I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.
Actually you are dead wrong about that, the physics work just fine. I linked earlier to a paper by Greening showing that there was more than enough energy and momentum to collapse. I could find it again if you want to argue the physics,
I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.[/b]
Argument from authority, without evidence.
Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.
It's dispute that keeps claiming that symmetrical collapse is an indication of demolition. No one else even thinks it was symmetrical let alone a demolition that made no sense on any level.
Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol. (I don't know which paper you are talking about, but I have read one and got a chuckle)
As for my authority, we have already got on this before, you know I prove what I say about myself. I don't think you want to get on that again
As for saying literally no one else thinks it was a demo....Lol, you forgot to stomp your foot. (no need to address something so obviously incorrect)
The energy and momentum calculations show a clear picture of the collapse mechanism. Naive application of Newton's third law like that other video shows, is just bad physics.
https://ia800709.us.archive.org/11/items/WTC-REPORT-GREENING/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdfIt's worth noting that even the energy to collapse two floors at a time, would have hardly slowed the collapse much.
As far as pulverizing concrete. That's what happens when it get's impacted with that sort of energy. disputeone can take his brand new ball pein hammer and belt away at some concrete to confirm that it does in fact turn into powder.
I backed off questioning your qualifications because I proved what I wanted to, don't open that door again. It's not relevant to the debate.
You avoided answering the question about the core columns still standing long after the collapse of WTC1, is there some reason you didn't answer?
Here's a reminder
This video was slowed down anyways, I don't trust it to begin with. Second, no way that is the core, an absolute impossibility.
This would be with controlled demo or the NIST fairy tale.
The way 1,2 and 7 was designed you MUST comprise the core, that is 100 percent mandatory if you don't want it to get ugly. This is with the pancake magic, or with reality.
1. You claimed that the video was slowed down before, and then didn't offer any evidence to prove your claim. Now's your chance, prove it.
2. If you don't think that's part of the core left standing, what do you think it is?
3. So, you are saying if that actually is part of the core then there's no way it could be controlled demolition? Please be clear with your answer.
Poll