That is a childish comparison.the loose debris from the collapse of the tops of the tower was adequate to break the next floor. There was a space between floors so that the falling mass couldl again accelerate and add more than enough to break the next floor an on it goes, without any manner of arresting mechanism Idiot boy's model of the bug omits that fact as well as the fact that the first imppact would be more like a bus hitting a bug and gaining speed as it slams the bug into the next one.
well even that does not seem to get the point across, it seems no one can simplify physics enough for troughers to get it., what can I say,it just goes to prove they really are not the experts they claim.
The behavior of two objects on the ground, in an inelastic collision, has nothing to do with an upright structure which in no way resembles a line of parked car.
Was that supposed to prove something relevant to 9/11? It doesn't. Everyone knows a tree will usually win in a fight with a car.
it demonstrates you are all wrong and the wtc was really built out of glass since a 4 story drop barely dents the car
So freaking WHAT? What has that to do with the ability of one over loaded and broken floor to fall on and break the one below it?
That was what did most of the damage once collapse was initiated. When the core columns failed under the weight that the perimeter columns were no longer supporting, they dumped massive debris onto the floors below and the rest of the building just unzipped intself.
You are totally, laughably wrong about that, but this is the wrong threat to go on about that. We startd out discussing the wreckage at the Pentagon and what sort of damage was done to the building. You need to learn to address the issues at hand a little better. Have you come up with reasonable proof that something other than a 757 left that kind of marks and debris?
Not my job, not my burden. You want to sing the official mantra the burden is yours since it is their responsibility to investigate properly if they did not and you have no proof their story is true to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad. It does not shift the burden onto me. the OP has several real firemens testimonies that heard, seen, felt, or were otherwise injured by explosions.
Okay, I got the threads mixed up, but that still does not make you right. The car drop is still as silly as little Dickie Gage's demonstration with empty cardboard boxes. And none of the fire fighter's statements are consistant with observing high explosive detonations.
Are you saying that the boxes should have been crushed if what I have said about verinage were true? That is patently absurd. There is no similarity between cardboard boxes and a building.
I don't vest too much energy in the discussions of the building collapses. There are oddities to me and questions that I have, but it is a discussion and topic that inevitably leads to verbatim what governmental agencies and academics have to say about the incidents. Instead, I prefer to look at the foreign policy, geopolitical, political, realpolitikal, legislative, military and clandestine moves we made as a country before and after September 11th, 2001. Like right now, I'm reading a book called Preventive Defense. It's by former Secretary of Defense William Perry (19th, 1994-97) and the current Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Their chapter on 'catastrophic terrorism' is most enlightening, considering this book was published in 1999. Here's what former Senator Sam Nunn said about the book: Here's one of the kickers. Catastrophic terrorism became a talking point because of an article three men wrote, namely, Ashton Carter, John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow. http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/652/catastrophic_terrorism.html http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/catastrophicterrorism-foreignaffairs-1198.pdf Catastrophic terrorism used elsewhere: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-vwgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,1077700&dq=catastrophic+terrorism&hl=en http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/catastrophic-terrorism-clinton-is-missing-point http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/22/opinion/when-to-strike-back.html http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/international-developments-call-us-national-security-policy-question http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/year-2000-warning-uncle-sam-duck-cover http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/65948509.html?dids=65948509:65948509&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+01%2C+2001&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=An+Agenda+for+Mr.+Rumsfeld&pqatl=google http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/opinion/how-to-protect-the-homeland.html
troughers do not comprehend anything beyond what they can touch, and frankly they dont grasp most of that either.. - - - Updated - - - ok so you do not deny they both have structural strength lol