Originally posted by LeftBehind
In context?
This is what you said.
then how do you explain the fact that they remained standing without additional failures until they collapsed?
There were additional failures, there is no context were the above statement is correct.
Show me where Vushta and I were discussing the fire damage and I'll admit that you are correct.
We were discussing impact damage and the structure
stabilizing afterwards, without additional failures, as in FROM THE IMPACT. You must be
* snip * .
So a pseudo-maintenence team could perform wonders. Ok, what exactly do you think that they did?
Was it only to the core on the floors impacted, or was it every single floor?
I don't have any knowledge of how the Towers were rigged, or what types of explosives were used. All the examples we give here are theoretical to
show that is was POSSIBLE. None of us would have been there to actually see it, obviously.
And if this negates demolition theory, that we can't describe a
specific arrangement of explosives, what kind they were, where they were,
etc., then by the same logic, your own theory must also be incorrect, as no one is yet to establish the exact mechanisms that allowed a "pancaking".
Not NIST, not FEMA, not Greening, not the Commission Report, not Eager, (which all give different versions, btw, none of which supported
scientifically) -- no one. They analyze the first floors to fail at most (which was NIST only!).
So if you want to get to the heart of it right away, neither side of this issue has provided a full, in-depth explanation for the global collapse in
such details as you're requesting. What a surprise that must come to you guys.
But if you
do have this covered, where as demolition theorists do not, then post it. The exact mechanisms that allowed the pancaking, beyond
the same vague descriptions that we DTs also have to resort to from lack of information. Then you could claim to have some advantage over us, instead
of this pot-kettle crap.
[edit on 5-8-2006 by bsbray11]
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 8/5/2006 by 12m8keall2c]
