Quote from I.Q.:
Okay, folks, pay attention. This is very important. Haroki has just fallen into the same logical trap that eventually all supporters of the government's non-demolition building collapse theory fall into.
These people say that in order for Bldgs 1, 2, and 7 to have fallen symmetrically, at nearly free-fall speed, and converted into fine dust powder, that there would had to have been placed within the steel infrastructure of these buildings "HUUUGE bombs" in order to accomplish this task. Read the quote above. So far, so good, right?
Now, these very same people who claim that a huge, immense quantity of high explosives would had to have been present in order for the towers to collapse the way that they did, then turn around and, in the next breath, claim that all three buildings collapsed in the way that they did without the assistance of any explosives whatsoever!
:eek:
ROTFLMAO!!!
You have got to be kidding me!
Are you people serious?!
Do you now see the logical dead end trap that your line of reasoning has led you into? Right about now your jaw should be dropping and your mouth should be hanging wide open. If they're not, then you need to re-read the two paragraphs above. Keep re-reading them until you get it.
The argument that these people are making is precisely analagous to this one: They are claiming that it is physically impossible for someone to drive from New York to Los Angeles with only ten gallons of gasoline in their car. These same people then turn around and claim that they drove from New York to Los Angeles with absolutely no gasoline in their car whatsoever!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Game Over!
You Lose!
Next!
Ok loser, let me explain this so that even a dummy like you can understand. Ok?
I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the CTer there, understand?
Granted, what I should have said is: HUUUGE bombs would have been necessary to blow the columns out at the speed necessary to make the building collapse the way YOU SAY IT DID. Maybe you might have understood that....
Fine, my bad....
If you're gonna base your argument on my f'ed up writing...... then you have no chance of making your points to anyone other than intellectually bancrupt individuals such as yourself.
Also, I noticed that you've conveniently ignored the question of whether or not you can hear explosives going off. Another sign that you've been defeated.
And yes, the buildings came down without the aid of explosives. Let me explain it to you again-
PHYSICAL DAMAGE, COMBINED WITH FIRE WEAKENING THE STEEL MADE THE BUILDINGS FALL.
Hey, I even have multiple building engineers that I can cite as evidence. Do you? Here's just one, and oh my, he's even been published in a peer reviewed and highly respected journal:
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
Give it up, you're just embarassing yourself. You have nothing. You ARE nothing.....
