Just Wondering...

a reply to: In4ormant

That's cool you have your opinion and I have mine.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

That's cool you have your opinion and I have mine.

As always

a reply to: In4ormant

In regard to that photo, that's aluminum that made up the facade of the WTC Tower.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: In4ormant

In regard to that photo, that's aluminum that made up the facade of the WTC Tower.

The sheeting and beam sleeves were aluminum, not the severed/bent beams themselves you see. The building had a steel frame cage.

a reply to: In4ormant

The aluminum wings of a B-767 are strong enough to penetrate the steel beams. Remember, the steel beams are not solid objects.

Here is a case where a small business jet crashed into a hangar and caught fire. The fire eventually weakened the steel structure of the hangar whereas it collapsed upon the aircraft.

Business Jet Fire Collapse Hangar

a reply to: skyeagle409

You are comparing that to 3 buildings collapsing free fall and that is your smoking gun?

a reply to: In4ormant

The building had a steel frame cage.

And it had a steel frame cage inside: core columns. We can't see this core in any of your picture and we can't find a conclusive story in the Nist-report, that explaines why it vanished.

Can you offer a solution?

Even if the core was somehow damaged, we would've only seen a partially collapse of the building.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: skyeagle409

You are comparing that to 3 buildings collapsing free fall and that is your smoking gun?

Once again, these three buildings DID NOT collapse "free fall".
This has been proven to be bs again and again, and if this is what you are basing your conspiracy on no wonder you reject all scientific findings.

These buildings collapsed because of a catastrophic failure in their integrity. When you drop a thousand tonnes of weight onto a concrete platform only designed to hold ten tonnes IT WILL COLLAPSE.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Even if the core was somehow damaged, we would've only seen a partially collapse of the building.

No you wouldn't, and clearly you didn't.

Again people are entirely underestimating the forces involved in a collapse of this nature. There were thousands upon thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel collapsing here, that is not something the core of the building was designed to withstand.

The core of that building - just as in every other building ever constructed - is placed to work together with the rest of the supporting structure. While there are obviously going to be safeguards put in place where possible, in case of foreseeable incidents and accidents, that doesn't mean a structure can be designed to defy the laws of physics.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The hangar collapsed when fire weakened the steel structure, as was the case when the WTC buildings collapsed, none of which collapsed at free fall speed.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: skyeagle409

You are comparing that to 3 buildings collapsing free fall and that is your smoking gun?

Here's a good look at your supposed "free fall speed".



Now, you'll notice as the building is collapsing, with the top of the building falling down onto the floors beneath in one relatively large and intact chunk, that there is STILL debris visible above the debris cloud as it falls. If these buildings collapsed at free fall speed as you want to claim, we would not be seeing any debris above that cloud, because there would be nothing there to support that debris.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: skyeagle409

You are comparing that to 3 buildings collapsing free fall and that is your smoking gun?

The thing is, that proves exactly what I been telling him
the whole time. He just has no idea what he's talking about.
He need s to dismiss himself from the argument cause, he's
only hurting his cause.

Hilarious

a reply to: Rocker2013

And you think you can split hairs in this argument?

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: skyeagle409

You are comparing that to 3 buildings collapsing free fall and that is your smoking gun?

The thing is, that proves exactly what I been telling him
the whole time. He just has no idea what he's talking about.
He need s to dismiss himself from the argument cause, he's
only hurting his cause.

Hilarious

No, he's really not.
You're resorting to pathetic attempts to dismiss his facts because you are consistently having your points debunked over and over again.

The claim is that no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire, and that fire could not weaken that steel within the WTC buildings.
Clearly this is not true, and has been debunked several times.

It's been claimed that the towers fell at "free fall" speed.
Again, this has been debunked and is repeatedly debunked by almost every single video showing the collapse of those towers.

It's been claimed that there were detonations going on inside the buildings while they were collapsing.
This is not true, there is no evidence for this at all. There was a hell of a lot of debris flying from that building throughout the event - including Human bodies - creating bangs all around the towers. This has been stated by several firefighters too, but conveniently this is ignored entirely by the conspiracy theorists while they constantly quote what firefighters were saying about the "sounds" only when it suits their theory.

I could go on, but I already know that none of you will debate these points properly because you have no evidence for them.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Rocker2013

And you think you can split hairs in this argument?

So now debating the science, the reality and the facts in opposition to the bs is "splitting hairs"?

These are points you and your fellow conspiracy theorists are raising as proof, and now your trying to make out that any evidence proving you wrong is "splitting hairs"?

a reply to: Rocker2013

Just using the word beams proves my point esse.
And you only think it's been debunked.

Vertical beams Oho hahaha heee

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Rocker2013

Just using the word beams proves my point esse.
And you only think it's been debunked.

Please provide evidence for what you believe, I'm still waiting.

Come on now, if you're so certain it shouldn't be so hard, should it?
Offer us the evidence you supposedly have for believing the utter bs you believe.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I am the evidence. Pal. Look it up yourself.

Beams are horizontal podner. Take a class on construction and
get back to me. Right now I got christmas tree come'n gotta go!

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Meh.
I've actually dropped a cinder block from 25 feet up- was not overwhelmed with a cloud of dust.

J/K

I suppose had I used actual concrete slab with a fluted floor pan...the floor pan may have helped the slab stay better intact upon impact?

It's beyond my own resources to test...

How many feet apart 'were' the floors?