What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Number1
I would like to predict that Kylebisme will find a creative reason for not solving DrPizza's challenge or he will not post in this thread anymore.

Prove me wrong Kyle.

PS: If he does solve the challenge I will apologize to him on this issue.

Not even a creative reason...

I think that looking at that puzzle once one has a grasp of what goes on with structure (not that I do) it should be easy to figure out push/pull and then since the forces are usually down and lateral the calculation could be done with pen and paper... (I assume)

To me it is hard but to Kyle (my Kyle - gson) he looked and chuckled... in an evil sort of way... and left with a "later Gramps".

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I assure you I could go into far more detail on the complications of it, but as I know it won't change the conclusions, I've no reason to bother.

Please humor me and go into the details. If you need a reason it would be 'To convince people." Isn't that the point of this thread?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I assure you I could go into far more detail on the complications of it, but as I know it won't change the conclusions, I've no reason to bother.

Please humor me and go into the details. If you need a reason it would be 'To convince people." Isn't that the point of this thread?

Your right. We tell him his reasoning is too simplistic and we demand more explanation. He wont provide it.

He would not provide his "Math" when we asked for it using the same pretext.
He knew he would be eviscerated if he brought it up. Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

He can't provide more elaborate maths or explanations for his theories because he does not have the brain to do it.

His posting history speaks for itself: deception, lies, delusion of grandeur, complete disregard for the facts, dyslexic, retarded.

I mean he cites somebody in a video he thinks looks like a dear in a headlight as evidence of a cover up.

What a dumb ass.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Your right. We tell him his reasoning is too simplistic and we demand more explanation. He wont provide it.

He would not provide his "Math" when we asked for it using the same pretext.
He knew he would be eviscerated if he brought it up. Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

He can't provide more elaborate maths or explanations for his theories because he does not have the brain to do it.

His posting history speaks for itself: deception, lies, delusion of grandeur, complete disregard for the facts, dyslexic, retarded.

I mean he cites somebody in a video he thinks looks like a dear in a headlight as evidence of a cover up.

What a dumb ass.

I think he said 'an undetermined additional force'. I presume he don't know what that force is. If that is true, how more detailed can he get?

NIST with all their brain power had problems with WTC 7. Their conclusion is not absolute as far as I can tell. I think they use the term 'Most Probable'. I don't think any 'Truther' engineer has provided detailed math or anything to support an alternate scenario other than to point to what GC folks call anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure Kyle is able or anyone to produce any details with out a firm definition of what, when and where?

It looks like you've identified just about all the splinters that you've found. How anyone can see past the beams and columns blocking their own view to find them is probably indicative of the need to do so.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
NIST with all their brain power had problems with WTC 7. Their conclusion is not absolute as far as I can tell. I think they use the term 'Most Probable'.

A reconstruction of a car collision would be described in the same way. There are always unanswered questions and we can only deal in likelihoods. But CTers always hang their hat on the holes, much like ID proponents cite to evolution not being "perfect" and that it doesn't explain everything, thus the need for "rational debate." Of course, in any rational debate, both sides need to address the other sides' arguments. CTers wave away mountains of evidence contrary to their views in favor of the splinters of the "unexplained."

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
NIST with all their brain power had problems with WTC 7. Their conclusion is not absolute as far as I can tell. I think they use the term 'Most Probable'.

A reconstruction of a car collision would be described in the same way. There are always unanswered questions and we can only deal in likelihoods. But CTers always hang their hat on the holes, much like ID proponents cite to evolution not being "perfect" and that it doesn't explain everything, thus the need for "rational debate." Of course, in any rational debate, both sides need to address the other sides' arguments. CTers wave away mountains of evidence contrary to their views in favor of the splinters of the "unexplained."

Yes, I think there is always some room for doubt. Is it reasonable? Depends, I think. The first most important thing to do is for all the folks with agenda to show Government did it should be called something better defined. The folks who suggest that NIST and FEMA produced a bad product and are strictly looking at the science and not the missiles and CIA etc..should have a forum that is respected.
The engineers I know and have known over the years would never ever skew science to fit an ideology... but they would fight tooth and nail to show their issue. They would believe in it and not abuse that to push any agenda.
I almost wish that the buildings toppled over on vacant places instead of all three falling right in their foot print... They did what they did.


Anyhow, I thought about that puzzle last night and today.. hehehehehe and a thought came to me...

All of the buildings and stuff between the Towers and WTC 7 were vacant and had to be demolished as would have been expected... IF I were a bad guy I'd have made it so that the WTC 7 appeared to fall right on over into that area of the plaza... Why try to make it fall like a demo... that would make even Dan Rather gasp!!... I'd not thought about that before...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I almost wish that the buildings toppled over on vacant places instead of all three falling right in their foot print... They did what they did.

none of them came down right in their footprint. WTC7 in particular partly fell on a building to its west and party on a building to its northeast. this is another claim that is easily refuted and yet it keeps getting repeated over and over again.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The folks who suggest that NIST and FEMA produced a bad product and are strictly looking at the science and not the missiles and CIA etc..should have a forum that is respected.

Of course it is fair game to review a gov't report for accuracy. Peer review is essential. That ain't the issue here. What you have is people who have been screaming "inside job/conspiracy" for 8 years with zero evidence to support such claims and mountains to refute it, armchair physics buffs who without backup assert their own interpretation which contradicts the findings of experts in the field. Where's the opposition's experts' report for peer review? In 8 years, there hasn't been a single one. Just individuals pointing to "holes" which they feel "don't make sense."

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Not even a creative reason...

I've no interest in being creative here, and I'd appreciate it if you guys could get over your compulsions to dream up ways to avoid addressing the facts of the fall of WTC7.

Originally posted by: Number1
Your right. We tell him his reasoning is too simplistic and we demand more explanation. He wont provide it.

Because there is no point in going into the compexites with people who are unwilling to come to terms with even just the basics.

Originally posted by: Number1
He would not provide his "Math" when we asked for it using the same pretext.

I offered to present the math just as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort, which was obviously asking too much of you falsers.

Originally posted by: Number1
Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

Not a one of you falsers have yet to demonstrate any ability to comprehend such math, and if you did have such ability you'd know better than to have any need for me to show it, let alone think it had been "destroyed".

Originally posted by: Number1
I mean he cites somebody in a video he thinks looks like a dear in a headlight as evidence of a cover up.

Rather I just suggested she looked like she noticed the guy she was interviewing going off script, and neither you or anyone else has even attempted to provide a better explanation for her behavior. Granted, I doubt you can do anything of the sort, much as I know you can't provide a better explanation for the fall of WTC7 than what I have.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I almost wish that the buildings toppled over on vacant places instead of all three falling right in their foot print... They did what they did.

none of them came down right in their footprint. WTC7 in particular partly fell on a building to its west and party on a building to its northeast. this is another claim that is easily refuted and yet it keeps getting repeated over and over again.

He was obviously speaking in general terms, in contrast to toppling over like this.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I almost wish that the buildings toppled over on vacant places instead of all three falling right in their foot print... They did what they did.

none of them came down right in their footprint. WTC7 in particular partly fell on a building to its west and party on a building to its northeast. this is another claim that is easily refuted and yet it keeps getting repeated over and over again.

I know some bits hit the Post office bldg but the main debris ended about at the curb there. On the Verizon bldg I'm not sure. But I think it was [you'll get a chuckle out the following] close enough for government work... Just kidding...

 

[kylebisme]

I like the way Jesus charcaterised arguments like ElFenix's in Matthew 23:24:

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Neither the creatures in question being permissible to eat under Jewish law, but swallowing a whole camel obviously being a much larger infraction than ingesting a single gnat.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The folks who suggest that NIST and FEMA produced a bad product and are strictly looking at the science and not the missiles and CIA etc..should have a forum that is respected.

Of course it is fair game to review a gov't report for accuracy. Peer review is essential. That ain't the issue here. What you have is people who have been screaming "inside job/conspiracy" for 8 years with zero evidence to support such claims and mountains to refute it, armchair physics buffs who without backup assert their own interpretation which contradicts the findings of experts in the field. Where's the opposition's experts' report for peer review? In 8 years, there hasn't been a single one. Just individuals pointing to "holes" which they feel "don't make sense."

There is peer review and then there is Peer Review. If you publish in a recognized professional type magazine that is a real review... but you can get peer review from lesser publications too and be able to use that 'Peer Reviewed' claim. I think that claim depends on the body doing the review.
I know Jones has published in peer review context and Jones in concert with some others in a Dutch or European Publication.. There are a few of them bouncing about but none that deal directly with the dynamics of the collapses... I don't think new science is going to be found as a result of WTC events... I did get a kick out of Sunder's claim that they discovered thermal expansion building failure and followed that up or preceded it with 'Classic' this and that.. then said 'First time ever'... He's an MIT Ph.D Structural Engineer and should not be charged with dealing with us nutty folks on the record.. hehehehe

'Don't make sense' is a relative term.... IF say, the guy who is a Ceramic Engineer - forgot who that is - said It don't make sense! That would carry much more weight than if I said it... which I have... But, if another Ph.D. said it made sense we'd have a situation to look see into...not me.. I just exercise my brain on this stuff.. but folks with the brain power to do it. So, when someone says it don't make sense and they are oh.. some esoteric outside this field person, you have what you have... and for the life of me I see no reason to expect more than what that person can bring to the table.

