Oh, I'm not backing up Ralin - I was more replying to MA. And, truth is, I don't recall exactly - just seemed reasonable enough.

@Laucivol I know you aren't, I was stating how your statement was reasonable.

reasonable... to a non-engineer

@ManAnimal That's the equivalent of "97% of climate scientists agree"

I was contrasting it to the conspiracy theory.

Dude I just returned from my run, I have no idea what the topic of conversation is <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

But jet fuel usually means 9/11

that doesn't understand the difference between lateral and axial loading

not the same @TheBrsrkr. scientists don't have to make things WORK

they don't test a design and know what the word 'tolerance' even means

ANY skyscraper moves a good 30 ft left to right with the wind

That's not the reason why it's shit, the reason is just because 1000 of them say it doesn't make it true or even credible

it's designed to do so

if it was too ridgid, it wouldn't take the strain over time

Okay, thinf about that MA - you were speaking about the entire jetfuel matter. I do happen to actually understand those differences.

That said the quality of construction is suspect, irrespective of conspiracy.

crushing a pencil end to end is different than snapping it in half

what aspect of the construction is suspect?

and what evidence outside the collapse on 9/11 in which a steel structure suffered complete catastrophic failure suggests such a concern?

Quality of materials as I understand it. Which is why that petition you liked is fair enough.

@Storin I never got a chance to find out the exact claim, but "I tHinK somEOnE mIXeD iN A ChemICAL to MAkE it DisinTeGRAte" is buttfucking retarded.

was there evidence of abnormal construction work? forged safety reports? @Laucivol

Well, it's *New York City*. Corruption is *assumed*.

that claim IS spectulation; HOW the building was brought down is uncertain but a structure doesn't collapse neatly within it's footprint just 'by accident'

gotta admit, it is more likely they skimped on materials or on some ancillary thing that would have prevented catastrophical breakdown

how?

@Zakhan which would show on inspections and repairs, there's nothing

cost-cutting

@Zakhan Not likely, I looked into this pretty heavily for about a decade.

yeah, then we'd have to assume the inspectors and repairmen were in on it, too

you can't design a building to collapse neatly into it's footprint INTENTIONALLY

The purported material requirements, their chemical composition, and their amounts were in line with what was recovered.

and yet @Jack of Trades blocks me over a single topic instead of just moving on. He's lying

And not nearly enough residue to demonstrate "thermite" for example.

say nothing for having a fortunate 1 in a million accident happen

TWICE

here's some cancer for you guys as a friendly reminder, have fun, buhbye

Mm, like I said - it's suspicious in general.

@Spooky Melon Okay, i'm looking forward to this

trust me, i was aboard a military vessel during the attack

in come the team

for 11 days, i was a civilan aboard an active military vessel