Collapse of the twin towers in 2001. An engineering perspective

[Armour of God]

While it may be hard to detemine just how deep the rabbit hole goes, one must recognize the official narrative is seldom the truth.

I saw a Kermit the frog meme last summer that said, “I want to believe in aliens …. but the government said they’re real.” The coercive agents of the State earned our distrust from decades of duplicity.

You know that video I posted. I learned that they lied about the physics and metallurgy in order to make the computer models collapse the same way.
In their calculations they made the building twice as heavy and they made the columns three times weaker.
This is outright fraud.

 

[Debp]

I didn't see a Coke can example but a Coke can is very weak. It's not built like a building it's only designed to hold liquid. It's not designed to support a large mass nor does it have interior colums. So it's not comparable. If you want to make a fair comparison then you must look at other building collapses.

But show me the Coke can example. I'm curious to see how it's gets crushed under its own weight like the towers did and I'm objective enough to hear both sides of the argument

Did you watch the video I posted?

The Coke can example was in one of the videos I posted by Sabin Civil Engineering. He put weight on top of the can and the can held up perfectly. However once the side of the can was dented in, the can instantly collapsed downwards.

Also, as I said before, Sabin Civil Engineering said the center columns were weaker. Thus when the plane crashed into the building, this put added strain on the weaker center columns, leading to the collapse.

I didn't have the time to watch your one hour video, maybe another time.

 

[Debp]

An internet trend, even on discussion forums: paste something in a fallacious Appeal to Authority, which implies … I can’t defend or explain the conclusion I have so go away with this other person’s testimony. Who are you to argue with the experts I present?! This is sad.

She can’t address our points. Just doubles down with another vid. Whoever has the most pasted vids wins, I guess.

@Wrangler if you don't like my posts you don't have to read them.

 

[Armour of God]

The Coke can example was in one of the videos I posted by Sabin Civil Engineering. He put weight on top of the can and the can held up perfectly. However once the side of the can was dented in, the can instantly collapsed downwards.

Also, as I said before, Sabin Civil Engineering said the center columns were weaker. Thus when the plane crashed into the building, this put added strain on the weaker center columns, leading to the collapse.

Regarding the Coke can
- A weight was placed on top. It didn't free fall on its own weight like the towers did.
- A Coke can is not a building. It's only designed to hold liquid.
- A Coke can doesn't have columns, it's just a thin aluminium sheet in the form of a cylinder.
- A Coke can is not to scale of the buildings.
- It's not a valid comparison. If you really want to compare you need to look at other building collapses.

I didn't have the time to watch your one hour video, maybe another time

Im sorry Deb but without looking and listening to the opposing arguments your really just repeating what the mainstream media has dished out.

Deborah my friend. Why do you suppose over 3,600 architects and engineers, over a thousand companies, officially reject the mainstream explanation and wanted a real investigation?



And this is not including the many more that didn't sign this petition.
Such opposition in engineering is unheard of

 

[Armour of God]

@Wrangler @Debp

The subject of how the towers and building 7 collapsed has been a much discussed topic among engineers, especially in the first 10 years or so after it happened.

I was in university when it happened so I've been in engineering now for over 25 years and iv met many other engineers.

Most of them agree that demo charges was the only explanation for how those towers came down.

From the ones that disagree, most of them resorted to name calling and refused to
have an open discussion about it.

Much like Jay Ross did in the start of this thread. Repeatedly called me, class mates, colleagues and teachers ignorant, refused to address my arguments and left an angry man.

Why? Because they are uncomfortable discussing the facts. Deep down they know something was not right with those buildings but it goes against the political or world view. That's why they resort to name calling and refuse to have an open discussion about it.

Much easier to attack the man than to attack the argument. But it's an ad hominem fallacy and concedes defeat in the argument.

Much like the mainstream that dismisses anyone who questions the collapses as a conspiracy theorist.