fortwynt wrote:well this is the conspiracies area after all, no?
So I must accept the claims made?
No doubters allowed?
There is a term for such a gathering. The nice version is "love-in"
Do you wish this to be a "love-in"?
Oops, Oh, okay.
So, your argument, then, is that the buildings were not designed with this general concept in mind?
What general concept is that? That office fires would begin on several floors at once through the action of thousands of gallons of accellerant which is deposited in the structure by the violent collision of a very large, fast aircraft? No, no building is designed against that concept.
That the result of the failure of the columns of the building at ten or more stories below the roof would result in the mass of that ten stories to impact the floorspace of the next level? No it was not designed to resist that either.
To specifically arrest a pancake collapse in a long span structure? No, only since 911 has any building been designed in such a way that, in theory, it can arrest a collapse such as was seen in the towers.
What the WTC tower structures were specifically desgned for was to provide very large, unobstructed interior spaces, an aspect they shared with WTC 7. This was partly their downfall. (ooh bad pun)
I could care less
an aside here. If you could care less then you do care some. The expression is supposed to be "I could not care less" but in recent times many have expressed it as you did, which makes little sense.
what math you (or anyone else) comes up with....yes, I can read it, and yes if I were one to believe the official version, it would seem to make perfect sense, but i think in this case the numbers do indeed lie....well, not so much the numbers I suppose, but those whose job it is to report those numbers....not sure really.
It is one thing to be able to follow the arithmetic, another to truly understand the application. No, numbers cannot be made to lie in such cases. You are thinking about statistics.
All im saying is, with or without the towers (though i do consider them a pretty clear example of in your face debauchery), their story falls to pieces at almost every angle....
They who? Just an amorphorus 'they'?
Crucify me because I don't believe the words of a bunch of liars, and an institution that derives its very existence from lying the people it claims to care so much about.
Which liars? Which institution? The 911 Commission? NIST? Who lied in those institutions? Specifically who, and specifically who lied about the engineering aspects? About what exactly?
You have admitted that even if one could absolutly illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the towers were destroyed solely by the crash and fire, you would still not believe it because you simply refuse to.
That is indicative of a belief system akin to religion. It means that I have as much probability of convincing you about this as I do of convincing a Scientologist that Hubbard was a fraud and a huckster.