John HSOG said:
This is partially true. Buildings have fallen apart to some extent, but never have collapsed in its entirety. The buildings lose structure in the areas that were burning, but there is almost always the majority of the metal framework left over, still standing. The undamaged portions do not collapse and not at freefall speed.
erhm, has it by now reached your neocortex that the Twin Towers were not constructed in the usual way? That the fire was much hotter than average house fires?
Actually, it was a B-25. Jeez, at least when I made the mistake, I read it like a dyslexic, and the mistake was honest. You blatantly pulled this B-17 nonsense right out of your own arse.
First, the deluded fisherman or carpenter with the fake birthplace doesn't enter here at all.
Second, as opposed to your 'honest' mistake (what BS), I happened to have read something about the event. Yes, I mixed one WWII bomber up with another, you totally got the freaking size and timeline wrong. Oops, hu?
And, the 'blantantly' in yoru quote shows you're thinking someone here is making stuff up - maybe because you sense that you are called on LOADS of BS? Why else become so aggressive?
According to the so-called 'experts' and the recycled testimony given by the people here at OT, the jet fuel burned off within minutes.
Ah, so a few minutes of jet fuel fire are not enough to weaken the beams? Or do you want to insinuate that a weakened beam must snap apart ASAP or stay stable forever?
How naive!
I would say about the last time would have been when people reported being knocked off their feet on the 8th floor (after the airplanes struck), there was massive, as yet, unexplained damage on many of the lower areas, and you have several dozen people reporting explosions in those areas. What clinches this, is that NO ONE reported the explosions as coming from the top of the buildings. That is what I am going with.
Hm, a shocked and near-dead person says he or she heard something right before a building collapsed almost on top of him/her. How believable is that?
Please, can you bring some photographs of that supposed 'unexplained damage'? No?
WRONG! AC ducts DO NOT transfer sound very well. This is shear, untampered with bullfeathers. Unless you are within two rooms, you won't hear a damn thing through AC ducts.
Maybe in horsehockey little western town motels, but not with serious business AC - they are, you know, a bit larger than in 2-room shacks.
What is more, is that buildings such as these do not have solitary heating and cooling systems for the entire building. They group each system by a set of floors. Its much easier to get cold air to rise through eight floors rather than eighty floors.
Indeed, but did I ever say that the sound must have traveled inside the cool-air tract?
Read, please....
If you do that, you will freeze everybody at the bottom and the people at the top will be sweating. Take a freaking AC/Heating/HVAC course if you want to debate me on the physics involved in these systems. Futhermore, if you run your AC ducts from a more local source, you are not running your running it the entire height of the building from one source, requiring more space.
Erhm, that is supposed to be a rebuttal, right?
If you run, say, 10 8-story units in an 80-story building, will the space they are installed in not quite likely be in vertical association? Would it not be smart to have them on top of each other, statics wise? You ever think of that? Or would you spread them tot he corners of the buildings, rather, spreading bending moments all around the place?
And would not these flights of 'rooms' make a much better sound conductor than office rooms with carpets etc?
So, Mr. Condescending, maybe you ought to stpe off your high horse and admit you are advancing a highly stupid conspiracy theory here.
(btw: ever thought of elevator shafts as sound conductors?)
I am still not convinced.
Who cares? YOU make the odd claim, YOU will need to convince others that you have a claim. But that is a principle that eluded you on other topics already....
