Food for Thought: WTC Was Designed to Withstand Direct Impact from a 707 (vid)

[achilles28]

Quote from Grob109:

Having good quality assurance is tough to achieve and maintain.

The buildings were coming down and were down and still their were measures of combustion being generated.

The fires caused the Towers to fail. And the Towers failed because of the fires.

Thanks for clearing that up.


While you're at it, maybe you can explain why WTC7 fell at the speed of gravity? After having only experienced minimal fire damage?

And how did pools of molten steel witnessed at ground zero get there?


Please. Enlighten us.

Quote from Grob109:

At some point you will actually get close to understanding what it is like to figure out how to collect information and data and do some critical analysis.

Like when you refuse to address (or even read) the 'critical analysis' of 'collected information' completed by the NIST investigative team?

Is that what you mean by "thorough analysis"?

You're just loitering around the periphery, big man.

Quote from Grob109:

There are people who look for stuff and read it. There are other people who get the job done.

There are also people who fit 'facts' around a forgone conclusion because they think they know better

Quote from Grob109:

There is no way that you will ever have the capability to move from one group to the other.

There is also no way you could speak with such authority concerning a strangers ability, unless you were full of it.

Which evidently, you are.

Quote from Grob109:

There are some people who have been on the firing line doing the walk year after year.

Like the engineers who wrote the NIST collapse report - whose findings completely contradict your baseless assertions?

I forgot. They don't count.

Because that some 20 person team effort, spanning 2.5+ years - pouring over blueprints, building models (real and simulated) and doing tests - can't hold a candle to the what? Oh right! To the ZERO HOURS you've invested in comparative research.


Anyone ever tell you you suffer from delusions of grandeur?

Quote from Grob109:

I had a Col adj of the USMC out of Annapolis once at EOP. His name for you would begin with P. He would lean into my ear until he saw the signal to say the word P.

I had a pet badger once whose name was.... lets just call him Peter. He used to chatter sweet nothings into my ear when it was time for his snack.

AND THEN....

Quote from Grob109:

Bronk is explaining to you the sweat and tears of the situation from a command and control viewpoint.

And Frank DeMartini explained to us the Towers resilience from a 'command and control' viewpoint.

The difference? Frank actually built the Towers.

You and Bronks had nothing to do with it.

Quote from Grob109:

some smart guys fucked a lot of people by figuring out how to make a point with some pertinent symbols.

Superb.

The WTC engineers were evidently clueless. Because we "all know" what happened to those buildings.

And what shred of hard evidence can you bring to the table to prove this, besides your wandering flirtations with Col Klink?

Quote from Grob109:

I do not expect you to understand much of anything and don't worry about it.

I'm not worried.

The WTC engineers and NIST investigative team know faaaaar more about the construction of those Towers then you (or bronks) ever will.

They are the authority in the matter.

Not you.


And their conclusions (and curve fitting) fly in the face of every baseless theory you've advanced thus far.

 

[bronks]

Quote from achilles28:

The WTC engineers and NIST investigative team know faaaaar more about the construction of those Towers then you (or bronks) ever will.

They are the authority in the matter.

Not you.


And their conclusions (and curve fitting) fly in the face of every baseless theory you've advanced thus far.

Straight from the NIST's mouth:

--->The final report is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [77] In draft copies of that document, NIST states that they have "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

I know more about the actual construction of those towers than you think, and by Jacks statements, so does he.

 

[TheConMan]

There is always that hard core bottom 30% in every poll. Always a poll will never go above the high 70%. It is because of people like Bronks. As for Grob, he knows exactly who and what is behind this. As much as he may dislike what happened, his views are aligned with the views and goals of those involved. He is here to muddy up the waters. This makes sense if he is part of the elite and enjoying the full privileges of his position.

 

[Bitstream]

sooooo... can some1 give us a plausable explanation as of why almost all of da hijackers turned out to be alive'n'well?

could it be possible that those who turn up to be alive share same name, date of birth and address of da supposed hijackers and have nothin' to do with it?
is it just a...coincidence??


hmmm..somethin' ain't right here..

 

[steveosborne]

Very nice picture of a 707.
<img src="attachment.php?s=&amp;postid=1026089">

 

[Haroki]

The world according to a conspiracy nut :

1- I hate Bush because he won the 2000 election.
2- I hate Bush because he used 9/11 to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, against my wishes.
3- I hate Bush because he won the 2004 election.

4- Therefore, Bush and/or the new world order guys must have had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy, and no other explaination is acceptable. In order to continue in my little comfort zone, hating Bush along with all my other nut case friends, we will 'curve fit' any evidence we find to suit our needs.

To be so rigid in your thinking shows that you need some 'therapy'.....

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from Haroki:

The world according to a conspiracy nut :

1- I hate Bush because he won the 2000 election.
2- I hate Bush because he used 9/11 to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, against my wishes.
3- I hate Bush because he won the 2004 election.

4- Therefore, Bush and/or the new world order guys must have had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy, and no other explaination is acceptable. In order to continue in my little comfort zone, hating Bush along with all my other nut case friends, we will 'curve fit' any evidence we find to suit our needs.

To be so rigid in your thinking shows that you need some 'therapy'.....

People don't fight against what they hate. They fight for what they love.

Regardless, you can check my post history and you won't find any of my posts either for or against Bush even though there is plenty of opportunity to express views about that here in chit chat.

If what you say is true, then Z10 would be here in this thread leading the way. But he's not even in this thread.

Your argument rings hollow, and uh, won't fly.

JohnnyK

 

[AMT4SWA]

Well at least this country did the honorable thing with WTC debris and sold a good share of it to our great friends-------

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

I am glad to also see that it was loaded on ships with armed guards prior to any complete independent investigations. Well, we could always just send out the Fox News network to China and they will let us re-examine the debris there----------oh wait, it is all gone now--------how convenient.

 

[JohnnyK]

Grob911 argued well.

He asked us if there was an impact.

He asked us if the buildings fell down.

He told us that "Bronk" told us that people built the towers.

He told us two buildings collapsed.

He told us three buildings collapsed.

He told us he had some conversations.

He didn't tell us who these voices were.

He told us he's been paid before by government agencies.

He told us the "White House" survived because of the degree of control exercised.

He told us "opportunity and motive are present".

He told us to "determine what records to find" and to look at them "to determine if the event planners gave proper instructions to the implimentors."

He told us flight 93 was "disabled" at an altitude that provided for it's contents to be spread over 7 miles.

He told us that the way the towers came down was the same way that professionals "pull" them down when he said, "The imploding was a succession of orderly bending and putting lateral tension on perimeter connectors".

JohnnyK

 

[achilles28]

Quote from bronks:

Straight from the NIST's mouth:

--->The final report is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [77] In draft copies of that document, NIST states that they have "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

Thats right. Because there was barely any hard evidence for them to 'see' to begin with.

The vast preponderance of WTC debris was recycled and.or exported in double quick time.

If you want to start quoting reports, take a look at the FEMA WTC7 Collapse study. They concluded with a big question mark:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. "

So much for the 'raging inferno' theory.

Quote from bronks:

I know more about the actual construction of those towers than you think, and by Jacks statements, so does he.

WHOOOSH!!