So your arguement is... a building can't collapse like that, because you don't understand the sceince behind it.

If someone handed me an academic paper on Nuclear Fision, i'm pretty sure i probably wouldn't understand it... but I'm not going to say Nuclear power is a conspiracy.

Elastroplastic Shear Restistance is EXACTLY what it sounds like.

The shear restistance of Elastroplastics...

In this case Elastroplastic Steel.

As for how you would test this.  Math formula, from previous stress testing of mateirals and practical tests.  Which you know... is pretty common.

Before you build a building, espiecally a giant freaking skyscraper you need to test how the building would react to tons of different situations such as, planes running into it and earthquakes.

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.

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 (FEMA report).  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating (600k is a lot but the government knows how to blow 600k in an eye blink).   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.  They came to the conclusion of building #7 "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapses remain unknown at this time".  That is a pretty damn good conclusion if you ask me. 

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.

As for why you need to hire expert demolition crews?  You know, so nobody freakin dies... and you could avoid things like electrical fires and shit and so you don't have random small chunks of derbies flying out and hitting people.

Also you know... measuring the right amount of explosives to use, so you don't over do it (Afterall the buildings are built up to what can reasonably be expected.) New York prepares for plane crashes and Earthquakes of NY level, not Japanese level (I believe) or under do it leaving an unsafe enviroment that still needs lots of demolition.

I mean heck, it fell inwards on itself, but actually, the twin towers falling was far from a controlled implosion.   You know... cause tons of surrounding buildings still got damaged.

It's why they're fire protection standards were updated after the studies.

It's like your give way bumpers working but your airbag not deploying.

"Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

- Thomas W. Eagar-MIT engineering professor

I think he put it best, they're starting with a conclusion - a belief-based methodology.

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.

"You call me a conspiracy theroist, Why? because i know more about the history of this country than you? Get the fuck outta here "

"Remember that history Isn't the way the corperate controlled media made it look like.Read between the lines and free your mind"

"you can't fathom the truth, so you don't hear me

You think illuminati's just a fucking conspiracy theory?
That's why Conservative racists are all runnin' shit
And your phone is tapped by the Federal Government"

"Now here's the truth about the system that'll fuck up your mind

They gave Al Queda 6 billion dollars in 1989 to 1992"

"But you act like America wouldn't destroy two buildings

In a country that was sponsoring bombs dropped on our children
I was watching the Towers, and though I wasn't the closest
I saw them crumble to the Earth like they was full of explosives
And they thought nobody noticed the news report that they did
About the bombs planted on the George Washington bridge
Four Non-Arabs arrested during the emergency
And then it disappeared from the news permanently
They dubbed a tape of Osama, and they said it was proof
"Jealous of our freedom," I can't believe you bought that excuse
Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero
Word to Ground Zero
The Devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th
The New World Order was born on September 11"

"I don't think Bush did it, 'cause he isn't that smart

He's just a stupid puppet taking orders on his cell phone
From the same people that sabotaged Senator Wellstone
The military industry got it poppin' and lockin'
Looking for a way to justify the Wolfowitz Doctrine
And as a matter of fact, Rumsfeld, now that I think back
Without 9/11, you couldn't have a war in Iraq
Or a Defense budget of world conquest proportions
Kill freedom of speech and revoke the right to abortions
Tax cut extortion, a blessing to the wealthy and wicked"

"And Dick Cheney, you fucking leech, tell them your plans

About building your pipelines through Afghanistan
And how Israeli troops trained the Taliban in Pakistan
You might have some house niggas fooled, but I understand
Colonialism is sponsored by corporations
That's why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
Read it yourself instead of asking the Government why
'Cause then the Cause of Death will cause the propaganda to die.."

-Immortal Technique 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg

I think that the case should have been kept open... but why waste all the tax payers dollars when its basically an open and shut case?

And no, there isnt anything wrong with the collapses... they are definatly not controlled. You can tell that from the puffs of dust alone. it goes from high to low as the building falls not expells from the bottom like controlled demos.

Yes.  There was nothing wrong or suspisous about the collapse at all.... so long as you ignore the guy spouting nonsense and just look at the buildings collapse... which look nothing like controlled implosions.

Should the investigations have been more thorough?  Well no.  Hell investigations are still going on by structural engineers...

who all agree it was the plane and the fires.

The question isn't "WHAT DESTROYED THE TWIN TOWERS"

It's "EXACTLY HOW DID THE TWIN TOWERS GET DESTROYED BY THE PLANES."

The offical story didn't change.  What no doubt your conspiracy theory friends likely ignored is that in fact the Fema report DID find that the steel was warped by the fire.

They just thought the bolts failing due to the fire was more important to the collapse.

The NIST report says the steel warped by the fire was more important then the bolts failing.

Same story, different thoughts on which situation caused the other and which was at fault.

Both happened.

The FEMA study was looking for an explination and the NIST the chain of events.

Riddle me this, Metallicube: You've been saying "there were explosions before the plane hit". Why would there be explosions before the plane hit?

I mean, I'm not even arguing that it didn't happen yet. What is the alleged reason for there to be explosions going off (for the conspiracy)?