The World's Leading Butcher

That's the case with everything you pretend to discuss. It's all just loosey goosey, silly oralloy opinion. One knows this because of how quickly you flee a topic when you realize just how silly your opinions are.

I don't know nearly enough about the alleged incident to begin speculating.

I disagree that this statement admits to intentionally causing civilian suffering.

Well it's very simple, really. If you destroy the capacity to produce electricity, you also destroy the capacity to power sewage and water plants.

And if you also impose sanctions which prohibit importing materials necessary to restoring electricity, then you've effectively caused much suffering and disease as a result. It's not rocket science.

"What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."

That's pretty straight forward as far as intent goes.

I am highly informed on every subject that I discuss.

That is why you can never point out any fact that I am wrong about.

I also rely on facts, not opinion.

And I don't flee topics.

You are woefully ignorant on the science and the events of 911.

You fled, and continue to flee like a gazelle fleeing lions.

I also recall getting no answer.

You speak as if the 47 columns that made up the core structure were not cross-braced. they were. Surely you've seen photos of the core structure, and have seen that they were not each one standing alone.

Your video, as you say, shows that as the collapse progresses, it accelerates. That is impossible from a gravity-driven collapse with the core structure intact below the impact zone.

Yeah, I recall asking how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejection as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance--which is an impossibility. I also recall getting no answer.

The observations that the gravitational energy was insufficient to pulverize these buildings and to produce the observed expansion of the dust clouds, and that gravity-driven collapses would not have caused the buildings to fall straight down following the path of maximum resistance, are physics arguments. You don't have to understand how the building was constructed to understand that a tall structure like that wouldn't just collapse through itself, just ripping itself apart and going straight down. It would topple one way or the other. It wouldn't even have to be made out of steel. It could be made out of toothpicks and the flimsiest materials, but it wouldn't fall through itself. That's not even physics. It's just basic intuition. - Jim Hoffman

If you want me to reply obsessively, you'll have to talk to me about the Second Amendment or about Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

You'd first asked why the core didn't offer resistance to the collapse, which is what I answered.

Once the floor structures were no longer attached to the inner beams, what little cross bracing was left was simply not strong enough to keep the inner beams standing by themselves.

It is perfectly possible. Gravity pulls things down.

Your answer amounted to the idea that the function of the floors was to hold up the core and perimeter structures, when actually the opposite is true.

That does not explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejection as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent

through the course of most resistance--which is an impossibility.

Depends on what you mean by hold up. That the floors provided necessary cross bracing is very true.

Correct. I covered that issue in my first answer.

It wasn't the course of most resistance. There was very little resistance at all.

You're under the mistaken impression that the core columns were not themselves cross braced. They were extensively cross braced.

Yeah, you said that the floors pulled down the core and perimeter structures at virtual freefall speed.

You have not explained how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone,

and the energy required to produce the lateral ejection as seen in photos and videos of the collapse

allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent.

It certainly was the course of most resistance! That's where the core structure was.

Saying that there was little resistance at all is to say that you have not seen photos of the core sturcture.

Basically, you're saying that since it looked like the core structure offered very little resistance, it must have offered very little resistance.

But we know that it would offer substantial resistance.

Not to the extent that they could stand on their own with no floors attached to them.