Well, consider a 100kg man confronted by a fast-moving .22-caliber bullet, weighing approximately 2 grams, or about one five-hundredth of one percent of his weight. The man, like the building, does not have a uniform density - he has structural members held together by tendons and cartilage in a manner not wholly unlike that of steel girders and welds. The man can indeed be killed by the bullet, if it hits him dead center, causes serious internal injuries that can’t be treated in a timely fashion. We could document the cascading failures and analyze them at the autopsy.
In the case of a WTC tower, we’ve been presented with a plausible chain of events in which the building suffers significant trauma and “injuries” that were not (and I expect could not) be treated in a timely fashion. What specifically strikes you as implausible, and what evidence, if any, could change your mind?
This statement right here shows that you do not understand how the WTC was designed and built.
If you understood how it was designed and built, you would not have posted this.
At the risk of this sliding yet further into pig singing lessons, let me try to explain.
The WTC 1 and 2 were a couple of very unusual buildings. They did not have columns placed at regular intervals over the floor. Rather the buildings had a reinforced central core, and a load bearing outer skin.
The floors were suspended between them on trusses called spandrels. These spandrels were covered in metal decking and concrete. All the floors held up was themselves and furniture, they were not part of the load bearing structure of the building.
Look at the NIST report you linked to for a picture of the floor construction of the WTC.
so we have a huge assed airplane punch a real big hole in the side of of the WTC. (1 or 2 it does not matter) This puts a increased load on the rest of the outer skin of the building as now there are less columns to take up the load. Fire erupts.
Fire burns like a mother fucker. Steel gets hot, real hot. Steel loses strength due to heat. The outer columns deform causing the spandrel trusses to pull away from the outer columns and the core. At some point the floor collapse or the outer columns fail and collapse. (to quote from The Man of La Mancha it really doesn’t matter if the pitcher hits the stone, or the stone hits the pitcher, it is going to be bad for the pitcher)
At this point the sucker is going down.
Regardless of whether it was the columns that failed first or the floors that failed first, the core could and did remain standing. At least for a few seconds.
Now here is where you have to answer two very serious questions.
Since the core obviously did not fail first, and there are no other columns on the floor of WTC 1 or 2, that means that any explosives would have to be placed against the outer columns. Question 1 Wouldn’t you agree that an explosive device or thermite placed against the out column would be obvious to observers when it was detonated/triggered? Question 2And since every swinging dick in Manhattan with a video camera had it aimed at the WTC that day, don’t you agree we would have a record of such an event?
So show me the video.
Of course I don’t understand fully how the towers were built ( Although from what’s been described about the crucial column in WTC7, it certainly seems that that building was ripe for a well-placed explosive of some sort.), and if I was the only one raising these questions, you’d have a valid point.
Q1. My agreeing or disagreeing doesn’t matter, as I am not an expert on this topic, or any other, I’m honest enough to say. Are you an expert on placing thermite devices? Or are you just making educated guesses like me?
Q2. I have no idea what they would have been expected to record, had a destructive device been placed half-way up the towers and within the core structure. That’s what I’ve been asking.
Until you can provide evidence that there exists an explosive that:
could be concealed from those that occupied that building AND
was strong enough to bring down the towers AND
would itself leave behind no evidence of its existence,
all you are doing is pissing in the wind. Why the hell should we bother even considering such a non-nonsensical solution such as this?
No, you expecting some ordinary Joe on a messageboard to be able to provide such evidence, is just a method of hand-waving the proposal away. What we should be aiming for if we really want answers, is allowing someone trustworthy the authority to go through all Black Budget audits and find out exactly what they’ve been working on. Then, when you have all that information on the table, then, and only then, can you say what can and can’t be done.
That’s interesting: when you make demands for evidence, other people provide it (at least up until you start asking about undetectable fictional explosives). When people make the same requests of you, you’re dismissing the requests as literal mindedness and handwaving.
Since the core stayed standing after the collapse of the outer part of the building it only logical that your magic explosives were not placed there.
Of course for you to agree would require logic and critical thinking, something you have yet to show anywhere in this thread.
Regardless of how you want to characterize it, the point is that people who support The Official Story (now with Scary Capitals) have posted a lot of evidence for that version of events. A bunch of what was posted contradicted what you were saying, and yet we’re still going around and around. Meanwhile you haven’t said much in support of The Conspiracy Theory (fair is fair) and I think almost everything you’ve said to this point has been disproved.
Are you trying to tell me that members of this board are familiar with all military R+D that has occurred over the last 20 years? Even the stuff going on under Black Budget conditions? Wow, you’re more clued up than I ever imagined. Just because nobody on here can knock up a feasible plan to drag the world into a War On Terror, doesn’t mean it is impossible.
I am trying to tell you that you’re employing a Thermite of the Gaps theory. Essentially people have told you that an explosion is impossible for a bunch of reasons, and you’re asking if they can prove the towers were not brought down by secret explosives that can do the impossible. That’s not a budget issue or a research and development issue, it’s a ‘refusing to look at the evidence’ issue. A few pages ago you were insisting American Airlines 77 could have been swapped out with another plans because its transponder was turned off while it was over a big body of water. It was later pointed out that it was over dry land when its transponder went off and it never passed over water. That didn’t slow you down a bit. Like I mentioned, earlier you were asking for pictures of the bodies because if there weren’t any, the plane might’ve been swapped out for a missile or another plane or something. Then someone posted pictures of the bodies and you thought they were suspiciously whole. So the fiendish conspiracy was, I guess, thorough enough to go to the trouble of doctoring some bodies or photographs, but not thorough enough to make them look like they’d been in a plane crash. So the facts don’t matter, really, do they?
If this question is answered to your satisfaction, will you be satisfied that it happened the way the official reports say, or will you have yet another question to ask? If not…
How many questions have to be answered for you to be satisfied with the official reports?