I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I did. A lot of interesting comments from 'experts' and a lot of comments from 'a person'.
Also had this to say,
Sun, 09/16/2012 - 18:39 | Ginsengbull
Thermite isn't used for demolition. It's used for welding.
Sun, 09/16/2012 - 15:13 | malek
The amount of ignorance displayed in those "expert" statements is breathtaking.
1. No one even mentions, much less takes into account in any way, that the WTC twin towers were built on a different construction principle with a strong outer wall and a center core but no load bearing vertical pillars in-between.
I know from looking at construction plans that the same was true for WTC-7.
2. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity.
No one mentions that large parts of the WTC twin towers were bolted together pieces of steel.
If you take your time to look at films and photos during the construction, you can see that the number of bolts holding together outer wall vertical beams was rather low. The result is that those bolts can fail long before the tensile strength of the pieces it is holding together is exceeded.
A very convincing confirmation is the fact that photos show punched out pieces of the outer wall lying on the ground, after the airplane impact but before any tower collapsed. That would never have been possible if the building steel was completely welded together or a large number of rivets or bolts had been used. One photo, but there are better ones: http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
This was only possible because of the relatively weak bolt connections within the outer wall.
(Up to this day, I have no concise information of how the inner core columns were held together, or how much or little construction of WTC-7 differed from the twin towers. But it is reasonable to assume that construction of WTC-7 was not very different, though.)
3. Molten steel on the ground, or red-glowing pieces, many weeks after collapse:
What exactly does this confirm?
That the fuel did put a lot of heat into the steel?
That the collapse of a 1360 ft high building converts a lot of potential energy into heat, not all necessarily emitted into pulverizing pieces or warming up air?
*If* this is interpreted to confirm existence of Thermite or other demolition agents, how much of those agents must have been present to create such heat? Is the calculated amount even feasible?
So unless someone starts putting together a picture that doesn't willfully ignore such crucial questions, I can only yawn.
I haven't finished reading yet though. There are shitloads of links
Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!
Well of course - who could ever doubt the credentials of a Ginsengbull or a malek?
That's me converted.
If you watch the original PBS documentary on Building the Towers and look at the blueprints which have since been released you can see that the twin towers had massive steel core columns, also the outer mesh structure was carefully designed and no one piece was the same.
The thermite story is another false plant and deliberate red herring. Even with the suspicious behaviour in the towers in the weeks beforehand I think it wasn't humanely possible to install thermite cutter charges in the right places in a short period of time. Any number of possible emergency or repair scenrios in the weeks before could have resulted in the charges being discovered so just like the fake pentagon plane angle its too much risk to be possible.
The towers were demolished in some way but I think it was with some kind of new directed energy weapon technology that we are not publicly aware of yet.
In the rubble there should have been plenty of relatively intact upper floors after a 'pancake collapse'. If its the steel bolts that failed the rebar concrete floors should have stayed relatively intact.
Also we must remember these towers were built in a time when men had real pride in their workmanship and just like today inspectors would have to have signed off on various stages. And in such a litigious nation there's no way a building would have been allowed to be constructed if its design was so vulnerable that it could fail after a 1 hour fire. Ever since the WWII bomber flew into the empire state building in fog they have designed skyscapers to survive being hit by a plane also...
Do you need a tissue?
You put forward comments from a Gensingbull and a malek as rebuttals to those from a huge list of engineering and architectural experts (not to mention the firefighters and first responders) and you expect to be taken seriously?
The retard comment stands.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks