BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories

[sekular]

I do not see why jazzroc keeps arguing and I do not see the point he is trying to make. To be honest I still think he disrupted the debate with non sense disguised as intelligent comment.

Jazzroc can you please answer a straight forward question? What do you think would happen knowing your knowledge of physics and material science, if you cut one of the WTC buildings in half and dropped it on the bottom half of the building from 100 meters. Do you think that it would result in the same sort of behavior that we saw manifested on 9/11/2001 ? ie would we end up with pulverized concrete and cut up steel beams at the bottom? Would the building literally fall apart in less than 20 seconds ? Would we see melted vehicles surrounding the area and a massive pyroclastic dust cloud?

Take a look at this screen cap from the movie cloverfield. What is wrong with the physics in this scene. Why is the building leaning on another building. Surely it should have fallen apart?

[icosaface]

Well I think you can all see that debating with jr is an oxymoronic activity so I will dispense with that. Here is a blow by blow debunking of NIST's final report on Building 7 done by Kevin Ryan in March, 2011.

[Bull Medicine]

(09-01-2011 11:54 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:  So let's use that picture again.

Let's see... NOTHING externally visible on Floor 78.
A LARGE fire on Floor 79.
But what's this? A MASSIVE FIRE on Floor 81 extending above Floor 83.
Are you STILL maintaining he climbed above these fires, with only a single working staircase? What bollocks. I'm not insulting you - just describing you. Bollocks after bollocks after bollocks.

you are right about interpreting evidence. you can count though, yeah? how many beams does the photo have?why not 59 like there were in reality?

[JazzRoc]

(09-02-2011 04:01 AM)Bull Medicine Wrote:  you are right about interpreting evidence.

I'm glad that you believe so.

Quote:you can count though, yeah?

From the age of three.

Quote:how many beams does the photo have?

The second? 20 fewer than the first.
But it isn't a photo, is it?
It's a frame taken from a videocamera that was being panned.

Quote:why not 58 like there were in reality?

Because it was being panned, and there was a small finite time for it to record the linescans.

The clincher lies at the RIGHT EDGE of the columns. You can see them run off at a slant. They're ALL leaning.
Hey, was that a fake, or what? NO. An artefact of the panning.

Assuming BOTH frames to be from the same film, or NOT assuming it, you have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

"You are right about interpreting evidence."

"I'm glad that you believe so."

By the way, they are COLUMNS, not beams.

---

(09-02-2011 02:00 AM)sekular Wrote:  I do not see why jazzroc keeps arguing

It's a false conspiracy theory.

Quote:I do not see the point he is trying to make.

I can see that.
The point is that a false conspiracy theory is the very worst non-violent thing that can happen to a "free" society, in that stupidity becomes a point of view. Real conspiracies exist and proceed untracked. The movement for "eternal vigilance", which I heartily endorse, EATS ITSELF.
You could always address me directly.

Quote:To be honest I still think he disrupted the debate

What debate? What I'm putting to you is the ONLY debate on this thread.

Quote:with nonsense disguised as intelligent comment.

What I'm trying to translate to you is the general gist of the NIST Report. That isn't the nonsense you think it is. It's usual name is SCIENCE.

Quote:Jazzroc can you please answer a straight forward question?

LOL. You gotta laugh. Straightforward, from you?

Quote:What do you think would happen if you cut one of the WTC buildings in half and dropped it on the bottom half of the building from 100 meters. Do you think that it would result in the same sort of behavior that we saw manifested on 9/11/2001?

100 meters more? Insane.

Quote:would we end up with pulverized concrete and cut up steel beams at the bottom?

MORE PULVERIZED concrete, MORE snapped parts, MORE HEAT in everything. More microspherules. 1,300,000 tons meters is not to be sneezed at.

Quote:Would the building literally fall apart in less than 20 seconds?

Dropping it from an extra hundred meters would certainly help it achieve its task that much quicker.

