The Physics of 9/11 versus Conspiracy Theories about 9/11 (Israeli, suspected, terrorism)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by niedo

well if poor construction (known), and consequent insurance fraud, is your answer; then fine.

at least your offering up some kind of possibility, instead of just attacking those who have questions

I wouldn't call it poor construction....building are build to hold under ""normal"" circumstance

no building is normally build to withstand the IMAPCT of another building

what insurance fraud...???

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by niedo

incorrect!

the former Duetsche Bank building experienced extremely similar circumstances, on the same day no less, in the same vicinity; yet didn't fall

imagine that...

Different buildings, different designs, different circumstances, different behaviors.

You cannot make the same that which is not the same.

[niedo]

well the former Duetsche Bank building held up, as did the Oklahoma Federeral building which suffered far more damage to one of its sides.

its fraud (insurance and other) to permit and facilitate a building with such flaws, even if those flaws are only uncovered under extroidinary circumstances. that is, if your presumed postulate is true.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ

Why are you saying this? Again...

If you keep asking the same question, you should anticipate receiving the same answer.

Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ

Great!!! Now get that memo to workingclasshero.

He is clearly already aware.

Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ

And also, remember how.the fire code AND the engineers considered the worst case scenario of that building being engulfed in flames. And being that NIST and civil.engineers are both well versed on the properties of both flame and steel, totally could have projected a collapse in any design flaw.

Nothing in that paragraph is obviously true. Once again, you demonstrate a nearly complete unfamiliarity with the engineering discipline.

[niedo]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Different buildings, different designs, different circumstances, different behaviors.

You cannot make the same that which is not the same.

i said similar!

and i hope your realize that your excuse knows no end and can be made for pretty much any circumstance; as nothing in life is truly identical

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Are you saying it did not come down in 25 seconds or that the distribution of mass would not have anything to do with collapse time?

I'm saying that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by niedo

well if poor construction (known), and consequent insurance fraud, is your answer; then fine.

Perhaps you should argue with what WCH actually says rather than the voices in your own head.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by niedo

well the former Duetsche Bank building held up, as did the Oklahoma Federeral building which suffered far more damage to one of its sides.

Different buildings, different designs, different circumstances, different behaviors.

Originally Posted by niedo

its fraud (insurance and other) to permit and facilitate a building with such flaws, even if those flaws are only uncovered under extroidinary circumstances. that is, if your presumed postulate is true.

You do not appear to know what "fraud" means.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by niedo

i said similar!

And you were wrong.

[Woof]

I don't follow this topic at all ....... but could it be that the building was wired with thermite in anticipation of a demolition in the near future, and that the crash accidentally set it off?