No one was talking about what the buildings were designed to withstand until you showed up.

Wrong again. You're not running too hot today.

Is this that "aliens" guy.

I didn't know it would be that easy.

Thanks for proving my point?

Are you trying to argue that you're not saying that the building was not designed to withstand the impact of a plane?

you don't think that there was a possibility that they were wrong in their estimates since they were... ya know, estimating?

also, the 767s which crashed into the towers are more than twice as big as a 707 which they planned around - that's a massive significance


remember, they specifically chose the largest planes they could which would be fully laden with fuel

I have no idea what the building was designed to withstand, I haven't made any claims about that.

None of that is germane to the discussion. But sure any of that is theoretically possible. It's not what happened but sure.

actually looked him up, he is legit, he was the consulting architect brought in to assess the damage after the wtc bombing and determine how to repair it

was later employed by the port authority, which was managing the towers so he would obviously be in a strong position to know what it was designed to handle

he worked in the wtc and died on 9/11 after he stayed in the building and helped knock down walls to free people who were trapped, he is credited with helping 77 people escape with their lives before the tower collapsed with him and other people he was working with were still inside

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_De_Martini

The building collapse has been discussed ad nauseam in architecture and engineering for decades now.

If the plane somehow collapsed and didn't catch fire, the building would have very likely still be standing. The concrete floors had a very specific amount of heat that they could handle without bukling just like the core of the building has a wight capacity limit.

When the concrete heats up enough, as well as the concrete floors above, the tension on the core will continue to increase from the heat and the weight above the location where it was hit until the whole building buckles.

It's the reason why the second tower that got hit fell first. The plane hit it in a lower portion of the building which means that the tower has to carry a heavier load which would causes it to collapse quicker as it wouldnt need to get as hot as the other building that got hit higher and had to support a lighter load.

Was it there in building 7? That was the 50 story building with floors the area of a football field which went down without any planes hitting it. I suppose it gave in to peer pressure and collapsed itself. You can't really blame it. The twins were obviously the cool kids of the complex. Once they went down you know at least one other building was going to copycat.

Really? I know that the architects and engineers who doubt the official story have published voluminous material debunking the government's assertions. One of their talking points was that there have been no peer reviewed papers supporting the government assertions. There is the NIST report, not peer reviewed, simulation based, which doesn't propose an actual mechanism of collapse. It just hand waives over it. Is there any credible scientist willing to debate it? Willing to put their reputation on the line?

Scientists don't really touch this one. For people who love to say things in the format "the common idiot thinks this, however it's really this", they sure are terrified of defending the government's assertions. They act as though they want to save their careers by not speaking on it but also don't want to be on the wrong side of an eventual truth which will inevitably rise.

But there is no point in going into the details. It's just me waving a piece of obsidian in front of you and saying it's black, you saying it's yellow. Then I'm wondering if you are terminally stupid, brainwashed, or, most likely, just saying things you don't believe to either make yourself feel better or because you can't stand not obeying authority.

Mr. Rational, ladies and gentlemen. Trying to act like you are the smartest guy in the room because you don't believe the 9/11 story is SO 2006. Get with the times, man.

You had nationwide changes to the building codes after 911 - like heat resistant thermal coating requirements that would have allowed to buildings to burn longer and dedicated emergency elevators and such.

But more importantly, they entire world changed their way on how they built buildings after that happened, like using reinforced concrete for the entire building's core as its simply fire resistant and wouldn't heat up in the same manner as steel. But that is a whole nother issue. I meant to say in my previous post that the steel beams heat up causing the concrete to fall... but i don't think it really mattered anyway.

If it all happened the way you say it did, it at least certainly spooked a lot of people around the world on how they would go about building future towers.

Also, Building 7 fell for the same reason.

I've read the exact opposite, that there were no significant changes made to the way buildings were built after the attacks. I'm not saying you're wrong, that people didn't believe the pile of assertions made about the collapse, in which no collapse mechanism was given, and subsequently build things differently. But what you say can be finessed by leaving it open to what degree things have changed and the reason.

But in order to make changes studies would need to be done, correct? So where are the peer reviewed studies supporting the official story. Instead of getting lost in subjective notions about "changes made to the way buildings were built after the attacks" you just show me the peer reviewed studies. I could never find any and they have been purported, by some who have many peer reviewed scientific articles, not to exist.

There is a serious study on Building 7 completed a few years ago by the head of the civil engineering department at the University of Alaska. It concluded that fire was not the cause of the collapse of Building 7. Would you like a link? JK I know you are not interested in truth.

Why are you guys so shy about sharing this stuff?

9/11 is a joke. If you haven't figured it out now in 2024 then you never will, so there really isn't any point in indulging you.

