Easy. Kinetic energy.
450,000,000 kg accelerating 400 m would give a kinetic energy close to that of the Hiroshima bomb.
So what was that question about energy again?
9/11 Fourteen Years Later
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
450,000,000 kg accelerating 400 m would give a kinetic energy close to that of the Hiroshima bomb.
So what was that question about energy again?
Someone gets it.
The trusses at the top were thinner and got thicker as you went down to the main floor.
There's NO WAY in hell that 15% of the top portion of the building would "pancake" (Newton's 3rd Law that Fuji says is not relevant) and rip THE CORE to shreds and TWO identical buildings come straight down like that.
The probability is astronomical first off, secondly science says no.
NIST had to change their facts to fit the story.
You posted the link to the site yourself.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html
"On the one hand we are being told that the steel of the trusses was weakened by the heat of fires, and on the other hand we are being told that this weakened steel was strong enough to pull the perimeter walls inwards until the structure failed. This is self-contradicting nonsense."
of course NIST had to revise it and did so years later because a shit storm of science was brewing and they uckled to experts who were raising these questions.
Newtons third law.
The plane (which you think didn't exist) applied a force on the building, the building provided an equal force on the plane.
So how exactly does that apply to the building's collapse?
"Experts"? Bullshit artists. Your claims are not believable, your experts have been PROVEN to be fakes. You posted a link that you claimed was the "best", that you claimed you were saving to last. That link proved to be TOTAL BULLSHIT revealing that you and your experts are frauds.
Your experts are fake and you are a troll.
You think you can just continue on after that as if nothing happened? A never ending stream of bullshit artists, as many as there are liars in the world capable of uploading to YouTube?
No way. You staked the credibility of yourself, your experts, and your conspiracy theory on that controlled demolition claim and you were found to be a fraud.
Stop trolling us with more bullshit, you are exposed.
I'm amazed that guys like you and tit have supposedly spent countless hours investigating the topic yet you have no idea about how the building was constructed.
And suspension bridge is not accurate though it's a reasonable analogy. The difference is the towers has no cables to spread the load. The trusses of the floors were simply supported at each end.
The trusses might have been thicker, etc., but they were still connected to the exoskeleton with 5/8" bolts. Any particular truss was not designed to support 20 floor above it. When those connections sheared off under the tremendous weight that impacted from above, you get a domino effect of collapse.
Which block will hit the ground first?
First off, the buildings were not made in self contained blocks.
Second, the towers did not fall at free-fall rates. You can see the pieces that are actually falling at free-fall passing the building.
I believe he is referring to the collision of the top part against the bottom part of the building, at the moment of collapse.
Yep, self contradicting.
Oh wait, that whole third law thing means that the piece being pulled in exerts a force on the nearby chunks pulling them outwards.
I really like what you said here. Very intuitive. (Albeit, there might have been external forces on certain pieces at the moment of impact to propel them faster?)
I wish Richard Feynman were alive. He would've made the same observation in a nano-second.
(That Miatello article I posted has Alberto calculating a rate of about half free fall rate, which is about the same in other controlled-demolition videos, although that doesn't mean WTC was a control-demolition in of itself. Miatello has other reasons but he doesn't mention the unique structural design as a determining factor, unless I missed it in the article).
So how does that refute what I said?
Clearly pieces were falling past the building.
p.s. so not only were there no planes but the debris was remote controlled? Man this thread is getting amusing.
Explain again why Newton's 3rd Law is not relevant. You say the floors "pancaked", so there's mass with force going to hit mass and force below it.
So how is that not relevant?
You're just claiming the "I'm right, you're wrong", who has been proven to be "fake"?
Please, explain, Newton's 3rd Law you haven't addressed why it's not relevant when in fact, FLOORS COLLAPSING (albeit 15% and 30% v. 85% and 70% PLUS the force of the foundation/earth) against the falling portion.
If you don't reply with a relevant answer it shows you CANNOT explain it because it's scientifically impossible for Newton's 3rd Law to be irrelevant in this case.
CLEARLY it's relevant if the CORE and the rest of the building got pulverized into dust.
So last shot Fuji, before I for the first time claim this debate over, like you've been trying to do for the past 3 pages. LOL
So now it wasn't a controlled demolition but rather a nuclear bomb? You do really jump from crazy ideas to outright insane.
Yes, but I don't think the cross-members would've mitigated the collapse.
I believe it was a small correction to explain how the plane crashes didn't shear off the entire or surrounding floors not impacted by the plane.
The building wasn't a giant Lego block. It was a pile of falling debris as the floors disintegrated and started falling. In fact a lower segment of the core remained standing briefly after the rest of the building crashed around it, and then fell shortly after, though you can't see that in the videos as dust obscured the bottom of the building. Engineers were able to determine that by looking at the debris after and finding that parts of the core were on top of the debris pile.
And parts of the building DID fall elsewhere, which is how nearby buildings were damaged. The bulk of the falling debris just went straight down but some large pieces landed elsewhere.
I'm talking about the floors (mass) falling (with force) onto the rest of the building.
The planes v. the building are one thing.
The floors "pancaking" onto the rest of the building are another.
I'm speaking of the latter.
Understand now?
Is not not factual?
2 planes, 3 buildings.
All 3 buildings fell straight down.
Which part is untrue?
Btw, you never did address this reply with the debris.
Talk about an imagination, stuff like this is inspiring that anything is possible.
"The WTC 5 got a few lumps of debris, the US Postal building looks pretty damn good to me and VERIZON which is right next door to WTC 7 looks unscathed as well. AMAZING!
Looks to me like the debris and fires were pretty selective in how and where they fell."
Yeah T, there's no radiation.
If it was a neutron bomb or a very small atom bomb, there'd be a flash of light (this is NOT an underground explosion which buries the heat and light effects). A neutron bomb alone would've killed every witness up to 2,000 meters away.
You keep repeating this free fall claim DESPITE clear evidence that it wasn't. Pieces fell past the intact building at free fall (minus minimal impact of air resistance. Clearly the building wasn't at free fall.
And anyone who claims to have measured the time is absolutely full of shit. You can't see the bottom of the building because of debris from the top and other nearby buildings so the best you can get is an estimate.