What I'm trying to say is: There are levels to the discussion on an Internet site that ought to be recognized and dealt with accordingly. Ok... You'll never or hardly ever see me post in one aspect of my expertise... why? Cuz folks posting in that thread all see them selves as Ph.D academics and me trying to make a point does nothing at all to educate or sway. I do love the Law, am educated in the Law and love it so much that I'll opine often... but even that is what it is... and once that becomes a raging debate I shy away... no point in continuing... It makes no sense to try and teach a pig to fly... it frustrates you and ticks off the pig... It seems to me when folks have to be mean they have gone past that line I suggest exists no matter what the other person is saying. But that is my view...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
I mean he cites somebody in a video he thinks looks like a dear in a headlight as evidence of a cover up.

Rather I just suggested she looked like she noticed the guy she was interviewing going off script, and neither you or anyone else has even attempted to provide a better explanation for her behavior. Granted, I doubt you can do anything of the sort, much as I know you can't provide a better explanation for the fall of WTC7 than what I have.

Everything you see point's toward a cover up.

I rest my case.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
He would not provide his "Math" when we asked for it using the same pretext.

I offered to present the math just as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort, which was obviously asking too much of you falsers.

Originally posted by: Number1
Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

Not a one of you falsers have yet to demonstrate any ability to comprehend such math, and if you did have such ability you'd know better than to have any need for me to show it, let alone think it had been "destroyed".

You are an idiot and a liar. You don't enter an argument saying "I have evidence, but I'm not gonna show you cause you're too dumb to understand it." The whole point of debate isn't just to disagree with someone, it is to advance an argument, backed up by evidence or logical thinking, in an attempt to sway people to agree with your conclusion. When you start off your sales pitch with "you're too stupid to understand," not only are you completely failing to convince anyone that you actually have evidence that they should consider, you are also directly insulting them, which is a bad way to get people on your side. This makes you an idiot (see how I provided evidence to back up my initial claim that you are an idiot? That's called developing an argument).

Now, a liar: You "offered to present the math as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort." Dr. Pizza came in and gave you his list of qualifications, which includes advanced degrees in mathematics along with currently being employed as a math teacher. If that's not demonstrating enough ability, than perhaps you should find a forum frequented by theoretical physicists; no one else is going to best those qualifications. After Dr. Pizza came in and gave his qualifications, you did not present your math; you were dismissive of him, as you were with everyone else in this thread who didn't already agree with you. You lied about presenting your math, so someone else had to post it for you, where it was, in fact, refuted by posters who have presented more qualifications than you have (Dr. Pizza, for one, though perhaps you could post your mathematics and physics background so we can see why we should trust your opinion over his).

You have lied repeatedly in this thread, including this reply of yours that I have quoted. You have proven yourself incapable of advancing an argument. You refuse to respond to the numerous pieces of evidence that directly contradict your point. You refuse to engage Dr. Pizza in an honest discussion of the math and physics you claim to have (which just makes others, myself included, believe that you are not confident your math will stand up to the scrutiny of a real mathematician, which hardly advances your position). I contend that the only thing this thread has demonstrated is that you have no understanding of the concepts you are trying to advance, you are incapable of thinking logically, and when put under pressure, you are incapable of providing a shred of evidence to back up your position. You are an idiot and a liar, and it's time for everyone in this thread to be done with you.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
Your right. We tell him his reasoning is too simplistic and we demand more explanation. He wont provide it.

Because there is no point in going into the compexites with people who are unwilling to come to terms with even just the basics.

This is the same old argument you've been using all along. Agree with me or I won't explain it.

Ridiculous and then some.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

Not a one of you falsers have yet to demonstrate any ability to comprehend such math, and if you did have such ability you'd know better than to have any need for me to show it, let alone think it had been "destroyed".

Well I think DrPizza has the ability to understand such math don't you think?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


You are an idiot and a liar. You don't enter an argument saying "I have evidence, but I'm not gonna show you cause you're too dumb to understand it." The whole point of debate isn't just to disagree with someone, it is to advance an argument, backed up by evidence or logical thinking, in an attempt to sway people to agree with your conclusion. When you start off your sales pitch with "you're too stupid to understand," not only are you completely failing to convince anyone that you actually have evidence that they should consider, you are also directly insulting them, which is a bad way to get people on your side. This makes you an idiot (see how I provided evidence to back up my initial claim that you are an idiot? That's called developing an argument).

Now, a liar: You "offered to present the math as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort." Dr. Pizza came in and gave you his list of qualifications, which includes advanced degrees in mathematics along with currently being employed as a math teacher. If that's not demonstrating enough ability, than perhaps you should find a forum frequented by theoretical physicists; no one else is going to best those qualifications. After Dr. Pizza came in and gave his qualifications, you did not present your math; you were dismissive of him, as you were with everyone else in this thread who didn't already agree with you. You lied about presenting your math, so someone else had to post it for you, where it was, in fact, refuted by posters who have presented more qualifications than you have (Dr. Pizza, for one, though perhaps you could post your mathematics and physics background so we can see why we should trust your opinion over his).

You have lied repeatedly in this thread, including this reply of yours that I have quoted. You have proven yourself incapable of advancing an argument. You refuse to respond to the numerous pieces of evidence that directly contradict your point. You refuse to engage Dr. Pizza in an honest discussion of the math and physics you claim to have (which just makes others, myself included, believe that you are not confident your math will stand up to the scrutiny of a real mathematician, which hardly advances your position). I contend that the only thing this thread has demonstrated is that you have no understanding of the concepts you are trying to advance, you are incapable of thinking logically, and when put under pressure, you are incapable of providing a shred of evidence to back up your position. You are an idiot and a liar, and it's time for everyone in this thread to be done with you.

You made a powerful argument Atomic. Well done.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have yet to prove you understand anything beyond the most basic physics yourself.

That is because it doesn't take anything more than the basic physics I presented to understand what is wrong with the offical story of how WTC7 came down.

Okay, here you go:

The building collapsed. During a portion of the collapse, the building accelerated at nearly free-fall acceleration. The reason for this is because the damaged supports provided neglible force compared to the weight of the structure above.

Now, we're at the crux of the matter. We both admit that the acceleration was near free-fall. You cannot fathom that the structure provided negligible resistance, compared to the weight of the structure. So, F=mg, etc., is now a moot point. You say the supports had to be cut with nano-thermite or some other such crap. The experts say they didn't.

I tried to provide you with some easily visible phenomena to give you a rough idea how this is possible. Standing on a can & having it collapse. Karate chopping through a bunch of concrete slabs. You keep ignoring this and go back to your *claim* - there is no evidence supporting this whatsoever - that the structure would have provided enough support to prevent free-fall accelerations. Sure, it goes against intuition. However, intuition isn't science.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There is no "waste" of time when conducting science experiments.

Trying to disprove long understood and consistently demostatable laws of physics is a waste of time. You'd be better off getting your students to conduct an "experiment" to find out if a penny will float in watter, since at least that wouldn't waste as much of their time.

Gee, demonstrations are a cornerstone of good physics teaching. If you think that repeating experiments that have been done thousands of times before is a waste of time, then I pity your science education. Actually, having read this thread, I pity your science education.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There is no "waste" of time when conducting science experiments.

Trying to disprove long understood and consistently demostatable laws of physics is a waste of time. You'd be better off getting your students to conduct an "experiment" to find out if a penny will float in watter, since at least that wouldn't waste as much of their time.

Gee, demonstrations are a cornerstone of good physics teaching. If you think that repeating experiments that have been done thousands of times before is a waste of time, then I pity your science education. Actually, having read this thread, I pity your science education.

He talks about consistently demostrable [sic] laws of physic yet when you offer to demonstrate said law he claims it's a waste of time and actually thinks you want to disprove the laws.

Poor logic at best.

 

[LunarRay]

I have another dumb question..

Do you think the Cops, Fire people advising folks to back up and get back when WTC was about to fall were a safe distance away if the building toppled right over? They didn't know where it going to fall, I hope. Looking at video it seems some were rather close... and given that if it fell over the bits of stuff would bound on ahead, I think?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
NIST with all their brain power had problems with WTC 7. Their conclusion is not absolute as far as I can tell. I think they use the term 'Most Probable'.

A reconstruction of a car collision would be described in the same way. There are always unanswered questions and we can only deal in likelihoods. But CTers always hang their hat on the holes, much like ID proponents cite to evolution not being "perfect" and that it doesn't explain everything, thus the need for "rational debate." Of course, in any rational debate, both sides need to address the other sides' arguments. CTers wave away mountains of evidence contrary to their views in favor of the splinters of the "unexplained."