Quote:Would we see melted vehicles

You'd see vehicles below struck by fragments of the tower burst into flame and towed away by the authorities after their fires subsided.

Quote:and a massive pyroclastic dust cloud?

Finely pulverized concrete is quite similar to volcanic ash.
The potential energy of the building was capable of melting 2,600 tons of steel.
This energy HAD to be released as HEAT. Cold air next to hot steel soon becomes hot air. Dust in the air will get as hot as the air almost instantly.
Pyroclastic flow is attributable to volcanic activity. It is a DOWNWARD flow due to the mass of solids (from finely-divided to massive rubble) within it, and due to its high temperature (450 deg C) and high overland speed of hundreds of miles per hour, killed people many miles away from its source, Mount St. Helens, when it erupted.
Its not the same, really.

Quote:Take a look at this screen cap from the movie cloverfield. What is wrong with the physics in this scene. Why is the building leaning on another building. Surely it should have fallen apart?

Well show me its building plans and let's take a look, shall we?

[Bull Medicine]

jazroc said "Hey, was that a fake, or what? NO. An artefact of the panning.

Assuming BOTH frames to be from the same film, or NOT assuming it, you have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

"You are right about interpreting evidence."

"I'm glad that you believe so."

By the way, they are COLUMNS, not beams."

nah, jazroc - you're grabbing your stick wrong - i meant in your hi res 'photo' not khalezov's wtc - why does 'your' picture that you said for us to 'look at again' represent too few columns than were evident in reality? It is too clear to be written off as a video artefact.

[icosaface]

Have a look at the flagpole up top Bull Medicine, you can see that the smoke cloud shapes look identical to the first photo except that the focus is slightly blurred, the lighting is slightly different as well. It is the same photo. There also appears to be more evidence of fire in the doctored photo. Way to spot the fakery BM!

Lets have a look at what jr posted yesterday:

Quote: Quote:Battalion Chief Orio Palmer said that there were only two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor of the South tower. We see black smoke coming from the towers which indicates an oxygen starved fire. There was no chimney effect in the towers as fire shutters had been installed on each floor to keep the elevator and utility shafts of the core from acting as air vents or chimneys.

So let's use that picture again.


Let's see... NOTHING externally visible on Floor 78.
A LARGE fire on Floor 79.
But what's this? A MASSIVE FIRE on Floor 81 extending above Floor 83.
Are you STILL maintaining he climbed above these fires, with only a single working staircase? What bollocks. I'm not insulting you - just describing you. Bollocks after bollocks after bollocks.

It has approximately 32 columns and the caption says you can see building 7 in the right side background.

I really appreciate you pointing out the fakery Bull Medicine because he blew that one by me. If the building has been doctored has the fire been doctored as well?

I googled "richard drew 911 photos" and I found this photo on yahoo:


I would say the above photo has been doctored, anyone disagree?

While looking for the doctored photo I found this photo:


We see building 6 which was right beside the north tower looking like a drilled out tooth cavity, loosely speaking. It should be full of debris if we are to be expected to believe that the towers fell down. Building 7 across the street from building 6, was damaged so badly that it was able to be felled by fire induced beam expansion according to the official NIST story. But building 6 has not collapsed, it is closer and has not collapsed.

Note the Verizon building to the left side of building 7 only has a small amount, it doesn't show the full side, of damage showing whereas the official story says that building 7 suffered massive damages.

Here is a map of the site:

[sekular]

(09-02-2011 10:06 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:would we end up with pulverized concrete and cut up steel beams at the bottom?

MORE PULVERIZED concrete, MORE snapped parts, MORE HEAT in everything. More microspherules. 1,300,000 tons meters is not to be sneezed at.

What would cause the concrete to pulverize exactly? What would cause the parts to snap exactly? What would cause the "more heat in everything" ? 1.3million tons meters, what exactly do you mean by that because it does not make sense?

(09-02-2011 10:06 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:Would the building literally fall apart in less than 20 seconds?

Dropping it from an extra hundred meters would certainly help it achieve its task that much quicker.

