response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Coito ergo sum]

The towers were designed for plane impacts.

"Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion. -- Robert Vecchio, metallurgical engineer, Lucius Pitkin, Inc.
"...it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall." - Jon Magnusson, Chairman and CEO of Skilling, Ward, Magusson, Barkshire, Inc., successor firm to Skilling Ward Christianson Robertson, structural engineers who participated in the construction of the towers. He said that when the stability was lost, exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto the floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down.

Those quotes are misleading. The designers specifically state the towers were designed to take a plane crash or two

Sure, the design specifications were developed to assume the possibility of a 707 or a DC8 hitting the towers, but the designers didn't ever suggest that the towers were impervious to airplanes and would never collapse as a result of catastrophic impacts. Those same engineers are not on your side of the present issue, by the way. So, if you believe them about their design specifications, why don't you believe them about why the towers fell?

[colubridae]

The towers were designed for plane impacts.

Is your point that design to avoid something guarantees it will not happen?


The tacoma narrows bridge was desigend to survive high winds. But it didn't.

[Galaxian]

I keep hoping for a serious discussion

If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.

Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern!

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

I can accept that. I have no axe to grind, & no converts to win. Far as I'm concerned the planet can go to hell in a handbag.
Speaking of converts: You asked whether the congregation believes you've won points, or I have. OK, ask the world population whether God (the conventional one) exists. Take a poll & base your atheism on that. You'd be taking mass in no time.
Observe the post by 'Tigger'. The sober interviews with the designers who testify that the towers were designed for one or multiple impacts is easy to come by. And now we have more inane remarks about whether they meant Cessnas. That is the level of 'sincere' debate that has ensued, ever since Conny launched this thread. Evidently 9/11 is a topic of much hilarity & mirth, even though it led to the launch of a many decades long "war on terror", the removal of many of your human rights, the waste of trillions of $, the carnage visited on millions of people who now seek a vendetta for the wrongs inflicted on them, and the imminent end of the United States.
Yes, 9/11 is worthy of lots of fun & games. Will posters here remember this thread & their contempt, when bombs start to rain down around them & their nearest & dearest because none cared about the criminal cabals running the country?

[Coito ergo sum]

I keep hoping for a serious discussion

If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.

Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern!

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

I can accept that. I have no axe to grind, & no converts to win. Far as I'm concerned the planet can go to hell in a handbag.
Speaking of converts: You asked whether the congregation believes you've won points, or I have. OK, ask the world population whether God (the conventional one) exists. Take a poll & base your atheism on that. You'd be taking mass in no time.

You just keep claiming victory without producing evidence. I wanted to know if those reading our exchange think you've won also.

Observe the post by 'Tigger'. The sober interviews with the designers who testify that the towers were designed for one or multiple impacts is easy to come by.

I never said they weren't. That doesn't mean that at those self-same designers don't also state that the impacts on 9/11and the ensuing events caused the collapses.

And now we have more inane remarks about whether they meant Cessnas.

They were not contemplating 767's, that's for sure. Nor did anyone say that the towers were impervious to airplanes.

That is the level of 'sincere' debate that has ensued, ever since Conny launched this thread. Evidently 9/11 is a topic of much hilarity & mirth, even though it led to the launch of a many decades long "war on terror", the removal of many of your human rights, the waste of trillions of $, the carnage visited on millions of people who now seek a vendetta for the wrongs inflicted on them, and the imminent end of the United States.
Yes, 9/11 is worthy of lots of fun & games. Will posters here remember this thread & their contempt, when bombs start to rain down around them & their nearest & dearest because none cared about the criminal cabals running the country?

Do you have any evidence of any criminal cabals? If so, what might that be?

[Feck]

I keep hoping for a serious discussion

If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.

Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern!

