Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The perimeter columns supported all of the floors - from the ground level up to the top. They perimeter columns were damaged, and in some cases completely destroyed. The perimeter columns started to bend outwards due to the damage and the fires, pulling the trusses on every floor below it.
|
Each floor was buttressed by the perimeter columns. The failure of these on one or multiple floors would not lead to their failure top to bottom of all floors.
The unlikely NIST theory is that the inner buttresses between the core and perimeter began to "sag" because somehow low temperatures for a short amount of time weakened the steel which they were made of.
The official conspiracy theory states the perimeter columns bent inwards, not "outwards" as you claim.
Regardless, this would not "pull" all perimeter columns all the way down to their undamaged and un-weakened base 80 stories below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You keep trying to minimise the damage to the perimeter columns. In some places they were completely destroy, so nothing was supporting the floors above. The perimeter columns were also pushed out, pulling the floors with them which not only affected the perimeter columns below, but also affected the perimeter columns on all sides being as the floor and the trusses holding the floor in place were being pulled away.
|
"in some places they were completely destroy" meaning that on one side out of four of several floors of the tower there was damage - 25% or less on those floors. They didn't affect the perimeter columns below, as video and photographic evidence shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
But not all floors were uncompromised or structurally sound.
|
Exactly correct. Most floors were uncompromised and structurally sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And no, nothing would have "tilted to the side". The floors fell down. Not sideways.
|
Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.
Out of three buildings, you'd think at least one would tilt and fall sideways, but none did.
One did start to fall sideways, but against all probability got "eaten up" and consumed in the vertical destruction.
There's nothing in these "collapses" that smacks of "origanic" or natural collapse...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
A massive one story building collapsed. This was so massive that it caved in ten levels underground, and was still ten stories tall above ground. Millions and millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god knows what fell.
|
A plane hit it at about the 80th level. How could that have any effect on the multiple sub-basements that were eradicated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
This is where your points fail. Your making it sounds like the core magically disappeared, but that would have happened no matter what. Even if the building was brought down entirely by explosives, the core and everything else would have been pulverised and turned into debris.
|
Well certainly if there had been a planned demolition the core would have been destroyed - it is one of the sturdiest parts of the structure, and would require special attention.
But your officially sanctioned theory would have it that the building fell by happenstance, and that the core somehow was pulverized along with the "accidental" destruction of the exterior columns and inner floors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
What do you mean by no combustibles? In the core itself were utility rooms with back up batteries and generators. Bathrooms had paper towels and rags and trash bins. Your making the core to be solid steel with the fact it was elevtaors and rooms full of combustibles with load bearing walls.
|
Toilet paper and plastic toilet seats will not melt steel. There were no office furnitures in the cores. Batteries and generators weren't detected or reported as having melted down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Two large airplanes hit two tall buildings.
Saying they were different is like saying one car hit another car head on at 70mph opposed to one car hitting the passenger door head on at 70mph. Very different, but you still end up with the same result.
|
One building was hit head-on. Nothing erupted from the other side. The other was hit at an angle, and one engine apparently went through out the other side. Most of the Airliner fuel was ignited outside one building, whereas most was ignited inside the the other.
The buildings suffered very different impacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Planes crashed into the towers, destroying the support and hitting the core.
|
Nice, popular theory with no basis in reality. The support was not "destroyed" and the core was not "hit" or compromised. NIST report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
So what your saying here is that thermite couldn't have been used to take down the buildings because the fire wasn't hot enough?
|
What I'm saying is that the government theory cannot account for the behaviour of the steel and the building with its ridiculously low temperatures.
What I'm saying is that it would require exceedingly hotter temperatures than those accounted for by the government hypothesis to produce the results we were witness to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The buildings were designed to survive a plane crash, but not the kind of plane crash that happened. They were designed to survive an impact of a plan traveling at 300 mph - not a plane intentionally slammed into a building at almost twice that speed.
|
The impact speed was secondary.
Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And the towers did in fact survive the impact. It was the impact and the resulting fires that took down the towers, not the impact itself.
|
If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity. According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.
There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand an impact at 180mph, not the 600mph. Planes don't travel 600mph at that height, and at the time it no one imagined someone would intentionally ram the towers at 600mph.
|
About the intentional ramming of planes in the buildings - you're wrong. They were expected, and planned for.
The speed estimates have been exaggerated through ignorance. No commercial airliner can move at 600mph at this sea-level and air-pressure. Whether 200mph or 400mph, these sorts of incidents were considered.
Plenty of agencies were planning for such attacks. Only Condie Rice and Bush Jr. ever claimed that no one imagined attacks of this sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And the Patriot Act did what?
|
Made your life so much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Do you mean to tell me that the US government bombed buildings to enact a law? What exactly did that law accomplish? Can they read my email? Could they read my email before? Now? I'm sure they can.
|
I didn't or don't conjecture what "the US government" did or didn't do. I know they can do a lot more now without legal or constitutional resort than they could before September 11, 2001.
Whether or not that's affected you yet I can't say. I can bet that it will sooner or later though...
:D