What task is that exactly? speak in plain english please, is this an office worker accomplishing a task for his employer or are we talking about a 110 story building falling apart in under 20 seconds?

(09-02-2011 10:06 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:Would we see melted vehicles

You'd see vehicles below struck by fragments of the tower burst into flame and towed away by the authorities after their fires subsided.

What sort of fragments would cause cars to burst in to blames exactly? Do you have any evidence that fragments from the building caused cars to melt down to to the raw metal? There is picture evidence of cars that were melted on half of the car and the other half was not melted. How could falling fragments cause half a car to melt?

(09-02-2011 10:06 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:and a massive pyroclastic dust cloud?

Finely pulverized concrete is quite similar to volcanic ash.
The potential energy of the building was capable of melting 2,600 tons of steel.
This energy HAD to be released as HEAT. Cold air next to hot steel soon becomes hot air. Dust in the air will get as hot as the air almost instantly.
Pyroclastic flow is attributable to volcanic activity. It is a DOWNWARD flow due to the mass of solids (from finely-divided to massive rubble) within it, and due to its high temperature (450 deg C) and high overland speed of hundreds of miles per hour, killed people many miles away from its source, Mount St. Helens, when it erupted.
Its not the same, really.

The building did not have a potential energy that was capable of melting 2600 tons of steel. Please explain exactly how a building has potential energy to melt steel?

What has 9/11 got to do with a volcanoes and how can you seriously start attributing the activity at 9/11 to a volcanic eruption?

(09-02-2011 10:06 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:Take a look at this screen cap from the movie cloverfield. What is wrong with the physics in this scene. Why is the building leaning on another building. Surely it should have fallen apart?

Well show me its building plans and let's take a look, shall we?

That is from a fictional hollywood movie, how would i have building plans. This further proves my point that you are obviously disingenuous and malicious in your debate.

[JazzRoc]

(09-02-2011 11:08 AM)Bull Medicine Wrote:  why does 'your' picture that you said for us to 'look at again' represent too few columns than were evident in reality? It is too clear to be written off as a video artefact.

Because it was CHOPPED by the photographer.
What was chopped was in fact the edge of the tower which contained no features of interest.
Here is the same shot taken a half hour later, by a different photographer, from (apparently) the same viewpoint, with the correct column count.

Notice Building 7 is STILL visible to the right.

It's always the same, isn't it? Something stupid.

This sort of ineptitude would have been demonstrated by the Bush gang had they ever had the nerve to try such an operation as to simulate an attack by towelheads.

That's a compelling reason why you're wrong. They would have been as inept as you are.

---

(09-02-2011 07:37 PM)sekular Wrote:  What would cause the concrete to pulverize exactly?

Hammering it.

Quote:What would cause the parts to snap exactly?

Buckling it.

Quote:What would cause the "more heat in everything"?

The extra potential energy added to the structure by raising it 100 meters.

Quote:1.3million tons meters, what exactly do you mean by that because it does not make sense?

That's the potential energy increase you would add to 130,000 tons of tower when you raise it 100 meters.

Quote:What task is that exactly?

The task that ANY object undertakes when RELEASED in a gravitational field. Falling...

Quote:are we talking about a 110 story building falling apart in under 20 seconds?

Yes. Nearly, anyway, as WTC2 took 14.4 seconds and WTC1 22.1 seconds.

Quote:What sort of fragments would cause cars to burst in to blames exactly?

I suppose you mean flames. Pieces of tower or aircraft falling from 800 feet reach a speed of 155 mph at ground level. Such an impact speed can rupture fuel tanks and ignite the fuel. Fuel fires melt aluminum wheels and destroy plastics, windscreens, upholstery, paintwork. Have you ever seen any melted steel?

Quote:Do you have any evidence that fragments from the building caused cars to melt down to to the raw metal?

The pictures of damaged cars we've all seen..

Quote:There is picture evidence of cars that were melted on half of the car and the other half was not melted. How could falling fragments cause half a car to melt?