The engineers I know and have known over the years would never ever skew science to fit an ideology... but they would fight tooth and nail to show their issue. They would believe in it and not abuse that to push any agenda.
I almost wish that the buildings toppled over on vacant places instead of all three falling right in their foot print... They did what they did.

i like the bolded. did you happen to read my link earlier:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...p?context=va&aid=15201

NIST and Scientific Fraud

With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST?s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.

"Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with ?distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.? By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been ?fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,? with the result that scientists working for NIST ?lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ?hired guns.??11 Referring in particular to NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---?an arm of the Executive Office of the President,? which ?had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST?s] work.? [12]

One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns ? in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee?s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as ?making up results,? and falsification, which means either ?changing or omitting data.? [13] "


everything had to be approved through the NSA? thats odd. was there a national security concern (NSA being involved) over how they fell?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
He would not provide his "Math" when we asked for it using the same pretext.

I offered to present the math just as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort, which was obviously asking too much of you falsers.

Originally posted by: Number1
Somebody else found his "math"and we destroyed it.

Not a one of you falsers have yet to demonstrate any ability to comprehend such math, and if you did have such ability you'd know better than to have any need for me to show it, let alone think it had been "destroyed".

You are an idiot and a liar. You don't enter an argument saying "I have evidence, but I'm not gonna show you cause you're too dumb to understand it." The whole point of debate isn't just to disagree with someone, it is to advance an argument, backed up by evidence or logical thinking, in an attempt to sway people to agree with your conclusion. When you start off your sales pitch with "you're too stupid to understand," not only are you completely failing to convince anyone that you actually have evidence that they should consider, you are also directly insulting them, which is a bad way to get people on your side. This makes you an idiot (see how I provided evidence to back up my initial claim that you are an idiot? That's called developing an argument).

Now, a liar: You "offered to present the math as soon as someone demonstrated the ability to comprehend anything of the sort." Dr. Pizza came in and gave you his list of qualifications, which includes advanced degrees in mathematics along with currently being employed as a math teacher. If that's not demonstrating enough ability, than perhaps you should find a forum frequented by theoretical physicists; no one else is going to best those qualifications. After Dr. Pizza came in and gave his qualifications, you did not present your math; you were dismissive of him, as you were with everyone else in this thread who didn't already agree with you. You lied about presenting your math, so someone else had to post it for you, where it was, in fact, refuted by posters who have presented more qualifications than you have (Dr. Pizza, for one, though perhaps you could post your mathematics and physics background so we can see why we should trust your opinion over his).

You have lied repeatedly in this thread, including this reply of yours that I have quoted. You have proven yourself incapable of advancing an argument. You refuse to respond to the numerous pieces of evidence that directly contradict your point. You refuse to engage Dr. Pizza in an honest discussion of the math and physics you claim to have (which just makes others, myself included, believe that you are not confident your math will stand up to the scrutiny of a real mathematician, which hardly advances your position). I contend that the only thing this thread has demonstrated is that you have no understanding of the concepts you are trying to advance, you are incapable of thinking logically, and when put under pressure, you are incapable of providing a shred of evidence to back up your position. You are an idiot and a liar, and it's time for everyone in this thread to be done with you.

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have yet to prove you understand anything beyond the most basic physics yourself.

That is because it doesn't take anything more than the basic physics I presented to understand what is wrong with the offical story of how WTC7 came down.

Okay, here you go:

The building collapsed. During a portion of the collapse, the building accelerated at nearly free-fall acceleration. The reason for this is because the damaged supports provided neglible force compared to the weight of the structure above.

Now, we're at the crux of the matter. We both admit that the acceleration was near free-fall. You cannot fathom that the structure provided negligible resistance, compared to the weight of the structure. So, F=mg, etc., is now a moot point. You say the supports had to be cut with nano-thermite or some other such crap. The experts say they didn't.

I tried to provide you with some easily visible phenomena to give you a rough idea how this is possible. Standing on a can & having it collapse. Karate chopping through a bunch of concrete slabs. You keep ignoring this and go back to your *claim* - there is no evidence supporting this whatsoever - that the structure would have provided enough support to prevent free-fall accelerations. Sure, it goes against intuition. However, intuition isn't science.

We all know he's going to wimp out of replying to both of you, but good replies nonetheless. But it is entertaining to watch, I must say.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I have another dumb question..

Do you think the Cops, Fire people advising folks to back up and get back when WTC was about to fall were a safe distance away if the building toppled right over? They didn't know where it going to fall, I hope. Looking at video it seems some were rather close... and given that if it fell over the bits of stuff would bound on ahead, I think?

Please don't take this as an insult, but,,,,given that they didn't know it was going to fall, I would have to agree with you,,,that it was a dumb question.