One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Were min-nukes used to take down the Twin Towers?
Page <<first <prev 54 of 55 next>
Jul 3, 2017 21:35:16   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
What difference does it make if it's melted stone or melted concrete?
It's probably a combination of both.
In the liar category, not many can top you.
You claimed Jon Magnusson was chief structural engineer for the World Trade Center.
Magnusson didn't graduate college until 1976.
The World Trade Center was constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s.




I think you lie & that's all the sheetrock dust that failed to stop the collapse... it got wet & hardened form heat...

Reply
Jul 3, 2017 23:54:05   #
Steve700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
What happens to airplanes that hit solid or semi-rigid objects at high speeds.

MIT: Aircraft Impact Damage
emarine wrote:
nonsence

Do you two stupid idiots see what the real wreckage from an airliner crash looks like. It even has seats and bodies not to mention a few tons of wreckage, and as is usual, a complete intact tail section. Why would anyone want to read your stupid nonsense. Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one. Only a dumb ass fool like you two could believe nearly the entire plane just disintegrated into a mist and blew away. What is your explanation for those picture, and the difference at the Pentagon and in that field???????????? You know you got no answer, so what you guys going to do, just ignore the whole thing or come out with more cockamamie bull shit that a halfway intelligent child wouldn't believe ??????????????

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 03:13:25   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Steve700 wrote:
Do you two stupid idiots see what the real wreckage from an airliner crash looks like. It even has seats and bodies not to mention a few tons of wreckage, and as is usual, a complete intact tail section. Why would anyone want to read your stupid nonsense. Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one. Only a dumb ass fool like you two could believe nearly the entire plane just disintegrated into a mist and blew away. What is your explanation for those picture, and the difference at the Pentagon and in that field???????????? You know you got no answer, so what you guys going to do, just ignore the whole thing or come out with more cockamamie bull shit that a halfway intelligent child wouldn't believe ??????????????
Do you two stupid idiots see what the u real /u ... (show quote)

You and payne, a couple of agenda driven fools. If either of you had any science education at even the 8th grade level, you might have a reasonable understanding of the physical forces in crashes and collisions. And in building collapses. But, you are science illiterates, you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You have been spoon-fed a load of conspiratorial horseshit by a bunch of unprincipled malcontents who might have earned a degree in something with a professional sounding title. You fools live on a constant diet of suppositions, speculations, doctored visuals, manipulated data, contradictory narratives, and outright lies.

Those pics payne posted show airplanes that crashed at shallow angles, not head on into solid objects. Anyone who has had any experience in aviation knows that the steeper the angle an aircraft hits a solid object, like mother earth or a hardened building like the Pentagon, the more destruction will occur. And when an aircraft hits a solid object at a steep angle and AT HIGH SPEED, like Flight 77 (Pentagon), Flight 93 (Shanksville, PA) and Flight 1771 (Cayucos, CA), the destruction is total. Heavier parts, like an engine, might be recognizable, and possibly the black boxes, but everything else, including humans, would be reduced to very small pieces. And a lot of it would just disappear due to the heat.

With each increasing increment in velocity, the forces acting on an aircraft at impact increase exponentially. For example, Flight 1771 crashed at a 70 degree angle at a speed of 770mph. The force that aircraft experienced was 5000 times the pull of gravity (5000 Gs). An FBI agent investigating that crash said that they found nothing bigger than a human hand. There was nothing left that resembled an aircraft.

Reply
 
 
Jul 4, 2017 04:09:53   #
Steve700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You and payne, a couple of agenda driven fools. If either of you had any science education at even the 8th grade level, you might have a reasonable understanding of the physical forces in crashes and collisions. And in building collapses. But, you are science illiterates, you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. You have been spoon-fed a load of conspiratorial horseshit by a bunch of unprincipled malcontents who might have earned a degree in something with a professional sounding title. You fools live on a constant diet of suppositions, speculations, doctored visuals, manipulated data, contradictory narratives, and outright lies.

Those pics payne posted show airplanes that crashed at shallow angles, not head on into solid objects. Anyone who has had any experience in aviation knows that the steeper the angle an aircraft hits a solid object, like mother earth or a hardened building like the Pentagon, the more destruction will occur. And when an aircraft hits a solid object at a steep angle and AT HIGH SPEED, like Flight 77 (Pentagon), Flight 93 (Shanksville, PA) and Flight 1771 (Cayucos, CA), the destruction is total. Heavier parts, like an engine, might be recognizable, and possibly the black boxes, but everything else, including humans, would be reduced to very small pieces. And a lot of it would just disappear due to the heat.

