How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

a reply to: kyleplatinum

So what you are ignoring, as the vertical columns increased in height, their thickness decreased. But the composition of the floors did not change, and load capacities of the floors did not diminish. Other than the mechanical floors 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109 of the 110 floors.

a reply to: samkent

So now you think mechanical floor 75 should have held the 35 floors above it? Magic.

You said: But the connections that held each floor was identical.
Then I replied to that statement with the answer: Not all floors, the mechanical floors contained solid steel-framed supports.

Then, you respond with: So now you think mechanical floor 75 should have held the 35 floors above it? Magic.

When the exterior was sliced and then heated it gave way allowing all the mass to be placed on those lonely floor trusses below.

Only about 15% of the columns were severed in each building by aircraft impact.

That is quite low compared to original design claims reported in the mid 60′s by the Engineering News-Record that said the towers could lose more than 25% of their columns without having any problems.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

After the areas of initial buckling, Ithe vertical columns were not the cause of the continued collapse. What don’t you get the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. The 29 floors above the buckling for WTC 2, and the 11 floors above the buckling of WTC 1, fell onto the first static floor below the buckling. The connections connecting the floor first hit by the upper portion were only rated to support a load equivalent to the mass of six tower floors. The falling mass either sheared floor connections, or broke through the actual floor decking. This allowed the falling 29 / 11 stories to take out the floor system at the rate of 67 percent free fall. Long sections of vertical columns where left standing in the wake of the floor system collapse. The vertical columns fell at the rate of 40 percent the rate of free fall by toppling over from the loss of lateral support.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

After the areas of initial buckling, Ithe vertical columns were not the cause of the continued collapse. What don’t you get the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. The 29 floors above the buckling for WTC 2, and the 11 floors above the buckling of WTC 1, fell onto the first static floor below the buckling. The connections connecting the floor first hit by the upper portion were only rated to support a load equivalent to the mass of six tower floors. The falling mass either sheared floor connections, or broke through the actual floor decking. This allowed the falling 29 / 11 stories to take out the floor system at the rate of 67 percent free fall. Long sections of vertical columns where left standing in the wake of the floor system collapse. The vertical columns fell at the rate of 40 percent the rate of free fall by toppling over from the loss of lateral support.

....... I am VERY familiar with this story.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Then you explain what caused what is seen in the video in the linked to thread below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Then answer to there no proof of CD of the towers?

Terrorists that took flight training and were groomed by deep pocket Middle Eastern interests?

Vs

Nearly impossible access to WTC columns without notice of larges crews to install explosives over what would be at least a 3 month job for a floor to floor CD System. Never address how the supposed planted explosives would effect elevator operations? As in large charges in shafts? In buildings that had explosive sniffing dogs.

In the context the video evidence shows the collapse of the towers started in the areas of the jet impacts. The impossible CD system that somehow survive jet impacts that cut vertical columns, core columns, elevator shafts, elevator cables, and fire water mains. And still maintained their integrity to start the towers’ collapse at the areas of jet impacts after wide spread fires.

Then a CD system that did not explode anything outward upon collapse initiation. No audio evidence of an explosion with the force to cut steel. No evidence of a pressure waves with the force to cut steel. No evidence of demolitions shrapnel. No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the victims or human remains.

No evidence of steel worked on by planted charges.

All to start the first never before top down CD of a high rise building? With never before used thermite for a high rise building CD? With the false narrative of up to three times in one day?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

I see your short comings and questions answered? As in the towers did not fall through the greatest path of resistance. Will you address debunker’s questions, or just rant?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I see your short comings and questions answered? As in the towers did not fall through the greatest path of resistance. Will you address debunker’s questions, or just rant?

Rant I have not, you must be slow on the definition.

Then you explain what caused what is seen in the video in the linked to thread below?

Look.... There was a lot, I mean a lot going on inside those building on 9/11, most if not all could NOT be witnessed from outside.

Here's my answer:
I think that any deformation that we see on the exterior of the tower was caused by an initiation that was core centric.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Here's my answer:
I think that any deformation that we see on the exterior of the tower was caused by an initiation that was core centric.

Then why is the buckling inward, isolated in a band only one or two stories tall, around the circumference of the tower, in areas of the jet impacts.

If the core was dropped by cutting, whole vertical sections of the twenty or thirty core columns whould have to be removed to get the core to drop. A cut core would have caused a distortion to ripple all the way up to the top of the tower. Not what was seen. Not the witnessed/ recorded buckling isolated to only one or two floors high. And if you cut the core only at one location, not my argument but the conspiracists argument, the tower should have fallen like a tree? Or your argument, you think the tower would have been supported by the floor under the cut?