That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.
"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."
If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself.
Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out?
The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report. An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first. So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating. They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.
See, this is the problem with this thread. Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.
All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.
I am just wondering if we are watching the same videos. So after you look at all the videos you see nothing wrong with the collapses at all?
Can you admit that the investigation should have been more thorough? Should they have waited till the investigation was complete before they pretty much scrapped all the evidence? The government even switched their stories from the FEMA report to the NIST. They originally stated that the bolts failed then went to that the fires warped the steel. So not even the government had their official story right.