Of that size and strength, yes, unless there is somethign very obvious and LOCAL to the specific failure. So,......... when it falls all the way to the ground,
Again, proving you know nothing of construction.
This is common knowledge of ground zero, a great deal of the big steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Either you are informed or you are not.
Yes, indeed. the steel was a perfect maximum length for loading onto trucks. Can't you think of a non-nefarious reason why that is ? I can think of two:
1) If was cut by the cleanup crew. We can clearly see several pictures of them doing it, and we KNOW that no explosive could produce such a clean cut.
2) They were MADE at that length, because they had to be hauled TO the construction site BY trucks. It's only logical that the joints would fail first, so you end up with those sections, again.
See ? That wasn'T hard.
The term would governmentally approved authority. Remember, that is what is in question here.
Oh, so all experts are in on it because they're part of the system. Sounds like layman-aspiring-to-become-the-new-elite talk to me.
Recall, ...... government removed evidence from the scene of a crime before private investigations into collapse (sic) were conducted.
I also recall that that's not true.
When something as impossible as a 10 second collapse brings a tower down, the entire world of structural engineers is not only allowed, they are INVITED to help understand exactly what happened. that is what happens in a rightful and lawful society.
Yes, and that should tell you something about your theory.
Have you ever had such a joke with such meaningful aspects to everyone played upon you?
No. My lack of experience in these matters does not mean it cannot happen. I've seen some very convincing, and some very sick, April's fool jokes.
My description of Robersons comment makes much more sense AFTER your denial of evidence showing a concrete core.
Evidence ? Haven't seen any. And I know this, consciously.
Perhaps, but reading between the lines is a skill based in tangibility.
Reading "between the lines" is not something you do in an investigation. Otherwise you can put anything you want "between the lines".
For example, how would you feel under these conditions if somebody blew up the building you had designed then threatened you to not reveal the true design.
I'd feel like the common citizen like a certain christophera, whose identity is known, would be just as likely to be slain by those making the threats, should he speak up. So far, zilch.
When a uniform denial of publication and production is counter to
raw evidence of the concrete core, We've just determining who is assisting with the coverup.
Actually, when EVERYONE is claiming the SAME thing, it's much more reasonable to assume that they're beign honest about it.
They probably think they will. Which is part of the great deception taking nearly 2 generations to perfect.
Guess we'd better start keeping tabs on those PBS employees, until ALL of them show up in Mercedes...
