You ignored every single point about you twisting the words of a report by claiming that it said that heavy machinery would cause more damage than the collapse.
You have totally ignored every single point made about the problems of your ridiculous fictional weapon.

And even in that last post you've ignored the new points I have raised:

I'm simply being honest about what it is. Calling it a space laser isn't what is making it silly.
How does saying the laser came from space make it some how silly, yet claiming it was powered by a hurricane that the conspirators could control does not?

So either point out where you have addressed these points (you haven't), or address them now.
Or you can keep making yourself look sillier. Which is an amazing feat considering the theory you are proposing.

Juicee wrote: »

One final point... A challenge.

I will answer the glowing steel counter question in my very next post (tomorrow) - the essence of the counter question essentially boils down to "what could possibly make steel glow at low temperatures"

So you can't answer it now because...?
Why are you intending to answer with a question instead of, ya know, facts?

You are either not going to supply a response, feigning some other outrage or simply ignoring the point as per usual or your response is that it is another effect of your fictional space laser, again like the other characteristics you'll be unable to prove.

Juicee wrote: »

are you willing to answer my initial question on glowing steel in your next post?

how come hydraulics work/paper doesnt burn at 1500C?

I already have, several times.
It was not 1500C everywhere on site.
What is insufficient about this point?

humanji

Juicee wrote:

let's hear it then.

1-Why don't the hydraulics fail?
2-why isn't the paper beside the 1500C 'molten' steel burning?

Not sure why you insist on going on about molten steel. Here's some:



Why don't the men burst into flames?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, debris falling outside of it's footprint by definition means that it did not fall into it's footprint.

That's just silly and you know it

King Mob wrote: »

But the NIST report explains were the building failed and the collapse started.
You did read it before you started not believing it right?

I read parts of it .. so did you i believe

King Mob wrote: »

I asked: do the examples of steel frame structures failing I gave show it is possible for steel structures to fail?
Yes or no?

Yes it did show how steel structures can partially fail ... Thats why i don't buy WTC7 falling in 16 seconds into its own footprint (total collapse)

King Mob wrote: »

I have not selectively quoted you.
You are making the point that since there is no example of a building falling exactly like WTC7 (which is not strictly true) then we should be suspicious of the official story.
However you cannot provide an example of a building exactly like WTC7 surviving the exact same circumstances, yet this exact same problem that you have with the offical story does not make you suspicious of the conspiracy.

Name one even closely comparable building that imploded into a pile of rubble after fire.

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you suspicious of the official story because it does not have an example, but you are not suspicious of the conspiracy story when it too does not have an example?

I said myself that it didn't happened before and it probably won't happen again nothing to be suspicious about .. iam also sceptic on some of the CT explanations as said in different threads

King Mob wrote: »

I'm worried you are not sure what fact and lying actually entail.

Well please explain where i got it wrong

King Mob wrote: »

You claim that you don't believe the NIST report, but you can't explain why.
You claim that WTC7 could not have possibly collapsed due to fire, but can't substantiate that let alone prove it.

I believe that a lot of the findings in the architect and engineers video have merit yes i also find it strange that NIST is withholding a substantial part of the report and not releasing the data used to make that nice simulation

King Mob wrote: »

I am not misquoting you.
I asked you directly if you believed that anything in the simulation was either faked or impossible, you said in so many words that you did not.

you know what i said so don't make a balls of my quotes

It could be a very accurate simulation ... but as long no one is allowed to make one with the parameters and data used by the NIST i have my doubts yes

King Mob wrote: »

So again: do you believe that the simulation of WTC7's collapse is a plausible model of how it collasped, yes or no?
Do you believe that they altered or falsified data, Yes or no?
Can you point out where the impossible bits are or where the falisfied data is in the simulation?

Just stop with the yes or no interrogation please.

just read my reply above

And can you read over the architects and engineering thread and the building 7 thread everything discussed here was discussed there and my position didn't change since those last discussions.

Just to get back what this discussion started

Yes i think its better to compare steel frame buildings with steel frame buildings

I cannot understand what your problem is because you think a burning overpass partially collapsing is an accurate example in the building 7 thread

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

That's just silly and you know it

What's silly about it.
It did not fall into it's own footprint. That's what the photos show.

weisses wrote: »

Yes it did show how steel structures can partially fail ...

So then you believe it is possible for a part of WTC7 to fail due to fire.
Which is in agreement with the official story as it was only a single support failing that started the collapse.

weisses wrote: »

Name one even closely comparable building that imploded into a pile of rubble after fire.

