Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: OK then. Just the facts. 9-11 [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)33. This is pure nonsense....
"Heat is generally blamed as the cause for WTC collapse. Structural damage from aircraft impact is generally listed as within design parameters of load carrying capability. Yet heat more severe than WTC event occurred in other high rise fires."
In case you didn't notice, both of the towers survived the aircraft impacts. The problem is that the impacts severely compromised the ability of the towers to withstand the fires.
And, this is a particularly outstanding piece of embedded nonsense - "Structural damage from aircraft impact is generally listed as within design parameters of load carrying capability." What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"... is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared."
William Seger
Feb 2012
#26
For someone who claims to be curious, why have you not read any critical analysis of this POS?
jberryhill
Feb 2012
#35