• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thinking about 9/11

gerrycan said:
You went from "did the calculations" to "responsible for" very quickly eh.
Answer the above question please.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go further down your rabbit hole gerrycan.

Robertson stamped the drawings. He said they didn't account for fire in their analysis. There were no explosives/thermite found on the site. Fire and plane impact damage are what caused the collapses.
 
gamolon said:
I'm not going to go further down your rabbit hole gerrycan.

Robertson stamped the drawings. He said they didn't account for fire in their analysis. There were no explosives/thermite found on the site. Fire and plane impact damage are what caused the collapses.
Click to expand...

Robertson stamped the drawings, so it must have been fire - right. :shock:
 
gerrycan said:
Robertson stamped the drawings, so it must have been fire - right. :shock:
Click to expand...

You always seem to forget the two large planes. If it was not impact and fires then what was it?
 
Gamolon - you ever worked near ARUP ? Just out of interest.
 
ozeco41 said:
Mmm.. Interesting analogy - and even that one depends on subject and context. Which word is the noun?

Then 20190516 or 16052019 are descending or ascending sequences in true set taxonomic hierarchy. 05162019 is a mixed hierarchy.

..and don't miss the key point - I was admitting that I'm a slow learner.

Do you know that rigorous surveys of the Australian male population have shown that half of us are below average intelligence?
Click to expand...

Are half of you above average intelligence? That would be quite the coincidence
 
So. We done with the CV talk yet ? :2wave:

I don't mind either way.


ADD went all quiet here suddenly Gamolon. cat got your tongue ?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Robertson stamped the drawings, so it must have been fire - right. :shock:
Click to expand...

Gerrycan,

As you have been told many times before, I believe fire and plane impacts/damage are what brought down the towers. Not just "fires" as you try to insinuate I believe in your post above. The fact that you continue to imply I believe only fire caused the collapses in the towers after being told numerous times exaclty WHAT I believe makes you a liar.

The bottom line is fire and plane damage have been verified at the site. That makes them the leading cause of the collpases no matter what the exact nature of HOW the fire and plane impact damage caused/initiated the collapses. NIST's research is a best guess scenario based on their studies of a VERY complicated scenario. We will probably NEVER know the exact happeneings inside the building. If NIST are wrong in any capcaity, that doesn't take away from the fact that fire and plane damage were the only things present that could cause the collapses. There is no proof of thermite, nukes, holograms, coneventional explosives, or beam weapons used to bring these towers down. That being said, there is no reason to continue down your detail oriented, "gerrycan knows more than anyone" rabbit hole to try and prove controlled demolition because there is no evidence of it and your posts are your attempts to find proof of controlled demoltion in any capacity. That's like finding a knife at a murder scene with the body having knife wounds, but you starting with a theory that it was a gun that killed the person and look to find characteristics showing it was a gun, even though no gun was ever found or the wounds were caused by a knife. Pure idiocy.

You can continue to stroke your ego and play your "I'm more knowledable than everyone when it comes to blueprints and contstruction knowledge" games all you want. I'm not going to be involved in discussion with you that much anymore because it's leading nowhere. Your posts and information will NEVER lead to proof of controlled demoltion that you so deperately want them to. I'm not going to convince you it was fire and plane damage and you're not going to convince me it wasn't.

Again, I'm dealing with basic facts. Fire and plane damage have been verified. Nothing else has. Those two things are the leading causes right now and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Have a good day.
 
Last edited:
gamolon said:
Gerrycan,

As you have been told many times before, I believe fire and plane impacts/damage are what brought down the towers. Not just "fires" as you try to insinuate I believe in your post above. The fact that you continue to imply I believe only fire caused the collapses in the towers after being told numerous times exaclty WHAT I believe makes you a liar.

The bottom line is fire and plane damage have been verified at the site. That makes them the leading cause of the collpases no matter what the exact nature of HOW the fire and plane impact damage caused/initiated the collapses. NIST's research is a best guess scenario based on their studies of a VERY complicated scenario. We will probably NEVER know the exact happeneings inside the building. If NIST are wrong in any capcaity, that doesn't take away from the fact that fire and plane damage were the only things present that could cause the collapses. There is no proof of thermite, nukes, holograms, coneventional explosives, or beam weapons used to bring these towers down. That being said, there is no reason to continue down your detail oriented, "gerrycan knows more than anyone" rabbit hole to try and prove controlled demolition because there is no evidence of it and your posts are your attempts to find proof of controlled demoltion in any capacity. That's like finding a knife at a murder scene with the body having knife wounds, put you starting with a theory that it was a gun that killed the person and look to find characteristics showing it was a gun, even though no gun was ever found or the wounds were caused by a knife. Pure idiocy.

You can continue to stroke your ego and play your "I'm more knowledable than everyone when it comes to blueprints and contstruction knowledge" games all you want. I'm not going to be involved in discussion with you that much anymore because it's leading nowhere. Your posts and information will NEVER lead to proof of controlled demoltion that you so deperately want them to. I'm not going to convince you it was fire and plane damage and you're not going to convince me it wasn't.

