To summarize for WTC 1 - On pg 71/298, final report, just below figure 2-2: On floors 95-96, 15-18 perimeter columns were severed and 5-6 core columns were severed, with 1-3 core columns heavily damaged. WTC 2- On pg90/278, final report, just below figure 3-3 : On floors79-81, 15 perimeter columns were severed and 9-10 core columns were severed. Hmmmmmm?
Yeah, except for the photos earlier in the thread clearly showing a solid central core of some -damn -thing protruding from the initial collapse, upward, and seemingly solid enough. This core, strong enough to deal with the supposed inferno, strong enough to not go to ground with the outer structures immmediately- disintegrated vertically, like a remarkably tall marshmallow, after that, WITHOUT at any point in either building, toppling laterally to any significant degree. Im not argueing one way or the other, except the following; 1; you can see it clearly, in many photos-logic suggests it must have been severed to cause such a collapse, while significant evidence of lateral movement is absent, unless someone admits publically the core columns were made of cheesy puffs. 2; Regarding catostrophic collapse, well that much is certain. Its only an issue, if you work in a skyscraper type building, but hey, do check out the engineering standards and fire escape plans of ther building. Would i be out of line, suggesting most modern fire plans and architechture, are, in the region of 100 years obsolete? I doubt it. And this was a modern building, forget the towers themselves, check you own security-you could argue forever and a day about the towers, who or what may have done this or that. Do you own a fire extinguisher? Put yourselves before pointless arguments.
Yes. It is possible to design a 110 story structure about which the designers could say 'This building is GUARANTEED to survive the impact of multiple fully loaded and fully fueled commercial jetliners crashing into it'. Yes, buttstream... Wait a minute... BUTTSTREAM??? BUTTSTREAM!!! (Sorry, a typo just provided me with the perfect nickname for you - what else to describe what you spew all day long?? Now its BATGIRL and BUTTSTREAM!!) Anyhow, yes buttstream, this is possible. This is really good proof. By the way, I noticed you conveniently forgot to explain to all of us how George and Laura Bush faked the images of the airliners hitting the buildings. Possibly this is because you understand that if you open up that can of worms, you will be shouted down to the ground by almost every member of this site except your little bum buddy batshitgirl.
Yes, well... if this building was supposedly so strong, and a fully fueled commercial jetliner couldn't bring it down by itself, that begs the question - how in the hell did they bring it down? With a 'squid' or two? Do these people understand the extent of the demolition job it would take to bring these buildings down? The answer to that would be - no. They do not. Did they wait an hour before punching the button so that more New York firemen and police officers and Port Authority workers could get on scene and be crushed to death? Or did they wait because they saw a difference between killing 3000 innocent civilians and killing 13,000 innocent civilians? No wait... I bet they waited the hour or two or whatever it was so that all the Jews could get out of the area. That's IT, isn't it??? They have found some doctored photos on the web (posted by some college kids who are laughing their asses off at what they have started) and some statements by tinfoil hat-wearing loony cases, and are constructing the biggest conspiracy in history out of it. Let's face it. Terrorists hijacked some airplanes, flew them into some buildings, and the buildings fell, to the surprise of everyone including the terrorists themselves. Is it a coincidence that the moonbats who are in this thread ranting about the conspiracy by George and Laura Bush to bring down the WTC towers are for the most part, the same moonbats who are ranting and raving about the evil West and how acting against any terrorist organization is an example of discrimination against peace-loving Islamic fundamentalists and that the West deserves everything it gets from the 'freedom fighters'?
if i didn't know better i would say lil nicole is quite the progressive. she has a decent education but it is obviously not ivy league. is that why she seems a little bitter? i would of thought the minority status would have gotten her in. oh well.. i'm sure she settled for a decent 2nd rung school none the less. kudos to you nikki !!! now for her political views, i am guessing she has an eclectic group of friends mixed with genuine liberals but dominated by neolibs and neocons, that molded her pseudo intellectual mindset. in order to fit in with this culture she has taken on their beliefs formulaically. she is easily brainwashed as evidenced by her gullibility to believe the grandest conspiracy theory mankind has ever known. (not to mention a sucker on the langan thread....that was too easy) i can just see her now on a friday night at "borders" sitting with the other nerds comparing earth sandals, bashing christians, and arguing about jazz legend miles davis (boring anyone that has the misfortune of being within earshot).
lol.. Ok, batgirl. I am willing to give credit where credit is due. That was marginally funny. Almost completely off the mark, but marginally funny nevertheless. It actually made me smile out loud. Just to make it perfectly clear, I never argue about Miles. Most civilians don't get Miles at all. You're Under Arrest is my favourite Miles track, so you can see I'm not a member of the bebop police. And by the way, batgirl... it's not 'I would OF thought' It's 'I would HAVE thought'. What you're actually trying to write is 'I would've thought' But that's not the same as 'I would of thought' Don't say 'I would of thought' - there's no such phrase. It makes you look like (more of) an idiot. As you can see, Spellcheck doesn't catch errors like that Use the contraction of 'would have', that is, 'would've'.
it is perfectly acceptable given my vernacular. we also say "fixin" when we are "about" to leave. anywho, glad to see you have a sense of humor.... now you can go back to bashing.
Sure, 'would've' is perfectly acceptable. You just misspelled it. It has nothing to do with the use of 'fixin'' when you are about to leave. That would be perfectly acceptable in your vernacular. Writing 'would of' is not vernacular usage. It is simply an error, which came about as a result of your inability to infer that the spoken phrase you are attempting to convey in writing is the contraction of 'would have'. Oh, by the way... it's not 'anywho'. The colloquial you are thinking of is 'anyhoo', which is created when the 'w' is dropped off the end of 'anyhow' and replaced by another 'o'. It has been used extensively in American literature and the spelling is established. It has nothing to do with the word 'who'. Again, this seems to be another example of your tendency to spell phonetically, that is, according to how words sound to you. English can be tricky like this, so don't worry, you're not the only one. We often see people with reading comprehension difficulties spelling words phonetically. That's why you see people misuse 'your' so much, using it instead of 'you're'. Look, batgirl, I have documented at least 15 blatant spelling and grammatical errors in your posts. I have used it as evidence for your lack of education, in support of my arguments regarding your credulity. That is all, back to your Google video searches. But yes, that little rant was pretty funny. Anyhoo... keep up the good work here. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Anyhoo
from your source: 1. any who 2 up, 4 down means the same as "any how" Use in conversation when switching topics abruptly Now what was I talking about.... any who, you want pizza LOL LOL LOL FOOL ummmmmm.... there is no correct spelling for anywho... anyhoo... i can spell it any way i like. geezzzzz... oh wait.. is it jeez? fyi, an urban dictionary is not an authority regarding my "neck of the woods."