Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scott3x, Jan 25, 2009.
Yes, we know, now shut up.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I suspected you'd toss it off without reading it. Oh well. :shrug:
Fine, congratulations for stating the obvious Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. The fact that they collapsed downwards, however, is something that is interesting to note, considering that the only times that high rises have suffered complete collapses in the past was through earthquakes- and in those cases, they toppled over. As a matter of fact, one of the top part of one of the WTC buildings -did- begin to topple over before disintegrating in mid air. To me it's obvious that only explosives could have made the top part disintegrate.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Only from an uninformed position of belief would one make such a claim.
I thought it was pretty funny, how he managed to support his arguement from something that had little to do with it.
Do you actually have an alternative explanation?
Actually, the fact that the towers came straight down or 'telescoping down', as even an official story supporter described it, is something that is perplexing even to some official story supporters and is one of the strong arguments supporting the controlled demolition theory.
All that had to happen was the planes flying into the buildings which would have rendered them unusable for years and caused a good number of casualties in and of itself.
Alternative to what? Your ignorant and uninformed conspiracy assertions?
No, it is not. It is an uninformed assertion based on ignorance.
Re-read my post. My question really wasn't that hard to understand.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
No, I have read the Bazant and Zhou paper several times. It does not discuss lateral torsional buckling or lateral loads. It does discuss dynamic loads but that isn't what you said and there is a big difference.
I asked you a fair question as to why you feel lateral loads are applicable and how they would change Gordon Ross' analysis.
I am also now going to ask why you chose Dr. Bazant's paper to explain yourself, when it doesn't address the subject you brought up.
You had to admit that the results of the NIST microstructure tests, on the little steel they did get, did not show that the steel experience high temperatures. In fact, in 98% of the areas they tested it did not even get hot enough to lose any strength at all.
Now for the next part of this odyssey. Please ask yourself the questions below.
What legitimate investigation would not have looked at the steel from the areas where the collapses initiated? The mere fact that it wasn't kept for the NIST to analyze says volumes. Anyone with a clear mind can see there was manipulation of the steel evidence if they DID NOT analyze the steel from the collapse initiation areas.
Why didn't the NIST get that steel Shaman? Why?
I have explained to you several times that deformation is not a complete indication of the temperature experienced by the steel. Deformation is a function of the yield strength of the material (which can be reduced by heating), the mechanics involved and the loads involved in the mechanics. A lot of steel is cold formed at room temperature. The steel you are talking about was ASTM A36 structural steel and I explained repeatedly that ASTM A36 structural steel is quite ductile and will not crack until it elongates more than 21%. To give you an example of what this means, you can take a 12 foot long x 2 foot wide I-beam of A36 structural steel and bend it into a 3.5 foot radius at it's centerline and it won't crack. The outside edge has elongated to 14 foot but the 2 foot stretch divided by the original 12 feet is 16.67%. Your horseshoe was probably deformed by loads alone without any help whatsoever from heat.
The question was easy to understand.
The below observation was not an insult, it was a point in fact.
"Your ignorant and uninformed conspiracy assertions?"
I'm not the structural engineer..but I'm pretty sure if you put shaped charges on the 48 core columns in the basement, it would cause the whole building to collapse. It would look a lot different than original collapse..the "snowball" would be at the base, while the building lowered itself into it...and there probably would be some toppling and spreading out of debris..it might even topple over in one big piece...but the end result is the same...a pile of rumble and dead bodies. I wasn't clear in my post about this, I was referring to bombs going off in the basement, without planes hitting the building. The insiders had a blank page to work with when they started the designing of their plan. It just doesn't make sense to me with all of the options and resources available to them, they would choose this plan of using both planes and explosives. If your going to go to the trouble of rigging the building for explosives capable of collapse..why even bother with planes? Terrorists have used bombs in the basement before, so it would be very easy to believe they did it again...but this time they were more successful. (p.s. this a part of my idea on the best way to take down the towers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
The intent of the people that committed the crimes of that day (be they terrorists or insiders) was to "shock" America. Mission accomplished. I remember my own reactions from that day...after I watched the second plane hit...and I instantly went from wondering if it was an accident to KNOWING it was an attack...I was pissed..I wanted revenge..I was ready to crack open a can of whoop ass on the perps right then... It was only necessary to create a large disaster that would be viewed on live national television. Complete collapse was not necessary.
Why would they intentionally create a "Rube Goldberg machine" of a plan, instead of something much less complicated and risky? Why design a plan that would intentionally put your explosives in the direct path of a plane crashing at 500 mph? That's super duper risky..you could only HOPE your charges survived the impact. Why intentionally create that much risk and more opportunities for failure, when much less risky options were available. While the planes impacting the building did provide some serious shock value...equal amounts of shock could be accomplished by calling in a bomb threat, then setting off of "were not kidding bomb"...wait 10 or so minutes for the news cameras to gather...hell...with insider clout, you could even arrange a "media event" of a different nature to be going on..so the whole thing is broadcast. Then before god and everyone, blow the charges.
Point I'm trying to make...People...if given a choice...will choose the easiest and safest way to do things. It's the reason we walk around brush piles instead of climbing over them. The insiders were subject to these same human nature tendencies, why would they make things so hard for themselves?
You forgot to add that they do the easiest way that actually works. With shaped charges on the 47 core columns in the basement the building wouldn't just come down with a snowball at the bottom. There would be no maybes about toppling as the aspect ratio was just too great. There was a 1/4 mile of building above those basements.
The reason for the aircraft impacts would have been shock value and the ability to take the buildings down without a topple while being able to easily blame outsiders. The bombs in the basement would be hard to pull off the deception with, in my opinion. You would need huge amounts of explosive to even make a dent in the columns down there. In 1993 it was a 1200 lb. bomb that went off in a Ryder truck and it didn't do much damage to the nearby columns, so how would insiders come up with a cover story for the amount of explosive needed and how do they explain the security lapse? With the aircraft hijackings and impacts there isn't a whole lot to explain.
It would not be that hard to rig ten floors around where the aircraft impact would occur and there were probably homing devices to zero in on a specific area. Once knowing precisely where it hit the collapse sequence could be adjusted for the floor just above the major damage. The aircraft didn't actually cause as much damage as you seem to think either and you seem to be forgetting that the collapses actually started above the impact damage. Take a look at the NIST report for the actual amount of damage on the 97th floor of WTC 1, it isn't very much. NIST doesn't even show the little damage to the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated in WTC 1. It was hit by all of five foot of the end of one wing. Additionally, fires can't set off thermite. That is another reason I believe the collapses were initiated with incendiaries.
Apparently not for you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mac, doesnt matter. You have to just take it from where it comes.:crazy:
The building came down in a fashion that entirely supports the official story and is impossible in the Toofer fantasy. I said weeks ago that charges would need to be set at each corner on every singly floor to come down the way the buildings did.
Ask for the example Col. Kurtz gave me of the building demolished with jacks and it is good for a laugh that this person would be so simple. He links to a video that completely contradict his BS. I dont remember where that link is but it is pretty comical.
Separate names with a comma.