so there is allegedly equal likelyhood of any given bit of rubble staying centered on the as yet undamaged lower part of the building, as would be to have it fall over the side of the building and be lost. In my universe its a rather heavy bit of magic to get the "pile driver" to maintain mass sufficient to do all that damage and at the same time eject mass quantities of pulverized material.
Note also, steel bends before it breaks, therefore, what explains the mass quantity of nice straight pieces of steel at ground zero?
You attempt to cover up the fact that so much of the steel shows breakage, but not bending, Yes there are bent pieces, but there is also an abundance of straight pieces and for a building that has allegedly experienced global collapse, how can that be accounted for?
It's all your ridiculous assertion deserves...Steel bends yes,but it also tears,breaks,and splinters....
and so in a global collapse event, the quantity of straight bits can be expected to be in the minority of all the steel seen? or? What do you think? you say "ridiculous assertion" I submit to the readers of this forum that this is a display of attitude. The facts speak for themselves. I encourage everybody to do their own looking for INFORMATION and come to your own conclusions. THINK! B4 it becomes ILLEGAL!
straight is a subjective term,the way you use it,facts speak for themselves,'straight' lengths of structural beam would be in the minority
look up "photos of ground zero" {http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html} that is just one of the links that had come up, and check out the pix available look at all the nice straight bits of steel. - - - Updated - - - look up "photos of ground zero" {http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html} that is just one of the links that had come up, and check out the pix available look at all the nice straight bits of steel.
Do you know the difference between BREAKAGE and being CUT/SEVERED? Have any examples of pieces of steel showing signs of "breakage" at the points they were "broken" at?
Look at the pix that show the ends of box columns, the bits with bolt holes so as to connect the box column to the next one in sequence, how is it that these top plates are so flat and the bolt holes are not deformed? for a structure that was allegedly ripped apart by a catastrophic global structural failure, this stuff looks rather neat & tidy.....
With explosives, all sorts of out-comes are possible, however one could expect to see in a catastrophic global "collapse" event such as was alleged for WTC 1, 2 & 7 that ALL of the steel would show a lot of bending and stress to the bits because of the forces involved having to stress to the breaking point the vast majority of the connections within the structure. In the case of explosives, the job could have been done by cutter charges and so the steel would be cut at specific locations, leaving the majority of the box column or beam unaltered. ( as was observed in the rubble pile )
Any math or science to back up this paragraph of speculation? Keep in mind the lack of any sound of explosives as the towers collapsed.
exactly how do you support the statement "lack of any sound of explosives"? the firefighters who made statements right after the towers "collapsed" stated "popping out just like detonators" "boom, boom, boom, boom" and gesturing downward to indicate as the tower came down. All of the witnesses who were anyplace around the towers, stated that the noise from the towers "collapsing" was positively deafening(!) When the action started up, the "collapse" event was more than 1000 ft from the ears of the observers, so even at that range, observers reported DEAFENING levels of sound, many explosions going off in sequence may not be perceived as explosions but simply noise.
Link to your documentation of these "explosions". Link to an audio of these "detonations". You keep making claims without support or evidence.
The evidence is abundant I'm going to provide a link, and because this is but one of many, I encourage people to find their own either verification, or something that supports the official party line on this subject, suit yourself. The truth is out there, do you want to find it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6-0tB8Ykg8
I asked for a published paper by one of your experts with a PhD, and you link to YouTube. Can you provide any evidence?
I can only guess that I really can not provide anything as evidence, that is something that passes muster by your interpretation of what constitutes evidence, however, its there, its real and there were explosions documented by the firefighters, and news reporters. This fact alone is damning evidence. The 9/11 commission refused to accept testimony about the explosions at ground zero. Talk about limiting the evidence.
Please link to the papers requested and stop trying to change the subject. Just show your source and prove your claim.
You asked for evidence, and the evidence is indeed abundant, however if the only thing that you will accept is a peer reviewed paper by a PHD type ...... well, I can not help you....... have a nice day : )