I can't an WTC7 is a unique building under unique circumstances.

weisses wrote: »

I said myself that it didn't happened before and it probably won't happen again nothing to be suspicious about ..

Again you are pretending not to see the contradiction in your logic...

weisses wrote: »

I believe that a lot of the findings in the architect and engineers video have merit yes i also find it strange that NIST is withholding a substantial part of the report and not releasing the data used to make that nice simulation

What data are they withholding? How do you know they are withholding information? What is important about the data they are supposedly withholding?

weisses wrote: »

you know what i said so don't make a balls of my quotes

I'm not doing anything to your quotes. They are just self contradictory.
You have said you both don't believe and believe the simulation is plausible and accurate.

weisses wrote: »

It could be a very accurate simulation ... but as long no one is allowed to make one with the parameters and data used by the NIST i have my doubts yes

Again, what parameters and data did they modify or falsify to produce their simulation?
What about their simulation is possible?

If you can't provide these you have no rational or reasonable basis for rejecting it.

weisses wrote: »

Just stop with the yes or no interrogation please.

I would if you would start answering questions directly, honestly and on the first go.

weisses wrote: »

And can you read over the architects and engineering thread and the building 7 thread everything discussed here was discussed there and my position didn't change since those last discussions.

I've looked through them. You have never been able to provide any argument to show anything false or impossible about the official explanation or it's simulations.
So either link to where you think you did, explain it now, or I'll just go with what my gut tells me: that you can't actually supply those things.

weisses wrote: »

Yes i think its better to compare steel frame buildings with steel frame buildings

Yes, the only way to determine exactly how the building would have behaved would be to look at buildings with the exact same structure under the exact same conditions.
You cannot provide that so you cannot use the examples feed to you by conspiracy sites to prove that WTC7 could not have collapsed.

weisses wrote: »

I cannot understand what your problem is because you think a burning overpass partially collapsing is an accurate example in the building 7 thread

Maybe the reason you can't understand my argument is because you are so dead set to dishonestly represent it rather than consider it.
For example, why do you repeatedly bring up this overpass?
Why do you keep saying that I think it's an "accurate example" when I have again and again explained to you in very simple language what my point about those structures was?

Bigus

If you look at the dimensions of the black and white photo I posted the basement at excavation in 1969 was

Equivalent to

216,000 standard builders skips, !!!!

Plenty of room for the building after it being pulverised

QED

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe the reason you can't understand my argument is because you are so dead set to dishonestly represent it rather than consider it.
For example, why do you repeatedly bring up this overpass?
Why do you keep saying that I think it's an "accurate example" when I have again and again explained to you in very simple language what my point about those structures was?

It was you who stated and i quote All The footage shown in that video is fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7 ... the video with the overpass

SO again i show a couple of video's with steel structured building engulfed in raging fires for hours and non of them collapse you come in and tell me its non comparable but yet your video with the overpass is accurate ... That's the only issue now .. all the rest is debated on the other 2 threads

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

It was you who stated and i quote All The footage shown in that video is fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7 ... the video with the overpass

SO again i show a couple of video's with steel structured building engulfed in raging fires for hours and non of them collapse you come in and tell me its non comparable but yet your video with the overpass is accurate ... That's the only issue now .. all the rest is debated on the other 2 threads

Again: the examples I use (of which the overpass is only one of many other different examples, including multi-storey buildings ) are to only show that it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.
In that way, which you are determined to ignore and misrepresent, it is " fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7".
And you have agreed that they show it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.

You are using your examples differently however. Your argument requires you to show that it is impossible for WTC7 to fail due to fire. You are presenting examples of steel buildings to show it is impossible.
This is wrong because the buildings and scenarios are entirely different.
You can show that it is possible that WTC might have survived, but unless you have an example of the exact same building in the exact same conditions, you cannot use them to show that a collapse would be impossible.

Do you still believe that your examples show that it is impossible for WTC7 to have failed due to fire?

Can you please explain what precisely about the structure would have made it impossible. If you can't, be honest and admit you can't. Just please stop dodging the question.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again: the examples I use (of which the overpass is only one of many other different examples, including multi-storey buildings ) are to only show that it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.
In that way, which you are determined to ignore and misrepresent, it is " fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7".
And you have agreed that they show it is possible for steel structures to fail due to fire.

No I'm not ignoring and misrepresenting anything I haven't seen evidence of skyscrapers turning into a pile of dust due to fires alone ... youre and mine videos shows that it is possible that some parts of buidlings/overpass can fail due to fire yet my example is misrepresenting the facts but you think yours is accurate

King Mob wrote: »

You are using your examples differently however. Your argument requires you to show that it is impossible for WTC7 to fail due to fire. You are presenting examples of steel buildings to show it is impossible.

To me yes seeing these infernos its impossible

King Mob wrote: »

This is wrong because the buildings and scenarios are entirely different.
You can show that it is possible that WTC might have survived, but unless you have an example of the exact same building in the exact same conditions, you cannot use them to show that a collapse would be impossible.

I think in the architects and engineering video they came up with some plausible scenarios

King Mob wrote: »

Do you still believe that your examples show that it is impossible for WTC7 to have failed due to fire?

Yes by fire alone i do ... steel is steel it will not magically act different in the wtc7 fires i believe

King Mob wrote: »

Can you please explain what precisely about the structure would have made it impossible. If you can't, be honest and admit you can't. Just please stop dodging the question.

The fires alone could not have brought down that building ..That is what i believe and i already said earlier that i don't have the proof for it ... asking me for it after all the discussions is rather silly

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No I'm not ignoring and misrepresenting anything I haven't seen evidence of skyscrapers turning into a pile of dust due to fires alone ...

No one aside form the people who believe in space lasers thinks or claims that the towers turned into a pile of dust. That's a perfect example of you misrepresenting facts and people's arguments.

weisses wrote: »

youre and mine videos shows that it is possible that some parts of buidlings/overpass can fail due to fire yet my example is misrepresenting the facts but you think yours is accurate

Yours are misrepresenting if you are presenting them as evidence that WTC7 could not possibly have collapsed.
If you are now going to claim that is not your argument, then you examples have no point in your argument.

weisses wrote: »

No I'm not ... just look back on thread in what context i posted those videos

So then why are you presenting them as if you are arguing that?

weisses wrote: »

I think in the architects and engineering video they came up with some plausible scenarios

Such as?
Simply saying stuff like this then refusing to provide them makes it look exactly like they don't have any plausible scenarios.

weisses wrote: »

Yes by fire alone i do ... steel is steel it will not magically act different in the wtc7 fires i believe

Unless say, a building had a different type of (or undamaged)fireproofing. Or a functioning sprinkler system. Or more failsafes built into the structure. Or did not have the fire in a similarly vital area, either lacking one or the fire being in a different place. Or the building being built in different separate sections where one could fail and collapse leaving the other sections standing...
Or a thousand and other other differences from WTC7 which would affect the outcome.
But the steel itself behaves the same in fire and can give out. Just as the steel in the supports of WTC7 could give out.
We also know that a building can be brought down entirely when a vital support is removed.

weisses wrote: »

The fires alone could not have brought down that building ..That is what i believe and i already said earlier that i don't have the proof for it ... asking me for it after all the discussions is rather silly

So why do you believe that? Why specifically could it not have been brought down by fire?
Why do you believe it when you can't support it?
Why do you reject other explanations that unlike yours make more sense, are consistent, plausible and rational, address all of the facts and don't rely on the silly jumps of logic your one needs?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No one aside form the people who believe in space lasers thinks or claims that the towers turned into a pile of dust. That's a perfect example of you misrepresenting facts and people's arguments.

sorry rubble ... i thought you would know by now what we are talking about here ... No need for being pedantic

King Mob wrote: »

Yours are misrepresenting if you are presenting them as evidence that WTC7 could not possibly have collapsed.
If you are now going to claim that is not your argument, then you examples have no point in your argument.

Im presenting them as examples that its unlikely that a skyscraper will totally collapse into its own footprint in a matter of seconds ...

King Mob wrote: »

We also know that a building can be brought down entirely when a vital support is removed.

So getting rid of that one support column is the reason wtc7 imploded ?

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you believe that? Why specifically could it not have been brought down by fire?
Why do you believe it when you can't support it?
Why do you reject other explanations that unlike yours make more sense, are consistent, plausible and rational, address all of the facts and don't rely on the silly jumps of logic your one needs?

All answered before

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

sorry rubble ... i thought you would know by now what we are talking about here ... No need for being pedantic

Pointing out the difference between dust and rubble is not being pedantic.

weisses wrote: »

Im presenting them as examples that its unlikely that a skyscraper will totally collapse into its own footprint in a matter of seconds ...

But how can they show that it is unlikely when they are not the same structure and not in the same circumstances?

