conspiracy theories

[pinoy_09]

---

If the government hired Brent Blanchard to make a report on the 9/11.
Then Im sure he is the one contracted for the demolition of those towers.

If I was assigned to investigate 9/11, he should be the one who gets investigated first.

He was in the demolition business for so long, yet he stated that he did not see anything that resembled a controlled demolition in the tower collapse.
That alone is billion dollar B.S.

My bet, He got the contract to demolish the building.
Why would he say what he said if he is not part of it?

You can repeat the disinformation all you want. The fact of the matter is, there are things that can happen in structural damage that the average person like you cannot understand---unless you're an architect.

[Soul Doctor]

You can repeat the disinformation all you want. The fact of the matter is, there are things that can happen in structural damage that the average person like you cannot understand---unless you're an architect.

im an engineer.
architects designs houses.
engineers designs structures.
get the difference?

[Soul Doctor]

You can repeat the disinformation all you want. The fact of the matter is, there are things that can happen in structural damage that the average person like you cannot understand---unless you're an architect.

actually it is all too simple if you know why .

here is why.

YouTube - WTC 9/11 - Bush Clinton Silverstein Bilderberg Connection

[pinoy_09]

im an engineer.
architects designs houses.
engineers designs structures.
get the difference?

You're an engineer? What kind? And where did you get your education from, kay kasab-an nako na imong professor. ehehehehe

[pinoy_09]

im an engineer.
architects designs houses.
engineers designs structures.
get the difference?

My girlfriend is an architect. And I won't even argue. You're clearly misinformed, doc.

[Sand Man]

While you guys are debating, I'd like to inject a portion of an "independent report" into this conversation as a food for thought to anyone who is following the discussions:



Source

Now from what I know from my room mates/friends in college who studied Civil Engineering, they spend hours upon hours of calculations on the stresses and loads of each and every steel-reinforced concrete beam and column in a every floor.

So, is my understanding correct that the beams and columns on the point of impact of the airplane and the floors directly below it should have been capable of holding up even if the top floors collapsed?

I mean, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in July 28, 1945 and that didn't bring the building down. OK, granted the B-25D is a lot smaller than a 767, but are we saying the structural engineering we had in 1945 is for more superior to newer designs?

I am pretty sure these items have been brought up already as they are the direct arguments that quickly come to mind. I just can't find the debunking.

Cheers.

[Soul Doctor]

While you guys are debating, I'd like to inject a portion of an "independent report" into this conversation as a food for thought to anyone who is following the discussions:



Source

Now from what I know from my room mates/friends in college who studied Civil Engineering, they spend hours upon hours of calculations on the stresses and loads of each and every steel-reinforced concrete beam and column in a every floor.

So, is my understanding correct that the beams and columns on the point of impact of the airplane and the floors directly below it should have been capable of holding up even if the top floors collapsed?

I mean, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in July 28, 1945 and that didn't bring the building down. OK, granted the B-25D is a lot smaller than a 767, but are we saying the structural engineering we had in 1945 is for more superior to newer designs?

I am pretty sure these items have been brought up already as they are the direct arguments that quickly come to mind. I just can't find the debunking.

Cheers.

Simple ra kaayo bai. pangutana lang og any civil engineer kung possible ba nga mahugno ang building kung masunog or madasmagan og jetline nga gamay ra kaayo kumparar sa iyang strycture. im sure walay debate diha.

[Soul Doctor]

You're an engineer? What kind? And where did you get your education from, kay kasab-an nako na imong professor. ehehehehe

obviously wala ka kahuman og college.
the way you talk about engineers or any professionals
means wala pa ka katakeup og subject nga ethics which you take before you graduate..

now i do understand why you can not get what im saying here.

so move over to some other thread where you know better.

this is not a mis-information thread.
it seems to me you just lack the necessary information. or maybe its you who are doing the dis-information?
this thread is designed to question everything that has been said about the 911 report.

[Soul Doctor]

My girlfriend is an architect. And I won't even argue. You're clearly misinformed, doc.

thats the reasons why architects are not allowed to build a structure alone
they need the advice of structural engineers in designing a structure or a building..
they may be good at aesthetics but do not have the discipline of a civil or structural engineer who studied their field for 5 years and who have to pass a board exams.
do not confuse the two.

[Soul Doctor]

What "evidence" are you referring to? Visual evidence (pictures, videos) is enough to conclude whether or not a controlled demolition happened. But experts further released more testing on the site which include seismographs and ground vibration data to conclusively dismiss the controlled demolition theory.

The data has been RELEASED to the public for everyone to see. Read Assertion #4 of the PDF document I provided above.

there are metal beams recovered from the scene which was taken away by FEMA immediately after the 911
this beams clearly show that there was a demolition. firefighters reported of seeing a blackbox. but the FBI denied finding such. But a volunteer firefighter heard that FEMA got at least 2 blackboxes from the rubles.

the metal beams was cut diagonally by what seems to be a high temp explosives similar to military issued thermite.
All these evidence are now sitting in an FBI warehouse and it never was investigated or used in an investigation.
Why? why are all these evidence denied from the public?