I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

[Gdjjr]

Credible to you. Not me. You still haven’t presented something that shows something other than two jumbo jets flying into the towers? Why?

Some things jump out at me, but, I've been reluctant in pointing them out-

(1) You are talking to 2 different people and not keeping us separated (in your head). I've only posted 1 picture. That was a graph depicting the acceleration rate of the Twin Towers.

(2) Your refusal to read anything contradictory to your feelings tells a story itself.

(3) Yes, professionals, who are really professionals, in their fields, not bureaucrats on the gov't payroll are much more credible than, well, bureacrats on the gov't payroll, which is what the 9/11 commission was made up of, as well as the alphabet agency actors-

(4) An intellectual discussion can only be achieved, intellectually- that requires a knowledge of the subject. You have none. You accept the "pictures" and videos the news shows bombarded you with- it's understandable, but, not concrete evidence. As in, the physics, which are explained in the links I provided- which you refuse to read. And trying to discredit a messenger (the very credible professionals) is not an intellectual endeavor-

(5) You're also trying to discredit me (as is candycorn) trying to get me with a "gotcha" moment- it ain't gonna happen. I've been doing this (these message boards) for years and studying the links, for years, and have likely forgotten more than you're willing to learn- the key word is "willing"- that's where you (and people like you) and I differ- I'm willing to learn and let the chips fall where they may- I'm also very curious and analytical, it's just who I am- I've also had some formal training in Failure Analysis, and was really good at it- relied on, by professionals, and bureaucrats alike-

(6) I approach all things objectively- that is my nature, and training. I don't render subjective conclusions.
I have a very simple philosophy about most everything, especially mechanical, which nearly everything can be broken down to, piece by piece- that philosophy is; anybody can figure out how, very few know why- that's where I excel- no, I'm not bragging, just stating a fact-

So, in light of the above- I'll leave you to argue with yourself- you can't argue anything about this with me- you're not knowledgeable enough- sorry, but, that's the way it is- attacking a messenger is not an intellectual argument about anything- keep that in mind.

 

[jc456]

Dude, that’s intellectually lazy as well as ignorant on your part.

Dude, not being willing to educate yourself is intellectually lazy-

here let's start here, TITANIC what did the experts say about the Titanic?

Hey, ever hear of load or weight bearing in construction?

know what a weight bearing support column is?

What happens to floors above a weight bearing support column if the support columns are removed?

What is it you think those two jumbo jets took out? Weight bearing support columns and cross beams?

Why are weight bearing supports necessary?

 

[Gdjjr]

I want to add to the above. Failure Analysis, no matter what failed, starts at what you see broken- then works back- in order to do that, ALL evidence has to be addressed. A.L.L. That requires looking at things you might not want to see- as in reading to educate yourself about everything involved. As in EVERYTHING- you listen to everyone, you read everything and try to render an objective analysis- emotion has to be set aside. Prejudice has to be set aside. Emotion and prejudice are subjective and render any analysis subjective- now, that may be the objective, but it isn't objective- there is a huge difference.

 

[jc456]

Credible to you. Not me. You still haven’t presented something that shows something other than two jumbo jets flying into the towers? Why?

Some things jump out at me, but, I've been reluctant in pointing them out-

(1) You are talking to 2 different people and not keeping us separated (in your head). I've only posted 1 picture. That was a graph depicting the acceleration rate of the Twin Towers.

(2) Your refusal to read anything contradictory to your feelings tells a story itself.

(3) Yes, professionals, who are really professionals, in their fields, not bureaucrats on the gov't payroll are much more credible than, well, bureacrats on the gov't payroll, which is what the 9/11 commission was made up of, as well as the alphabet agency actors-

(4) An intellectual discussion can only be achieved, intellectually- that requires a knowledge of the subject. You have none. You accept the "pictures" and videos the news shows bombarded you with- it's understandable, but, not concrete evidence. As in, the physics, which are explained in the links I provided- which you refuse to read. And trying to discredit a messenger (the very credible professionals) is not an intellectual endeavor-

