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

[William Seger]

66. You don't know what you're talking about

> And again, anyone can see that the parcial collapse of Windsor Tower does not resemble WTC at all. In any aspect. It only reinforces the notion that the official explanation is wrong.

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.

> It doesn't matter if the building was hit by a plane or a giant rabbit, it can not escape from laws of physics.

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.

> And what you said about the no-existence of empirical data about a 7-hour fire is a barefaced lie.

Yours is the barefaced lie, since what I actually said was "buildings constructed like WTC7 sustaining a 7-hour unfought fire." You also seem to have missed this: Your inability to comprehend why the construction details matter is simply not relevant. You are oblivious to something that obvious and yet you claim you don't need any help from any experts? Which brings us to this gem:

> There's no such a thing as a "building not being designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse", that's just NIST lousy justification for this fairy-tale.

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'll need A LOT MORE than that to convince me that you're really talking about a REAL "engineering community".

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."

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.