Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Pookster]

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA:

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.

Pardon me, but could you quote the exact part of your post where the EPA officials specifically tells the Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? The only thing I've found in all that has been posted regarding this in this thread is the EPA advised using protective gear because of the danger. I hardly think that is the EPA telling anyone the air at Ground Zero for the workers was safe to breath.

Thanks.

 

[DGM]

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.

What if the article is about level 3 sex offenders. Doesn't that change the context of his statement.

 

[GStan]

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA:

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.

Did you even read the article you quoted? Almost the entire article was talking about the abundance of caution that was taking place, in spite of the encouraging initial air quality test results. Including the following quote:

"EPA and OSHA will work closely with rescue and cleanup crews to minimize their potential exposure, but the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling."

The 'general public should be reassured', 'we will work closely with the cleanup crews.' How are you making the leap to GZ workers being told the air was completely safe?

ETA: Yeah. What Pookster said.

 

[brasil]

Actually, most of the twoofers seem to be, indeed, claiming that all those floors, from the impact zone to the ground, were demolished. If you ask me, only one floor would need to be blown with explosives, but this is all due to the truthers' misunderstanding of how powerful gravity can be in these cases:

1) They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+.
2) So, Just one 767 isn't enough, and so isn't a one-floor demo
3) Ergo, demolition charges must have been placed on several floors.

It's all logical, until you:

a) Consider the evidence
b) Realise that 1) is false.

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

 

[Gravy]

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.

Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

Dave

Yes, indeed. The truther selective quotenesia illness continues. The effects of the use cutter charges would have been patently obvious when they detonated. The effects of the use of blunt-force explosives to bring down the towers would have been stupendously obvious to people within miles of lower Manhattan. Twice.

 

[GStan]

<snip> whatever <snip> fact or statement <snip> i made is <snip> very weird. <snip> ignore the rest, <snip> man.

This could turn into a fun game.

 

[Gravy]

Malmoe, this thread is about factual errors I've made. Please discuss your various Alex Jones-inspired absurdities elsewhere.

 

[Malmoesoldier]

Hey Malmoe your right this 'quote mining' is fun. The rest of the stuff doesn't matter does it?

Lets change it to "I think everybody in the world should have an RFID chip in their body" then

So no the rest of the stuff doesnt matter at all. What you are doing is cerry picking not me.

The fact is that all evidence that has something to do with 9-11 got destroyed. now why did this happen? if you dont know ask a three year old they will have the awsner for you.

 

[GStan]

Brasil
I know there are alot of engineers on here far more qualified than me to scientifically explain the errors in your points, but welcome to the forum from one new member to another.

 

[DGM]

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

Welcome:
Your right. Then why do the "truthers" claim this? I don't know one skeptic that says this.

 

[Par]

The fact is that all evidence that has something to do with 9-11 got destroyed.

Yes. Just like the reason that there is no evidence in favour of creationism is that God concealed it all to test our faith.

 

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, brasil. NIST used a safety factor for the tower column gravity loads of about 2. That was a bit of an overestimation, which is wise. The actual safety factor for the core columns was about 1.67 and for the perimeter columns it varied from about 1.22-1.44. Some columns (about 5%) were determined to have exceeded their demand-to-capacity ratios in use, but these were not determined to have played a significant role in the collapses, since the buildings could easily redistribute the loads that those columns couldn't carry.

The towers used a steel frame, not steel and concrete (unless you're including the floors, but they only had to carry their own loads). A few steel elements on mechanical floors were encased in concrete, but these wouldn't have made a difference in the collapses.

Of course, the "30 floors vs. 80 floors" argument is a non-starter. The falling top portion only has to break through one floor for the collapse to proceed, and of course the floors were built to hold the weight of themselves and their contents, not of the building above.

You'll find a good analysis of the possible column failure modes in Professor Bazant's papers. He shows that even if the severed columns above landed squarely and evenly on those below, the collapse would have proceeded due to column failure with a downward movement of the top portion of only 0.5 meters. Obviously, the columns didn't contact each other in that way. So, even using extremely conservative assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, the energy of the falling upper portions vastly exceeded the capacity of the structure below to absorb it.

