Trolls don't have answers, that's why they're trolls and are on ignore. There can never be a genuine discussion with a troll.
So far Margot. you're the 3rd poster who posted utter nonsense in defense of the official 9/11 fairy tale and when challenged with direct questions, could not/would not respond to the challenge. It's really unimportant in terms of 9/11 reality but it shows where those who blindly grovel to the official narrative stand, nowhere, they just parrot popular "debunker" OCT excuses for the thousands of impossible and convenient coincidences that all occurred in one day. The bottom line is when reading some of these posts, one has to choose between anonymous opinions (some by obvious trolls) and the works of highly qualified experts who publish peer reviewed papers. I don't see how anyone with minimal intelligence would ever want to choose the former other than out of fear (otherwise known as cognitive dissonance).
Look at the design of the buildings.. Floors cantilevered like spokes from the central core.. and read up on aluminum skin and its properties.
anyone who understand anything about structural engineerign knows that in the towers, any sizeable portion of the building collapsing even 1 story will initiate a complete collapse. its the difference between static and dynamic loads, and the difference is HUGE. as for WTC 7, that collapse took a total of 15 seconds and is hard to understand but NIST has mapped out the progression of the whole thing. The fires were caused by the collapse of the second tower crashing down upon it and much of the building burned uncontrollably for hours. These were unusually designed buildings and that contributed to their ultimate failures. and yes, purely steel building structures have collapsed due to fire before. and yes, steel structures will collapse again, due to fire.
The conspiracy nuts will never quit.. and they do not take into account jet fuel running down the elevator shafts.
they will tell you none of the elevator shafts ran the whole length of the building. but the service elevator did. 9-11 Truthers are conveniently good at ignoring facts. one also told me that the designs for the towers were secret and had not been released. i found them online in 3 minutes. they also say it was very suspicious that Larry Silverstein got terrorism insurance for the complex. And yet terrorists struck and tried to bring down the towers in 1993. they say Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit with the terrorism insurance pay out, even though the insurance made it clear all funds had to be used to rebuild the complex and the total cost of rebuilding WELL exceeded the insurance pay out by at least double. they will tell you the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, but the steel didnt have to melt to weaken enough to fail. they will tell you molten steel was found in the rubble, but the molten metal was never tested to know if was steel, aluminum, etc etc. they will tell you folks "heard explosions" in the buildings, but electrical transformers explode in fires. Truthers think anytime something goes "boom", it must be a bomb planted by Jews and it cant possibly be anything else.
The design was never secret... Conspiracy nuts are very inventive, aren't they? Aluminum alloys will melt at 600 degrees C.
That's what I thought no answers. The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. Asking me to "look at the design" and "read up on aluminum skin" doesn't answer a single one of my questions. But you have no expertise in architecture, engineering or physics so you couldn't answer my questions anyway no matter how much you try and I certainly never expected any answers from you.
Unfortunately for you, many structural engineers and physicists contradict your claim. So whose claims do you think I (or anyone with minimal intelligence) should bother with, an anonymous rabid defender of the official narrative or experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers on the subject? As for WTC7, one of the world's foremost experts in forensic building collapse analysis has done a 2 year study (yet to be published for peer review) of NIST's theory using state of the art tools (I'm quite familiar with SAP2000 but not ABAQUS) and concluded that NIST's theory is not only severely deficient but could not possibly have caused the initiation of a total collapse of WTC7. His analysis confirmed what many other experts already concluded many years ago. So again, whose claims do you think I (or anyone with minimal intelligence) should bother with, an anonymous rabid defender of the official narrative or experts who have done the research and written peer reviewed papers on the subject? That claim contradicts even NIST's theory, the entity you cited to try to support your prior claim.
That also avoids answering any of my questions, but keep on flailing if you must. No one needs to be an expert to do the research and understand the claims of experts as opposed to anonymous internet jockeys who can't prove any of their silly claims.
Most experts disagree with your claims.. When you visited the WTC did you noticed that it sways 5 feet?
Sorry but that also avoids answering any of my questions, flailing again? Who are these "most experts" anyway (other than government contractors or those with government ties)? Provide a peer reviewed paper (from any of these "most experts") that supports your claims if you have one. And what claim of mine are you referring to anyway? And that answers or has something to do with what? More flailing?
A collapse of the buidling would have resulted in a huge rubble field at least 30 stories high...there was very little rubble, and no concrete and no massive centre core colums..where did they go? Where did all the concrete go? It was in the air, pulverized. Where did all the bodies go? Where did all the aircraft parts go? You official government line has no merit whatsoever.
There was very little rubble for a building that size....what destroyed the centre core columns? They were 49 huge box columns that the elevators ran on, the central core of the building...where are they? They should have been sticking up 110 stories in the air, if the official lie is correct about the pancake and the floors disconnecting from them...What are the chances of a building falling straight down if what you and the government say is correct? Zero chance..they will tip over, as the collapse will not be uniform throughout the structure, don't you know that? Dah... Barry Jennings and Willie Rodriquez, two witnesses experienced huge explosions in the sublevels of buildings before the alleged aircraft hit the buildings....what were these explosions? Of course they the prep work for controlled demolition of the buildings... .....
No, if the support columns are not weakened uniformly, which a fire would do. The chances of straight down collapse under these circumstances are zero. You are way over your head on this one...time to do the dishes.
