Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
If he's going to stop posting, would you kindly do the same? I mean, if we have to lose someone who's not an idiot, we should at least get rid of an idiot as well.
your craptastic video says 10 seconds, so if 8.4 seconds is all it takes for a stone to fall that far, then there is your energy abosorptionOriginally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: acemcmac
There is a very very plausable case for thermite in WTC 1, 2 and 7 and there were dozens of security cameras aimed at the pentigon that would have shown the impact and ended all of the cruise missile talk that the fed's are refusing to release (hotels, gas stations, etc).
These concerns are not baseless and the feds refusing to do anything to quell them only makes them look like they're really hiding something.
I've seen tapes. And I've seen highly qualified scientists and video analyst's on the History Channel who were able to slow it down enough to see that it was too big to be anything of the cruise missle sort.
The same was done for the towers' collapse, on the same progrma. Any qualified structural engineer would say the same. And yet you, and other simple Americans think they are better qualified. HTF is their a plausable case for thermite considering I have yet to see a single qualified person raise this theory, only the dim witted conspiracy people.
And to think I used to see intelligence in your posts here. Guess I wasn't paying enough attention
I really wish you wouldn't get so personal with your insults.
I just thought that this was pretty compelling. I'm not saying that I agree with them, but I do think they have a plausible case and would like to hear more.
As far as the missing pentigon videos go, see for yourself.
I reiterate. I don't believe all of this stuff, but I think that the government could definitely be more forthcoming and dispel 90% of the current conspiracy theories if they really wanted to. The fact that they resist releasing things like unedited tapes I think just causes more suspicion.
1) So what you're saying is that a roughly a couple floors' worth of fire resistant material caused the whole building to collapse? Why are you even bringing fire into the equation at this point? Sure it will weaken the support, but it certainly shouldn't cause a collapse unless all the support for that area is destroyed, like with explosives. A couple levels of fire resistant material getting blown off is irrelevant.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I weep from your naivity and speculation. So "impacts from the jet probably" blew off fire resistant material from EVERY FLOOR? Listen to what you're saying dude and how ridiculous that sounds. Even the fact that the WTC is built differently makes no difference, energy will be absorbed as each floor crumbles onto the next. Which means that it still should not fall as fast as a free falling object unless demolition explosives were used.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The fire on the WTC was much different than a regular building fire. The jet fuel, which traveled through the core (which was hallow with elevator shafts and such) going to other floors, you didn't see the smoke because the windows were closed.
2. Impacts from the jet probably blew off weak fire resistant material from the structural beams.
3. The WTC wasn't designed like that Spain building. Why? Because they wanted to maximize the floorspace, so they removed almost all of the floor structures. Instead of building a floor-beam, verticle-beam type structure like a traditional building, the WTC was built using tubes on the exterior which were verticle members holding the vast majority of the weight of the building.
Furthermore, these tubes had smaller members connecting them to the core. The core did not bear most of the weight of the building, the steel tubes did. This is why the floors could pancake easily.
4. The weight of the floors above the building and the hallow core allowed high pressure air to travel down ward, exploding out the windows. Either that or the windows were already opened by people, whether they jumped (and many did) or not.
5. If there were explosions, why didn't we see a lot of dust jets? Why not more windows exploding outwards?
How is logic so hard for people to get?
Yeah, it's my naivity and speculation. What about yours?
1. The fire resistant material doesn't have to effect every floor. That building was designed to only be as strong as teh *ENTIRE* structure. It's like building a house of cards, if one key structural member at any place in the structure fails, the entire thing falls. The entire WTC building was solid, but once you yanked a let or 10 from underneath it, then that section, which was supposed to support the weight of the sections above it failed, thus making the sections below it have to support the failed section *AND* the sections abovie it.
The sum of the building was much stronger than the individual parts. Remove a key part (which they all were) and the structure as a whole weakens significantly. It's also like some furniture that is dang wobbly when 90% of the structure is there, but once you put that *ONE* piece in, it's stronger than heck. It all ties together.
2. Even buildings that are exploded with explosives don't free-fall either, so your theory is out the door too. If they were to free-fall, it would require all of the material underneath them to just disappear, *ANY* material represents resistance to gravity. It's the same as a feather and a penny, the only time they will fall at the same speed is in a vacuum, once air resistance is removed.
Explosives do not equal resistance removers!!!!
So, not only did you just disprove your theory, but you also disproved WTC. However, you only disproved WTC in the fact that it supposedly fell at the same speed, 8.4s. This is false, considering that not only did all of that material *NOT* fall the complete 110 stories (considering 20 of those stories fell only 90 or so stories), but the entire building didn't magically reach 0. Furthermore, it took longer than 8.4s. Your graph might only show 8.4, but not all of the material collapsed at the same time. The majority of the registered impact was from the majority of the weight, which was in free-fall for 8.4s. However, the lighter stuff, the steel and core, which were relatively light compared to the concrete, fell slower and didn't impact in the same way or the same force.