Do you have any specific engineering arguments that demonstrate that the towers shouldn't have collapsed as they did? If so, you can start a thread to discuss them.

You said you signed up here to address me. Again, welcome. Which of my errors would you like to discuss?

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

Welcome to the forum Brazil, maybe you should start a new thread about this subject; there are many learned people here who would gladly discuses this with you.

I take you are aware of the actual design of the towers? The floors didn't support anything, they ware braced between the external supporting columns and the internal core, they simply acted as bracing between the two supporting elements. This is called the tube in tube design, one whereby the floor trusses were not loading bearing but used as bracing. Anyway that’s how I understand it; maybe you could start a new thread and explain further how the 70 floors below held up the floors above.

Maybe you can explain exactly what load bearing structures on the floors you are talking about.

Feel free,also to say what you think happened, in the new thread.

 

[uk_dave]

I I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century."

Really? That's a coincidence because I've read a few 'truther' forums as well as postings from 'truthers' here and I've been appalled at how rude and hostile they are towards people who don't share their fantasy that someone other than 19 arab terrorists ... or maybe 19 arab terrorists but controlled by...someone else....or maybe it never happened at all...or maybe the people who fought back didn't...or maybe the poor woman seen in the hole of wtc towers must've been wearing asbestos knickers...or maybe no one died at shanksville or maybe someone in the pentagon deliberately had his own son on the flight which supposedly crashed into his place of work.....oh how they laughed....how they accused without evidence....how they pretended to know what they were talking about when they had not a single clue.... yeah, we all get pissed on this subject.

That's why I stopped taking 'truthers' seriously long ago.

 

[brasil]

"the whole entire world" includes "ground zero workers" re: the EPA announcement

Pardon me, but could you quote the exact part of your post where the EPA officials specifically tells the Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? The only thing I've found in all that has been posted regarding this in this thread is the EPA advised using protective gear because of the danger. I hardly think that is the EPA telling anyone the air at Ground Zero for the workers was safe to breath.

Thanks.

Don't mind if I step in here... This is my second post, and I'm still responding to the posts which got me to sign up for this forum in the first place. More details about me to come.

Right off the bat, before I cite an official reference which answers your question, I'll speak from my own experience. I have lived in Manhattan for 12 years, and I was in Manhattan on 9-11, and on 9-12 my research began. Anyone old enough to actually remember 9-11, and especially anyone who actually lived here can tell you that we were all very concerned about the air and water safety of our city at that time.

I'll tell you why I personally had every reason to believe the EPA was maliciously lying (on orders from the Bush administration) when they announced that the air was "safe to breathe" at ground zero just 7 days after the attacks, on September. 18th, 2001. First of all, if you lived here (and I would be interested to know how many people posting here lived in NYC on 9-11) you could not avoid that smell. One whiff of the smell of ground zero burning (and we all had to smell it for months) and you intuitively knew it was toxic. I will never forget that smell as long as I live. It closely resembled the smell of burning plastic, but it was more than that, and it was BAD.

Next, have you ever thought twice about smashing a mercury-vapor, fluorescent light tube because you knew you would be releasing toxins? Have you ever done the right thing and recycled a lithium-ion, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal-hydride, or lead acid battery rather than just dump it in the trash? Should I continue listing the toxic substances that I knew, without anyone having to tell me, were likely in the WTC dust? I smelled that smell, I thought of 100,000 mercury vapor tubes exploding, 10's of thousands of computers smashing and releasing heavy metals, all of the asbestos, and it was just obvious that you DID NOT want to breathe the air down there. I made a point of avoiding lower Manhattan for almost a full year based on my OWN understanding, not what the White House and EPA tried to shove down my throat. I came to these conclusions on my own, on September 12th, 2001.

AND THEN, on September 18th, the EPA issued an official press release and made a public announcement, and I quote: "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe."

