Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by ANOK
Funny how that goes isn't it ANOK. I've been trying to get you to read a single paper for something like a week now and you've totally abandoned the thread. You're still willing to post in other threads pretending like people actually saw explosives.
I Haven't abandoned any thread, 911 forum is not my priority in life. Do you have something to say I have already heard? Why are you so concerned with what I have to say anyway? I thought I was just a retarded uneducated stupid "truther"?
I am not going to wade through a paper I have already read to find what you claim. If you have a point then state it, quote the pertinent part, and explain in your own words why you think it's true. I am here to debate you not someone else's paper.
I never said anyone SAW explosives, stop putting words in my mouth please.
Nobody saw explosives, people report explosions sure but please explain to me how putting fireball creating bombs in the basement would take the towers down.
Again I never said they did.
Bombs in the basement would be to simply make sure the resistance to the collapsed was weakened.
Explosives can be used to weaken load bearing structures ahead of the collapse itself.
Oh wait you can't, and you just abandon threads when asked to educate yourself. LOL.
Oh wait, I just did.
But of course you still haven't proved that fuel can run down elevator shafts and explode. You act like everything you say is fact, and it's up to us to prove otherwise. Prove to us first of all that fuel in open air pouring down shafts can explode. Explain how the fuel escaped the original fireball when the plane hit.
Fuel exploding is just another lame OSer excuse, it's not backed by any proof or science. You've just convinced yourself it's fact in order to ignore the only other possibility.
When are you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Unless someone can finally do that the whole NIST report on the towers is not worth the ink it was printed with, let alone the paper.
This is catenary action, the excuse I keep hearing for the sagging truss hypothesis...
It doesn't work here, it would not work in the towers. If you can't see why then I can't help you anymore. Until you can explain the sagging trusses correctly I am done replying to you. Make a thread, prove yourself once and for all, show us that sagging trusses can pull in columns. Demonstrate it. But not in this thread as it is off-topic.
edit on 6/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
