martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 85,271
- 35,715
- 2,300
While I'm not exactly clear on what "that is not how it was designed" applies to, would you agree with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that WTC 7 a 47 story high rise that was not struck by an airplane exhibited "all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives?"How would you characterize the critical thinking skills of those who believe two planes toppled three steel framed skyscrapers at nearly free-fall speeds?
George
First this has nothing to do with you.
Second I would describe someone's critical thinking skills who believes that a building could not fall because "that is not how it was designed" as moronic.
Including:
"Rapid onset of 'collapse'"?
"Sounds of explosions at ground floor a second before the building's destruction"?
"Symmetrical 'structural failure' through the path of greatest resistance -- at free fall acceleration"?
Most of these can be explained by the building failing normally, i.e. a loss of structural integrity. "Explosions" can be beams or columns failing.
I think the big problem is most people have never seen a non controlled collapse of a building before. The only difference between a controlled collapse and a non controlled collapse is the initiation. In controlled demo you use explosives to weaken structural members to cause collapse. In a normal failure a structural member or members can fail leading to collapse. The explosives dont add anything to the speed of failure or collapse in any way.
So if both failures can be silimiar in order to prove controlled demo you need other verifiable evidence. Occams razor applies.