And again you repeat the myth about it falling into it's own footprint...

weisses wrote: »

So getting rid of that one support column is the reason wtc7 imploded ?

Yes. You claimed to have read the NIST report and seen the simulation, yet you don't seem to know anything about the official explanation....
The collapse started after one support failed( specifically column 79), passing it's load on to other supports which were substantially weakened by the fire which then also failed passing their loads onto yet more supports that were either also weakened or forced to take weight they could not handle or even further damaged as debris fell internally. And so on....

Please explain what is impossible or improbable about that scenario.

weisses wrote: »

All answered before

No they haven't.
Either point out were, show were they've been answered, or stop lying.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But how can they show that it is unlikely when they are not the same structure and not in the same circumstances?

Same goes for your overpass video ( its not even a freakin building)

King Mob wrote: »

And again you repeat the myth about it falling into it's own footprint...

There is a lot that has to be repeated when discussing things with you ... you will understand it someday

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.

So basically they only needed to blow up that column for the building to fall into its own footprint ?

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed to have read the NIST report and seen the simulation, yet you don't seem to know anything about the official explanation....

I didn't claim to have read the NIST report ( only parts of it)

See how easy it is to misrepresent someone

King Mob wrote: »

No they haven't.
Either point out were, show were they've been answered, or stop lying.

We had two long discussions about building 7 and i believe its all covered in there ... if you don't bother to look it up fine ...

I just briefly looked back on those threads and its all covered

There is a difference however in what you want to hear and my answers given

Monty Burnz

humanji wrote: »

Not sure why you insist on going on about molten steel. Here's some:



Why don't the men burst into flames?

You know, I was really looking forward to an answer to this post. Oddly enough, no sign of Dew Drops or Juiceee today.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Same goes for your overpass video ( its not even a freakin building)

Yes, and again the examples I gave (of which the overpass was only one) were only to demonstrate that steel frame structures can collapse due to fire.

weisses wrote: »

There is a lot that has to be repeated when discussing things with you ... you will understand it someday

Again the building did not fall into it's own footprint. Why are you denying what is clear from photos?

weisses wrote: »

So basically they only needed to blow up that column for the building to fall into its own footprint ?

No, you are being disingenuous again. That's where the collapse started and how it began. The collapse was able to happen because the fire weakened and wrapped other supports.

Please explain what was impossible or implausible about the scenario i detailed.

weisses wrote: »

I didn't claim to have read the NIST report ( only parts of it)

See how easy it is to misrepresent someone

So you don't actually know how they say it collapsed.
Yet you reject that explanation without even looking at it as if you wanted to reach a preferred conclusion rather than the truth.

weisses wrote: »

We had two long discussions about building 7 and i believe its all covered in there ... if you don't bother to look it up fine ...

I just briefly looked back on those threads and its all covered

There is a difference however in what you want to hear and my answers given

So you cannot provide anything I've asked for, I've asked more than enough times and if what you said existed you'd have linked to it by now. Instead we are just getting that laughable hot air..

You can't show what's implausible or impossible about the official story as you don't even actually know what it is.
You've no valid or rational objections to it as you rejected it simply because you want there to be a conspiracy theory, and to that end uncritically believe whatever you're told by conspiracy theorists as intellectually dishonest as yourself.

enno99

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You know, I was really looking forward to an answer to this post. Oddly enough, no sign of Dew Drops or Juiceee today.

Well to be fair
you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

what kind of answer would you like

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Well to be fair
you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

what kind of answer would you like

Cept that being skilled doesn't make you less flammable or more flame retardant, the container has an open top and one of the men has a bare face.
If what Juicee is claiming is consistent, there's no way that that guy can be there.

But in reality that's not how heat works.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Cept that being skilled doesn't make you less flammable or more flame retardant, the container has an open top and one of the men has a bare face.
If what Juicee is claiming is consistent, there's no way that that guy can be there.

But in reality that's not how heat works.

well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t

Jonny7

enno99 wrote: »

Well to be fair
you are comparing 3 skilled men working in a foundry with protective gear working with a specfically designed container of molten metal

with papers blowing around what seems to be red hot metal at a disaster site

what kind of answer would you like

What are you insinuating?

enno99

Jonny7 wrote: »

What are you insinuating?

what dont you understand ?

Jonny7

enno99 wrote: »

what dont you understand ?

I don't get what you are insinuating regarding the photo of the molten metal on 911. What is your theory on the matter..

