Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[ocpagu]

71. Still nothing.

Uh, no, because the part that collapsed was the steel framed part, while the concrete core did not, and it reinforces the notions that (A) steel is vulnerable to fire, and (B) highrises are not protected by magic. Those two observations mean that "truthers" who base their case on personal incredulity have no case.

Steel can not melt, let alone evaporate, in office fires. Even if the steel columns of WTC weakened due to the fire, the collapse of the buildings wouldn't be symmetrical, i.e. controlled-demolition alike. And even if the collapse, only by coincidence, resembled a controlled demolition, it's absolutely unlikely that the same coincidence would apply to THREE BUILDINGS in a question of hours... I mean, there had never been a case of a highrising collapsing due to fire. Suddenly, extraordinary conditions allowed that to happen with THREE different and neighbouring buildings in less than half a day?

LMAO, dude; sorry, but after claiming down-thread that James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman refuted Zdenek Bazant, you've disqualified yourself from any discussion of the "laws of physics." Either you didn't actually read their "discussions" and Bazant's "closures," or you didn't comprehend that their objections were based not just on a sad lack of knowledge of the field they were asserting themselves into, but also on imaginary "laws of physics." But I seriously have to doubt that many JEM readers missed that "subtlety" given the hilarious way Bazant handed them their asses on a platter.

They did. And their work was published by the same newspaper that published Bazant's work. Now, perhaps you, like the guy down-thread, believe in the existence of "engineering Gods" above any kind of criticism... well, I don't. Bazant is just an academic. He may make mistakes and he may produce articles under obscure objectives and contexts. In fact, Bazant's works have been contested several times including by... NIST. Afterall, Bazant is the author of the "pancake theory", which he firstly used to explain the collapse of the towers. But... NIST itself admitted that the "pancake theory" is just a bunch of crap... which had already been stated by... Gourly and Bjorkman! So... what was your argument again?

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Almost all of the interior beam-to-column connections were simple "shear connections" designed to resist gravity loading only, not "moment connections" that could resist bending and thermal stress. Please do not insult the board by claiming that's not an objective fact: The gravity loads are right there on the blueprints and that's all the steel supplier used to design the connections. Again, your inability to comprehend why the specific details of those specific connections meant that they couldn't resist thermal expansion or progressive collapse is not relevant.

You have no power to determine what's relevant and what's not. Important questions have been raised and no satisfactory answer was provided by you, the fairy-tale apologists. That's reality and using pathetic authoritarian claims such as "your questions are not relevant" don't change a thing. Really. And, no there's no such a thing as one of the Earth's tallest buildings not being prepared to "resist bending and thermal stress". That's ridiculous. Bending and thermal expansion is taken in consideration in any kind of construction anywhere in the world - unless American civil engineering is still beyond Middle Ages, which I really doubt. And even if that's the case... well, "resist bending and thermal stress" is a characteristic of steel itself. Pretty sure that not taking this point in consideration when building a highrise will not change the characteristics of steel.

Well, how fortunate that I didn't set for myself the apparently impossible objective of convincing you of anything, but if you really wanted a list of professional engineering organizations, you could have Googled it for yourself before denying there's a "REAL 'engineering community'." There is indeed such a thing, and for some strange reason, the number that seem to be interested in "truther physics" isn't even as large as the commonly accepted "lunatic fringe."

I didn't ask you for a "list of professional engineering organizations", I asked you to make a more precise definition of what is this so-called "engineering community" that supports this nonsensical and magical explanation for WTC collapses. You didn't, you just provided me a list of engineering organizations. Are you trying to imply that those organizations in the list have formally showed supported for NIST's and the 9/11 Comission Report explanations? You'll need sources to prove that. A few American organizations and experts are not representative of the "engineering community". If much, they are representative of part of the American engineering community. If much.

There's really no mystery about why the "truth movement" died five or six years ago: From the ground up, it was built on bullshit, and the "no-planer" nonsense is some of the most absurd.

I believe you have no notion of how the "truth movement" (or simply people skeptical of the government account) is really perceived outside of the mainstream American media. I mean, even a reasonable part of Latin American mainstream media treats the official account as "controversial". If you can read Portuguese, you'll probably be surprised by this article, published by one of the largest media groups of Brazil:

http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+ainda+rondam+o+11+de+setembro/n1597197211446.html

The title translates as: "Unanswerd questions still round September 11". It was published in 2011.