To sum it up.
Explosives != magic resistance removers that give a building the same velocity as a rock with no resistance
Structures = sum of whole is stronger than if one piece removed.
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: AMDZen
After being reminded that you had "served", for some reason I thought I had read elsewhere that you were in vietnam. So I was wrong on your age, but not on your level of understanding.
You use the word "understanding," which to me implies you are privy to some fact that I'm not. Please elaborate how my posts indicate a lack of understanding, as opposed to a difference of opinion from your own.
For starters:
As a disabled veteran of a foreign war (albeit not THAT disabled), I tell you to STFU!
Using the fact that your a "disabled" veteran to somehow place further relevance to your argument. When it was completely irrelevant to all parts of the conversation. I think you believed it was relevant, which shows lack of understanding.
and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU."
SarcasticDwarf put it well enough:
In this case, STFU means "I don't want to hear it, your arguments are moronic and devoid of any fact." It is not interpreted by anyone (except you) as meaning "stop talking, you should not be saying these things."
I guess you didn't understand that, And my favorite
but I think it's absolutely critical that people are free to discuss these issues without mockery.
I can imagine that you somehow believe this is even possible. This proves your lack of understanding on so many levels, namely human nature at its core. Anyone, with "Half a Brain" (as you so eloquently put it) would understand that.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I weep from your naivity and speculation. So "impacts from the jet probably" blew off fire resistant material from EVERY FLOOR? Listen to what you're saying dude and how ridiculous that sounds. Even the fact that the WTC is built differently makes no difference, energy will be absorbed as each floor crumbles onto the next. Which means that it still should not fall as fast as a free falling object unless demolition explosives were used.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The fire on the WTC was much different than a regular building fire. The jet fuel, which traveled through the core (which was hallow with elevator shafts and such) going to other floors, you didn't see the smoke because the windows were closed.
2. Impacts from the jet probably blew off weak fire resistant material from the structural beams.
3. The WTC wasn't designed like that Spain building. Why? Because they wanted to maximize the floorspace, so they removed almost all of the floor structures. Instead of building a floor-beam, verticle-beam type structure like a traditional building, the WTC was built using tubes on the exterior which were verticle members holding the vast majority of the weight of the building.
Furthermore, these tubes had smaller members connecting them to the core. The core did not bear most of the weight of the building, the steel tubes did. This is why the floors could pancake easily.
4. The weight of the floors above the building and the hallow core allowed high pressure air to travel down ward, exploding out the windows. Either that or the windows were already opened by people, whether they jumped (and many did) or not.
5. If there were explosions, why didn't we see a lot of dust jets? Why not more windows exploding outwards?
How is logic so hard for people to get?
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: acemcmac
There is a very very plausable case for thermite in WTC 1, 2 and 7 and there were dozens of security cameras aimed at the pentigon that would have shown the impact and ended all of the cruise missile talk that the fed's are refusing to release (hotels, gas stations, etc).
These concerns are not baseless and the feds refusing to do anything to quell them only makes them look like they're really hiding something.
I love how people think that the Pentagon is surrounded by gas stations and hotels and all of those cameras are pointing at the Pentagon. Sorry, but I am sure the closest hotel is in Crystal City and I am sure it's cameras are more worried about it's own security rather than the Pentagon's.
As far as gas stations, I am not even sure where the closest one is, but probably in Crystal City also, surrounded by tall buildings and *NOT* worried about the Pentagon.
I swear, conspiracy theorists are the biggest morons on the face of the planet.
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
"9/11 was made up and didn't happen" - Mel Gibson
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It takes time and energy absorption to break a weld, so right there the evidence isn't adding up.
Only if we bring back the YAGTs where you pathetically crying about your ex ElFenixOriginally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I weep from your naivity and speculation. So "impacts from the jet probably" blew off fire resistant material from EVERY FLOOR? Listen to what you're saying dude and how ridiculous that sounds. Even the fact that the WTC is built differently makes no difference, energy will be absorbed as each floor crumbles onto the next. Which means that it still should not fall as fast as a free falling object unless demolition explosives were used.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The fire on the WTC was much different than a regular building fire. The jet fuel, which traveled through the core (which was hallow with elevator shafts and such) going to other floors, you didn't see the smoke because the windows were closed.
2. Impacts from the jet probably blew off weak fire resistant material from the structural beams.
3. The WTC wasn't designed like that Spain building. Why? Because they wanted to maximize the floorspace, so they removed almost all of the floor structures. Instead of building a floor-beam, verticle-beam type structure like a traditional building, the WTC was built using tubes on the exterior which were verticle members holding the vast majority of the weight of the building.
