Viewing Single Post From: Double standards

Viewing Single Post From: Double standards
BoneZ	Jul 6 2008, 01:32 PM
Posts: 720 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	"jim1029" The claim is that explosives were used instead. However, there has never been a demolition large enough to take down even one of the towers, let alone both of them. So how am I supposed to believe your explanation Just because a demolition of that magnitude hasn't been undertaken before, doesn't make it impossible. All three WTC buildings that collapsed showed all of the signs of a controlled demolition and none of the signs of a fire-induced collapse. "jim1029" Not to mention, the impact of the plane would have without a doubt severly damaged the building by itself. This is a false assumption. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded jetliner. Even the WTC construction manager suggested that the buildings could withstand multiple impacts of jetliners because the buildings were so structurally sound. Many localized exterior columns were severed or damaged in the plane impact. A few floor trusses on the impact side were also damaged. But the cores of the towers were nearly indestructable. Whatever was left of the planes after smashing through the exterior columns and floor trusses, would have been and were stopped by the cores of the buildings. There would have been only minor localized damage to the cores of the towers from the plane impacts. So, with the cores of the buildings still intact and the majority of the exterior columns intact, the buildings would have and should have never fallen. Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 01:33 PM.
Posts: 720 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08

Double standards · Skeptics