Perhaps a fireman put the fire out before it burnt out. You know, with an EXTINGUISHER.

Quote:The building did not have a potential energy that was capable of melting 2600 tons of steel.

That's an IGNORANT assertion, sonny boy.

Quote:Please explain exactly how a building has potential energy to melt steel?

It may not have occurred to you until now, but before the riggers who built the towers FIXED the parts in place, they were LIFTED there, using a pretty inefficient HEAT ENGINE. EVERY POUND was LIFTED. Some no distance at all, other parts ended 1/5 of a mile UP.
The energy put into the tower material to get it to whatever height it ended up at is the POTENTIAL ENERGY.
If the tower falls, then ALL that energy MUST be released as crushing energy, bending energy, hammering energy, sound energy.
Whatever form that temporary activity takes, it all ends up as heat.
How much structural steel COULD the tower's potential energy melt?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/lette...energy.pdf
The calculated mass of one tower is 253,000 metric tons, and the total potential energy above grade is 3.98 * 10^11 Joules.
The heat required to raise a metric ton of steel to its melt temperature (temperature range 1110 deg C, specific heat of iron 500 J/kg) and then melt it (latent heat of melting of iron 98 kiloJoules/kg) is 1000 * (1110*500 + 98000) = 1.53 * 10^8 Joules.
Therefore the maximum possible amount of structural steel that could be melted by the TOTAL CONVERSION of the tower's potential energy
is 3.98 * 10^11 / 1.53 * 10^8 = 2,600 metric tons.
As it also heated 10,000 tons of concrete dust and 10,000 tons of air (very rough figures!) it didn't stand a chance of melting all that steel.
Steel heats when you hammer it. It will heat up till it melts by hammering. But when it melts, it can no longer be hammered, as the molten steel flies off - as microspherules, considering the speed of the hammer in this case.
The main reason for the near molten steel in the basement is THAT IS WHERE THE COLUMN FOOTINGS WERE.
EVERY column footing received at least fifty hammer blows as EVERY floor was violently SHEARED from EVERY column.

Quote:What has 9/11 got to do with a volcanoes and how can you seriously start attributing the activity at 9/11 to a volcanic eruption?

Talk about "dumber than a bag of hammers"! That's MY question to YOU, for the WTC dust was HOT CRUSHED CONCRETE DUST, in NO WAY comparable to the pyroclastic flow emitted by some volcanoes. So don't fucking use the word.

Quote:That is from a fictional hollywood movie, how would i have building plans. This further proves my point that you are obviously disingenuous and malicious in your debate.

But it was you, old boy, who presented it, KNOWING it to be fictional.
How would I know whether that leaning tower would fall or not, if NOT from the plans?
There ISN'T ANY OTHER WAY of telling.
Are you SURE you're not talking to yourself in a mirror?
You really need to...

[icosaface]

The picture origiinally shown by jr was copyrighted by Richard Drew/AP at 9:14:02 Sept 11, 2001. Here he shows a different picture copyrighted by a different person 31 minutes later. Pictures are cropped from the outside in, removing parts of the interior and leaving the outside borders the same is doctoring a photo. Both of the photos jr showed have been doctored, you can tell that by the right side of the photo which purports to show building 7. Building 7 was 47 stories tall and you wouldn't see it in the background when you looked out at 180 degrees from the 79th floor of either tower. In both photos building 7 would have to be more than 80 stories tall for the photos to be as shown.

These videos show the kind of investigation NIST did.

[sekular]

Clearly JR has found the culprit behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001



The building by itself can not release enough energy to pulverize itself (all the steel and reinforced concrete in the building below it). The building would fall over before it just fell apart. Sky scraper type buildings do not suffer from being prone to complete collapse. It goes against the basics of physics to think that a building like that could just fall apart.

It would require the breaking of thousands of welded joints and the pulverization of 90000 tons of concrete within milliseconds of each other. Simultaneous and symmetrical collapse of a steel and steel reinforced concrete sky scrapers is not only improbable but it is also ridiculous.

