You need to check your seat! of course you dont see it. expected no less. the weight of a plane is distributed, hence your claim once again can be disregarded as more bull(*)(*)(*)(*). There is no reason to believe that it should not have simply bounced right off like the empire state building which also had massive fire yet it still stands. evidence shows there is absolutely no reason what so ever to believe that planes would be completely swallowed up by the wtc. yet you insist it should be an obvious foregone conclusion when you yourself from previous posts have shown that you know that it is not.
While it's cute you think your moronic theories should be addressed in a serious manner, out here in the real world they are just so much mental detrious. They are only worthy of derision, nothing more.
troughers conjure up delusions as I have shown time and time again. in fact troughers are like a timex, they take a beating and keep on coming back for more! they have nothing to prove their claims but pure speculation by probly's and maybe's coulda's and shoulda's and its not working for anyone but the trougher cheerleaders. Now maybe if troughers stopped ridiculing smart experienced people who are kind enough to show them the errors of their ways they may be taken more seriously, but I do not see that happening anytime soon LOL I know I know troughers believe the unfounded 19 cave men conspiracy theory and anyone who is not a believer can (*)(*)(*)(*) themselves. facts not withstanding. we get it.
Says the biggest troll and bandwidth waster in this forum. Like I said, worthy of nothing but derision.
hardly. the problem here is that troughers simply ignore the facts and sing their traditional mantra regardless of how incredulously foolish it is. like a timex they take a beating and keep on ticking LOL troughers are nutjobs that believe planes can fly right on through buildings in one piece as shown by the LIVE news report. and though it may be by some stretch of reality possible it is highly unlikely that a whole plane can penetrate a building, and certainly not come out the other side intact. thats holly wood. and wingtips could never penetrate a building of this type of construction. they ignore the explosions that can be plainly seen above the right wing before it even impacts the building then if that is not enough the one near the fuselage gets sucked in before the plane is even in the building. how about that explosive welcoming committee? I have to conclude that troughers are comedians because the (*)(*)(*)(*) they want us to believe when examined is so delusional one can only laugh and shake their head. when troughers start dealing with the evidence seriously then there will be no need to repost it. Until then, well, troughers lie and reposting the evidence is a requirement to keep their lying asses honest.
The framing system of the World Trade Center is completely different than the Empire State Building. So is the cladding and facade systems. Comparing one to the other is preciously the type of mis-information of CTers that don't accommodate logical discourse to their argument. The Empire State building is platform framed with the exterior colonnade supporting the tributary loads directly above each portion of the column grid. Lateral transfer of vertical loads is not the type of system utilized like central core super-structures as the World Trade Center was which relies on a central concrete core which supports large areas of tributary loads allowing for lighter structural framing at the perimeter. Additionally, the facade system on the Empire State Building is traditional masonry infill with substantial cut-stone facade. The World Trade Center is a lighter curtain-wall system. Apples to oranges comparison when evaluating performance of the facade from impact.
that sounds really plausible but again its your side who is either misinforming or is being misinformed. if you compare titanium with steel titanium is stronger yet they are apples and oranges. anyone who would want someone to simply presume that a complete plane should penetrate a building regardless of design with exception to the side of a mountain and other extremes is being intellectually dishonest. No one has any reason to believe out of hand that a 757 would be devoured either building. The question is why would you have people believe that when you know lighter is no indication of weaker. especially t hat it has been shown that wings and tail most often simply wrinkle and bounce right off. (the extreme supersonic ping pong ball like the mountain side not with standing)
the problem with your posts is that you havent yet made a point. not that I blame you since you have nothing to stand upon but delusions. nist has no bonafide substantial fact evidence to support their premise and you are out here calling names because you know you have nothing. Its why your propaganda movement has failed.
Again, everything you have said are nothing more than ridiculous irrelevant off point snide remarks, you have not made an on topic point to contradict and I dont blame you since you know what will happen the second you do. truth will show up troughers cant tell the difference between an explosive demolition and a natural failure even though its been shown to you time and time again.
