OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[nicepants]

Nicepants, you do a good job of avoiding questions. Do you want to have a real debate and find out what you're missing, or do you just like to waste our time?

I posted up links to diagrams showing the damaged core columns to WTC 7.

You mean this:

(IMG:http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h2.jpg)

Which columns, according to this image, were cut by the debris?

[nicepants]

HINT: Why don't you try the two links that I provided under the one that you just quoted? They've got plenty of footnotes if you can/will read to the bottom of both articles... You also might try reading Chapter 7 of the FEMA/ASCE report, since you are the one defending the OGCT here. Also, Google Earth has a distance tool by the way...

I'm asking for a distance. If you don't know it that's fine. I'm not doing your homework for you.

I didn't intentionally avoid the 2 questions below, though I will point out that not all of my questions have been answered either...

1. What exactly is your motivation in posting here in this forum? Financial? Ego? Assignment? ,Governmental? Reading your answers above, are you just an "NIST groupie?" [I personally don't find the government scientists that I've met and worked with all that attractive myself, but whatever displaces the water underneath your boat...]

My motivation, I guess, would be to clear up the waters. I've seen so many people here posting claims that have long ago been debunked or proven false. I think a lot of that misinformation needs to be cleared up.

2. If the "debunkers" are such qualified "critical thinkers," then why can't they test alternate hypotheses by examining all the available 9/11 evidence with an open mind and without the rhetorical sophistry and name calling? Call me strange, but I prefer to have additional evidence beyond that "supplied" by GWB/Rumsfeld/DoD, History Channel/Hearst Publications, James Randi, and one paper written by someone named Ryan Mackey. Those "official" FEMA/ASCE, NTSB/FBI, and NIST explanations have been shown to have some serious shortcomings- possibly if you did a little reading around here and less posting, you might find a few yourself.

If you are against name-calling, I suggest you mention that to Rob Balsamo, who feels the need to do that in almost every post. Also, it's not the job of any debunkers to test your alternate hypothesis. An overwhelming majority of evidence supports the OT.

But uh, have you got any links to blueprints, photos, engineering data to support your 47 story vs. 4 story speculations?

The size & strength of a building don't scale the same way. The taller a building gets, the lighter the materials must be so that it doesn't collapse under its own weight.
For example: The perimeter columns on WTC 1 & 2 were 14"
To scale the WTC down to a 4 story building would require perimeter columns of .5"

I see that you are still coming to a site organized by aviation professionals asking materials science and engineering questions. Would you go to a licensed plumber for brain surgery? WAIT- maybe I don't really want you to answer that question... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Yet these are the questions being discussed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any "neutral" physics professors that you recommend?

Not that you would take my suggestions, but:
Richard A. Muller - professor of physics at UC Berkeley

I would still advise you to simply visit with a physics professor at your local university or community college, lest you think the professor I recommended is some type of "shill".

[dMz]

""The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. You will find it a powerful ally." -- Obi Wan Kenobi

EDIT: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

This post has been edited by dMole: May 21 2008, 11:05 AM

[grizz]

nicepants:

An overwhelming majority of evidence supports the OT.

LOL! That's the funniest thing you have said so far.

Prove it, please.

[painter]

""The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. You will find it a powerful ally." -- Obi Wan Kenobi

EDIT: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

Yeah, I know. I don't detect any sincere questions about the OT emanating from nicepants. We could just ban his ass and may yet, especially given the "overwhelming majority of evidence supports the OT" comment. Yeah, I've been overwhelmed by the government's "evidence"! (NOT) We have buildings that fall at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, turning to powder along the way, and leaving molten metal beneath them, all due to gravity acting upon mass; we have disappearing airplanes that leave behind enough body parts for DNA testing in military laboratories; we have FDRs that give data that doesn't match observed damage, provided video, and eye-witness accounts; we have an FBI that isn't sure of the "hijacker" identities and says it has no hard evidence to tie the alleged 'master-mind' to the crime and we have an administration that is willing to lie us into wars but not very interested in finding the aforementioned 'master-mind'.

The truly unsettling thing is it is so OBVIOUS and yet the whole subject and all the details remain "unmentionable" in the corporate owned press and media. (Probably due to the whole thing being shielded by 'national security' designations.) Meanwhile the perps get away with it and make their plans for what is going to happen next. Meanwhile ass hats like 'nicepants' waste our time repeating already established facts as if he/she hasn't heard them all before or as if they have no merit worthy of consideration. Ho hum.

Tell me something, nicepants, are you an agent or just an ignorant troll who has nothing better to do? What is in this for you, anyway? I'd really like to know. Do you actually believe that living under a technological despotism barely masquerading as a Constitutional Republic is going to secure your rights, safety and happiness? Do you really think it is 'ok' for governments to lie to their people, especially about a crime of this magnitude, and do all the things this government is doing to ignore and obfuscate undeniable facts? Just curious. Be cause to me a government like that can't be trusted to do anything but what it has already done and worse. A government like that has broken the most essential pact between them and the governed, has shown itself to be essentially immoral and no longer derives its just powers from my consent.

Just sayn'. What's in this for you?

[nicepants]

Here are some additional photos of how structures fall in reality:

(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/Tino/b1.jpg)
(IMG:http://procision-auto.com/Tino/b2.jpg)

Was this building steel-framed? 40+ stories?