Furthermore, these tubes had smaller members connecting them to the core. The core did not bear most of the weight of the building, the steel tubes did. This is why the floors could pancake easily.
4. The weight of the floors above the building and the hallow core allowed high pressure air to travel down ward, exploding out the windows. Either that or the windows were already opened by people, whether they jumped (and many did) or not.
5. If there were explosions, why didn't we see a lot of dust jets? Why not more windows exploding outwards?
How is logic so hard for people to get?
are you going to have two nominations for 'ownage of the year' in two days?
the fire retardant material only had to be blown off a floor or two, not all of them.
and the collapse itself shows falling debris reaching the ground well before the collapsing floors did, so i'm not sure how you can claim that the floors fell as fast as falling debris.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Ohhh.. Right, right... I feel so foolish now.Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: yllus
Occam's Razor says that the GOP, a group of politicians who couldn't keep their traps shut if they were stapled down, orchestrated the death of 3,000 fellow citizens and managed to keep every single person involved silent.
The CIA, not exactly a stranger to silence, can't keep the existence of overseas prisons a secret.
Yeah. Al Qaeda is the conspiracy theory. If you're a fscking retard.
You forgot the best one! The NSA, the most secretive organization in the US, an organization that until recently would not even admit that it existed, couldn't keep a simple wiretapping operation out of the press because some in the organization had questions about the legality of the wiretapping.
Yet we're supposed to believe that hundreds of government personnel and a full demo team have remained silent about the murder of thousands of US citizens for five years now. Sure... As you said... Only if you're a fscking retard.
Dude. Didn't you know they were all killed? In the planes! That's right. The demo team and planners were all sent on vacation on 9/11 on flights like UA93.
First rule of assassination: kill the assassin!
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Yes, because in order to speed it up any, a significant, or all the supportive elements on every floor would have to be severed. But the MAIN thing that would have to be done to speed it up would be to open each floor by removing the windows.
When a building reaches the critical point, it's going down, and fast. The main things that slows the fall are air pockets within the structure on each floor, and the elements hitting each other on the way down. NOT the elements breaking. Once the tops fell on the rest of the structure, the entire structure was doomed. No demolition was needed for what happened to have happened. The unique structure of the building made for the pancake effect so many equate with demolition... and this absurd myth.
16/110 = 14.5%, looks like a 9 yr old's math just ownts you! :roll:Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It takes time and energy absorption to break a weld, so right there the evidence isn't adding up.
You mean all that time when it was on fire lit up with tens of thousands of pounds in jet fuel. All that time when you have a major part of an external supported tower missing. You have 35-40% of the building's weight on thin air and shattered concrete and steal.
It DOES NOT TAKE A PHYSICS MAJOR to realize what happened.
It takes a 9 year old playing Jenga to figure out it can be done without explosives. A structural engineer would just confirm what the 9 year old said.
9 year old ownts you!
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
16/110 = 14.5%, looks like a 9 yr old's math just ownts you! :roll:Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It takes time and energy absorption to break a weld, so right there the evidence isn't adding up.
You mean all that time when it was on fire lit up with tens of thousands of pounds in jet fuel. All that time when you have a major part of an external supported tower missing. You have 35-40% of the building's weight on thin air and shattered concrete and steal.
It DOES NOT TAKE A PHYSICS MAJOR to realize what happened.
It takes a 9 year old playing Jenga to figure out it can be done without explosives. A structural engineer would just confirm what the 9 year old said.
9 year old ownts you!
Physics says the building should have taken 0.5-1s per floor to fall. 94/2 = 47 seconds, not 8.4.
the impact removed the fire protectant, the fire weakened the structure at enough points on a floor or two, and then the weight of tops of the buildings (which were mostly intact) overcame the weakened steel on those couple of floors, and that falling weight impacting into the next floor caused the catastrophic failure of the structure on that floor, and so on and so forth, getting heavier and heavier with each collapsed floor.Originally posted by: SP33Demon
1) So what you're saying is that a roughly a couple floors' worth of fire resistant material caused the whole building to collapse? Why are you even bringing fire into the equation at this point? Sure it will weaken the support, but it certainly shouldn't cause a collapse unless all the support for that area is destroyed, like with explosives. A couple levels of fire resistant material getting blown off is irrelevant.
Next, if you watched the vid it said that 8.4s was the time for a freefall object from the 94th floor, not 110, so that was already taken into account. Also, the fact that you're comparing a perfect free fall in a "vacuum" to explosives on a building shows that you're naive, yes. Nobody said that that a building with explosives will fall exactly the same rate as a free fall, but it will be dam close, within a couple of seconds. You talk like the WTC was a deck of cards, and you make it sound like it could be blown down in a bad storm (which is the only way it could have fell as fast as it did, if it really did have the support analogous to a deck of cards, i.e. none).
