You didn't even follow up the links

Page not found, page not found, page not found.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

Now, considering this is a debate, not a mathematics journal: explain. That would serve your case wonderfully.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You didn't even follow up the links Page not found, page not found, page not found.

Nothings stopping you from googling the title's of the references.

McCormick Place Fire
Case Studies: Mumbai High North Platform Fire
Tanker Fire Destroys Part of MacArthur Maze

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nothings stopping you from googling the title's of the references.

I've often said the same to a lot of people .

quote:

McCormick Place Fire

That's a roof collapse, innit? Burned for 30 minutes, partial roof collapse. No big deal, unrelated to the WTC. Where else has a 1350 ft. skyscraper taken the plunge to Earth at free-fall speed after burning for such an insignificant amount of time?

quote:

Mumbai High North Platform Fire

Do you think that an oil-platform has any relevance to the construction of a skyscraper?

quote:

Tanker Fire Destroys Part of MacArthur Maze

... I have no words for the waste of time I am addressing here.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

I want pulverized concrete

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} That's a roof collapse, innit? Burned for 30 minutes, partial roof collapse. No big deal, unrelated to the WTC. Where else has a 1350 ft. skyscraper taken the plunge to Earth at free-fall speed after burning for such an insignificant amount of time?

That is a steel structure whose roof was support by steel girders, much like the WTC floors were supported by steel girders, which by the way were held in place only by two bolts.

quote:

Do you think that an oil-platform has any relevance to the construction of a skyscraper?

Absolutely. I am demonstrating cased in which steel buildings have collapsed during a fire. Your side clearly asserts no steel building has failed from fire.

quote:

... I have no words for the waste of time I am addressing here.

Yea, a steel structure compromised by fire. I know this doesn't fit into your grand conspiracy theory, but steel structures can, and have, been compromised during a fire. Why the WTC would be ANY different, especially after having a 767 fly into it, you have never explained that. You guys say, "Oh the towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. Umm...Ok? The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sunk, did it not?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Now, considering this is a debate, not a mathematics journal: explain. That would serve your case wonderfully.

The amount of force an object delivers is dependent on its mass and its velocity. The body of a plane traveling at 400 mph delivers significantly more force than the wings that would shear off at first contact.

Material is a complete non-sequiter. Two tons of paper traveling at 400 mph would deliver the same force as two tons of titanium at the same speed.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

Also, b.s.e. - I know you're the keeper of all Newton's secrets, so I'm a bit surprised you didn't recognize Newton's Second Law here.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That is a steel structure whose roof was support by steel girders, much like the WTC floors were supported by steel girders, which by the way were held in place only by two bolts.

You can clearly see the bridge is made in sections, it's not like that section fell through the earth. Utterly irrelevant to a skycraper and your Pancake Theory as well.

quote:

Absolutely. I am demonstrating cased in which steel buildings have collapsed during a fire. Your side clearly asserts no steel building has failed from fire.

No. 'My' side asserts that no 'building' has ever had a full-out gravity driven collapse, and have provided many more serious cases, and relevant architecture.

quote:

Yea, a steel structure compromised by fire. I know this doesn't fit into your grand conspiracy theory, but steel structures can, and have, been compromised during a fire. Why the WTC would be ANY different, especially after having a 767 fly into it, you have never explained that. You guys say, "Oh the towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. Umm...Ok? The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sunk, did it not?

Ok, let's just say that two planes effectively brought down two incredibly massive buildings, yet when entering the fantasy realm of the Pentagon's airspace only managed to do this:



You see how none of what you are saying corresponds to reality? Each lie is its own Universe. You have to believe one lie at a time, otherwise the machine breaks down.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

quote:

The Titantic was designed to be unsinkable. It sank, did it not?

It sank, you're sunk.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} You see how none of what you are saying corresponds to reality? Each lie is its own Universe. You have to believe one lie at a time, otherwise the machine breaks down.

The official theory says the plane hit the ground and skidded into the Pentagon. Have you seen this?

The Incredible PENTALAWN!

lols