Online politicking receives temporary reprieve

TalkBack 21 of 53:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Point: The WTC towers has an exoskeleton AND a solid inner core, not one or the other.

No, that was one of the presumed advantages of the WTC towers design, there is NO internal frame as there typically is in other buildings. The frame is the outer walls and the service core, with each floor attached to this outside frame. That left more room inside for all of the elevators and airshafts and such which is this "core" as your site calls it, if you look at the pictures (even though deceptive) you can see that there is no internal frame in the WTC tower pictured, look at the space between the elevator shafts that are pictured and the outside wall. AAMOF, you can also see where a large portion of the Windsor building has indeed collapsed (the entire front and at least one side on the right where the steel is greatly warped, looks like the metal buckled to me), some of the evidence of which is the remaining part of the floor hanging from the front of the building.

BTW, the WTC was over 100 stories high, the windsor building was what, 30 or 40? Notice that the site doesn't tell you how tall it was, that is odd. Also apparent in the pictures is the fact that the Windsor building is not nearly as wide as the WTC, therfore weighs much less and as stated previously they have very different construction methods.

And yet both towers were struck differently but fell almost the EXACT same way. This simply IS NOT POSSIBLE unless something was manipulated.

Yet both towers were struck exactly the SAME way, and they were constructed in the exact same way. Both towers were struck by the same kind of plane, both were loaded with fuel, both exploded on impact and sprayed thousands of gallons of fuel inside the building in the exact same way. The planes struck different floors but the difference stops there.

Notice that the outside of the buildings were relatively intact, as they was designed to withstand a hit from the biggest jet at the time (707?). What wasn't expected was spraying tons of fuel inside and the ensuing hot fire on the then exposed steel. It was the weaker interior supports of the floors that failed. Most of the fuel went into the service core, on fire, weakening the buildings from the inside.

And what do you make of Larry Silverstein ADMITTING that he blew up the building?!

Didn't happen, I read his official statement where he said "after losing contact with the firefighters, the decision was made to evacuate the buildings."(not exact quote) You can find misquotes on websites all day long, but it doesn't change anything.

No it just adds to the suspicion.

Now were getting somewhere, I too am extremely suspicious of alot of things, but I can't make that giant leap from suspicion to absolute fact, neither should you. Heck, I don't believe that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, I don't even believe that he was a shooter at all. I have heard both sides of it until I'm sick of it, but just exactly who was involved? No one can say definitively just what happened, but there is a ton of speculation and conjecture, especially the latter.

Now here's one for you: PROVE to me that what he puts up on his site is false.

OK, look at the picture of the WTC. It is in a very early stage of construction, whereas the Windsor is complete. The WTC has no internal skeleton as the Windsor does. The WTC is much taller than the windsor. Read the wording on the site very carefully and you'll find a very lopsided and incomplete comparison of the buildings which are extremely dissimilar in construction and size.

So at best you can say the website owner is either really dumb, and truly believes what he says, because it is very evident that the comparison of the buildings is bogus in many ways. Or he is purposely trying to deceive you, and the proof is on his own site as I stated above. Either way the guy cannot be anything more than another person with another opinion that can't withstand a close look at their "evidence".

Take a look at the pictures again and see if you can tell the difference in size and construction of the buildings. And why does your buddy at infowars.com have another website where his identity is not posted, that offers nothing more on this site than the same old misrepresentations and conjecture? If he has more sites, do you think that that lends to his credibility? Can't really validate yourself now can you?

If you can PROVE to me that some or all of the things on this page are false, I'll gladly accept what you have to say and never speak about 9/11 again. How's THAT for a challenge?

Here is a quote from your site:
The aluminum wings and the planes' fuselage would have been almost instantly shredded into pieces the size of an adult's fist, said Tomasz Wierzbicki, director of the impact and crashworthiness laboratory at M.I.T. Engines and other heavy parts continued to the core, but by working out the amount of energy involved, Dr. Wierzbicki and a student, Liang Xue, determined that at most half the inner columns could have been broken or severely mangled

Yet, according to you this same thing could not have happened at the pentagon (the plane shredding into small peices). And who says the plane hit the pentagon in level flight, what if it hit turned a little sideways? And, back to the WTC, it says at least half of the inner columns could have been "severly mangled", could even be more damage than that, and with some extreme temperatures this already mangled steel could easily fail or be weakened enough to allow the floors to collapse

Well, I think that I have at least shown that this website (whatreallyhappened) has been very deceitful and left out alot of info needed for a more realistic comparison, and I presented some facts that disprove some of his statements, but I have a feeling your mind is made up and facts won't change it.; Posted by: Spoon Jabber Posted on: 03/24/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use