A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

again you are in over your head and shouldnt play grammar nazi.

there are all sorts of legitimate ways to use the word

no you cant, your post makes it perfectly clear that you have no clue what so ever what I was referring to.

 

I asked you the same question, where is your math, just putting up numbers and tables is not math, and you admitted that its a guessing game and you have no clue which columns failed or what order they failed in.

so your math aint worth the photons on my screen.

that is not what he was saying, now you misquote him too.

he was saying the net force should have resulted in deceleration. just because it fell at nearly freefall does not mean it should have fell at all.

you are arguing from a false premise again

 

Kokomojojo I have a question, what happens if you get your new investigation and it doesn't turn out the way you want?

 

incorrect, you have not provided math. you tossed a bunch of numbers in a table that you pulled out of someones ass for all we know. that is not math, that is numbers and your opinion.

 

Then they're shills, of course. KoKomojo knows "the truth".

- - - Updated - - -

He just can't offer up any evidence for it.

 

it wont.

if it does a lot of people will wind up dead.

 

And most of them have no relevant experience to the problems at all.

I know for a fact that I am smarter than most of them... but that is neither here nor there. None of them are here to debate me. It's pretty much just you and Koko.

So it's kind of like the old joke of the hikers trying to outrun the bear. I don't have to be smarter than them. I only have to be smarter than you.

 

bwwaaaahhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

 

I have never once corrected your grammar... though god knows you could use help there too.

And yet all of them have evaded you.

You are projecting.

 

again admitted guesses and maybes

- - - Updated - - -

geeezus you cant even formulate the correct context for that.

- - - Updated - - -

talking to yourself again huh

 

Yeah, he is in over his head. Here are photographs and a drawing of the core columns and perimeter columns for the WTC buildings.

The Core Structures
The Structural System of the Twin Towers

Some of the lower core columns were 52" by 22" by 5" thick steel. The smaller columns were 36" by 16" by 2" thick steel. And they want us to believe that a one hour office fire weakened them enough to cause global failure.

 

The math is right there in the OP.

And again, the analysis proves that it doesn't matter which columns failed or in what order. The results are exactly the same.

That would be more compelling if you understood it in the first place.

There is no quote anywhere in that post. What are you on about?

And the math proves he is wrong.

Who has ever said anything close? Please... argue with the people in this thread, not the voices in your head.

And what premise is that?

You know we can't read your mind. I'd say, "Use your words," but that's an iffy thing with you. You tend to use ordinary English words as if they are from a foreign language you never studied in the first place.

 

You're a buffoon. You lack the honest critical thinking skill to determine (*)(*)(*)(*) from shinola. I'm not surprised based on your failed arguments of the Pentagon attack.

 

but you arent, you have shown you arent by using flim flam plausible arguments based on guesses instead of incontrovertible arguments based on the facts

 

The math is right there in the OP. I can only explain things to you. I can't understand them for you.

 

Tell us why the bomb-sniffing dogs found no trace of explosives?

 

we arent talking about the pentagon light pole mower in this thread, yeh I showed how light poles slice through wings like a hot knife through butter.

- - - Updated - - -

someone sprinkled perfume throughout the building

 

I don't care what you believe. The OP shows exactly how that would happen.

 

there is no math, just tables and your opinions.

the most important thing is the op is right here

your admission which is true that you are just guessing

 

There you go again. More squealing and foot stamping. When can we expect an actual argument.

Where's your math?

 

Really...this is your response to the math:

 

Every wall and door in that building was one hour fire rated. I don't believe in fairy tales.

 

You are wrong. The math is right there. All of it.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be meaningful were any of the doors or windows involved in the collapse. None were. So it's not meaningful.

 

its my response to what he labeled math yep dat it tis

 

It's failed response to a post you don't understand.

How come your boys Jones/Harriet haven't retested?