Juicee

What can make metal glow or turn to jelly without high heat? The hutchison effect. Lots of other weird things as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj93HaGKV3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdETtRXwjrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ

Re: the steelworkers - take off the gloves and it's bye bye hands. Connect a hydraulic system to that metal rod and see what happens to the hydraulic oil. Put a piece of paper on the rim of that container and see what happens...

King mob, you and monty have utterly failed to explain how paper can be right next to 1500c molten metal and not burn or how that hydraulic digger can possibly be moving molten metal.

You say you have 'addressed' my points but by that you obviously mean given some response, any response, you obviously don't hold yourself to the standard of answering the actual question...

You say "not everywhere on the site was 1500c" but what the hell has that to do with the actual question?? How does that explain unburnt paper right next to molten metal or the hydraulics issue??

you and your double standards...so obvious.

Biggus, if all of the buildings went into the bathtub, what's holding up the remaining shards of outer cladding?? King mob, I raised this question with you earlier and you completely ignored it.. Monty and jonny too, and others...more examples of double standards and hypocrisy

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and again the examples I gave (of which the overpass was only one) were only to demonstrate that steel frame structures can collapse due to fire.

Again the building did not fall into it's own footprint. Why are you denying what is clear from photos?


No, you are being disingenuous again. That's where the collapse started and how it began. The collapse was able to happen because the fire weakened and wrapped other supports.

Please explain what was impossible or implausible about the scenario i detailed.


So you don't actually know how they say it collapsed.
Yet you reject that explanation without even looking at it as if you wanted to reach a preferred conclusion rather than the truth.


So you cannot provide anything I've asked for, I've asked more than enough times and if what you said existed you'd have linked to it by now. Instead we are just getting that laughable hot air..

You can't show what's implausible or impossible about the official story as you don't even actually know what it is.
You've no valid or rational objections to it as you rejected it simply because you want there to be a conspiracy theory, and to that end uncritically believe whatever you're told by conspiracy theorists as intellectually dishonest as yourself.

Look you got your view of things and that is fine ... I got mine

This is all discussed in the other threads ... nothing new is added ... Were all going around in circles

I have no evidence/proof against the official story so any argument/discussion is pointless basically when other theory's are dismissed almost beforehand

I have my suspicions/doubts/questions that for a part are discussed in the architect and engineers video

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t

That doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't matter whether or not he could move, the picture clearly shows that the man is standing in an area that Juciee believes he could not be standing in.

How is he able to stand so close to molten metal without his face melting?

How about these people? How are they able to be so close to molten and glowing steel?
http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/05/steel-poorman.jpg
http://www.coalcampusa.com/rustbelt/oh/mcslab.jpg
http://www.twopiecesofeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/055.jpg

The blindingly obvious answer you are ignoring to lend credibility to an inane theory is: hot steel does not make everything immediately around it exactly the same temperature.

enno99

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't get what you are insinuating regarding the photo of the molten metal on 911. What is your theory on the matter..

Im not sure what you want here

As i said the picture seems show molten metal and paper or do you have another explanation of it ?

Monty Burnz

enno99 wrote: »

well you and I know that is rubbish an inanimate object cant move away from the heat so the comparison is a crock of sh!t

Loose paper isn't exactly the most fixed object out in the open though, is it? And you understand that perspective can be skewed with long lenses?

Paper famously catches fire at 451 degrees fahrenheit (hence the brilliant novel of the same name). You'd imagine a man's bare face might be at some risk at that sort of temperature.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Look you got your view of things and that is fine ... I got mine

This is all discussed in the other threads ... nothing new is added ... Were all going around in circles

Except I can support my view with reason, evidence and knowledge. You can't support what you believe, your explanation is laughably inconsistent and you constantly have to be dishonest and ignorant to maintain your view.

The reason we are going around in circles is because you are unwilling and/or incapable of directly addressing my points.

weisses wrote: »

I have no evidence/proof against the official story so any argument/discussion is pointless basically when other theory's are dismissed almost beforehand

I have my suspicions/doubts/questions that for a part are discussed in the architect and engineers video

Why do you know believe the official report if you cannot support that disbelieve?
Doesn't the fact you can't support it not warn you that it might not be an honest position?
Why, if you are unwilling to state your reasons for your position (though I think it's obvious that you can't since you have no reasons) did you bring it up? Seems to be the exact opposite of discussion.

Juicee

Juicee wrote:

King mob, I raised this question with you earlier and you completely ignored it.. Monty and jonny too, and others...more examples of double standards and hypocrisy

Correction, I should have said evaded