With each increasing increment in velocity, the forces acting on an aircraft at impact increase exponentially. For example, Flight 1771 crashed at a 70 degree angle at a speed of 770mph. The force that aircraft experienced was 5000 times the pull of gravity (5000 Gs). An FBI agent investigating that crash said that they found nothing bigger than a human hand. There was nothing left that resembled an aircraft.
You and payne, a couple of agenda driven fools. If... (show quote)

Do you really think you're telling me something I don't know. Yeah the pieces would be smaller, not disintegrated into a vapor, and they would still have the same total mass and weight. Judging from the amount of blackness the total fire damage on both the Pentagon and out in that field look like no more than about 10 gallons worth of fuel. And why are you talking about a speed like 770 miles an hour? That supersonic and nothing was going faster than half that speed. You're talking that the pieces would be so small that they were virtually disappear but the few pieces that there are photographs of are like 4' x 2' and a wheel that doesn't even have the rim bent {the tire probably isn't flat either} you still haven't said a damn thing that explains how there isn't more wreckage than what would fit in the back of the good-sized truck at either the Pentagon or in that field. Don't you think if there was the wreckage from a whole plane at either location that they would've filmed it??? The authorities immediately roped those areas off and kept People away but they couldn't stop the helicopter from flying around right after and there was no plane wreckage there at either location. Just one truckload of pieces at each location and a small hole in that field they probably dug the night before. I can't believe anyone can be such a gullible fool idiot. I provided you with the helicopter video right after it happened while things were still smoking and you wouldn't even look at it. That alone proves you have no interest in truth, only in trying to prove you are right. With all the proof you've been shown your really pathetic and only continued to prove yourself to be stupider and stupider the more you open your mouth. How can anyone be taken seriously who is told that here is good proof where you can see some of the flashes from the explosives on the twin towers and others of helicopter video right after whatever happened happened while things were still smoking at the Pentagon and in that field and you can plainly see there is no plane wreckage from an airliner at either of those locations. You are astoundingly self delusional and damned deliberately blind. I mean there is really something seriously wrong with you especially how excessive you are and going over and over and over and over and over and over and over the same nearly beside the point, points that are mostly a matter of opinion anyway.

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 08:38:29   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
How do you know what Jon Magnusson works on ... I think you're lying again... I'm sure that Robertson wasn't hard up for work putz... I think Magnusson is expert enough to offer his opinion & a reliable source who shares my opinion on the collapse of the towers...

Jon Magnusson


Engineer of the Year 1999, President's Award 1988, SEAW President 1988, SEAW Seattle President 1997
 
Jon D. Magnusson received the BSCE from UW summa cum laude in 1975 and the MS from the University of California Berkeley in 1976, and went immediately to work with John Skilling.  As a young engineer, he designed notable projects such as One Union Square, Columbia Center, and Husky Stadium in Seattle.  Principal of the firm at age 30 and CEO at 34, Jon set the course for a firm honored with ACEC's top national award for structural engineering of buildings in 6 of the 10 years 1989-99, more than any other firm in the US.  With professional licensure in 24 states, Jon has led MKA as the firm worked on projects in 47 states and 49 countries, totaling over $73 billion worth of projects designed.
 
From the nomination for his 2003 recognition as an Honorary Member of the American Institute of Architects:
"As Chairman/CEO of Seattle-based engineering firm Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire [later Magnusson Klemenic Associates/MKA], Jon D. Magnusson (BSCE UW summa cum laude, MCE UC Berkeley) leads what many people consider the most creative consulting firm in the US today.  His design leadership has created and advanced a portfolio of completed projects in 43 states and 31 countries, recognized by national awards from the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) in 11 of the last 16 years among 117 awards for engineering excellence -- and credit for 28 'world's firsts' in design.  In his native Washington, he served as Principal Structural Engineer on most of the Puget Sound's newest generation of landmarks, including Bellevue Art Museum, Benaroya Hall, Experience Music Project, Key Arena, Safeco Field, Seahawks Stadium, and the Seattle Central Library.  In 2002, ACEC of Washington named him Washington's Consulting Engineer of the Year; in addition, he has taken an active leadership role in national activities of ACEC and the engineering professions.

