Originally posted by Stateofgrace
And here is their home page, saying they took 3 years to conduct a building and fire safety investigation.
[...]
So who do you expect me to believe?
I don't expect you to put
faith into anyone, if that's what you're asking, but NIST is a government agency for Christ's sake. You don't
turn to the government to ask if they've committed conspiracy and expect a straight answer.
And let's be frank. NIST's report doesn't even tell you why the towers totally fell. They give a theory on how the first floors failed, and that's
all they describe. Most all of the things demolition theorists point out, besides the lack of damage from fire (and there's really no evidence to
support truss failure theory because of this), NIST doesn't address at all. And again, what they give you as theory, has no evidence to support
it.
Ok you said I missed the point about the expulsion of the material. Sorry I thought I made my point very clear. Let me clarify it for you. The
expulsion of all the debris was caused by the massive weight above collapsing onto it. Unless of course you belief all this debris was flung to the
side of the now more or less tons and tons of invisible explosives.
Well, dude, let me clear something up with
you.
I'm sure what you're going for is that demolitions fall straight down, and yet most of the debris landed outside of the WTC footprints. What I'm
saying is that they still fell straight down, it's just that the material was ejected as they did so. The centers of gravity are still within the
footprints. Ok?
Now by trying to explain the ejections,
you're totally changing subjects. We're no longer talking about if the towers fell straight down or
not, but why the debris fell where it did. It doesn't matter why you think the debris flew outwards. The fact of the matter is that that has nothing
to do with the centers of gravity still being within the footprints; you still have to admit that the point behind your question has been satisfied;
it was a loaded question and based on an incorrect premise.
You do the same thing with the supposed lack of sound. You admit there was a mass of sound, but then ask why you didn't hear any explosives. I'm
telling you that it's of my opinion that that metallic roar
was partially the result of explosives.
Another thing, a
VERY IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind, is that
these collapses were not meant to be obvious demolitions. They weren't
MEANT to have obviously expulsions of material. They weren't MEANT to produce load explosions as they fell. They were
meant to look
natural.
We've already established that no two demolitions are ever alike. There are special considerations behind every demolition. In these cases, the
considerations would've involved
fooling millions of people. And as resources, possibly all of the technology of the military industrial
complex, ties to the buildings' security teams, and I'm sure they had the means to produce a front company. Certain of our agencies are known to use
front companies to get work done inconspicuously, and yet in broad daylight.
You say you didn’t notice the buildings offering up any residence, maybe you was too busy looking for your magical explosives. Have another
look, it is pretty clear they were resisting the force from above, or it is to me anyways.
The fact that the collapse rate never really slows from start to finish is proof enough to me that the resistance was minimal to non-existant.
You now say the Towers were solid, ok fine, kind of like a tree trunk maybe ?. Strange that, wonder how people managed to work and move around
in such a solid structure. Maybe by magic.
The buildings were constructed of solids; let me put it that way. And you now accept that the masses of the buildings did not consist of 90% air, but
almost all steel and concrete, right? And that mass is what is able to fall and do damage, not area, right?
The damage from the planes and the resultant fires did not have to take out all the supports to cause this catastrophic collapse. They just had
to take out enough for the above load to become dynamic.
I know this. Do you know what that critical figure is? NIST gives you enough information to figure it out. I've already posted but I don't think you
read it. It would take about 75% of the total columns on one of those upper floors to fail before the whole floor would give way to the weight
above.
I have even gone to the trouble of trying to explain to you what Logical Fallacy is, incase you forgot here it is again.
Of course I wouldn't know what those are, because I've only pointed out some in your posts and even gave you sources for them. Flip back through the
pages of this thread, buddy.
