Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Building #7 

By: micro in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (1)
Thu, 09 Sep 21 12:18 PM | 61 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 23596 of 52863
(This msg. is a reply to 23578 by Zimbler0)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

ZIM

believe what you want. I have said that at least five times in ALL of my posts on this.
I am done with it. Feel free to be the resident expert on structural framing of skyscrapers. I am sure those two doctoral degreed engineers did not know what they were looking at or talking about.
No remote possibility that they could possibly be correct.

So there ya go. Believe what you want or at least let your mind open up and consider strongly the rational argument and evidence that exhaustive report says.

I haven't enough background to say positively one way or another but if you do, go for it..

I thought what I read about it was extremely interesting and bore some credibility. Others around the world apparently have also. But as I said, feel free to believe what ya want. It's a free country, at least for the moment, and I am not going to get in the way...

I see this entirely differently than you. You see it differently. THAT IS OKAY.

I stated my reasons why I do not believe the official George W. Bush account.. If those reasons offended you, I apologize.

IT'S OKAY TO THINK DIFFERENTLY.

Please allow me, Nemo, De, Beldin, Ribit, HydroGen, Bert, Ernie, kathy, CJ, anyone else I left out to have a different opinion without trying to demean them, talk down to them, give them high school shop class experiments as rationale when I already know about all kinds of various alloys and compositions of metals, and please, You think what you want to about the collapse of the Tower and I will continue to doubt the official Bush explanation as he sits on a Bildeberger council with a bunch of other one worlder wannabe's deciding what is good for all the rest of us..

I do not agree with that explanation. You may or may not. IT IS OKAY. Please give me the same amount of lattitude and Nemo.

He posted a great article that had the work of prominent engineers in a well documented study.

Will it ever get a thorough examination in a court?

Not if there are bunch of closed minds. It does not fit the spun narrative.

For me, this is a different type of work because it involves in depth study and applies engineering principles that make it to me even more interesting.

Now, could their hypothesis be incorrect? Possibly. COuld it be correct? Possibly. I would like to see the entire thing and the mathematics behind it and the structural datum used.

This simply makes more sense to me than the other explanation. YMMV. But I do not fault you for leaning toward what you think is more plausible.

Please give me and Nemo and anyone else the same lattitude and grace to express our thoughts.

Thanks.



 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Building #7
By: Zimbler0 in 6TH POPE
Thu, 09 Sep 21 3:19 AM 		Msg. 23578 of 52863

Micro > So let me see now. It is YOU and De and ZIM against anyone else who see the building coming down not exactly as our very truthful government has told us it did?


Boss, I was just about ready to let this one go . . .

OK, so I'm going to entertain the notion that 'explosives brought down the twin towers'. Assuming that 'puffs of smoke from every floor as the building was collapsing' is proof that explosives brought it down. That means explosives planted and timed for every floor.

That is a LOT of explosive charges. Where did the explosives come from? Who were the guys who were planting them? Given the amount of explosives and the number of people who would have had to have been involved . . . I just can't see NOBODY talking about it. (Actually rigging the building to blow.)

I would hope that it would be very difficult to find even a few people who would willingly and cold bloodedly wire up something like the WTC for demolition with thousands of people inside it.

You want to believe George Bush ordered it? How many people between Bush and the demolition guys would have willingly gone along with it? Again, I would hope few to none.

There are videos of airplanes flying into the World Trade Center that day. Being as the twin towers did not topple over when the planes slammed into them - I'd have to say that they were very well built.

But I don't think the WTC was built to sustain a jet fuel fire. Nor do I think the building was built to withstand the force of the upper section collapsing onto the lower sections. As each floor collapsed, it's weight was added to the weight falling upon the next floor down.

Think about the roof of your house for a moment. Designed to withstand years and years of rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, etc. etc. No problems. But drop a 500 pound chunk of tree on it from twenty or thirty feet up . . . Does the limb break in two on the ridge? Or does the limb go through the roof? (I'll give you a hint. The roof is designed to withstand all of the likely things that might break it. But to make it '500 pounds of tree proof' would increase the cost and make the house too expensive.)

In my opinion, I do not believe the WTC was designed to withstand multiple floors collapsing. The additional steel needed to do so and the loss of internal space now taken up by more steel would have made it - in my opinion - cost prohibitive.

Can we drop this subject now?

Was Building 7 one of the smaller buildings? I have no opinion as to its fate.

Zim.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next