Page 127 of 127 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127
Results 1,261 to 1,267 of 1267

Thread: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

  1. #1261
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,117

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBig2430 View Post
    1- who would these ‘other engineers’ be?

    2- how are you qualified to decide this?
    What evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job?
    What are your qualifications to decide SanderO is wrong.

    Besides SanderO has made in clear what is quals are and what he posts is his opinion. An opinion based on his research and knowledge.

    You may want to read through the thread.
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  2. #1262
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    23,607

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    But you did not respond to the question.

    Does terrorism exist... as a tactic of non state actors against a powerful state?

    If you answer that terrorism exists... can you name some terrorist incidents?

    Bombing of the King David Hotel? yes or no?
    Charlie Hebdo attacks? yes or no?
    1993 WTC bombing? yes or no?
    Attack at the Berlin Olympics? yes or no?
    Attack of the Cole? yes or no?

    =https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain - terrorist attacks or false flags>=? yes or no?

    What is the main tactic of guerrilla warfare?

    "Over the centuries the practitioners of guerrilla warfare have been called rebels, irregulars, insurgents, partisans, and mercenaries. Frustrated military commanders have consistently damned them as barbarians, savages, terrorists, brigands, outlaws, and bandits."

    Why are guerrillas called terrorists?
    Stupid questions deserve no answer Geoffrey. You are a credulous, if good-hearted, person.

  3. #1263
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,334

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    The OOS flooring was supported by a heft belt girder which was cantilevered off the perimeter core columns. The OOS floor loads (trusses) were transferred to the girder and the girder in turn transferred those loads to the 24 perimeter core columns. Clearly the belt girders would fail if they columns which supported them failed.... And that's what happened and led to the floor slabs having no core side support so the caved inward toward to core.. and this became the ROOSD mass. The square donut floors could not be supported simply by the facade columns. If that were the case.. no core columns would be needed except to create elevator shafts.
    I get that, but I'm wondering how gerrycan is able to determine that the 4 corner core columns, 501, 508, 1001, 1008 and possible adjacent columns did NOT fail per the last sentence in his post below (in red). He posted a video showing a zoomed in view of the north face perimeter facade as it failed as supporting evidence. How does that video support his claim?
    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    The core failed in the areas shaded red below. Perhaps a slightly smaller area.
    Attachment 67250509

    You can see evidence of this in the antenna movement coupled with observation of the North face at initiation, where the destruction does not extend to the corner 2 way zones......

    YouTube

    The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.
    Below are where the four perimeter core columns are located (circled in red). The zoomed facade area in the video is in the green box.
    WTC_COLUMN_LAYOUT.jpg

  4. #1264
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    What evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job?
    Lmao. You’re not too bright, are you?

    Sander claims that ‘other engineers ‘ have put forth an explanation that is better than NIST’s regarding the towers.

    I’m not aware of This. Other explanations have been put forth for 7. By engineers.

    Btw, 9/11 wasn’t an inside job

    But sander is an idiot.

    What are your qualifications to decide SanderO is wrong.
    He’s nearly always wrong. He’s the Stundie of debunkers.

    Besides SanderO has made in clear what is quals are and what he posts is his opinion. An opinion based on his research and knowledge.

    You may want to read through the thread.
    He also freely posts that he’s never read any NIST report cuz he doesn’t have the mental capacity. He freely admits that he has no firm grasp on what they say cuz he hasn’t studied them.

    He has ‘some’ qualifications, agreed. But he also displays an arrogance about his opinions that I find hard to keep quiet about. Especially when he demonstrates his lack of hnowledge.

    A classic case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome

  5. #1265
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,117

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBig2430 View Post
    Lmao. You’re not too bright, are you?

    Sander claims that ‘other engineers ‘ have put forth an explanation that is better than NIST’s regarding the towers.

    I’m not aware of This. Other explanations have been put forth for 7. By engineers.

    Btw, 9/11 wasn’t an inside job

    But sander is an idiot.