And yet somehow here you are babbling and contributing nothing.

Yeah, but you are super confident that Epstein is still alive and that crisis actors don’t drag like a dead body.

I don't think you're giving the proper credence to how many people actually do follow and pay attention to these studies and their findings.

Leroy certainly disagrees with some of NISTs findings because he still acknowledges or at least can't think of any good answers to certain issues ... for example the column that buckled that supported the weight of the penthouse on the top of the building that sent it freefalling which led to the building collapsing literally a second later. That would have been a very impressive timing for a remote detonation for starters.

There is also some deception in his study - which, and I don't mean to make it sound like I am marginalizing his work, but he is part of a group that is determined to make a case against that of NIST and when there is money to be made, biases can be a thing - I'm not saying that he is biased, but that he has incentives to make a legit claim which is a major element of how we got into this entire mess to begin with.

One of many of his deceptive points here is that he states that the fire did not cause the building to collapse. While he does state that the fire did affect and cause damage to the building, his claim is focused on his opinion that the building simply wouldn't have fallen in the way that it did according to his software program that he keeps showing. The heat and the damage caused from the other towers absolutely played a role in the fall of this building and that isn't a debate - and again he kind of admit that but he want's to elude to the idea that the building can't fall that way and must have been controlled detonation - while also admitting that he doesn't want to talk about that either.

His story didn't really get any traction because there really isn't anything there.

DM, watch the wtc 7 penthouse begin to fall. The timing matches perfectly between when that part of the building reaches the base, kicking out the other columns and when the building begins to fall.

The demo crew really hit the button at the perfect time.

Even most of those who don't agree with the official story don't know what they are talking about. But it is hard to evaluate the depth of knowledge out there. We have polls indicating that conspiracy theories, other than the official conspiracy theory, are very popular. They are exceedingly popular in NYC where more people know about building 7. And they are exceedingly popular in the rest of the world. I've seen vids (yes on YouTube but so what?) of regular college classes in other countries where the subject is talked about openly and soberly where it is almost taken for granted that that neither AQ was responsible nor were the buildings brought down by planes. I would guess that the average German citizen knows far more about 9/11 than the average American.

I haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson take on the 9/11 controversy. Why hasn't he, or any other public intellectual? Why did Myth Busters adopt a policy of shutting down all 9/11 questions? Aren't these the people who live for the moment when they can put the idiots in their place by calmly explaining some phenomenon and citing the relevant peer reviewed studies? I honestly think that most in the physical sciences know, just by observation and reading a few things, that the official story is a lie and they, who think they will be or might immortalized for their scientific contributions, do not want to be looked back on by future scientists or by history as the biggest morons to ever attempt to carry on the scientific traditions. They know there is too great a chance that the truth, like a weed through a crack in the sidewalk, will inevitably make it's way into the mainstream consciousness and they would rather take their chances looking like cowards or "above it all" than utter morons.

Does the wall of silent scientists mean they aren't looking into it or that they are afraid to talk about it?

What's the odds ratio of impressive timing vs. knocking down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes? a billion to one?

I'm hearing Dak Prescott in the distance...here we gooo

The incentives line up against challenging the official story, overwhelmingly so. That's why the scientific community is either mute or challenging the official narrative. There was a scientist I was reading on the Skeptics forum who did start an experiment to debunk the thermite theory. Dust from the collapse zones was found, by PhD scientists, one of them a physicist who had published in Nature, to contain thermitic material. The pro-government scientist said ok if you can get me a sample with a providence I think is valid I will test it. He started to test it, giving updates on the procedure. When he got to the part which was to yield a definitive answer he suddenly abandoned the experiment, saying he was like busy or something.

That is the whole debate. It wasn't hit by a plane, so the debate is how and whether it fell from damage sustained pursuant to the twin towers collapse.

It's the only serious, total study of its kind that I know. You're not going to get any traction no matter what truth you have if that truth means everyone with power and all their boot licking acolytes are proven to be evil or dumb. Are we going to pay our entire GDP to the people of Southeast Asia because we now know the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag? Did we overthrow the government when the SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency he didn't have the votes for in 2000?

You must think of yourself as living in some kind of Aaron Sorkin universe where the best argument wins the day and that's why you believe whatever our corrupt authorities tell you to believe. You think they are in power because they have the best arguments or something. If so that is beyond naïve.

I'm trying to move on. I mean, it's a dead issue. But then they turn around and offer KSM a deal? KSM??? Say what you want about what that indicates about the legitimacy of the case against him, but not acknowledging it as huge news is just weird.

Using the fact that an astrophysicist didn't debunk 9/11 claims to support the idea of a conspiracy is certainly not a take I've heard before.