In the days and months following the tragedies of 9/11/01, Jon Magnusson helped Americans and the world to understand the miracle of engineering that allowed many to survive the attacks on the World Trade Center. The original engineering masterpiece, and Jon's articulate explanations, exemplify the highest values of design and the design professions. A dedicated partner in practice and ally in design, he has demonstrated outstanding and intelligent leadership in making design comprehensible and accessible, even to our youngest citizens, through his advocacy and his commitment to mentoring.

In 2001, Jon established a high school mentoring program in the Puget Sound area, known as the ACE Mentor Program, to expose students to architecture, construction, and engineering career opportunities."

Nationally, he has contributed his engineering expertise to many significant projects:  the design of a new football stadium on the University of Minnesota campus, as well as convention centers in Phoenix, Honolulu, and Minneapolis. Current projects [April 2012] include a complete reconstruction of the University of Washington Stadium and a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. He has contributed to the skyline and culture of his home in Seattle, providing structural engineering for the Experience Music Project, Safeco Field, Qwest Field, Key Arena, the Seattle Central Library and many other projects. He has previously served on the SEI Board of Governors and was recently recognized as a Distinguished Member of ASCE and as "Engineer of the Year" for the State of Washington, Honorary Member of the national American Institute of Architects, a Fellow of the Institution of Structural Engineers in London, and a past recipient of the ASCE Ernest E. Howard Award for contributions to the advancement of structural engineering. (Source: Structures April 2012)

Jon's community volunteering has engaged him with Water 1st International, the Boy Scouts, Seattle Rotary Club, Seattle Children's Hospital, and founding the ACE Mentor Program of Washington.

Jon joined SEAW in 1978, and served the organization as Refresher Course Chair, Long Range Planning Chair, 6 years on the Code Advisory committee including 2 years as Chair, 5 years on the Scholarship Committee, and State Representative to ICBO General Design Committee, in addition to his Board service.  In 2013 the UW College of Engineering honored him with its Diamond Award for Distinguished Achievement in Industry.  In 2014 the American Society of Civil Engineers honored him with its OPAL/Outstanding Projects and Leadership Award.
 
Updated June 2013.  Updated March 2014
How do you know what Jon Magnusson works on ... I ... (show quote)


The article you pasted lists the projects Magnusson worked on. None of them were high rises. So if you read what you post, you know I'm not lying.
Here's what a real high rise architect has to say about what happened on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 08:40:46   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
I think you lie & that's all the sheetrock dust that failed to stop the collapse... it got wet & hardened form heat...


Snarkiness is Amadjuster's domain.
When you ape Amadjuster, you have no rebuttal.

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 12:14:58   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
The article you pasted lists the projects Magnusson worked on. None of them were high rises. So if you read what you post, you know I'm not lying.
Here's what a real high rise architect has to say about what happened on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A



The article stated he was involved in 73 billion dollars worth of projects they just listed a few... you have defined the term skyscraper in the past as being 10 to 20 floors when it suited your argument... seems now it doesn't... very convenient babble you pass off as fact... Your YouTube architects claim to fame is being a troofer... nice source putz.... The CEO of the firm that designed the towers VS a troofer...

Reply
 
 
Jul 4, 2017 14:55:23   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
The article stated he was involved in 73 billion dollars worth of projects they just listed a few... you have defined the term skyscraper in the past as being 10 to 20 floors when it suited your argument... seems now it doesn't... very convenient babble you pass off as fact... Your YouTube architects claim to fame is being a troofer... nice source putz.... The CEO of the firm that designed the towers VS a troofer...


Why do you spend so much time defending Magnusson when that only keeps the subject of your lie in the conversation?
Magnusson obviously specializes in sports stadiums and libraries.
Magnusson was most likely still in high school when John Skilling designed the structure for the Twin Towers.
John Skilling said the towers would not fall from being hit by an airliner or from the fires which followed.
Magnusson quoted NIST's lies about how the Towers fell. If an engineering firm wants to keep its government contracts that's what they have to do.

