|Max King of the Wild said:
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.
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.
Open and shut case when the FEMA report couldn't even explain the collapse of building #7 due to sporadic fires. Sounds open and shut case to me. So let me get this straight. It was okay for Ken Starr to spend about 6.2 million to investigate whether or not Bill Clinton got his dick sucked (39.2 million if you factor in Starr investigating Clinton's whitewater deal and Lewinsky; Besides Starr, five other independent counsels are currently conducting investigations. Four of those focus on the Clinton Administration. The combined costs of those four inquiries and the Starr probe now comes to 79.3 million). So we spent 79.3 million investigating the Clintons when the government spent 600k for the first investigation of 9/11.
47.4 million was spent by Lawrence Walsh on the eight year investigation of Reagan Administration officials involved in the Iran-contra affair. Did we even investigate going to war in Iraq? So we spent all these millions on investigations yet we couldn't even spend 1 million for the initial FEMA report for the biggest attack on USA soil?
I am just pointing out the the priorities seem to be a little out of focus for the USA. We seem to care 100x more about whether a President got his dick sucked and lied about it then a President, Vice President, and Defense Secretary spreading lies and misinformation to start a war that USA didn't need to fight. Let me tell you I was so scared of Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign. I could have sworn Saddam was about to attack us... That must be the reason why we went into Iraq right?