A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

Not if they were pushed past their design limit

 

so the top of the tower should have hit the bottom 2/3rds of the tower and just sit there?

lol!!!!!

sorry bro, but you're looking at it all wrong.

as the bottom 2/3rds of the tower were stationary, each floor acted independantly, just as they were designed.

the top 1/3rd however, was acting as one large mass, moving downward.

each floor vs 30 floors? no competition.

 

You'll never convince me of that fallacy. It may not stop the collapse but that type of pancake collapse you are trying to sell would not allow acceleration. I think Sir Isaac Newton knew what he was talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Look up the words accelerate and decelerate. You completely missed the point.

 

Only if all things were equal,they weren't

 

you might want to reconsider how you phrase that because the problem is how did a spread over a 200x200 foot area of supporting columns ALL fail at the same time, and if they want to play the minutes card it makes no difference, and then there is wtc7 which is a classic demo.

his putting up some cute numerical tables are frankly all show and no go.

The problem is that the so called "crash" is impossible through a few damaged columns and heat, after the crash as you are talking about is a completely different topic that they are perfectly willing to talk about, the impossible crash initiation as you can see they are dodging like the hot potato it is! LOL





no damage on this side what so ever



superficial damage here




sprinklers were working




and the engines of the alleged planes hit the most dense part, the cement floors and could not have damaged the core.

thats a good clip of them blowing the core on wtc1, here is is slo mo



the antenna is mounted to the core, the core goes first

 

Isaac newton may have,but YOU don't seem to

 

Actually, no, it is not. It has been fully answered, What you are now doing is following up with a separate and completely different question. That question has already been rigorously answered in a previous thread.

Asked and answered. You will find that explanation here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333345&page=45&p=1063362053#post1063362053

 

why do Truthers still insist on praying to the idiocy of Dicky Gage?

[video=youtube;DFVoencqfZw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DFVoencqfZw[/video]

no kids, the WTC towers are not comparable to cardboard boxes.

 

here is a good example for you of "crush down" when concerning steel

 

gage isnt addressing truthers, he is addressing debinkers who have no working knowledge of physics or otherwise and he is trying to get them to a point of at least grasping the basics.

what visual aids would you suggest work better? lol

 

The other problem with the CD hypothesis for the WTC, is that there is no evidence of explosives being places throughout all the floors of the towers....which would be required if you follow the Truther hypothesis

- - - Updated - - -

Gage doesn't address debunkers.

The ONLY people stupid enough to give him the time of day, are 9-11 Troughers.

 

yes explosives worked very well for that

- - - Updated - - -

he tries to teach them, at least the ones who are teachable.

 

got any physical evidence for these explosives?

what type of explosives?

how come none of the WTC steel showed any residue of explosives?

- - - Updated - - -

he isn't qualified to teach a monkey.

 

as if you were qualified to make that assessment. lol

 

I have written no definitions whatsoever. I depend entirely on the formal definitions available in dictionaries and lexicons, none of which support your misapplication of the term "symmetry." And as to the physics, I have shown my work along with my math. You have actually challenged none of it.

And you have certainly never even pretended to show your own.

Agreed. So I note that you are the only one in this thread who has insisted that there was a single way for the perimeter columns to be bowed inward. Unfortunately, the single theory you offered rends the time space continuum and violates the law of causality.

Yes. You can. And by acknowledging that you have just admitted that your prior repeated assertion that the columns were taken out "in milliseconds" has no basis whatsoever. That was one of the key points I concluded with in the OP.

At this point your backpedaling is growing more and more furious, and it includes more straw men of your own. I never said there is only one way to use the term "symmetry." I said that there is no way to use the term "symmetry" to describe what happened to either of the WTC towers. Those are very different statements.

And I will resist out and out guffawing at your now explicit abandonment of the "milliseconds" claim. There are one thousand milliseconds in a second. The difference between them is One Hundred Thousand Percent! I will take the change in your rhetoric as a full abandonment of the "in milliseconds" claim.

None of the video clips you provided shows an obviously symmetrical demolition. Several do show obviously non-symmetrical demolitions. At least one shows an obviously non-symmetrical demolition which still comes straight down. It pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin of your inexplicable insistence on misusing the word "symmetry" to mean "comes straight down."

You have done nothing more than put an even finer point on the fact that you do not seem to know what "symmetrical" even means.

Because you cannot maintain your delusions unless you do.

 

Of course,If I remember correctly,koko doesn't think electricity is energy....

 

Depending on the relative competing forces, Newton's third law allows for any and all circumstance; acceleration, deceleration or stasis. To determine which would have characterized any particular circumstance you have to do the math.

I did the math. You continue to pretend not to have seen it. You certainly have made no effort to challenge it.

 

he also doesn't think there were any fires in the towers.

 

Please, link us all to Sir Isaac Newton's analysis of the WTC Tower collapses. I would very much like to see exactly what he had to say on the issue.

 

sure you have, when you explain what a word means you create a perception and in your case a false perception of what is word means in its applicatin hence writing to the minds of the readers. Now if your application were even close I would not bother going through all the trouble of correcting you with photographic evidence no less.


So now you take my statement of no single way to demolish a building and convert that to no single way to pull in the exterior columns.

more intellectual dishonesty.

I showed how it is impossible to have the exterior pulled in, in the matter that you and nist claim under the set of circumstances you and nist claim.

I also gave you the only method they could be pulled in which was to blow the core. so the core was hanging midair and pulling directly on the exterior which would definitely pull the exterior in as shown.

Sorry but you are no engineer if you want to continue to claim weakened steel had the strength to pull in the exterior, especially at a angle which you would have known decreases its ability even more so. Nice cut and paste work though.

 

cant happen using NISTS data

​

as I said the only way the exterior columns can be pulled in is by blowing the core

​

 

unless you have your own definition for it, it isnt, but thats off topic now isnt it.

 

And how could we forget this stunner...

 

there is a long line of conversation prior to that, that you did not post to keep it in context, why is that

 

Ignoring that the OP explains in detail how the remaining supporting columns spread over 40,000 square feet would necessarily finally fail at a particular moment, this sentence is particularly humorous in that it tacitly concedes that the failures did not have to happen all at the same time and so suggests instead that truthers should try and change the subject.

In one sentence, all the fundamental incoherence of the truther movement is displayed in technicolor.

And yet... you make no effort to actually show that they are "all show and no go." I can only conclude that they scare you.

The OP proves that assertion to be false.

The engines of a 767 are over 7 1/4 feet in diameter. The (lightweight by the way) concrete slabs of the floors were only 10 cm (3.9 inches) thick. What you are proposing here is that a piece of paper can stop a bullet edgewise.

You really have to stop just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

Wrong. The antenna was mounted to the hat truss. Not the core. Not that it matters since it is rather clear that in WTC 1 the core did fail first. In WTC 2, the perimeter failed first. This is why the analysis in the OP looked at both mechanisms.

Neither case requires anybody to "blow the core."