Thanks for the info Jonoleth. I am familiar with the NIST report, I suppose the bottom line here is that we could debate all day weather or not the fire/damage from planes could cause a collapse. For simplicity's sake, let us assume you (official story) are correct that it could cause a collapse. The question then becomes, what would the collapse look like? How extensive would it be? This is where the official story falls flat on it's face. Because it is quite obvious that the section ABOVE the impact/fires would collapse, but not the entire building below. Because...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin
You can't really use, as a comparable example, a rigid solid rod and compare it to a structural skeletton of joints and sections. Structures are not trees.
|
Sure I can, the same principles are at work. But if you like, we can modify my example. Let us make it 3 steel rods welded together every 2ft (this is analogous to the WTC tower's core) to create a 6ft rod. It doesn't really matter what we attach to this rod, the rod is the foundation holding the structure up (just as the cores in the twin towers).
Now, again, stick the rod in the ground, file and torch the rod at the 4ft mark, and what will happen? Same thing: portion of rod above the part filed/torched will fall over. Portion below won't.
It's interesting you just brushed this one aside so quickly. Apparently there is no convenient pre-written response for it that you can google? LOL
To be fair, the photos and video you show of the WTC7 tower DO show that there were more fires burning than I had previously thought. I had never seen some of those photos and videos before. But it is black smoke, indicating a cool fire. In addition, NO MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE VISIBLE. Why don't you put the pics in photoshop and circle in red the massive structural damage for us? Because I don't see it.
And I notice almost all your posts have been on this thread and one other about the Talmud. How obvious can you get.