Quote:
Originally Posted by will76
Again, always nice to see an occasional post like this to see who the nutjobs are. Sometimes it takes threads like this to get the crazies to come to the surface.
|
This is subjective. Depends who you think are nutjobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
When buildings loose their support in the center, the upper floors fall down - not in any other direction. When the upper floors fell down, it crumbled the floors below it. This is common knowledge.
|
There's nothing about any buildings losing their support "in the center". Even if that did happen, somehow, buildings would still tend to tilt to one or the other side before falling.
If the top 25 floors started falling it isn't "common knowledge" that the bottom 75 would succumb - that's actually against basic physics.
There IS a demolition technique that cuts a building in half and the top, equally heavy, portion crushes the bottom half because they have equal mass and volume, but the top third or quarter would not do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The buildings were designed to have 100% of the support infrastructure in place. Not 75%. If you physically destroy 25% of the structure, you've damaged the remaining 75% - and it will not hold the rest of the building for long.
|
That's wrong. The buildings were designed to have large portions of their support structure compromised, by jet planes notably, and throughout as well.
In physics, the bottom 75% should resist the top 25% even if it doesn't "support" it - in other words that top 25 should have toppled, not crushed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
That's not really true is it?
"Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner?a Boeing 707 -- which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport."
One of the designers "considered it", but no where does any paperwork say the building was designed to withstand the impact of a plane. Even the brief consideration mentioned above mentions a 707 flying at a low speed, not a much larger plane flying at much higher speed.
|
Robertson's quote confuses me, though, because the original building design parameters specifically mention aircraft hits. On "paper".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Who said anything about melting steel? If you heat up steel beams that are already damaged, they aren't at 100% strength. Take away a percentage of the infrastructure, heat up the remaining damaged beams, and clearly it's only a matter of time before the building comes down.
|
The government originally said "anything about melting steel". And if your scenario (which is not the government's conspiracy theory) would be correct, the structure's whole frame would have to weaken perfectly equally symmetrically to fall down vertically the way they did...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
We already had this discussing about planes that vaporize, and we showed you a video of a plane hitting a wall and there being nothing left.
Also had a discussion about how there was "not a single bolt" found at the crash site of Flight 93 in PA, yet in a single search I pulled up dozens of photos.
Okay, so now you say "there was not a single piece of the plane left"....
Here's a fucking engine from the Pentagon site:
Twice you told me there was "nothing left of a the plane" (once you even said "not a bolt") and yet simple single searches quickly produce pictures of plane parts at both sites.
If your gonna argue this, use your head instead of making shit up. |
Actually that is not a commercial jet liner engine part - it's much too small. Where this photo actually comes from is unresourced.
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Trash Heap
That's the only way to talk to imbeciles like you and amp.
|
Actually you just have to provide some proof or at least links. Caca-poopoo name calling the way you do actually weakens your case...
:D