| Viewing Single Post From: If it was a controlled demolition then . . . | |
|---|---|
| Stundie | Feb 20 2008, 06:02 PM |
|
I asked you the question and you did not answer it Sevon??  I'm seeing the kind of dodging that would make one of the worlds best dodgers in the ring Muhammad Ali envious! lol So please answer.... Yes or No and explain your reasons. To answer your question.... To put it simply....I do not believe that the damage caused by the planes and ensuing heat would be sufficient to cause a collapse, not even if every single column, truss etc etc sag or failed within those 6 floors if impact. Of course, not every single column, truss etc etc sag or failed within those 6 floors.  It was nothing like that, but where ever the failure point was within those 6 floors, i.e. where it got heat weakened then failed, the building should have survived. Neither do I believe that wiring of explosive to every single column, truss etc etc of those 6 floors would make the towers collapse either.... The point I am making which flew over yours and Trajan Octavian Titus heads is, if you believe in the official story, then you MUST believe that every single floor could be wired to simulate the failure points or even extend the levels of damage caused by the planes and heat etc etc would cause the towers to collapse! So to make an argument that it would take months (Because thats were he is going) to wire these building is ridiculous....yet to believe it can be done by damage to 6 floors renders your argument pointless. NIST can't get past the initiation and then they delve into the realms of fantasy, by having a computer simulation which they had to tweak with to get the building to collapse. So arguing that it would take 12 men months to wire a building the size of the WTC, when you believe it can collapse from anywhere/everywhere within those 6 floors is pointless as it wouldn't take that long if thats what you believe. Trying to argue that the logistical problem of getting the building wired is impossible and arguing that the collapse is possible based on less than 5% damage isn't working I'm afraid. That is a logical fallacy and a mooted point. 
|
 |
|
| If it was a controlled demolition then . . . · Skeptics | |
12:31 AM Nov 30
