I'd like an answer from you that offers a remotely rational explanation how the WTC was invisibly and silently installed with thousands of invisible explosives charges, what floors and offices they were placed in and how not a living soul of the tens of thousands of people visiting and using the buildings every day failed to see anything even slightly suspicious please.Jazzz said:
Have i not pointed out that i'm not going to waste time endulging your requests for data when you're too much of a dishonest shit to answer mine? No? Damn.Jazzz said:
Right, I've had it up to here with your gratuitous personal abuse.Bob_the_lost said:
And I've told you many times you can go whistle dixie. I'm not playing your silly game of shenanigans. We know where that leads.editor said:
For someone that demands exact, precise and in-depth answers from the authorities, why are you refusing to provide any information at all as to how the WTC towers were supposedly invisibly wired with thousands of explosive charges, where they were placed and how this incredible act of secrecy was achieved?Jazzz said:
*watches teddy fly out of pram*Jazzz said:
Wha'?! Off the scale barking!Jazzz said:
He's just accused me of "standing in the 9/11 families way". And he's compared u75 to a site that actively promotes Holocaust denial.fela fan said:
No, I think the core suffered little damage from falling debris, that's why I maintain that it should all have been left standing. Explosives would not have to withstand debris raining down - they are set off to blow before debris hits them. That's why the building collapses at near free-fall speed.Bob_the_lost said:
I take the view that if it a core column was being damaged by debris, it most likely either fails or remains completely intact. Unlikely to find an in-between state. So if a core section was left standing it should have stayed standing. [/QUOTE]
I concede I was mistaken in this, careless of me (I'd already conceded about point of failure being clearly the base).
1. YESbeesonthewhatnow said:
So the collapsing upper stories would just 'strip' the floors and facade off the core? And there would be no forces acting on the core that it wouldn't be able to resist (I'm thinking sideway impacts from deforming and falling floors and the upper 20 storeys)Jazzz said:
But surely in this case, we would see collapse happen all the way up the building, as with a traditional CD. Instead we see a collapse that happens from the impact point and progresses downwards. Are we to assume therefore that the explosives were rigged to detonate at the exact same rate as the falling upper parts? Because that would require proior knowledge of the collapse initiation point, and the damage already caused by the plane crash and fire.
It is possible to balance a pencil on its end. Let's be generous and use the flat end. This is not a stable situation - small movements or impacts can destabilise the whole thing. This is exactly what we see with the 'spire-like' chunk of core that remains standing for a few seconds at the end.
Note that although I think Jazzz's ideas are nothing short of barking, I agree with this. Giving in and resorting to insults is not civilised, no matter how much you disagree with your opponent. Argument flows better when it's depersonalised.RaverDrew said:
But that photo directly contradicts you. The steel structure is clearly heavily damaged. How can you deny this clearly visible massive damage?Jazzz said:
But that assumes that all the damage occured at the same time, when the section that can be seen falling over starts to topple it is quite probable to assume that it's merely because the debris falling down managed to cut the steel members at that point.Jazzz said:
That also directly contradicts your theory to the central section being blown at the base. It also contradicts the photographic evidence that shows large sections of the central core NOT being cut.Jazzz said:
