So I was right? No one can say with 100% certainty that it's molten steel? It could be aliminium? If I poured treacle out of a tin some may argue it was in fact Maple syrup, it would be hard to disprove that argument unless someone took samples and conducted tests which proved it was treacle. No one has and no one will.
I don't know how WTC7 was built, steel layout etc so can't comment on that. What beams that flew hundreds of feet? I would have given you an answer first time if you had actually included it in any of your posts. Show me any credible source that states "beams flew hundreds of feet". I have worked on a hell of a lot of sites, and I would say with some confidence that I know more about structural mechanics and design than most of the labourers. I know that you learn with experience, but you also learn a **** load by actually studying it and getting taught. Tell a labourer to design a structure and they wouldn't have a clue where to start. On the whole, they are good at building structures and picking up on problems.
What do you mean by labourer? An actual labourer and all tradesman? How do you think we done the small structural projects? On site, as we went? Are you insane?
By labourer I mean someone that actually builds the design that I have given them. Where is the proof that beams "flew hundreds of metres"? I gave a pretty simplistic explanation of how the towers could have fallen, and everything I said can be easily proven. Are you just going to ignore the facts I presented, or are you going to try and disprove them?
WTC2: Debris impacted the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), the Customs House (WTC 6), the Morgan Stanley building (WTC 5), WTC 7, and the American Express and Winter Garden buildings located across West Street (Figure 2-23). The debris field extended as far as 400–500 feet from the tower base from the fema report please log in to view this image flying with enough force to impale buidlings, have you any idea the kind of energy it would take to do that?
The planes hit the WTC towers at high speed. If floors within the towers were not fully restrained (even if they were fully restrained) they could be projected out of the building. The height of the towers was 1335 feet, and the first was hit roughly 4/5's of the way up, so roughly about 1000 feet. Anything projected out of the building would not fall vertically down, it would follow a parabolic curve. The faster it is projected (the plane hit at very high speed) then the wider the curve. That would explain why material was found 400-500 feet away. It doesn't mention what material either, so it could be lightweight materials, then the wind could carry it further. As an object falls, gravity causes it to accelerate as well. If something came out the building, then it would continue to gain speed and momentum until it is stopped, either by the ground or in this case, another building. Depending on the type of material that is falling and the material it is impacting on, would depend on how much it 'impales'.
magic, we have been over everything 3 or 4 times in the last month, you have jumped in for 2 seconds and think you are proving something. Its all been said before, architects and engineers galore question the official story, im sure loads dont aswell. The world is split practically down the middle on the subject and it will never change. It has become a pointless argument to me now, nothing will change.
the plane crash didnt cause the beams to impale a building hundreds of feet away, it happened during the collapse/explosion
As ML said, objects don't fall straight down, they descend in a parabolic arc eddie. It's simple physics. please log in to view this image
I thought you were not responding sarge? You dismissed John Pilger re the debate on the flotilla and media non reporting/misreporting The John Pilger who got heads of media organisationjs to admit that they were in essence 'forced' not report or else But of course this was 'hard evidence' against youre bollox, so in your usual way you dismiss it Fact is eddie has some outrageous suggestions, i dont share some of his views, but you lump all that differ as CT's. Eddie is as correct as you are, i that both of you have taken a report of youtube/google and used that to base your argument 'hard evidence' did the colonel or brigadier brief you personally?
