In the instance of any Scientific investigation it would require people to do a job, a job they aren't being paid for. If you truthers put your money where your mouth is, then you could gain the information that you keep bugging people about, but alas you couldn't give that much of a crap about the information or you'd be out there with a bucket getting other truthers to delve into their pockets to get an "independent" study done.
.Still spamming your same old shit Psi? Geez..broken record...like the rest of this thread. I really hope Stryder comes to his senses and shuts this inane waste of bandwidth down.
.I guess psiky missed this one.
If the truth is out there then pay for it cheapskates.
That is pure nonsense.
Engineering projects are designed to handle set conditions, and expected to fail if those conditions are exceeded or approached and combined with other factors (which may or may not have been considered or foreseen).
Why do you think engineers developed the concepts of "fail-safe", "safety factors" and "graceful degradation" among others?
Oli! Now if only you'd stick around and chat with Tony about the engineering aspects of the WTC buildings, laugh ;-).
Do you have ears?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFDGZvxVzXE
Do you have ears?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFDGZvxVzXE
LOL the newscaster even says he heard a huge explosion in your video there.
Pretty bad footage and little audio with WTC 7 in that video too.
Actually that video makes me think perhaps they did demo WTC 1 and 2 and I didn't even think that before! You could hear the explosions inside the building during that footage with the firemen.
Thanks!
Stryder said:In the instance of any Scientific investigation it would require people to do a job, a job they aren't being paid for. If you truthers put your money where your mouth is, then you could gain the information that you keep bugging people about, but alas you couldn't give that much of a crap about the information or you'd be out there with a bucket getting other truthers to delve into their pockets to get an "independent" study done.
I guess psiky missed this one.
Yes, just like psikeyhackr, Richard Gage enjoys playing with toys:
I believe that Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers has done something like this hasn't he? In any case, I think there is ample evidence that the WTC buildings could only have been brought down by controlled demolition. The main problem is in getting others to recognize it as evidence.
Yes, just like psikeyhackr, Richard Gage enjoys playing with toys:
scott3x said:I believe that Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers has done something like this hasn't he?
Yes, just like psikeyhackr, Richard Gage enjoys playing with toys:
I have been to one of Gages shows and I regard it as mostly propaganda. He isn't trying to prove why a plane could not bring the towers down he is just trying to psychologically convince people that he apparently he thinks can't understand it.
KJC just dishes out psychological BS too.
psikeyhackr said:Oh no, we can't tell people what is actually required to hold up a skyscraper then explain why something with ONE HALF OF ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT THE MASS can knock it down in less then 2 hours.
Trippy said:scott3x said:Ok, well perhaps someone who knows enough of such things can get to this. You have disparaged Hoz and I know that he has disparaged you, but at present, he seems to be both someone who seems to know the most concerning chemistry here other than you and who has also put the most time and effort to addressing your points.
Case in point:
Hoz_Turner said:Trippy, you are a shill who is most likely employed by the criminals to obfuscate the facts and produce deception.
>.< Don't remind me.
It doesn't take a top grade in Chemistry to show that Trippy is into deception and obfuscation. All it takes is to study the paper to sufficient length, look at sources and sift the facts from the disinfo.
No what I was doing was correcting a truther who resorts to lies in an attempt to support the absurd conspiracy.You wouldn't be trying to compare the Kader Toy factory collapse in Thailand or the McCormick Place warehouse style roof collapse in Chicago to the steel framed superstructure collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 would you?
Stryder said:It doesn't have anything to do with truth, polls never do. In fact with the correct Neural Linguistics any poll can be easily slid in favour of any singular result. This is proven many times with elections.
Please allow me to give an example so that Scott may understand.
Let's pretend I'm a pollster, and I ask you these questions:
"Do you support a Government program to help feed underprivileged children?"
and
"Do you support giving away your tax dollars to people who refuse to work?"
In both questions, I am asking about the same program. Welfare. Both of these statements are true. Welfare does, in fact help feed needy kids, and there are a certain percentage of people on welfare who are just leeching off the system. The wording is key. Most people would be inclined to answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second.
Don't you think that a lot of people don't understand the strutural engineeing aspects involved? I certainly do. Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that Richard Gage dishes out psychological BS- I think that Richard Gage and his site, 9/11 Architects and Engineers, has presented a fair amount of good evidence that supports the theory that the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were taken down via controlled demolitions.
Architects and Engineers like Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti and Gordon Ross have gone into great detail as to why the WTC buildings couldn't have come down via plane crashes and kerosene fires alone. From what I understand, Tony and Richard Gage certainly wouldn't mind having more data on the WTC buildings that collapsed, but even with the data already available, it's more than enough to make the case against gravitational collapses.
It seems that your largest objection is simply that their methods are not the simplest methods to do so. This may be so; perhaps Tony could put his 2 cents in on this one. However, I don't think that the methods that people like Tony, Richard Gage and Gordon Ross are -that- complicated; one simply has to study their logic for some time.
No what I was doing was correcting a truther who resorts to lies in an attempt to support the absurd conspiracy.
I have made no comparisons of the structures of the buildings but it demonstrates that fire can weaken steel structures and lead them to collapse. This is a critical point that needs to be made and understood yet many truthers dance around and try every trick in the book to avoid this happening.
LOL the newscaster even says he heard a huge explosion in your video there.
Pretty bad footage and little audio with WTC 7 in that video too.
Actually that video makes me think perhaps they did demo WTC 1 and 2 and I didn't even think that before! You could hear the explosions inside the building during that footage with the firemen.
Given the number of worldwide skyscraper fires over the years and the fact that none have completely collapsed to the ground due to fire, except for the three which did so on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC, what do you think the odds are of those three occurring on the same day and within a city block of each other?
I am just curious to see if you ever gave this a thought.