9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

lol, there's no pleasing you guys. Everything is a conspiracy! Did we fake the Moon landing?

 

A'proper rebuttal' for that trash?

Nahh,I expressed myself just fine,thank you.

 

what a ridiculous thing to post

and conspiracy has nothing to do with "freefall" by the way

 

can YOU explain the "collapse" of WTC7?
its very basic physics.

 

Structural failureand it's basic entropy...

 

so, chaotic damage leads to coherent "collapse" is that what you are saying?

 

n0spam,

Are you going to explain your 15% of the building collapses down on the remaining 85% rubbish? Why does your percentage ratio matter and how does it work? How can I apply it to the scenario above? According to you, that window shouldn't have broken based on the ratio of the ball and house.

 

Chaotic damage?

Are you suggesting that each floor and it's connections should have resisted the load of the upper section dropping onto it? I have asked this many times and you and others just ignore it.

Do you understand that floors are designed to resist their own weight PLUS the day to day loads that are calculated to be placed upon them?

 

No,the inherent nature of complex things reverting to simple ones....

 

With that said, it should be then
possible .... rather than spend the $$$!
on expensive explosives & experts to place them,
just light a few fires in an old building scheduled for demolition
and let it burn for a few hours ... and there you are .....


or?

 

Or,you could stop being asinine

 

or you could stop being illogical ......

 

My logic is just fine,kid.....YOU'RE still asinine,however

 

That plan would endanger lives and surrounding property. Controlled demolitions are ... wait for it ... controlled.

 

so then
who expects that the energy from totally unfocused fires
to do the exact same thing that precision placed explosives
accomplishes? .....


what?

 

No one expects that, and it didn't happen that way on 9/11/01. The destruction of the seven buildings of the WTC as well as some of the surrounding buildings were nothing like controlled demolitions, except that buildings were destroyed.

Other than that, they were dissimilar.

 

have you actually looked at the video of WTC7
"collapsing" ?

or?

 

Have you?

Or?

 

Yes, I have. I've also looked at the rest of the evidence and personally queried experts in engineering and demolition.
Have you? Or do you accept what the 'truther' people tell you without question?

 

C'mon n0spam.

Explain your logic here. How do you apply your thinking that because 85% of the lower section was still there, it should have resisted the descending upper section. I am applying this logic to my window and house scenario and it isn't working. Why not? Are you going to continue to ignore this aspect of your claim or are you going to debate?

 

do YOU really and truly believe that the baseball through a window is a valid analog?
The window is NOT a structural element, it exists independent of the structure of your house.
in the case of the WTC tower, that lower 85% is mostly steel and its all part of the structure.
so ALL of it would stand in solidarity to resist the upper 15% crashing down on it.

now do you get it?

 

The bolded above is part of your misunderstanding: the lower 85% was not 'mostly steel'.

 

Truthers will never accept the truth...its sad they still cling to controlled demolition or "holograms"...

 

OK, I'll byte, what then was the lower 85% of the north tower composed of?

& why should every floor break in the identical manner all the way down?

 

Mostly concrete and gypsum would be my guess

And all the floors were connected the same way,that's why