Erik Lawyer was not a firefighter at the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Nor were any of his group. Hence, they are not 9/11 Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
- Status
Erik Lawyer was not a firefighter at the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Nor were any of his group. Hence, they are not 9/11 Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.
Btodd
Well-Known Member
When you propose a specific, like thermite...then that entails an explanation of how it worked, because we know things about how thermite works.
This is not like proposing that God started the Big Bang. These are real-world events, not science fiction or religion. If someone cannot show how thermite can accomplish the task (particularly after ManFromUncle said that thermite demolitions are 'old hat', but can't produce a single example), then it's a useless explanation.
So, to repeat...we have a very-well documented mechanism for collapse that is backed by basic physics, and peer-reviewed technical science, and another that nobody will bother to answer a single question about.
If you still prefer the latter, then you're free to do so...but I'm free to point out that it's unsupported nonsense.
Btodd
Upvote
0
circa02
Regular Member
So, to repeat...we have a very-well documented mechanism for collapse that is backed by basic physics, and peer-reviewed technical science, and another that nobody will bother to answer a single question about.
Well first I never made the claim about thermite, although many experts have, but they don't count. If you want answers, ask them. Second, about you're claim that an explosive that is powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper wouldn't be silent, videos have shown explosive sounds, but again, they don't count. BTW, a firework is much less powerful then C4, but they're sound levels are about the same, perhaps louder in the case of fireworks.
Well first I never made the claim about thermite, although many experts have, but they don't count. If you want answers, ask them. Second, about you're claim that an explosive that is powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper wouldn't be silent, videos have shown explosive sounds, but again, they don't count. BTW, a firework is much less powerful then C4, but they're sound levels are about the same, perhaps louder in the case of fireworks.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
How about just alittle bit of common sense......In the history of tall buildings did you know that for a building under any circumstance, whether it be fire, tornado, hurricane, airliner......the odds of any structure falling straight down into the basement, neither veering this way or that way, is in itself an anomaly! when two buildings fall straightdown, with no veering to the front or back thats just amazing.....and when three buildings have this same incredible happenstance somehow nobody should question this New York Miracle........the evidence of a conspiracy is that this happened, or are you under the impression that demolition experts should be out of a job, certainly their expertise is nolonger needed, simply start a few sporadic fires on a few floors and in a few hours (DUE TO STRUCTURAL FAILURE) watch the building simply freefall into the basement, completely disintegrating all of the concrete on all floors, walls and cielings into a fine billowing plume of smoke.........Yes that happens all the time.......lol
Upvote
0
M
Martingale
Guest
After being subjected to spritman1's deft interrogation, I confessed to being employed by the NWO as a Disinformation Officer (O-6). The evidence against me was overwhelming.
I didn't crack and name you as NWO's Comptroller of Eastern North America.
Upvote
0
Wheres the building? come on you guys! you declare anyone who believes buildings simply fall straight down into there footprint is such a common thing you should be able to show us one building made of steel, reinforced with concrete, falling freefall speed into its basement! IF SUCH AN IGNORANT THING HAS HAPPENED BEFORE PLEASE TELL US! If I were playing cards at a table and the dealer got a royal straight flush, I would be amused, if he got one three times in a row I would be crying CHEAT!.......I'm still waiting for you to show us all a steel reinforced with concrete building of similiar height fall symetrically into its basement in the history of this contruction....................waiting!
Upvote
0
Btodd
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you and ManFromUncle should argue. He says that large explosions ejected debris well outside the footprint.
spiritman1 said:
Have you read the NIST report, or do you expect a single sentence to wrap it up in a tidy little package for you?
Your use of all-caps and exclamation points tells me you're already so flabbergasted that any explanation you receive will just be met with the same policy of incredulity.
Btodd
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,888
- 17,790
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Where is the 110 story building that was struck at 500 mph by a Boeing 767 loaded with fuel that is still standing today? Also, show us a 47 story building that was subjected to intense raging unfought fire for 7 hours and remained standing.
Upvote
0
Rudolph Hucker
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,540
- 332
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Several tall buildings have been hit by aircraft, including the Empire State Building.
B-25 Empire State Building crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many tall buildings have withstood intense raging fires.
Madrid 2005 ...
Despite raging for 24 hours, and partial collapse of external steel structure to upper floors, there was no complete collapse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)
In fact, AFAIAA, the only tall buildings to have collapsed due to fire were the three in New York on 11 Sep 2001.
Upvote
0
The B-25 is much much smaller than the Boeing 767. It has a fraction of the 767's fuel capacity and its top speed is less than half. So, not similar at all. Sorry, try again.
The Windsor Tower was only 29 stories and was largely a concrete structure. Also, there was an active, and ultimately successful, attempt by firefighters to extinguish that fire. That was not the case with WTC7.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,888
- 17,790
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Don't forget also the whole design differences between the buildings. Though I guess that the support design of the building can't have any thing to do with how it handles damage.
Upvote
0
Rudolph Hucker
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,540
- 332
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Agreed, not as heavy or fast. But as the official report concluded, the collapse was due not to impact but fire. The towers performed as designed in case of aircraft impact - and they were so designed. At the time of their design, the largest aircraft was a 707, broadly similar in weight and speed to a 767. The towers did their job and survived the impacts.
Yes, not as tall I agree. And I also agree that the fire was not untended. But the fact remains it burned for 24 hours and did not cause total collapse. (Due to the central core of concrete, yes). Were the WTC towers designed to some lesser standard than the Spanish codes? I would find that hard to believe.
Upvote
0
Btodd
Well-Known Member
I'll be back to participate more later, but the official mechanism of collapse (for the Twin Towers) was not solely due to fire.
It was due to fire weakening the steel at the impact points, where critical columns had been severed, making the structure already compromised.
This is also evident in watching the collapses, which occur from the top-down, starting at the impact points...so it is the combination of the damage done by the planes PLUS the ensuing fires that ultimately brought the towers down. This is also supported by the fact that the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first...because it had several more floors above its impact point, so there was greater mass for the weakened area to support.
Btodd
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
