1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a
logical fallacy.
2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.
3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.
4- Explain how building 7,
according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.
5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.
6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.
7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"
8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).
9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.
10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by
NASA satellites.
You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.
1-10 COMPLETELY AVOIDED yet again
I don't declare them debunked. The math that I present may well do that, though.
For example let's take your gem of a rebuttal.
Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load.
Are you fucking kidding? The 120x load still applies, for the perimeter to 40% of the total load, and for the central columns, for 60% of the total load. Your argument is still defeated. Get real please. Evasions don't work, the entire record of the argument is in these posts. Over and over you have simply denied a refutation of an argument. Your own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.
And this is just prime comedy -
Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?" Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion? Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record. That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts. Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?
Come on, let's hear the Truther view. Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.
No your bullshit about loads does not still apply, because the figure of 2000% redundancy is for ONLY THE OUTER COLUMNS which support only 40% of the load. Even if by some miracle this were true, the top of a building falling is not going to demolish an entire building below it that is was designed to hold up, especially since this would violate Newtons 3rd law of motion.
...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.
Neither of these assertions is true.
1. As I previously explained, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 passenger airliners traveling at 600mph.
A)
NYC WTC 'designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts' Frank De Martini construction bossB)
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet CollisionC)
Towers built to withstand jet impactD)
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8 ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.E)
Sullivan consults, one of the trade center's original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.2. Again, as previously mentioned, in order to sufficiently weaken the steel support structure of the WTC for a collapse, temperatures in excess of 2000 F would be required for several hours, well above the 56 minutes between the impact and the collapse of the first tower. The events of that day, 3 high rise steel framed buildings ALL completely "collapsing from fire" was unprecedented, and statistically improbable.
A)
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.B)
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling: “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”C)
Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4hour and 2hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours.D)
National Fire Protection Association publications show that there are about 110 high rise fires in buildings over 13 stories each year. In the last 550 of those fires not one collapsed. 3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?
The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers
requiring the
ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of
the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from
the FEMA reports.
4. Buildings CAN NOT collapse at free fall speeds. The ONLY way under the
laws of physics a building can fall at free fall speed is if there is NO RESISTANCE. A collapse as described by the official narrative would include resisting force as the floors impacted the lower levels beneath it creating deceleration. Again, this is not up for debate, it is a law of physics. The only possible way for the buildings to fall at those speeds would be if the supports were
BLOWN OUT before the material above it impacted it.
As far as your argument about the engineer, you are seriously claiming that you think people would blame him for this as if it was some kind of engineering failure? That is beyond asinine. If the people who designed the fucking building are not authoritative enough for you, who is? Convenient you bring in this little side narrative to discredit the statement, that's why I included statements from other experts above. Perhaps they are all lying to protect themselves? Also, if it was such a engineering failure, why have none of the building codes been modified to correct for them? Hmmm....
Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire. Just like a regular wood fire. It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.
Except for the fact that all of these things are required to meet strict fire codes as all high rise building in NYC are in order to prevent these high temperatures. Even if they did create these temperatures, the fire still did not burn long enough to weaken the steel with isolated fires that would have wicked away the heat by conducting it thru the steel framework over such a short period. How does a short burning fire weaken structures 20-90 stories below? Answer: they don't.
Show Posts
