So, terrorists?

**CivilWars** · 09-15-11, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Well all that should be known right? There are technical specifications of the towers written by the engineers that built them right?

So let me spin it another way. How much explosives would it take to bring said buildings down? Where would said explosives have to be placed? How much time would it take to set said explosives? How would said explosives be detonated? Now, with all that which is more believable, that someone, for some unknown reason, planted and detonated said explosives with nobody knowing other than those who were involved and covering it up, or that the engineers in the 60s were off on their estimations of the ability of the towers to withstand a jet.

IMO you are trying to look at the accepted explanation and disprove it without considering the greater doubt cast on alternative explanations, and that doesn't seem to me to be a valid way to assess the situation.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-15-11, 08:14 PM

They did all of that. Its in the incident report that the truthers keep disputing.

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So let me spin it another way. How much explosives would it take to bring said buildings down? Where would said explosives have to be placed? How much time would it take to set said explosives? How would said explosives be detonated? Now, with all that which is more believable, that someone, for some unknown reason, planted and detonated said explosives with nobody knowing other than those who were involved and covering it up, or that the engineers in the 60s were off on their estimations of the ability of the towers to withstand a jet.

IMO you are trying to look at the accepted explanation and disprove it without considering the greater doubt cast on alternative explanations, and that doesn't seem to me to be a valid way to assess the situation.

Man you people are the queens of assumption...you keep assuming I think one way or the other...you go waaaay ahead of yourselves and assume that my answer to everything will be “ see, told you so...it was a controlled demolition”. I’m not disproving the accepted explanation to validate another...or vice versa...I’m asking questions (probably not in the right place because non of us are experts on the subject), that in my opinion are completely valid...seeing as I didn’t study structural engineering or chemistry or physics for 4,5 or 6 years...so I’m going to ask about the most minuscule details trying to get to root cause of it. The best evidence for me would be cold, hard numbers...where are the numbers?

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 09:48 PM

I’m NOT A TRUTHER!! hahaah.. I just want to find the evidence that will explain why the towers fell...in numbers...scientific data..calculations...numbers.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-15-11, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

I’m NOT A TRUTHER!! hahaah.. I just want to find the evidence that will explain why the towers fell...in numbers...scientific data..calculations...numbers.

WTC Disaster Study

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 09:51 PM

I read it. I didn’t find any historical data...just assumptions.

**CivilWars** · 09-15-11, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Man you people are the queens of assumption...you keep assuming I think one way or the other...you go waaaay ahead of yourselves and assume that my answer to everything will be “ see, told you so...it was a controlled demolition”. I’m not disproving the accepted explanation to validate another...or vice versa...I’m asking questions (probably not in the right place because non of us are experts on the subject), that in my opinion are completely valid...seeing as I didn’t study structural engineering or chemistry or physics for 4,5 or 6 years...so I’m going to ask about the most minuscule details trying to get to root cause of it. The best evidence for me would be cold, hard numbers...where are the numbers?

There are cold, hard numbers for how much arsenic you can ingest before you die, but would you eat one gram less than what that number is? Even if someone said that the towers could have handled a 767 with 2/3 of a full tank of fuel, and going 327 mph would it really matter? It would just be an estimate, just like the engineers that said the Titanic was impossible to sink, right?

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**deathgodusmc** · 09-15-11, 09:57 PM

Gave you the wrong page. This is the one i meant.

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/index2.htm

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 09:57 PM

No I would not Civilwarts...no I would not ingest arsenic!

But yea, I guess, with an incident like this, without precedent...we’ll never really know.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-15-11, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

There are cold, hard numbers for how much arsenic you can ingest before you die, but would you eat one gram less than what that number is? Even if someone said that the towers could have handled a 767 with 2/3 of a full tank of fuel, and going 327 mph would it really matter? It would just be an estimate, just like the engineers that said the Titanic was impossible to sink, right?

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Your example of the titanic makes me wonder how many people made the comment of watch it sink on the first trip after all the hype on it being unsinkable.