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 15:36:52   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Why do you spend so much time defending Magnusson when that only keeps the subject of your lie in the conversation?
Magnusson obviously specializes in sports stadiums and libraries.
Magnusson was most likely still in high school when John Skilling designed the structure for the Twin Towers.
John Skilling said the towers would not fall from being hit by an airliner or from the fires which followed.
Magnusson quoted NIST's lies about how the Towers fell. If an engineering firm wants to keep its government contracts that's what they have to do.
Why do you spend so much time defending Magnusson ... (show quote)






Fact is Magnusson observed the towers collapse where Skilling did not ... Magnusson worked under Skilling until Skilling's death where he replaced him as CEO ...Skilling was unaware of the attacks on 911...Magnusson was well aware... he watched it happen & there is no one else as qualified who is alive to comment on the event except Robinson who reserved his comment... Magnusson's opinion & mine are the same on the 911 events... you should find better sources putz...

As the fires burned, the structural steel on the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist 1,500 to 1,600° F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below.

Jon D. Magnusson, chairman-CEO of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., Seattle, structural engineer for the original World Trade Center, agrees: "From what I observed on TV, it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall."

When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 16:17:52   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
Fact is Magnusson observed the towers collapse where Skilling did not ... Magnusson worked under Skilling until Skilling's death where he replaced him as CEO ...Skilling was unaware of the attacks on 911...Magnusson was well aware... he watched it happen & there is no one else as qualified who is alive to comment on the event except Robinson who reserved his comment... Magnusson's opinion & mine are the same on the 911 events... you should find better sources putz...

As the fires burned, the structural steel on the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist 1,500 to 1,600° F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below.

Jon D. Magnusson, chairman-CEO of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., Seattle, structural engineer for the original World Trade Center, agrees: "From what I observed on TV, it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall."

When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says
Fact is Magnusson observed the towers collapse whe... (show quote)


You . . . an anonymous shill, and Magnusson agree.
Since you won't reveal your identity, readers shouldn't accept your opinion as valid.
So it's only Magnusson against these thousands of highly accomplished named professionals who agree with me.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
It's a bit lopsided, don't you agree?

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 19:07:37   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
You . . . an anonymous shill, and Magnusson agree.
Since you won't reveal your identity, readers shouldn't accept your opinion as valid.
So it's only Magnusson against these thousands of highly accomplished named professionals who agree with me.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
It's a bit lopsided, don't you agree?



it is lopsided but not in your favor... there are 100's of thousands of qualified engineers who disagree with you troofers ... you are a very small minority... most people who understand have moved on to real matters... not everyone is as clandestine as you guys...

Reply
 
 
Jul 5, 2017 09:14:03   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
it is lopsided but not in your favor... there are 100's of thousands of qualified engineers who disagree with you troofers ... you are a very small minority... most people who understand have moved on to real matters... not everyone is as clandestine as you guys...


Can you show readers where those alleged 100's of thousands of qualified engineers have come forward and stated publicly that they believe the Bush Administration conspiracy theory of 9/11?
While you're at it, please include as many architects, military leaders, pilots, FBI, CIA as have come forward on this site. http://patriotsquestion911.com/
You're lying again . . . unless you can prove you are not . . .

Reply
Jul 5, 2017 11:42:53   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Can you show readers where those alleged 100's of thousands of qualified engineers have come forward and stated publicly that they believe the Bush Administration conspiracy theory of 9/11?
While you're at it, please include as many architects, military leaders, pilots, FBI, CIA as have come forward on this site. http://patriotsquestion911.com/
You're lying again . . . unless you can prove you are not . . .



Real engineers don't need a crazy club to gather & fabricate theory's... we figured it out long ago & moved on...but I enjoy your creative humor...

Reply
Jul 5, 2017 12:31:47   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
Real engineers don't need a crazy club to gather & fabricate theory's... we figured it out long ago & moved on...but I enjoy your creative humor...


Real engineers can recognize skyscrapers which are being blown up with explosives.
Real engineers know that skyscrapers cannot be crushed to the ground in less than 15 seconds from the same weight they've held up for over half a century.
Most engineers are real engineers and that's why you can't post a list of engineers who support the lies of 9/11. All you can do is lie about their existence.

Reply
Jul 5, 2017 12:41:51   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
Can you show readers where those alleged 100's of thousands of qualified engineers have come forward and stated publicly that they believe the Bush Administration conspiracy theory of 9/11?
While you're at it, please include as many architects, military leaders, pilots, FBI, CIA as have come forward on this site.
You're lying again . . . unless you can prove you are not . . .
Civil and Structural Engineers: 9/11 Blog

Reply
Page <<first <prev 54 of 55 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.