View Single Post
Old 01-08-2013, 01:28 PM   #45
Just hanging out.
DenverBrit's Avatar
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,758

The Team

Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Someone requested that I not provide links to "truther" sites - so I explained the problems with Bazant's paper myself in plain English.

Your reaction shows you can't handle substance. As usual, you attack the messenger.

Sad -- so sad.

First. You're not remotely qualified to critique a peer reviewed paper on the WTC tower's collapse.

Second. As the sources of the comments you posted are not yours, where are those sources of the critique? Troofer sites?

Third. Why is it that you, of all people, think you are more knowledgeable than the Engineering PHDs, from around the world, who signed off on the paper?

As I said, you're a wacko narcissist.

Here. Discredit these papers with your knowledge of organic gardening.

Building 7.

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

And how about Dr.Keith Seffen, of Cambridge University and his paper on the collapse? Are you also qualified to critique that paper too??

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell.

Get over yourself Gaffney, you're a money grubbing fraud and nothing more.

Last edited by DenverBrit; 01-08-2013 at 03:09 PM..
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote