Okay, I will admit it. Maybe there is something to the idea of an inside job.

I do not personally believe it myself, but I am willing to entertain arguments.

My main concern is the actual destruction of the world trade center. The physical aspects of it. I have an academic background in architecture and materials science, and I have looked into the arguments that have been presented, and have not found any that I have not been able to account for.

Because of that, I would like to open up this thread. First off, let me state what this thread is NOT about:

The purpose of this thread is not for the posting of endless threads about the NWO, or about the evil conspiracies our government is perpetrating on us, or about how much of a poopy-head Bush is. The purpose of this thread is NOT for the discussion of any sort of "agenda".

What this thread IS about, however, are clear explanations as to why I do not, from a structural and engineering point of view, find anything inconsistant with the official story of the collapse. I have seen many questions being bandied about that are incorrect in concept or fact, and often on both.

Because of that, I would like to ask people who have questions regarding the collapse, such as why the framework failed, why a person would be able to stand in the middle of an inferno and not get burned, why steel would 'melt', and all the other questions that get so frequently asked, to ask these questions, not for the purpose of arguing or debating, but rather to learn why, in the skeptical mind, the official explanation does not conflict with what is known of these sorts of incidents.

I only ask one thing. Please only ask one question at a time. I understand how the topic is so hot that people eagerly post entire sheets of questions, demanding an accounting for them. This isn't the place for them. Ask one question, for the purpose of learning the skeptical side of the argument, and then ask another. No one is asking you to believe the skeptical side of it, simply to understand why it is so.

I invite you to ask your questions, and I will do my best to explain then in as much detail as you would like.

This is a good thread, thanks for creating it

My questions is based on the 9 explosions that occured just before the collapse of Tower 1. I had been watching the video "9/11 Eyewitness" (I think that is the name, I found a link in another thread here the other day). The jist of the video being about a gentleman who had videotaped the collapse of both towers from two different piers in Jersey.

After watching the video and seeing the 9 explosions and smoke from the lower portion of the building that appeared to corrolate with the timing of those explosions. I tried to come up with a few explanations of my own. My first thought was unburned fuel form the impact that made it down elevator shafts only to find an ignition source later. I gave up on that idea when I considered the time frame from impact to the time of the explosions, as well as the timing of the explosions occuring just before the collapse. I then considered explosions coming from the transformers in the basement area, but again the timing of those explosions seems a bit odd, and I find it hard to believe that the size of the explosions could be produced by transformers in an underground vault.

I then considered explosives planted before the impact. I am not saying that the government placed said explosives, it could be terrorists placeing the explosives beforehand to line up with the impact.

Well, there are actually quite a few questions that can be asked here. Could you be more specific? Perhaps you are asking if a demolition charge caused the lower explosions? Or are you asking how the official explanation accounts for the lower explosions?

I guess my question is, what caused the nine explosions just before the collapse?

if impossibilities exist, THAT would be one of them.

Ah, okay. Those explosions that people heard and felt where the consecutive collapses of eight floors. In a nutshell, the floor of each level was held up by metal cross-beams covered with a layer of fire-retardant foam. The strength of these beams comes from their shape. Unfortunately, the explosions ripped away the foam covering the beams, which left the bare metal exposed to the heat within the towers. The heat deformed the beams and they began to contort (these beams are known for being the best and least expensive solution for weight-bearing floors, but their weakness to heat is their known Achille's heel. Normally, the foam is sufficient protection, but this was not a normal case). The heat didn't melt the beams, but it weakened them to such a degree that the weight load on the holding brackets was no longer able to be held, and they began to collapse. Yes, there were redundancies, however as more and more collapsed, and the rest were further stressed and failed in their turn, the floors began collapsing, each collapse stressing the structure even further and causing other collapses, until eight floors had disappeared, essentially leaving a practically empty 80 foot 'box' held together only by an outside shell, which was already warped by the heat as well. That outer shell failed within minutes, and the towers collapsed.

I would be happy to expand on any of that, if you wish.



Well, let's try not to make absolute claims without some form of supporting arguments.

And remember, everyone: the purpose of this thread is not to debate conspiracy theories. It is to address the physical aspects of the WTC collapse.

can we discuss WTC7 as well? not only the twin towers?

if so, how can a steel structure collapse due to some small fires in 4-5 stores?
It has never happened before or after 9/11, not even when the same kind of buildings have been burning (raging inferno, not campfires ) for over 20 hours. So how could this happen in WTC7?

I have a question:

In all imploded building videos I have ever seen, including the 30 story building in down town Dallas imploded a week ago, the buildings come down all at once. I think your idea for the collapsing of the WTCs is a good one. My question:

How did the 'other' building collapse? I was thinking it was from a fire burning in the garage, but I don't know how the fire started. That building does look like an implosion.

I guess my question is really two part...when in relation to the WTCs did the third building collapse and how did that happen?

Again, multiple topics here. The easy answer is this: I haven't the faintest. Now, having said that, let me say a few other things. The fire in WTC7 was neither small nor contained in 4-5 stores. Since I haven't been able to find a decent account of what was going on inside or how the generators were configured, I have only been able to go on what I have found on the pictures available, and the pictures that I have seen show a massive collapse of the roof, which show that a large scale fire was going on underneath. Whether or not that fire was large enough to cause a collapse, I do not know., but it was indeed a large fire.

Now, in regards to how building on fire for twenty hours have survived when the WTC did not, the reason is simple: That is how they were designed. Not for the fiery all-in-one fire storm that hit the towers, but for the progressive fires that would be expected in a high-rise. I can expand on that, if you wish.



Well, that is the somewhat suspicious portion of the story. See, the only way in which the WTC7 tower could have fallen in the way it did would have been for the central supports to collapse within a given amount of time of each other. That means that they must have been exposed to the same disaster at relatively the same time, which limits our options to large scale thigs, such as aircraft liners striking an entire series of floors, or, in the case of WTC7, the large generator diesel tanks on the ground floor bursting open and catching fire. I can only give my personal theory on that, not supported by any sort of deep analysis or professional review, merely by what I know of the materials available, and how they could have resulted in both a weakening of the base supports, and a large scale fire in the upper floors of the tower, as well as a reason why the cause of it was never looked into too much.

why is there a "gag order" to this day for nyfirefighters and involved faa officials to discuss what they saw and heard on 9/11?

can you supply the equation and reference the source of the physics involved with heating the 47 core columns to the point of simultaneous integrity failure?

Sunofone, I made it absolutely clear that this thread is NOT for talking about conspiracies or agendas.

The purpose of this thread is to talk about the architectural and engineering elements that go into the collapse of the towers.

Do not try to de-rail this thread.

No, I cannot. Such a thing would be strictly theoretical, in terms of architecture and engineering. Remember, buildings are designed with redundancy in mind. That means that they are designed in such a way so to continue standing if some of the 47 core columns are damaged. No one had ever, nor even would today, design a building to be able to withstand a simultaneous loss of all supporting members. It would be financially impossible to implement.

Comments to the parts in bold:

1. A large scale fire.. OR explosives? Bringing downt he center of a building just before the rest is a very common way to make a controlled demolition. Just look at some footage of it.
2. do you have the data, to prove that WTC7 was designed in a way that it would collapse due to a short, small (compared to 20 hours of blazing inferno), and that the building in Madrid would NOT collapse from a much bigger fire? What are the differences?
3. Again, what you are suggesting is not the only ways that building could have collapsed. in fact tower 1 and 2 were designed to withstand such actions.

I don't have all the data myself, but I suggest you look at some of the videos provided by others earlier, they go in depth in explaining how there was no way for a fire from office supplies and jet fuel to get hot enough to melt the collumns in 1 and 2.

Not in this case. If this was done by explosives, it wasn't done in a controlled manner (and I sincerly doubt that no one would have noticed a truck bomb parked outside.

When you look at the pictures of WTC7 after the collapse, what you see is one collapsed side and one standing side, reminiscient of the Oklahoma building after it was bombed. In other words, there was a collapse on one side of the building, but not on the other. The other side had to be pulled. If this had been a controlled demolition, the entire structure would have collapsed. If this had been an bomb, it would not have collapsed in such a manner (unlike the OK building, the supporting structure for WTC7 was internal, not external). A fire weakening the internal structure might well have resulted in a partial collapse.



The differences stem in a confusion in the difference between heat and temperature. They are not the same thing, and while the damage a fire produces can be derived from these two things, these two things cannot be derived merely from how large the fire looks.

Now then, I did not say that the collapsed from a "short, small" fire. I said it collapsed from a "fiery all-in-one fire storm". Big difference. A short, small fire would not have endangered the structure in any significant manner. High-rises are designed with redundancy in mind, meaning that the normal way a fire spreads, from small and short to large and wide-spread, will result in a gradual spread of heat, which means that the structure will have plenty of time for the load to be shifted to other members. Assuming that I am thinking of the same Madrid building that you are, the long burn time meant that the fire spread slowly, giving the structure plenty of time to adjust. The WTC towers did not have that. In the matter of a few seconds, all the firewalls, boundaries, anything that would have slowed the progress of a fire, where blown away, and a fire was near instantaneously begun on the entire floor. That means that no redundancy was taking place. No sturture were able to take on the load from another because all were being stressed at the same time, which is not something that was ever designed for.



Actually, no. They were designed to withstand a conventional fire, spreading in a conventional manner. they were designed to withstand an impact. They were not designed, nor could they be designed in the future, to withstand everything that occured that eventually led to the collapse.



Again, it's not about temperature. It's about heat.

I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me the way it is worded...are you saying that large generator diesel tanks on the ground floor burst open and caught fire and that led to the collapse of the building? Sounds plausible to me.

Right, well, since you twisted my arm, yes, that's part of my theory. I believe that the system was not installed properly, which led to a rupture in one of the tanks, possibly due to the amount of activity in the immediate area, such as several thousands of tons of building material collapsing a little less than a block away.

Diesel is pretty stable stuff, comparatively speaking, but flooding over large generator will lead to an encounter with a large enough electrical source to ignite it. The ensuing fire and explosion would have also ruptured the other two tanks, and the heat would have been funneled up the elevator shaft to the top floors, which is why we have a fire in both the bottom floors and the top floors, leading to a partial roof collapse in the ceiling. The fire on the ground floor would have raged hottest towards the entrance side, which had the three large doors, meaning the fire would have been hotter there. Eventually, the side would have weakened sufficiently to collapse on its own, taking down a third of the building with it.

Of course, that is almost entirely speculation. To me, the pictures look more like an out of control fire than any sort of demolition, controlled or otherwise.

it's about heat, yeah. but the fires cooled down very quickly in the two towers (jet fuel burning up). And how hot can it have been when there were people looking out of the whole the plane created before the towers collapsed? and Firemen reporting from the same floors just before the collapse saying there were small fires spread around the floor. nothing big, abviously not too hot for people - and then ofcourse not hot enough to melt/bend steel. (and not hot enough over a long enough period)

The WTC7 did collapse on its own "footprint". straight down, an close to free fall speed. (same goes for the twin towers)
That couldn't have happened if fire or a single explosion caused it. because the "collapsing floors" would have slowed down each time they met resistance, which they didn't.

Which one of these is your question?

all of them, and none. it's just a text for whoever wants to comment. The only question there is rethorical

Hey, aquatus1 & everyone else in this thread. If you haven't watched this video yet, please do so!

911 Eyewitness

Thanks

Nothing wrong with that, but let's keep in mind that this thread is meant mostly for the technical end of things.



Again, it's not about temperature, it's about heat. And in this case, it isn't even about that.

The jet fuel being used up does not mean that the temperature went down. The damage was already done. If I hit you with a hammer, and the hammer then disappears, you have still been hit with a hammer. In the case of the towers, the jet fuel burned up in the first fifteen minutes, but that was more than enough time for everything else in there to start burning.



Pretty damn hot. It's about conduction. Air is a terrible conductor of heat. Next time you are cooking something in the oven, notice how you can stick your hand in the 450 degree interior and not get burned. That's because the air is not conducting the heat into you very quickly. If you were to touch the sides, then the metal, which is an excellent conductor, would conduct the heat into you quite readily, and you would get burned.

Pretty much the only places you could safely touch anything was on the outside, where the air movement was keeping things at a relatively cool temperature.



Again, you need to realize that temperature is not going to get you anywhere here. If you like, I can explain the concept, but as long as you keep thinking in terms of what the thermometer says, you are not going to be able to understand what is going on here.



I think you are mixing up WTC7 with the towers. The towers collapsed. WTC7 had one side collapse.

Are you under the impression that, in a controlled implosion, all the floors in a building are rigged to blow?

This is not the case. In a demolition, there is usually only one cut point (in some special situations, two or more). Regardless, if you were to cut every single floors, or just one, the entire building would fall at close to free-fall. Remember, in the towers, only eight floors "pancaked", and that happened just before the fall. After that, the entire top section collapsed down, and what happened to the lower half was not so much pancaking, as it was...well, squashing.

If you have any specific question concerning what was said in the video, I invite you to ask them, but please refrain from posting things that have more to do with the conspiracy as opposed to the actual collapse. The purpose of this thread is to answer questions, not simply to link-and-fly.

Lol! Please explain how a diesel generator on the ground floor would explode because of a fire over 90 floors up, let alone cause the buildings to collapse.

Lol, answer what questions? Are you going to tell us all in detail how the towers collapsed from a technical aspect?

Does fire not move and spread in your world? I would fully expect the fire to use up the fuel available in one place and spread to another as fires normally do. Even with fires on the floor the lady looking out the hole is on, the heat is not going to be constant across the entire area. There is going to be fresh air at that opening rushing in to feed the fire so that spot would be cooler than other areas as well.


First of all, the Towers did not fall even close to free fall speed. It is hard to get an exact time for either tower as the structure gets obscured by dust before the collapse is finished but on both towers you can see the debris outside of the towers (which is falling at freefall speed) falling faster than the collapsing structure. More info on that here.
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
You say each floor should have met resistance, but how much? Once it gets moving, with multiple floors above falling onto each floor below, the resistance will be minimal. There is a very good paper dealing with all of this here
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
And another good page about progressive collapse
http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

What if I told you the WTC 7 collapse lasted longer than you think it did too? Yes, the main collapse was near free fall speed but before the full collapse started, many seconds before, one of the penthouses collapsed into the building, then the other, then and only then does the main building start to collapse. Most videos only show the main collapse as if that is all there was.

Actually, as I said, I believe the fire began in the basement and was funnelled up through the elevator shaft. If you wish to discuss, even though I have already stated that this is nothing more than speculation on my part, I would be happy to do so, but if your intent is to misquote me and then laugh, I would ask you not to.



As I already said, I am willing to explain why the official story of the collapse does not conflict with what I know of material science, architecture, and engineering. Take that for what you will.

Can you elaborate on how this fire started in the basement? And by funneling up the elevator shafts, I supposed you mean that was caused by the jet fuel spilling into there, correct? Pardon me if I'm wrong.

Yes, there is a bit of confusion here. We were talking about WTC7, the little one, not the towers. It is my belief that the reason WTC7 collapsed was due to a ruptured diesel fuel tank in the basement, which was ignited by the emergency generators, and which spread from the bottom floor to the top floor via the elevator shaft. This would explain why there was such a heavy fire on the roof, which caused the roof collapse. The fire at the basement, fed by another two tanks of diesel, would have begun twisting the support beams of the tower. Fed by the fresh air from the three large doors in the front, the fire would have burnt hotter in that area, leading to a greater imbalance, and eventually resulting in a collapse of that side, the resulting collapse resulting in a kiln effect with all the fuel and heat trapped undeneath the rubble.

I'd have to disagree. A fire has never caused a steel framed building to totally collapse before September 11th, 2001.

Nor did it on September 11th.

That steel frame buildings have done historically well in fires is not any proof that fire cannot collapse a building. In fact, that there are hundreds of pages worth of requirements that go into making a steel frame structure fire resistant is a testament to its weakness in flame.

Incidentaly, this is a frequently, and incorrectly, repeated claim. The simple fact of the matter is that steel-frame buildings collapse from fire on an irregular basis. It is something that all firemen learn. It is something that all material science students study. Steel weakens in fire. There is no way around that. You can find plenty of corroboration for this, and plenty of pictures of fire damaged steel structures, pretty much at any site that is more concerned with construction than conspiracy.

What the claim should actually be is that no skyscraper has ever fallen due solely to fire. This is true. It is also true that you will have a difficult time finding any skyscrapers that have fallen to begun with. These things are made to last.

This is the point where you will begin having difficulties. You will now have to begin defining things such as the above statement, not simply repeating them without understanding what they say.

I don't think they collapsed from just a fire neither, my opinion is that it was a controlled demolition and the planes hitting the buildings were just a very unfortunate and devastating distraction.

I take it you are not talking about WTC7 anymore?

Yes, I still am.

Another question:

Do you know if there were also diesel generator tanks in the bottom floors of the Twin Towers? Would the same scenario as you described in WTC7 keep the fires burning for so long at the bottom of the Twin Towers rubble? This seems to be a point of concern for many conspiracy theorists...the heat at the bottom of the rubble.

Planes did not hit WTC7, nor did it entirely collapse. It was a partial collapse.



I do not know, however I do not believe this to be the case. The elevator shafts in the main towers did not extend the run of the whole building. The heat would have come from all the burning material. The reason it would have lasted as long as it did was because of the quantity of material on top of it, which essentially created a kiln effect, a banked fire that lost very little heat to the outside and burned long and slow due to the lack of oxygen. Due you recall the videos of firefighters raking the ruins? They were doing this to expose these hot spots to the air, so that they wouldn't suddenly dig into one and have it backdraft onto them.

No crap, stop trying to belittle me. You're not going to find out anything new or solve any mysteries. Your theory and explainations hold as much ground as someone who thinks the towers were destroyed by aliens from Mars.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. If you ask any other questions, please be a little clearer as to what you are asking. As it is, you are confusing the heck out of me jumping from one thing to another.

Why don't you stop trying to belittle everyone else...you big crybaby.

Sorry Aquatus....

9/11 Revisited

happy?

Am I not right?

And just to get this out now, even if I am wrong I would not care. I'm sorry to say but I feel the gov't did not do a good enough job to persuade me otherwise. They are also not answering enough questions.

they waited about a year before allowing an investigation (their own)... that alone should give anybody a good idea of how trustworthy they are.

Not until you ask a question. This is not a thread for link-and-fly. This is a thread for asking a specific technical question for the purpose of understanding how the skeptical viewpoint sees it.



About what? Your first post began with LOL because you assumed we were talking about something that we were not. You then claimed that you believed the collapse was caused by a demolition team and by aircraft striking the building. I asked you if you were still talking about WTC7, and you said yes.

So, no, you were either wrong about assuming I said diesel began the fires in the towers, or you were wrong about aircraft striking WTC7, or you were wrong about accusing me of belittling anyone when you were the one who came in laughing and I was the one who tried to confirm exactly what you were saying before commenting.






As I have said several times already, this is not a thread for conspiracies or agendas. You have plenty of those to choose from. The purpose of this thread is to talk about the physical aspeccts of the collapse, not who did what and which government covered up which terrible thing, or any of those other conspiracy related topics.

If you have a specific question as to why, from an engineering, architectural, and materials science point of view, the official explanation is completely plausible, then by all means, ask away. If you do not, then cease spamming the board. Everyone here knows full well what you opinions regarding the government are. We don't need to hear them again. If you don't care about a different perspective, then do not even bother looking into this thread, as that is the entire purpose of it. Whichever way you choose, Stop trying to de-rail the thread.

this thread SUCKS!! it is nothing more than a propaganda piece where blindfolded skeptics can discuss hypotheticals--you ask me not to de-rail this thread yet when it comes to answering a question on topic you dance around symantics-- find someone who has the background to answer it,or already has since you consider the case closed and exhibit complete confidence in the official investigation-- exactly what fire were you talking about here?? the madrid fire in the windsor building is an example of an "out of control" fire and the fact that you could even attempt to classify the wtc fire as such speaks volumes concerning the mmotive behind this despotic thread

how can you sit there and rationalize a fifteen minute fire is responsible for comprimising the structural integrity of 47 of the worlds largest steel beams used in construction in the world to the point of instantaneous integrity failure?? do you deny that the columns failed simultaneously?

so your theory is that a hydrocarbon fire comprimised the integrity of the steel?? please put it in print if this is what you believe

where is your proof?? from what i have seen the penthouse collapsed at the exact moment the collapse began which only lasted a second longer than free fall

There were two penthouses. One collapsed well before the other one. The second fell right before the collapse of the main structure. Any video that shows the collapse from more than just a few seconds before will show this. http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...s/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
It may be hard to see but at 6 seconds, the first penthouse falls, the second doesn't fall until 12 seconds in. That is 6 seconds of the collapse progressing inside the building. If the collapse had already started inside the building, then the outer walls could fall faster if some of the inner structure is already out of the way. That video also shows the large amounts of smoke coming from the fires that people try to say were small. The evidence of large fires can also be see here
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Did I say anything about a hydrocarbon fire? If perhaps I wasn't completely clear, I meant fuel as in something to burn, office furniture, walls, etc. Anything flammable. The three components of any fire being fuel, oxygen, and heat.

Hypocrite?
I never said planes caused the collapse of any buildings I said the planes hitting towers 1 & 2 were a distraction.

This thread is quite amusing with aquatus1 over here thinking he is an engineering expert and can tell us everything about the fires and collapses. I give him an A for effort though, nothing like a good 'ol college try.



Also, the video I posted isn't a conspiracy theory, all it is is a home video high-lighting the 9/11 events unfolded in NYC. Their opinions hold more credibility than yours.


And to think the towers collapsed by the internal structure being weakened from the fire and the weight of the floors above causing the building to collapse is non-sense. The entire building fell at almost the same time. Since you are the engineering expert aquatus1, why don't you tell us how that happened? (I'm talking about WTC1 & 2 now)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.



Enough with the histrionics. If you have questions, great. Ask them and they will be answered, as they have already been. If you want more, ask for more. If you do not understand, ask for clarification. If you do understand, but do not believe, more power to you. I have already made it clear that I consider the official explanation plausible, and I stand ready to explain why I do so. I have already stated my background, and I make it absolutely clear when I am speaking from a factual basis and when I am expressing my opinion.



Motives, schmotives, I am talking about how buildings are designed. High-rises are designed under the assumption that a fire will begin in one area and slowly move towards others. Because of that, they are designed in order to shift load to redundant supports, while the main ones are stressed by the fire. As the fire moves on, and the originally stressed supports return to normal, they once again pick up their load, and a bit extra, to compensate for the supports being stressed in the location that the fire has moved to. That is simply how they are designed.



Not at all. Several of the columns failed the instant a jetliner crashed into them. I'm certain quite a few more were stressed beyon any useful capacity. Was the fifteen minute fire responsible for damaging the integrity of the others? I sincerely doubt it, and I have never claimed that it was. The damage that the fuel fire caused was two-fold: First, it ignited every flammable thing within reach, which continued burning long after the fuel had burned itself out. Second, it spread out over the entire floor in a matter of seconds, which immediately threw out the planned redundancies of a gradually spreading fire. By simultaneously stressing all the remaining columns, there was nowhere for the load to shift to. Still, in an of itself, this is not what caused the columns to fail. What caused the columns to fail was the sudden impact of eight floors collapsing on top of their already weaked structure.



The official theory, which is the one I agree with because it is consistant with everything that I studied in college years before 911 happened, is that the steel bracework which held up the floors lost the fire-proofing protective coating due to the exploding plane, which exposed the unprotected metal to the heat, which caused it to contort and contract, which pulled it away from the similarly affected brace joings at the wall, which caused the floor to collapse, which caused the weaked support columns left in the core to collapse, which caused the rest of the building to collapse.



Am I? Of course, in you mind, I am. But is it because I am refuting your points, or simply because I do not believe as you do? You have come here as an aggressor after I clearly stated that the purpose of this thread is for technical analysis.

Get over yourself. If you can't have a civilized conversation, go to another thread. I will waste no more posts arguing with you about your motives. If you have a question, ask.



Yes, I know, and I will grant you that my response did sound like that is what you claimed. The point of the entire response was, however, that I was trying to get clarification that you were talking about WTC7 after talking about jet fuel and airplanes, and you responded with a yes. In short, I had no other option but to believe you were mistaking one building for another.



That's very nice of you and not belittling at all, however I have already stated what my background was, at no time making any sort of claim to expertise. As is very clear in my introduction, I studied architecture, material science, and engineering in college, and nothing that I studied conflicted with this. If you wish to regard me as an expert, well, I would caution against that.

What I am not, however, is an idiot. I may not believe what you do, nor agree with your conclusions, but you are a child if you believe that coming into a thread designed for technical explanation, claiming the author considers himself an expert, and then mocking him for that, is not a transparent little plot.



You can call crap a rose and it still won't change the smell. A conspiracy video is a conspiracy video. Technical videos don't start with little girls innocently reading antagonistic questions while a patriotic song underscores a national disaster.



Well, I just did above to Sunofone. If you would like me to expand on any of it, I would be happy to.