The lower 10 stories of the south face of the building were destroyed to a depth of about 25%. There was also a continuous fire burning (fed by stored diesel fuel) for hours. This combination was enough to ultimately drop the building.
News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Just got tired of you saying it so I thought I would say it back. See just how FUNNY that is? :bravo:
As far as the report, I don't believe it was a THOROUGH report. Too many holes.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I am a student and a professional. I work for the IL Department of Transportation as a Planning and Project Manager for highway constuction. Started just about a year ago.
Okay, have it your way:
I'm not the one passing off my recollection of events I observed from half a mile away 6 years in the past as science.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
So why are you still talking?
But your opinion does?
That's like saying a Dentist can't diagnose a mediacl ailment that don't pertain to teeth. Structural Engineers take alot of the same college courses that ordinary physicists do.
So, for the record, you've never held a job involving skyscrapers?
aaaahhh, a road builder. That is nice. This would make me more qualified than you though.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Sigh... maybe you don't get it. What independent research have you done on the WTC? Do you have any clue many beams, girders, or collumns the two towers contained? Do you know the how deep the footings were submerged? Do you have the blueprints of the towers? Do you know how much estimated weight the towers held at full occupancy? Do you even know the full occupancy of the towers??? Do you have any idea how much weigh can be directly supported on each truss?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
For the record, no I have never had a job involving skyscrapers. Have you?
Because it doesn't require a strong background in skyscraper design to see that you guys aren't nearly as qualified as the actual authorities who did the actual investigation.
I've never offered my opinion about the mechanism of collapse. I've offered my opinion on how little authority you possess on this subject. These are two different issue, and the fact that you and MZ3Boy84 seem to have so much trouble comprehending this simple point is not helping your case.
Yes, exactly. Dentists don't attend medical school and are not licensed to practice medicine. If you break a leg or come down with pneumonia, do you go to a dentist?
Yes, but architects don't take any of those classes. Moreover, physicists don't take the relevant classes, which cover the design of steel buildings.
Sorry, I am not here to educate the random student who lacks the abilty to reason.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Quad: I still don't see how this makes YOU more qualified to speak on the subject. You've not given one specific piece of technical data relating to the WTC.
Edit: Point in case, stop accusing others of not having the qualifications to speak on the subject matter, when you yourself do not have the qualifications.
Edit: Point in case, stop accusing others of not having the qualifications to speak on the subject matter, when you yourself do not have the qualifications.
No, of course not. But I'm not the one pretending to know more than the team of respected experts who undertook the NIST investigation. All I've done is point out that you're much less qualified than said experts. It does not require a PhD to see this. All it requires is the knowledge that they have been paid to work on actual skyscrapers and you have not.
Neither have you.
Did anyone notice the full sized jet liners crashing into these structures at 400 to 500mph?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.
I never claimed to be. My whole point is that only respected experts have sufficient authority that anyone should listen to their opinions on this matter.
Exactly. My opinion of the technical issues relating to it is not valuable, and I recognize this. I'm trying to get you to realize how worthless your impressions are.
One does not have to be an expert to see that you are not an expert. There is no equivalence between my rejection of your opinions and your rejection of the experts' opinions. You're simply being argumentative (and slow-witted), which further erodes your credibillity. By all means, though, keep at it.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Your talking about the experts HIRED by the President? Of course Im going to second guess them. Just as we SHOULD HAVE second guessed about the WMD's in Iraq.
Until you can provide me firm evidence why the towers collapsed, my views stand as is.
You can read all the reports you want, but until you FULLY understand everything that they are talking about, you won't understand that that there are major missing pieces in the report.
As far as my "credibility", I am not running for president. This is a internet forum in case you haven't forgotten. I'm not here to impress or win any hearts. Im here to discuss issues and topics, not to worry about what some total stranger thinks of me. "Oh my god, i hope they like me" :crazy:
