Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

wildbilln864

(13,382 posts)
6. also structurally....
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:16 PM
Sep 2014

nothing like the WTC towers. Right William? Not built to withstand multiple impacts by a fully loaded passenger planes like the Twin Towers were. You failed but you will not admit it. That's why I don't think you're arguing from sincerity. How long's it been now? Over a decade and you've convinced no one yet you tow that line. Strange indeed.
Simply put. There never has been a total and complete gravity driven collapse unless deliberate demolition methods were used to cause it. You even admitted your example only collapsed because the supporting structure was removed first before the building was ready to support the weight. Do you see the problem with that William? No of course you don't. Or at least you won't admit it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Pseudo-science at its worst William Seger Sep 2014 #1
pseudo-science indeed.. wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #2
Yes, I can William Seger Sep 2014 #3
fail again Seger! wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #4
Nope William Seger Sep 2014 #5
also structurally.... wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #6
It was "like the WTC towers" (and most other buildings) in the one thing that mattered William Seger Sep 2014 #7
nonsense William! wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #8
Really? William Seger Sep 2014 #9
loads yes, depending on what you define as load. wildbilln864 Sep 2014 #10
WTF does that mean? William Seger Sep 2014 #11
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Newton vs NIST by Jonatha...»Reply #6