Remember that size & strength of a structure don't scale the same way.

[nicepants]

Oh my...How did I miss that statement!?

What evidence do you have if you're asking which columns were cut, the distance from the towers, the weight
of the steel assemblies?

What are you basing your belief from if you are asking US questions about WTC 7?

There is no evidenece to support the OT. NOTHING.

NO evidence in the 10,000+ pages of the NIST report?

Photos of fires in the buildings aren't evidence?

Physical debris recovered from GZ is not evidence?

[nicepants]

None of the core columns - that's the problem!

Reference (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

The only reported damage as assessed by photos from FEMA and NIST were perimeter
columns and 'possible' damage to core columns 69, 72, 75.

So, carry on with our debate then.

(it's going to be interesting how you explain the debris reaching the inner core columns due to
gravity and make the Penthouse fall...or was that the "fire" that cut the columns? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bullshit.gif) )

P.S. Fellow troofers, is this government story getting way out there yet? YET?! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

Who said that anything "cut" the columns?
NIST, and the FDNY, believe that the damage & subsequent fire weakened the structure to the point that it could no longer support itself.

[nicepants]

I don't know how old you are, or if you have a grasp on physics and reality, but for the BILLIIONTH TIME

FIRE CANNOT WEAKEN STRUCTURAL STEEL!!!!


Do you understand this, or not?!

It is physically, and scientifically impossible.

Even FEMA states this in their report.

This is why NIST does not have a conclusive report.

Whatever you are bringing to this debate has no sceintific foundation. It has no credibilty.

There are no written documents, scienctific facts, or historical events to support YOUR claim.

Source for your claim that fire cannot weaken structural steel?
Where is this stated in the FEMA report?
If fire cannot weaken structural steel, why is it fireproofed?

[dMz]

CHARLIE MURPHY!!!!

[nicepants]

Are you F...kidding me?

I'm not here to teach basics of thermal properties, or do your research for you. This is a debate between
you and I...not MYSELF and ME.

Why don't you get smart and educate yourself instead of believing some garbage.

Go to some science sites. Look up the properties of steel. Look up the certifications for steel used in
buildings.

Check out the energy released by different hydrocarbons.

GET INFORMED.

Don't ask us to help you with the basics...it makes you look very weak in a debate.

Your claim: "Fire cannot weaken structural steel". So far you have provided ZERO sources to support your claim. It's YOUR claim, and as such it is YOUR responsibility to support it.

I have already referenced the report, you just don't care to look.

I have seen nothing in the report stating that fire cannot weaken structural steel. Where in the report did you supposedly see this?

Whether it's fireproofed, or not the fires in WTC 7 were not hot enough. Period.

Why don't you tell us about the fireproofing used in WTC 7?

What thermal properties does it have?

Was it dislodged? If so, how?

If not, then more against the OT.

Why don't you take a few weeks and study up before entering into a debate?

Don't attack me because you cannot support your claims.
You still have not answered my question:

If structural steel cannot be weakened by fire, why is it fireproofed?

[Roark]

FIRE CANNOT WEAKEN STRUCTURAL STEEL!!!!

What happened to the strucutral steel in this building then?

(IMG:http://inlinethumb01.webshots.com/43328/1058236127037315063S425x425Q85.jpg)

[Roark]

or this?

(IMG:http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/02sep/images/05i65bridge1.jpg)

[rob balsamo]

looks like nicepanties called in reinforcements...lol

Welcome to the forum "Roarke". Please review the forum rules thoroughly. It would be nice to know your govt loyalist userID, but i understand why you may not want to use it here.

[Roark]

How about this?

(IMG:http://lh3.google.com/Matthias.Krueger/R9v_JyEgjRI/AAAAAAAABZc/CejceCtBWO4/s400/bruecke2.JPG)

[grizz]

Funny how this thread has turned into an example of what the original poster asked about. Thanks nicepants!

[Roark]

That depends.

What is this photo? Where is it from? Tell us something about the picture.

Why, it is clearly a building that has collapd because of a fire. According to you, that could never happen

Is that structural steel that you see all bent up?

Yes

Here is another view. Note that the H-beam columns have failed.

(IMG:http://inlinethumb25.webshots.com/40792/1058236130037315063S425x425Q85.jpg)

It looks like spaghetti and nothing that is worthy
of load bearing strength.

Your opinion means nothing.

Look at the solid straight rigid beam running horizontally. That piece looks like a rated beam
for structural support.

Why is that not bent like that tin looking stuff?

Heat rises. Why did the perimeter columns fall over?

This post has been edited by Roark: May 21 2008, 02:17 PM

[Roark]

This fire killed nine firefighters in Charelston SC, last year

(IMG:http://media.charleston.net/img/photos/2007/06/18/sofa_store_fire-1_t600.jpg)

(IMG:http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_charleston_fire10_070619_ssh.jpg)

Note the sagging steel inside the structure.

What was burning so hot to weaken the structural steel? Sofas.

[grizz]

Show us a picture of that building before it was on fire. To me, it looks like the perimeter columns were already curved, in order to form a roof. Their curves are all the same. What was the nature of the fire?

[Roark]

Are you forgetting about the strucutral steel portion of the Windsor tower that collapsed in a fire?

(IMG:http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/madrid_remains.jpg)