As you can see in the footage the building falls in a uniform manner at nigh on freefall speed,there is no resistance at all from 100,000 tons of steel.
If the columns had failed at different times then the building wouldn't collapse in that way.
Do you think fire alone brought it down Sparkmaster?

Is that an answer to my question?

If it's true they put in 81 support columns I imagine they thought it required 81 support columns. Assuming a margin for error, I would have thought that collapse would occur once a sufficient number had been weakened. The idea that all 81 would need to fail at the same time seems ridiculous to me. Of course, I'm not expert, but I suspect you aren't either. The actual experts don't seem that troubled by it though.

From the little I've read I understand fire and associated damage has been blamed. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

LT.
I've had a look at that list of 1200+ Architects and Structural Engineers. I suggest you have a closer look at it as well including their qualifications. Very few of them are "experts in this field" as you say. There is more than 1 type of Architect and Engineer. Do you think someone who designs parts for cars would be able to design an expansion bridge?

sparkmaster. Joined: 07 Aug 01
Replies: 9713 07 Aug 10 22:43   


Which basic laws of physics are these?

Erm, Newton's laws. Surely you understand the principles of gravity etc?


If only 1200 people claming to be experts on architecture and structural engineering challenge a given 'official' scientific explanation, it's pretty certain to be correct IMO.

Why would so many of these people be opposed to the official explanations?
Perhaps they are just attention seekers?
Or maybe trying to make a buck somewhere along the line?
Not a likely reason to ask for a re-investigation really.

How much thermite are we talking?

An estimated 10 tons.

It's like watching a dog chase its tail.

*sigh*

Canary, no-one will ever change their opinion. It's all an utter waste of time and quite sad, imo.

i've changed my opinion on things before imo

does that even make sense

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

LF

Which of Newton's Laws?

Why would so many of these people be opposed to the official explanations?
It's a remarkably small number of people. I wouldn't like to pass judgement on them.

Perhaps they are just attention seekers?
Perhaps.

Or maybe trying to make a buck somewhere along the line?
Not a likely reason to ask for a re-investigation really.
Well it was your idea

How much thermite are we talking?
An estimated 10 tons.

Is that a lot? Why do you think there was that much?

Sparky

So,when 78 "witnesses" see a plane hit the pentagon,that is enough "evidence" is it?
Yet,when 1200+ say that WTC7 was brought down by controlled explosion,then it's "only 1200+" which makes it clear that the official version is true.

So 78 is enough when it suits you and 1200 isn't when it suits you?

Misspoker Joined: 14 Nov 04
Replies: 1734 05 Aug 10 22:40 
Icabod you never answered me, You asked how 15 peole could pull off the attacks, 5 Hijackers board 3 planes and crash them into the twin towers and the pentagon. Believeable?


You'd deffo have to go higher than that Brucie

This is the MissP's estimate for the total number of people involved - not just the number who physically carried out the attacks, but who were "in" on it.

Misspoker Joined: 14 Nov 04
Replies: 1734 05 Aug 10 21:47 
11 hijackers + 1 mastermind, =12
Hmmm 15 is a bit to high, preposterous indeed

Hellisio
I don't think a 757 passenger jet flew into the front door of the Pentagon.
That's all I'm saying.

As I stated ealiar, why send a missle into the Pentagon and claim it was a passenger plane, but go to the trouble of sending 2 planes into the twin towers?

why send a missle into the Pentagon and claim it was a passenger plane, but go to the trouble of sending 2 planes into the twin towers?

Because if you use a missile, you can then plant 80+ people to say they saw a plane, dozens more to plant lots of plane debris and knock down lightpoles and do it all before the emergency services show (unless they're in on it too), more to say they gathered humain remains and more to identify these remains through DNA matching, more to actually dispose of the passengers (what did they really do with them, huh?), get air traffic controllers to produce a fake radar track for the plane, get someone to fake the  planted flight recorder data and so.

It's a great plan. Much better than simply flying the plane in to the building.

I asked if it could be done with about 15 people, I was laughed at.
Then I pointed out the version they believed took 19

Think about that comparison.

S L O W L Y ...

Collapse.^

I'm not an expert, but I do understand the basic laws of physics.
I also understand that architects and structural engineers are experts in this field.
The fact that 1200+ of them say that it has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition,


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have examined and rejected the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories


The major elements of the theory have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship,[21] where its proponents are considered "outsiders".[6] The magazine Popular Mechanics challenged the theories in the special report "Debunking the 9/11 Myths".[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories


Are all these people in on the conspiracy as well?





and  my own viewing of the available video footage and associated photographic evidence
suggests that is the correct conclusion to me.
Not to mention the fact that vast quantities of thermite were found in the dust in the immediate vicinity.


NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives. It concluded that a blast event did not occur and that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[53] The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, even though it would have been audible at a level of at least 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. The theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 1627 08 Aug 10 09:31   


Sparky

So,when 78 "witnesses" see a plane hit the pentagon,that is enough "evidence" is it?
Yet,when 1200+ say that WTC7 was brought down by controlled explosion,then it's "only 1200+" which makes it clear that the official version is true.

So 78 is enough when it suits you and 1200 isn't when it suits you?




Do you know how many architects there are in the world? What about all the other hundreds of thousands of experts that don't have a problem with it? You said earlier that 80+ witnesses were not many compared to the thousands that you say should have seen the plane. You are not being consistent are you.

Misspoker Joined: 14 Nov 04
Replies: 1738 08 Aug 10 15:29 
JOMO my point was earlier in the thread it was said thousands would have to be "in" on it if it was a conspiracy.
I asked if it could be done with about 15 people, I was laughed at.
Then I pointed out the version they believed took 19.


Miss, I would be the first to admit I'm usually 99 pfennigs short of the mark, but my tiny mind can't cope with your wavering point. You're trying to point out how few people need to be "in" on the whole 9/11 broo ha ha, yes? Now, by "in", I am presuming we're considering the number of persons who had knowledge this shyte was going down? (Pardon the pun). Those that believe it took 19 are believing I think that it took 19 persons to physically carry our the work, not that 19 people in the entire world knew it was going to happen. Yet your 11+1 post seems to suggest that it's possible only 12 people in the entire world need known about the events? Could you possibly repeat/amplify/clarify???