(5) You're also trying to discredit me (as is candycorn) trying to get me with a "gotcha" moment- it ain't gonna happen. I've been doing this (these message boards) for years and studying the links, for years, and have likely forgotten more than you're willing to learn- the key word is "willing"- that's where you (and people like you) and I differ- I'm willing to learn and let the chips fall where they may- I'm also very curious and analytical, it's just who I am- I've also had some formal training in Failure Analysis, and was really good at it- relied on, by professionals, and bureaucrats alike-

(6) I approach all things objectively- that is my nature, and training. I don't render subjective conclusions.
I have a very simple philosophy about most everything, especially mechanical, which nearly everything can be broken down to, piece by piece- that philosophy is; anybody can figure out how, very few know why- that's where I excel- no, I'm not bragging, just stating a fact-

So, in light of the above- I'll leave you to argue with yourself- you can't argue anything about this with me- you're not knowledgeable enough- sorry, but, that's the way it is- attacking a messenger is not an intellectual argument about anything- keep that in mind.

here let's start here, TITANIC what did the experts say about the Titanic?

Hey, ever hear of load or weight bearing in construction?

know what a weight bearing support column is?

What happens to floors above a weight bearing support column if the support columns are removed?

What is it you think those two jumbo jets took out? Weight bearing support columns and cross beams?

Why are weight bearing supports necessary?

Why do demolishing companies set their charges on weight bearing supports?

 

[jc456]

(4) An intellectual discussion can only be achieved, intellectually- that requires a knowledge of the subject. You have none. You accept the "pictures" and videos the news shows bombarded you with- it's understandable, but, not concrete evidence. As in, the physics, which are explained in the links I provided- which you refuse to read. And trying to discredit a messenger (the very credible professionals) is not an intellectual endeavor-

it sure does, why are buildings designed with so many support columns on every floor of a high rise? Weight concerns?

What would happen if a weight bearing support is removed? What are those consequences? intellectually, let's start here.

 

[Gdjjr]

He ever hear of load or weight bearing in contruction?

yes

know what a weight bearing support column is?

yes

What happens to floors above a weight bearing support column?

they fall

What is it you think those two jumbo jets took out? Weight bearing support columns and cross beams?

It's impossible to take out the center cores (5 inch think I beams and box tubing) at near the top and bring a bldg down into it's own foot print, accelerating to near free fall speed- free fall is a lack of resistance. That requires a controlled effort. Period.
To accelerate there has to be a lack of resistance of- the resistance has to be over come- there was not enough mass damaged to over come more than a couple of floors- the lower level floors had to be rendered not there to resist. As in remove (or breach) 5 inch thick steel at the center support structure.

Why are weight bearing supports necessary?

to bear weight

Now, let me ask you something I've asked before; Why do you believe the lyingest entity on the planet?

Then, do you know what bldg codes are? Then do you know how engineers design? Then have you ever heard of the PE (professional engineer) fudge factor, which is common practice when designing? Do you know what that is? Do you know about liquid fuels? Do you know the difference between ignition (flash) point temperature and burn temperature in a controlled vs non-controlled environment? Do you know the difference between temperature and heat?

No? All that information is available at your finger tips- IF you really want to know. Obviously you don't. You just want to try to discredit me- it ain't working- you can't, legitimately- and pejoratives don't do anything other than validate what I say-

 

[jc456]

they fall

what happened to the floors above where the jumbo jets entered the building? Did the floors above fall first?

 

[Gdjjr]

what happened to the floors above where the jumbo jets entered the building? Did the floors above fall first?

They fell- and, they weren't jumbo jets- hyperbole doesn't strengthen an argument- now, answer the questions I set forth.

 

[jc456]

Now, let me ask you something I've asked before; Why do you believe the lyingest entity on the planet?

it seems you presume I believe something or someone. I believe what I saw. I saw a jumbo jet rip into a high rise tower and take out the inside of two or three floors of a building. The next thing I saw was the floors above the hole in the building collapse, like I would expect knowing the jet took out the support structure of the floors above. I'd expect that. What happened next was I saw that combined weight now sitting on the rest of the building that wasn't designed to handle that weight collapse. Again, expected. Not sure what or who you think I'm believing. You seem upset that I'm not agreeing with you, and you will never change what I saw and what I know about construction. I don't need an expert to tell me what happens to buildings that loose center and outer weight bearing structures. Ever walk on a eight foot two by four four feet in the air, board lying flat with support on the ends only? That's how I know.

Oh and I also know, that the weight of the plane with the passengers most likely added over 400,000 lbs of additional weight not expected in the building design.

 

[jc456]

what happened to the floors above where the jumbo jets entered the building? Did the floors above fall first?

They fell- and, they weren't jumbo jets- hyperbole doesn't strengthen an argument- now, answer the questions I set forth.

what were the jets then?

 

[Cellblock2429]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."

 

[jc456]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

so it was actually iron ore sitting up there.

 

[jc456]

what happened to the floors above where the jumbo jets entered the building? Did the floors above fall first?

They fell- and, they weren't jumbo jets- hyperbole doesn't strengthen an argument- now, answer the questions I set forth.

they fell first right? How much you think ten floors of steel and concrete weighs on a building top not designed to handle the mass weight in that manner? ever stomp on an aluminum can with your foot? collapses from the weight in or about its footprint.

oh and moving vibrating the load below.

The dust you witness is both concrete dust and gypsum dust. Do you know what the gypsum is?

 

[Cellblock2429]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

so it was actually iron ore sitting up there.

/-----/ Bridge collapses in massive fire on I-85 in Atlanta, blocking traffic for miles
The heat from the flames was enough to "soften" the steel support beams and caused the overpass to collapse.

 

[jc456]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

so it was actually iron ore sitting up there.

/-----/ Bridge collapses in massive fire on I-85 in Atlanta, blocking traffic for miles
The heat from the flames was enough to "soften" the steel support beams and caused the overpass to collapse.

they don't actually understand construction or materials and their use.

 

[danielpalos]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

Evidence of a controlled implosion should have been found in the debris.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

hey troll, she did what you never did in your lifetime obviously.listened to what the best experts of architects and engineers said,when she said steel dont melt,she was talking about the truth that jet fuel fires that burn at only 1600 degrees are impossible to melt steel which has to have a temp of 2700 degrees to melt.

there were pools of molten steel found,what caused all the steel of the towers to melt to steel? it wasnt the fires.what caused all the steel columns to be removed allowing the towers to fall straight down at freefall speed? it wasnt the fires. think 9/11 apologist.you can do it.

thats you the tin foil hatter saying fires caused the towers to collapse,good pic of you.thanks for showing us what you look like in real life.

 

[jc456]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

hey troll, she did what you never did in your lifetime obviously.listened to what the best experts of architects and engineers said,when she said steel dont melt,she was talking about the truth that jet fuel fires that burn at only 1600 degrees are impossible to melt steel which has to have a temp of 2700 degrees to melt.

there were pools of molten steel found,what caused all the steel of the towers to melt to steel? it wasnt the fires.what caused all the steel columns to be removed allowing the towers to fall straight down at freefall speed? it wasnt the fires. think 9/11 apologist.you can do it.

thats you the tin foil hatter saying fires caused the towers to collapse,good pic of you.thanks for showing us what you look like in real life.

Didn’t those same types say Titanic would never sink? Excuse us if we don’t fall for bullshit. Anytime you really want to discuss, talk with me about weight bearing structural columns! K?

 

[jc456]

Still nothing

I have posted credible links several times- you have only gov't propaganda- the "official lie"-

You took him to school same as I just did.

What happens when one removes support from a weight bearing wall?

letme know when you’re ready to discuss

 

[jc456]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

/----/ It's loony tune times again, folks. Remember the foremost structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnel, said "Steel don't melt."
View attachment 480124

hey troll, she did what you never did in your lifetime obviously.listened to what the best experts of architects and engineers said,when she said steel dont melt,she was talking about the truth that jet fuel fires that burn at only 1600 degrees are impossible to melt steel which has to have a temp of 2700 degrees to melt.

there were pools of molten steel found,what caused all the steel of the towers to melt to steel? it wasnt the fires.what caused all the steel columns to be removed allowing the towers to fall straight down at freefall speed? it wasnt the fires. think 9/11 apologist.you can do it.

thats you the tin foil hatter saying fires caused the towers to collapse,good pic of you.thanks for showing us what you look like in real life.

What happens when jumbo jets tear out weight bearing supports under 10 stories of floors above?