"My side"? I think you are a little too caught up in the "sides" of the argument, and working backwards from the conclusion you desire with which ever facts support your cause. It is very telling though that your very first response to me is an aggressive statement. Good indication of a typically weak argument. Absolutely. So trying to prove what would happen to steel, based on the conclusions drawn from an example from titanium wouldn't be very logical. Gotcha. So you desire to now completely abandon the logical discussion I started, citing facts, in the name of generalities to attempt to validate your synopsis. Koko.. are you actually INTERESTED in facts, or simply telling everybody else they are wrong and arguing "your side"? Here you go, you have a licensed AIA architect right here talking to you. Let's have a logical discussion. You are making the assumption, based on a grainy video with a frame rate of about 1 frame per second, that the plane was devoured. What I see is a plane that both disintegrates on impact and punctures the facade. You are trying to draw conclusions based on what you THINK I meant. Lighter doesn't equal weaker in all cases. However, mass often does. The facade of the World Trade center lacked a critical element that the Empire State building did, and that is mass. Displacement and resistance to kinetic energy is highly dependent on massing (and weight). Once again, the mass, weight, and construction of the Empire State Building prevented the wing from penetrating. Completely different buildings, different assemblies and composition, and different airplanes. Trying to draw conclusions about the WTC from the Empire State accident is simply not logical. Then, to act like its indisputable fact to validate the conclusions you have drawn.... Once again, are you even interested in the truth?
Just to clarify, the central cores of the WTC towers were box column steel only. The only concrete in the building was in the floor pans. Another difference of note between the WTC design and the ESB design is usable floor space. The WTC towers had 4.300,000 Sq.Ft of floor space on approximately 2 acres of footprint. The Empire state on the other hand is only 2,768,591 on 2 acres of footprint. I think that speaks volumes about the density of the ESB.
The box column encapsulated the concrete core. Typically, concrete is the material of choice for core construction because of its inherent fire restiveness qualities which doesn't need fire proofing to achieve like steel. The framing members I discussed connect to the box column, which relies on the concrete to reduce deformation and make the box column stronger. The core was still concrete.
You've made some incorrect assumptions. The core of the WTC did not contain structural concrete. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html http://www.engineering.com/Library/...rticleID/103/World-Trade-Center-Disaster.aspx
nope what your side fails to understand is that NIST has no evidence, and they cannot prove a damn thing! planes are fragile whether or not it goes in is not limited to mass and weight, it also depends on elasticity or spinginess that you conveniently avoided mentioning hoping that I would not throw it in your face. you ignore the late timings oops the wrong kind of explosions wheres the fuel? like the entry backwards blasts natural collapses do not take out the whole building nor do they come straight down they tip over troughers are delusional to be kind. well there you have it.
not that it really matters, since the alleged plane would hardly have damaged the core in the first place. and the north tower lost the core first yet nist provided no evidence that enough damage was done to cause the core to go, nor will they ever. The problem of course is that a thorough investigation would prove demolition
and we are going to get it from you? this is what we the public were slammed with invincible demolition airplanes in living 3d no less they ignore the explosions that can be plainly seen above the right wing before it even impacts the building then if that is not enough the one near the fuselage gets sucked in before the plane is even in the building. just as you will ignore the explosions that can be seen and going the wrong direction no less! LOL we believe yeser we do!
I am going to ask you one very VERY simple question, and lets see if you dodge it like the CTers always do. In order to apply explosives to structural steel to facilitate a controlled demolition, selective demolition of finish materials would have had to been conducted at hundreds of locations in the buildings with detonation wiring running between them. How do you explain the fact that nobody, NOBODY, who were in the buildings, for weeks leading up to 9/11, weeks it would have taken to rig the building, ever saw ANY indication of any work being done. Watch everybody as Koko friggen flips out and avoids that question (or avoids it to post more pictures and make more accusations and assumptions).
Koko, believes that a "mini-nuke" was used to "disintegrate" the building. That's when he's not busy believing that he's a lawyer, a demolition expert, an electrician, or an expert in the chemical properties of iron.
see there you go man. Its fun watching you guys make these grandiose generalized assumptions that there is only one way to fry a trougher. well there are many ways. No you do not need to prep in the manner you stated and det "cord" is antique. oh sure the phones will be ringing off the hook if someone dared come in with explosives see you can tell straight up cant you? thats a nuke btw any idiot would recognize there are explosives in this one too right?
I do not believe anything. I only point out that you have no proof of anything and what you think you have proof for is all guess work, oughta, probably, and maybe. Hell you cannot even prove a plane went in since the testimony is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). you people proved that in this thread that you have nothing what so ever and we are all supposed to believe you because wile e coyote can do it so can a real plane! .
One needn't be any of those professions to discover that the "official" BS story is well..BS, nor do we need complex propaganda by hired guns to spread the BS and realize something smells very badly.
