You say disjointed factoids, I say contradictions.
Oh, well that's completely different! Let me rephrase:
"So... your concept of intelligent debate is to dig up a bunch of
contradictions and handing it over to ME to construct YOUR argument?"
Yeah Turn on the oven at 500 degree F and stick your head into it and see if your hair vaporizes. Steel melts at approx. 2500-2750 degree F. Do the math. der.
OK:
Oven temperature = 500
Melting point of steel = 2500
Ummm....
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say you must present a clear, unbroken chain of logic if you want to convince anyone.
What math am I supposed to perform?
What is the relevance of the melting point of steel?
I don't believe at all that you've looked into the link that I provided so I'll just copy and paste this part...
"August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. NIST has collected 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage of the towers. Tests have found that the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch, and were often capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch. Lead investigator Shyam Sunder says that if further testing corroborates these findings, this will rule out weak steel as a factor in the collapses. [Associated Press, 9/28/2003; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/26/2003] The final report of the NIST investigation, released in 2005, will corroborate this finding: “Overall, approximately 87 percent of all perimeter and core column steel tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths specified in design documents. Test data for the remaining samples were below specifications, but were within the expected variability and did not affect the safety of the towers on September 11, 2001.” It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 degrees C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 degrees C.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 10/2005 ]" der.
Its quite simple and clear...you don't need to be an intellectual to figure it out.
Then you should have no problem putting together a coherent argument and presenting it. What are you waiting for?
Think about this: If explosives were used on the exterior column panels, don't you think the temperature would have exceeded 600 degrees?
Also, you may want to look at the engineering report as to why the towers collapsed. The exterior columns did not have to reach high temperatures for it to collapse, because it was the steel connecting the concrete floor to the supports that failed, not the supports themselves. Once the floor fell away, the supports lost their structural integrity, since the floors were designed to keep the columns rigid, at the same time the columns kept the floor in place.
In one of the links I provided explained the US had received multiple warnings prior to 9/11...some are very, very clear showing where AND when it was going to happen.
Well, I guess they didn't handle it very well, did they? Too bad.
There are numerous examples in history where a victim of an attack had ample warning, but got caught by surprise anyway. Do you think this is ALWAYS indicative of a conspiracy?
Wargame exercises were performed nurmerous times, with the WTC as one of the targets prior to 9/11 AND on the morning of 9/11.
Playing Microsoft "Flight Simulator" doesn't really qualify as a "war game".
Pentagon was struck 40 minutes after the first strike in NYC without any scramblings of fighter jets to protect the skies of DC, let alone an air force base locating merely 10 miles from the white house. der.
Was there a protocol in place to scramble fighters to protect D.C. airspace whenever a plane crashed in New York? (Not IS there, but WAS there, on 9/11/2001?)