Again, I'm dealing with basic facts. Fire and plane damage have been verified. Nothing else has. Those two things are the leading causes right now and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Have a good day.
Click to expand...

That says it all.
 
gamolon said:
I'm not going to be involved in discussion with you that much anymore because it's leading nowhere.
Click to expand...

It certainly led somewhere today when you decided to play the man instead of the ball didn't it.

Bye Gamolon.
:lamo
 
zyzygy said:
That says it all.
Click to expand...

gerrycan will be here or in other forums for many years to come trying to find the nonexistent proof of controlled demoltion.
 
gamolon said:
gerrycan will be here or in other forums for many years to come trying to find the nonexistent proof of controlled demoltion.
Click to expand...

The CD that he has stated that he doesn't believe.
 
gamolon said:
gerrycan will be here or in other forums for many years to come trying to find the nonexistent proof of controlled demoltion.
Click to expand...

Don't worry Gamelon, this won't take as long as WTC7 did.

2 years you argued about shear studs on a girder and were proven wrong, and that hurt you badly because you'd went right out on a limb.

You came back here to try to avenge that total humiliation that you were slapped with, and you failed again. then you came back with an attitude, and i told you not to play the man, but play the ball. You didn't and it backfired on you big time. Try it again, play the man again and see how you get on lad.
 
gerrycan said:
Don't worry Gamelon, this won't take as long as WTC7 did.

2 years you argued about shear studs on a girder and were proven wrong, and that hurt you badly because you'd went right out on a limb.

You came back here to try to avenge that total humiliation that you were slapped with, and you failed again. then you came back with an attitude, and i told you not to play the man, but play the ball. You didn't and it backfired on you big time. Try it again, play the man again and see how you get on lad.
Click to expand...

Your delusions are amusing.
 
rjay said:
Are half of you above average intelligence? That would be quite the coincidence
Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance really has nothing to do with intelligence IMO.

In real life, some of the smartest and most intelligent people I know simply cannot face the truth when it's ugly.
 
gerrycan said:
No problem chump.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem noted. Please grow up and stop playing silly games.

John Skilling died in 1998, After the 1993 bombing he was interviewed about the structures and their ability to resist collapse due to bombs. He stated then that he had no doubt that well placed cutter charges would bring it down.
Click to expand...

So what? This proves absolutely nothing in relation to 9/11, but you should already know that.
 
Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

"For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
The findings by the institute, however, still do not exonerate Mr. Robertson or the building's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which, in defending the trade center project from critics in the 1960s, boasted that the design was so robust that the towers could be hit by a jet traveling at 600 miles per hour without collapsing or endangering the lives of occupants beyond the impact zone. In retrospect, such a claim was unjustified because the engineers had failed to consider the added stresses caused by the resulting fires."

Debunked: WTC Towers Fell in Their Own Footprints | Page 3 | Metabunk
 
Wayback Machine
From a 2003 Newsweek article
by Katherine Stroup

"The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707—the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project—and Robertson says it could have survived even the larger 767s that crashed into the towers on Tuesday morning. But the thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel finally brought down the noble structures. “As the fire raged it got hotter and hotter and the steel got weaker and weaker,” he says, adding that building a skyscraper able to handle such a blaze would not have been viable, financially and functionally. “You could always prepare for more and more extreme events, but there has to be a risk analysis of what’s reasonable.”
Debunked: WTC Towers Fell in Their Own Footprints | Page 3 | Metabunk
 
Good4Nothin said:
Problems, with that theory:

1. They probably didn't need 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq. No one thought Iraq had caused 9/11. The actual excuse was WMD, which resulted from incorrect intelligence, which everyone (including Democrats) believed.

2. There was no need for the airplane show. They could just have planted the explosives and said it had been done by terrorists.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
That's what I always thought as well.

I wonder what the conspiracy fans say to that.
 
Rumpel said:
Exactly!
That's what I always thought as well.

I wonder what the conspiracy fans say to that.
Click to expand...

I will say that many more things were accomplished by the events of 911 than the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Care to discuss?
 
Rumpel said:
For instance?
Click to expand...

For instance the anonymous clearing of certain US securities that matured the next day. That, after the SEC invoked, for the first time ever, Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act. That allowed an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared on 12 September without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

The covert securities were a part of Project Hammer from the 1980s, which was part of how Boris Yeltsin was installed in Russia.

This was all explored by E.P. Heidner in an article in June 2008, and work by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf
 
Thoreau72 said:
For instance the anonymous clearing of certain US securities that matured the next day. That, after the SEC invoked, for the first time ever, Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act. That allowed an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared on 12 September without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

The covert securities were a part of Project Hammer from the 1980s, which was part of how Boris Yeltsin was installed in Russia.

This was all explored by E.P. Heidner in an article in June 2008, and work by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf
Click to expand...

Opinion piece devoid of facts and in no way explains why the plane ruse was needed

Another fail from our resident "flight instructor" who still hasn't figured out what ground effect is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom