DEFENDTHISHOUSE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 28,633
- Likes
- 32,090
How is that a simple question... asking me to read what is in the conspirator's minds and what their motives are?
Deflection? Really, Grand?
You seem to be trying to read things that aren't there as it is. Attempting to make complex theories out of little to no evidence. Yes, deflection. You could answer that simple question of "why would they bring them straight down in what appears to be a controlled demolition that would lead to tough questions when toppling them would make far more sense?"
So who planted the explosives in the buildings? That's another simple question.
Again, ask the country that most likely funded the operation (within the 28 pages) or ask the country that had 15 of the hijackers.
You are barking up the wrong tree. You need to be directing your questions to the Saudis or whoever else is named in those 28 pages. To me, that seems like a very reasonable place to start asking questions, not a deflection.
Looking at the cause of collapse is simply a distraction. Overall 9/11 was a monumental failure on the part of the governments foreign-policy.
This is the only time I even mentioned melted steel as even a remote cause. When you don't read my entire argument, quite frankly, you embarrass yourself.
Explain to me how asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical failure of the towers at near freefall velocity.
Yep. If Clinton had only done his job and taken care of Bin Laden instead of peppering the afghan mountains with a few random cruise missiles thousands of people would probably still be alive.
But wait... you still miss my 2 major points regarding the nature of the failure.
1. It was symmetrical in nature. Instead of the building failing or favoring one side or the other, all 3 buildings failed in the normal direction. What are the odds that 3 buildings damaged asymetrically and in different manners (allegedly WTC 7 was damaged also) falling straight down in the normal direction?
2. The speed of the collapse. You get no argument from me that metal is weakened with heat, but I would think that after you mover further away from the source of heat, the structural integrity of the steel would gradually improve. With that being that case, lets assume that the steel near the source did weaken and fail... you should have had a series of inelastic collisions that may have very easily caused the weight of floor above to collapse on to the weakened floor below. But at a point, as you move further away from the source, these inelastic collisions of floors on top of floors would have run into gradually stronger floors on the lower levels.
What I am suggesting is that (worst case scenario) we should have seen 2 towers failing asymmetrically with probably everything within 15-20 floors of the impact points possibly falling to the ground on the side of the collision or one side or the other. Any floors that would have collapsed on each other would have eventually reached stronger/less weakened floors and eventually stopped at some point. Instead of a total collapse, we should have seen two 70-80 floor structures left standing with jagged/asymmetrical damage left behind from the other floors falling away to the street.
Of course even then, there are some other questions:
1. How much time does it really take to weaken steel to failure? Is 90 mins a reasonable amount of time when we have examples of other buildings burning for as long as 24 hours without heat fatigue/failure?
2. Still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7.
****, ****, ****. :banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:
its designed to collapse like that numbuts. I know its crazy but us engineers and architects know wtf we are talking about. Depending on your city codes any building over a certain number of stories is required to collapse a certain way. Straight down. much less collateral than if it fell over sideways. as mess upped as it sounds the WTC failed exactly as it should have. and it saved hundreds if not thousands of additional lives and billions more in damages. F***.
and again gravity pulls straight down. no need or reason for it to go anyway but that way. all the energy of the plane was already distributed and damage done before the collapse. there was nothing pushing it one way or another. now if planes hit and towers immediately fell straight down you might have an argument if you completely ignore my first paragraph.
F*** this dumb argument makes me angry.