There IS No New World Order

billvon said:
Electrical engineering, specializing in power electronics design, wireless power transfer systems, embedded systems design and smart grid systems design. BS from MIT, graduate work at UCSD.

How about you?
Click to expand...
BA in mathematics from UCSD, graduate work at UTD. I teach mathematics at a Christian high school.
 
MacGyver1968 said:
You should really stop parroting what you read on Gage's site. Lots of steel framed buildings collapse due to fire.

Like the roof of this building:

mccormick_fire.jpg
Click to expand...
I just now heard Professor Dr. Niels Harrit say that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire and that there have been super-fires in over 300 steel-framed high-rises and that none of their steel structures were affected by their super-fires. This audacious claim requires a credible refutation and a straightforward counterexample.

[video=youtube;N6kJ4EpmMw0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6kJ4EpmMw0[/video]
 
Eugene Shubert said:
I just now heard Professor Dr. Niels Harrit say that no steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire and that there have been super-fires in over 300 steel-framed high-rises and that none of their steel structures were affected by their super-fires. This audacious claim requires a credible refutation and a straightforward counterexample.
Click to expand...
“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” NIST, Final Report, xxxi.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” NIST, Final Report, xxxi.
Click to expand...

OK, so we have now established that flying a fully fueled 767 at full throttle into a tall building can cause the building to collapse. Glad you were able to puzzle that one out. You a strange fellow...
 
origin said:
OK, so we have now established that flying a fully fueled 767 at full throttle into a tall building can cause the building to collapse.
Click to expand...
That's not what the final NIST report is saying. I suggest that you get your vision checked or perhaps sign up for a reading course. But don't ignore the relatively minor fire in WTC 7.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
That's not what the final NIST report is saying. I suggest that you get your vision checked or perhaps sign up for a reading course. But don't ignore the relatively minor fire in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

How can you call the fire minor it was large enough to cause the collapse of the building - that and the damage from the earlier collapse of the towers.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
“This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” NIST, Final Report, xxxi.
Click to expand...

You said "No modern steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire." You were wrong; we provided examples. Can you admit that you were wrong?

Or, now that you have been proven wrong, are you going to change your claim to ""No modern steel-framed TALL building has ever collapsed due to fire" and hope no one notices?
 
origin said:
How can you call the fire minor it was large enough to cause the collapse of the building
Click to expand...
How do you know that explosives weren't used? I'll tell you how you know. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --Albert Einstein. That and the fact that NIST didn't think it proper to interview scores of firemen and first-responders on the scene that have already testified to hearing explosions throughout the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11.
 
billvon said:
You said "No modern steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire." You were wrong; we provided examples.
Click to expand...
You're certain that a building with a tin roof qualifies as a modern building but perhaps professional architects mean a structure with a modern (meaning sophisticated) level of modern design safety.

FireSteelBuildingCollapse.jpg
 
Eugene Shubert said:
How do you know that explosives weren't used? I'll tell you how you know. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --Albert Einstein. That and the fact that NIST didn't think it proper to interview scores of firemen and first-responders on the scene that have already testified to hearing explosions throughout the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud you freaking conspiracy nuts are, well, nuts!

I am not going to spend the time to point out how it would be impossible to hide the loading of exposives for a demolition from the people in the buildings. Hey! Maybe they were in on it too and sacrificed themselves so the US could go to war with 2 countries for 15 years and accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile.

You are obsessed and will never change your mind, so why am I wasting my time?
 
Thank god I'm not a field goal kicker...cause you are moving those posts quicker than we can snap the ball! :)
 
origin said:
I am not going to spend the time to point out how it would be impossible to hide the loading of exposives for a demolition from the people in the buildings.
Click to expand...
Your imagination and fantasy expertise doesn't trump eyewitness testimony of unusual power-downs at the WTC up to the last weekend before 9/11.

[video=youtube;PZKS73tNVL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZKS73tNVL8[/video]
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Your imagination and fantasy expertise doesn't trump eyewitness testimony of unusual power-downs at the WTC up to the last weekend before 9/11. .
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean a thing, there were no visible shock waves, that pretty much proves there was no deliberate demolition by explosives. You can't hide something like that, shock waves are what does the damage.
 
origin said:
I am not going to spend the time to point out how it would be impossible to hide the loading of exposives for a demolition from the people in the buildings.
Click to expand...
You must think that you were in charge of security for the WTC. Isn't that just a little insane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top