    He’s nearly always wrong. He’s the Stundie of debunkers.



    He also freely posts that he’s never read any NIST report cuz he doesn’t have the mental capacity. He freely admits that he has no firm grasp on what they say cuz he hasn’t studied them.

    He has ‘some’ qualifications, agreed. But he also displays an arrogance about his opinions that I find hard to keep quiet about. Especially when he demonstrates his lack of hnowledge.

    A classic case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome
    One. Why the name calling?
    Two. SanderO has his explanation based on much of the evidence found by the investigation done by various govt. organizations.
    Three. Even NIST states there conclusions is what they came up with as most probable. Even NIST does not say with 100% that the failure occurred they way its reported.
    Four. I have stated many times that no one can no the exact damage done by the crash into the towers. Nor can anyone know exactly how the fires spread in WTC1,2,7.
    Why, no one was inside who lived to witness the damage.

    NIST did the best it could under the time frame they had. I do accept they were correct that it was the crash damage/resulting fires that took WTC1,2 down. The exact sequence of failure may never be known.

    FYI: you did not really provide answers to my questions.
    "He’s nearly always wrong. He’s the Stundie of debunkers." Does not state or prove YOUR qualification. All we know is your a DP poster.

    Just out of curiosity what do you think of gerrycan and Thoreau72 qualifications and posts?
    "
    If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine
    -barksdale
    "

  6. #1266
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,334

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBig2430 View Post
    Sander claims that ‘other engineers ‘ have put forth an explanation that is better than NIST’s regarding the towers.

    I’m not aware of This. Other explanations have been put forth for 7. By engineers.
    Maybe engineers at the forum mentioned below? Not sure to whom he is referring though.
    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    For the towers the ROOSD explanation presented at the 911 Free Forum is a much better fit for the collapse phase.

  7. #1267
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,663

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBig2430 View Post
    Lmao. You’re not too bright, are you?

    Sander claims that ‘other engineers ‘ have put forth an explanation that is better than NIST’s regarding the towers.

    I’m not aware of This. Other explanations have been put forth for 7. By engineers.

    Btw, 9/11 wasn’t an inside job

    But sander is an idiot.

    He’s nearly always wrong. He’s the Stundie of debunkers.

    He also freely posts that he’s never read any NIST report cuz he doesn’t have the mental capacity. He freely admits that he has no firm grasp on what they say cuz he hasn’t studied them.

    He has ‘some’ qualifications, agreed. But he also displays an arrogance about his opinions that I find hard to keep quiet about. Especially when he demonstrates his lack of hnowledge.

    A classic case of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome
    Mr Big(shot)

    I have read a lot of the NIST reports.. I have not studied them in detail nor committed them to memory. I am well aware of the contents.

    I am not defending NIST's work. They can defend their own work.

    I am not a debunker either. I may point out that a statement made is incorrect or unsubstantiated or complete speculation.

    I am an architect since I graduated in 1971. I worked for the architects of the WTC as my first job. I don't work in steel framed high rises. My understanding of structure is not unlike most architects. We employ or work with engineers who engineer the project.

    Any presentation which requires extensive engineering calculations I do not examine.

    My own explanations which are educated guesses and not offered as proofs of what happened are all derived from some basic concepts:

    Structural failures which involve the total disintegration of the building/structure are ALWAYS progressive in nature, unless a huge bomb explodes the axial support at the base.

    As structural failures progress the remaining structure will carry the loads of the failed elements. This is possible as structural elements have a factor of safety and can carry loads exceeding their design load in the range of 50% excess (this is a variable).

    Heat will cause loss of capacity and will also expand steel elements

    Connections are prone to incremental failure

    Any explanation must consider or match the observed motion (all observations)

    Any explanation must consider the structural design and its attributes.

    If you don't like what I present... fine. Present your own explanations. "inside job" is not an explanation . CD is not an explanation. False flag is not an explanation.
    Nothing is as it appears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •