Originally posted by esdad71
Oh, hi bsbray, nice of you to show up, drop a one liner with no content and try to bash someone with an idea opposite of yours.
Still learning the trade. Keep up the good work and I should have it down pat shortly.
Go toot your own horn and find some evidence of explosives their conspiracy boy. Oh, that's right, there isn't any, is there? I have been
asking you that question for months....
The only problem is that I've gotten tired of repeating it, especially for someone who is just going to ignore it anyway.
Your bottom line is that you think the WTC were built like pieces of crap. That's how they managed to fall despite all of their alleged redundancy
and etc. that everyone else knows they had, according to you. And ignore all the construction pictures showing massive core columns and all that, too.
Flimsy. Stack of cards. All three buildings.
It must really be unfortunate for you, but all of the same problems are still relevant. Why? Because if you were honest about it you'd realize that
the fires were not severe enough to damage the steel columns any more than they already were by the impacts. And if the impact damage was enough, then
the buildings would most obviously have fallen right after the jets impacted and not so much later. And this is only speaking of WTC1 and WTC2.
This is what people have been pointing out since those towers fell: the fires were not hot enough.
First, people on the "official" side said
the fires melted the steel. I have no doubts that you would still buy this if it wasn't so obviously wrong, but after enough hell was raised, the
obvious was admitted anyway that hydrocarbon fires could not have melted the steel.
Then it went to the steel support columns just being
sufficiently heated (above 600 C) for failure.
Now, it's just that the
trusses were significantly heated to cause failure (according to
NIST).
Well, first of all, do you have your story straight yet? Or did you suspect from day one that it was the trusses? Or do you not even keep up, and
don't even know the difference?
Well assuming you do have it straight now, where is the evidence of massive truss failure? And then once you provide that (which you never will), you
can explain how 13 of the lightest floors of WTC1 pulverized 97 heavier, thicker-columned floors
without so much as slowing down.
Then
you can change that explanation to account for the fact that the 13 floors to start were destroyed not too far into the collapse of WTC1, and most of
the debris was ejected outwards from the towers anyway and didn't even fall onto the lower floors, once collapse had initiated.
If you just answer those questions in some manner that even begins to make sense scientifically then I'd be surprised. But I know you can't do it,
because a smaller mass completely pulverizing a much larger mass without losing any momentum in the process is not physically possibly here on Earth,
in any fashion that our sciences are aware of.
And btw, don't even try any stack-of-cards arguments, because concrete was pulverized into a fine powder. That means there was RESISTANCE when the
towers fell, which means energy would've had to have been exerted to powderize that concrete, which means momentum SHOULD have been lost as the
towers fell. Do you get what I'm saying here?
Also, it is not a contridiction to read and study both sides so you know the strength and weakness of each arguement you create, enter or
debate. It is common sense to be prepared and also helps to make informed decisons on what to support and defend, and what not to.
Please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with what it's in response to.
You said you know both sides, and then proceed to assert we all think that the Bush Admin consists only of dunces on the level of Bush himself, and
that they were the ones to plan 9/11. That sort of tells me that you either don't know what you're arguing against or are being dishonest.
and another question, what does the BS stand for? I got a few ideas
It's my first and middle initials: Brian Scott.
I bet you were wrong on this one too, eh?
[edit on 21-3-2006 by bsbray11]