Furthermore, where is your proof that "lighter stuff" fell down later? Or is this just more speculation and "theory"? I've shown you the graph, you saw it in the video and counted the seconds of how fast it fell (approximately). No building that big will fall that closely to a freefall unless some type of explosives were used. Energy will be absorbed on the way down by the "welds" and supports of each floor even inclusive of the pancake explanation.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
16/110 = 14.5%, looks like a 9 yr old's math just ownts you! :roll:Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It takes time and energy absorption to break a weld, so right there the evidence isn't adding up.
You mean all that time when it was on fire lit up with tens of thousands of pounds in jet fuel. All that time when you have a major part of an external supported tower missing. You have 35-40% of the building's weight on thin air and shattered concrete and steal.
It DOES NOT TAKE A PHYSICS MAJOR to realize what happened.
It takes a 9 year old playing Jenga to figure out it can be done without explosives. A structural engineer would just confirm what the 9 year old said.
9 year old ownts you!
Physics says the building should have taken 0.5-1s per floor to fall. 94/2 = 47 seconds, not 8.4.
Who's physics?
The floor crashing into another floor on the way down absorbs energy. Every floor that hits another, even in a pancake effect, will slow it down. It simply does not justify the time it fell, and many physics professors across the country agree. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the fact that you don't understand physics may be the reason why you think pancaking should occur almost as fast as an object in freefall.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Yes, because in order to speed it up any, a significant, or all the supportive elements on every floor would have to be severed. But the MAIN thing that would have to be done to speed it up would be to open each floor by removing the windows.
When a building reaches the critical point, it's going down, and fast. The main things that slows the fall are air pockets within the structure on each floor, and the elements hitting each other on the way down. NOT the elements breaking. Once the tops fell on the rest of the structure, the entire structure was doomed. No demolition was needed for what happened to have happened. The unique structure of the building made for the pancake effect so many equate with demolition... and this absurd myth.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The floor crashing into another floor on the way down absorbs energy. Every floor that hits another, even in a pancake effect, will slow it down. It simply does not justify the time it fell, and many physics professors across the country agree. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the fact that you don't understand physics may be the reason why you think pancaking should occur almost as fast as an object in freefall.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Yes, because in order to speed it up any, a significant, or all the supportive elements on every floor would have to be severed. But the MAIN thing that would have to be done to speed it up would be to open each floor by removing the windows.
When a building reaches the critical point, it's going down, and fast. The main things that slows the fall are air pockets within the structure on each floor, and the elements hitting each other on the way down. NOT the elements breaking. Once the tops fell on the rest of the structure, the entire structure was doomed. No demolition was needed for what happened to have happened. The unique structure of the building made for the pancake effect so many equate with demolition... and this absurd myth.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The floor crashing into another floor on the way down absorbs energy. Every floor that hits another, even in a pancake effect, will slow it down. It simply does not justify the time it fell, and many physics professors across the country agree. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think the fact that you don't understand physics may be the reason why you think pancaking should occur almost as fast as an object in freefall.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous. But a demolition type job had to be performed to bring it down that quick, it wasn't done by just one hit on a couple floors by a plane. Think about it, the WTC fell with the speed of an excellent demo job. Are we supposed to believe that gravity and a plane hit to couple floors of the structure brought the entire building down at the same speed as a demo job?Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:Originally posted by: yllus
How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.
SP33Demon,
Even with demolition, they break only enough structural elements to allow the building to collapse. They do not blow every supportive element. So there is a lot of energy adsorption going on even in a demolition.
Furthermore, to do what this theory claims in the WTC would require hundreds of charges on every floor around the perimeter. Why? Because the main structural elements of the WTC were the beams visible from the outside.
Yep, every one of those beams supported the weight of the building. And for your theory to work, every beam at every floor would need a charge on it. Not to mention the core of the building, which was supportive as well.
And have you seen a building set for demolition? They have to gut the building to get to the structural supports.
The demolition theory is just too laughable. Either a building can collapse at that speed breaking through the floors, or a charge would have to be set on every level, at hundreds of locations.
Think about it for a minute, OK?
Yes, because in order to speed it up any, a significant, or all the supportive elements on every floor would have to be severed. But the MAIN thing that would have to be done to speed it up would be to open each floor by removing the windows.
When a building reaches the critical point, it's going down, and fast. The main things that slows the fall are air pockets within the structure on each floor, and the elements hitting each other on the way down. NOT the elements breaking. Once the tops fell on the rest of the structure, the entire structure was doomed. No demolition was needed for what happened to have happened. The unique structure of the building made for the pancake effect so many equate with demolition... and this absurd myth.