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

I can accept that. I have no axe to grind, & no converts to win. Far as I'm concerned the planet can go to hell in a handbag.
Speaking of converts: You asked whether the congregation believes you've won points, or I have. OK, ask the world population whether God (the conventional one) exists. Take a poll & base your atheism on that. You'd be taking mass in no time.
Observe the post by 'Tigger'. The sober interviews with the designers who testify that the towers were designed for one or multiple impacts is easy to come by. And now we have more inane remarks about whether they meant Cessnas. That is the level of 'sincere' debate that has ensued, ever since Conny launched this thread. Evidently 9/11 is a topic of much hilarity & mirth, even though it led to the launch of a many decades long "war on terror", the removal of many of your human rights, the waste of trillions of $, the carnage visited on millions of people who now seek a vendetta for the wrongs inflicted on them, and the imminent end of the United States.
Yes, 9/11 is worthy of lots of fun & games. Will posters here remember this thread & their contempt, when bombs start to rain down around them & their nearest & dearest because none cared about the criminal cabals running the country?

Because that's how you hold a rational debate ?????

[klr]

I keep hoping for a serious discussion

If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.

Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern!

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

I can accept that. I have no axe to grind, & no converts to win. Far as I'm concerned the planet can go to hell in a handbag.
Speaking of converts: You asked whether the congregation believes you've won points, or I have. OK, ask the world population whether God (the conventional one) exists. Take a poll & base your atheism on that. You'd be taking mass in no time.
Observe the post by 'Tigger'. The sober interviews with the designers who testify that the towers were designed for one or multiple impacts is easy to come by. And now we have more inane remarks about whether they meant Cessnas. That is the level of 'sincere' debate that has ensued, ever since Conny launched this thread. Evidently 9/11 is a topic of much hilarity & mirth, even though it led to the launch of a many decades long "war on terror", the removal of many of your human rights, the waste of trillions of $, the carnage visited on millions of people who now seek a vendetta for the wrongs inflicted on them, and the imminent end of the United States.
Yes, 9/11 is worthy of lots of fun & games. Will posters here remember this thread & their contempt, when bombs start to rain down around them & their nearest & dearest because none cared about the criminal cabals running the country?

The jet fuel was what did for the towers, not the actual aircraft impact.

[Galaxian]

The towers were designed for plane impacts.

Is your point that design to avoid something guarantees it will not happen?
The tacoma narrows bridge was desigend to survive high winds. But it didn't.

That is a good point, & not a yawn eliciting one. The Tacoma narrows bridge started giving warning signs from the first week that it was opened. It's nickname was Galloping Gerta, if I remember rightly.
WTC 1 & 2 have been re-analyzed by many structural engineers (me among them) and found to be sound. There was more than a plane crash & low intensity fires near the top that brought down the whole building in the manner that they came down.
The deniers see to think that a single point in their favor is absolute proof that the official version is correct. On the contrary, if a single one of the 4 planes did not crash as claimed, or a single building did not come down as claimed, then the onus is on the deniers to justify why one portion of 9/11 was an inside job & the rest was not.
We're somewhat in that situation: We KNOW the government lied repeatedly about other things, such as Iraq, then why this urge to believe them about the event that supposedly launched Iraq? The safest bet is that they lied about 9/11 too.

[Tigger]

I keep hoping for a serious discussion

If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.

Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern!

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

I can accept that. I have no axe to grind, & no converts to win. Far as I'm concerned the planet can go to hell in a handbag.
Speaking of converts: You asked whether the congregation believes you've won points, or I have. OK, ask the world population whether God (the conventional one) exists. Take a poll & base your atheism on that. You'd be taking mass in no time.
Observe the post by 'Tigger'. The sober interviews with the designers who testify that the towers were designed for one or multiple impacts is easy to come by. And now we have more inane remarks about whether they meant Cessnas. That is the level of 'sincere' debate that has ensued, ever since Conny launched this thread. Evidently 9/11 is a topic of much hilarity & mirth, even though it led to the launch of a many decades long "war on terror", the removal of many of your human rights, the waste of trillions of $, the carnage visited on millions of people who now seek a vendetta for the wrongs inflicted on them, and the imminent end of the United States.
Yes, 9/11 is worthy of lots of fun & games. Will posters here remember this thread & their contempt, when bombs start to rain down around them & their nearest & dearest because none cared about the criminal cabals running the country?

To be honest, "The Galaxian", I have little interest in reading about your weird opinions or viewing your presentations of mendacious* or otherwise manipulated "evidence". It's quite boring, which is why I missed a lot of the insults that you offer to your opponents. Your posts smack of tl;dr, and I don't feel the need to read what you suggest, in the same way that I don't actually need to tread in dog shit to know it's dog shit.

Note that "mendacious" is not directed at you, but at the fraudulent cack that seems to have taken you in.

[Razor]

The towers were designed for plane impacts.

Is your point that design to avoid something guarantees it will not happen?
We're somewhat in that situation: We KNOW the government lied repeatedly about other things, such as Iraq, then why this urge to believe them about the event that supposedly launched Iraq? The safest bet is that they lied about 9/11 too.

Well I couldn't be certain Rasputin, but possibly it's something to do with the fact that all the evidence supports that conclusion and the various CT's have nothing more than a steaming pile of asserted bullshit?

Just my best guess...

[owtth]

Well I couldn't be certain Rasputin, but possibly it's something to do with the fact that all the evidence supports that conclusion and the various CT's have nothing more than a steaming pile of asserted bullshit?

Just my best guess...

There are quite a few barefaced lies, in this thread, presented as evidence. Even when called on it, whackaloons will just ignore it.

[Rum]

I find this thread deeply depressing. Sadly it is colouring the forum too for me.

[Feck]

I find this thread deeply depressing. Sadly it is colouring the forum too for me.

Don't look at this car- crash of a thread then Rum .

[Rum]

I find this thread deeply depressing. Sadly it is colouring the forum too for me.

Don't look at this car- crash of a thread then Rum .

Advice noted and acted upon Feck!

[amused]

Made you look!

[Coito ergo sum]

The towers were designed for plane impacts.

Is your point that design to avoid something guarantees it will not happen?
The tacoma narrows bridge was desigend to survive high winds. But it didn't.

WTC 1 & 2 have been re-analyzed by many structural engineers (me among them) and found to be sound. There was more than a plane crash & low intensity fires near the top that brought down the whole building in the manner that they came down.

Well, first of all, there weren't just "low intensity" fires, that's for sure.

The deniers see to think that a single point in their favor is absolute proof that the official version is correct.

For me, I just think that you haven't shown one shred of evidence that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, which is your assertion.

If you are claiming that something about the "official version" is incorrect, then we'll need to first clarify which aspect you are claiming is incorrect, and then we can talk about it. So, what point made in the "official version" are you disputing?

On the contrary, if a single one of the 4 planes did not crash as claimed, or a single building did not come down as claimed, then the onus is on the deniers to justify why one portion of 9/11 was an inside job & the rest was not.

Well, the "claim" is that the towers 1 and 2 were brought down because two nearly fully fueled 767's crashed into the buildings at a high rate of speed, the initial impact caused structural damage, and ignited a massive amount of jet fuel, which in turn ignited fires within the buildings. The combination of these factors operated to cause structural failure at approximately the level of the respective impacts and the towers fell due to the upper floors collapsing onto the lower floors. The evidence supports that claim, as we have noted ad nauseum here.

There is no evidence at all that the buildings went down any other way than that.

We're somewhat in that situation: We KNOW the government lied repeatedly about other things, such as Iraq, then why this urge to believe them about the event that supposedly launched Iraq? The safest bet is that they lied about 9/11 too.

There is no "urge to believe," not on my part anyway. It's just an acknowledgement that the kind of "evidence" that is presented by you and other 911 Conspiracy Theorists is about as compelling as that produced by the Apollo Moon Hoaxers. I know that politicians and bureaucrats have lied in the past, but I'm still of the opinion that the overhwhelming evidence is that American men did, in fact, walk on the Moon. Likewise, the overwhelming evidence is that the towers were brought down by being hit by terrorist-flown airplanes. That's all.