(as I don't have 15 posts now, I can't post the link to the EPA's website showing the press release. use google to search epa.gov and you'll find it, or maybe this will work: epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/wtc/epapr20010918.htm)

When I read that statement in the New York times I must have almost spat out my coffee. They're kidding, right? All of that mercury, lithium, cadmium, nickel, lead, asbestos, burning plastic, PCB's from electrical transformers... turned into dust and spread all over lower Manhattan, kicked up into the air by the slightest breeze, and they're saying it's "safe?!"

To specifically answer your question: If the EPA makes a public statement and issues an official press release to every media organization in the country, saying the "air and water is safe," that's the same as "telling the ground zero workers the air is safe." Period. Your question is answered, thank you.

Finally, if they told the public one thing, and the workers something different, then we have another grave breach of the public trust. There is no way to spin this. They lied, and they had every motive to do so. The government needed the area cleaned up as fast as possible. If people had refused to work on the cleanup, that would have left more time for people to start asking a lot more questions and do a lot more scrutinizing of the debris (forget evidence of explosives for now, think "lawsuits" and "legal red tape preventing a speedy cleanup"). This last paragraph is my opinion, but it's more than supported by the facts.

 

[Gravy]

I'll tell you why I personally had every reason to believe the EPA was maliciously lying (on orders from the Bush administration) when they announced that the air was "safe to breathe" at ground zero just 7 days after the attacks, on September. 18th, 2001.

Please cite this statement, or any official statement that the workers at Ground Zero were told that the air there was safe to breathe. The person who started that topic was unable to do so, nor was Dylan Avery, who criticized me about the same issue. Thank you.

ETA: I'll be out for a while. I'll check in later.

 

[brasil]

Really? That's a coincidence because I've read a few 'truther' forums as well as postings from 'truthers' here and I've been appalled at how rude and hostile they are towards people who don't share their fantasy that someone other than 19 arab terrorists ... or maybe 19 arab terrorists but controlled by...someone else....or maybe it never happened at all...or maybe the people who fought back didn't...or maybe the poor woman seen in the hole of wtc towers must've been wearing asbestos knickers...or maybe no one died at shanksville or maybe someone in the pentagon deliberately had his own son on the flight which supposedly crashed into his place of work.....oh how they laughed....how they accused without evidence....how they pretended to know what they were talking about when they had not a single clue.... yeah, we all get pissed on this subject.

That's why I stopped taking 'truthers' seriously long ago.

That's great. I guess I'm not a "truther" then. Or a "twoofer." Which is why I'm going to start my own threads that address very focused, specific issues, not broad topics where it's too easy to change the subject to "Alex Jones" and "forced RFID implants." I'm also going to ask that anyone who wants to engage me not use the terms "truther" or "twoofer" in my threads.

 

[The Big Dog]

"I of course realize his change of heart, but does that change his expert opinion on the amount of explosives? Link please? Source at least?"

Dude, I told you: you are teh winnar! Your hero, the guy who said that the WTC collapse definitely NOT CD, has apparently never retracted his comment that if it was CD (and recall he said that it was not) that a small amount of explosives (which we agree he said was not there) could have somehow caused the collapse (and he said it did not). So you are the winner in the Slam and Lock the Barn Door after the Horse has Escaped Competition. Good job, King Pyrrhus of Epirus.

 

[Belz...]

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.

Unless the full statement was: "If I said something like this: "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body", then I'd be a loon".

 

[Belz...]

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that).

Welcome to the forum, then.

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure.

Yes, specifically when the thing ISN'T crashing down.

Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur.

We're getting less and less relevant to what I said.

On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself.

How much more is the question. You DO know about kinetic energy, right ?

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in.

What's your point, exactly, then ? I was presenting a short case of why the truther argument doesn't hold up.

...we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

Are you saying that those 30+ floors COULDN'T smash through those other 70+ floors under the conditions present on that day ?

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

No, truthers are known to avoid stating what they think. It's easier to weasel out of a conversation when cornered.