[JazzRoc]

(09-03-2011 10:38 AM)icosaface Wrote:  Both of the photos jr showed have been doctored, you can tell that by the right side of the photo which purports to show building 7. Building 7 was 47 stories tall and you wouldn't see it in the background when you looked out at 180 degrees from the 79th floor of either tower. In both photos building 7 would have to be more than 80 stories tall for the photos to be as shown.

You suppose (without really thinking, for that's the type of mind you have) that there WASN'T a sightline.
And here it is.



I invite the reader to consider the above bullshit of icosaface.

Quote:These videos show the kind of investigation NIST did.

More of what a pimply youth in his mother's basement did.

Never mind. When you have faith, there's always another mountaintop to stand on...

---

(09-03-2011 07:44 PM)sekular Wrote:  The building by itself can not release enough energy to pulverize itself (all the steel and reinforced concrete in the building below it).

And it DIDN'T. It crushed, pulverized and HEATED much concrete, snapped, twisted, and HEATED the steel. It didn't pulverize steel.
There was NO reinforced concrete in the building below it.

Quote:The building would fall over before it just fell apart.

The building couldn't fall over because it was still restrained by its CORE columns, which were vertical and unbroken

Quote:Skyscraper type buildings do not suffer from being prone to complete collapse.

True. Nobody would want to erect them if that were true.

Quote:It goes against the basics of physics to think that a building like that could just fall apart.

How would you know that, sunshine? Well you DON'T, do you?
If you did, you'd know this:

How much structural steel COULD the tower's potential energy melt?
The calculated mass of one tower is 253,000 metric tons, and the total potential energy above grade is 3.98 * 10^11 Joules.
The heat required to raise a metric ton of steel to its melt temperature (temperature range 1110 deg C, specific heat of iron 500 J/kg) and then melt it (latent heat of melting of iron 98 kJ/kg) is 1000 * (1110*500 + 98000) = 1.53 * 10^8 Joules.
Therefore the maximum possible amount of structural steel that could be melted by the TOTAL CONVERSION of the tower's potential energy
is 3.98 * 10^11 / 1.53 * 10^8 = 2,600 metric tons.

"There's NO WAY an aluminum aircraft could cut through a steel structure."
Kinetic energy equivalent of Boeing 767 traveling at 565 mph (0.5*M*V^2)=0.5*1.6*10^5*253*253=6.66x10^9 Joules=1.6 tons of TNT
Imagine a nice 4" thick plate of steel with the outline of the front view of the 767 coated with 1.6 tons of TNT, held against the face of the tower and ignited.
Would the steel be torn inward? You betcha.
The energy distribution would be greater or lesser than this according to the mass behind specific points, the fuel tanks, engines, and undercarriage being points of concentration.

"The building was designed to take an impact from a passenger plane and remain standing."
Comparison between the 707 and 767 impacts upon WTC2:
--------------------------------707------------------------767
Empty Weight Kg-------------55,580---------------------86,000
Fuel Weight Kg----------------1,000---------------------12,100
Speed m/sec--------------------111------------------------272
Kinetic Energy Joules------3.49 x 10^8--------------3.92 x 10^9
Thermal Energy Joules-----4.28 x 10^9--------------5.18 x 10^10
Total Energy Joules--------4.63 x 10^9--------------5.57 x 10^10
So what's the difference? Just divide the total energies, and you get a difference of TWELVE times.
For WTC2 there was more than TWELVE times more TOTAL energy in the actual 767 strike than there was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.
The kinetic (IMPACT) energy of the 767 was ELEVEN times greater than it was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.

...IS physics, and it contradicts you.

Quote:not only improbable but it is also ridiculous.

Your position, I think. A bit like Wil.E.Coyote a moment before the end.

[icosaface]

It is almost a 180 degree angle shot imo and the drivel about cutting out part of the tower but leaving building 7 in the shot won't fly either.

The following video shows NIST announcing that there was no molten steel. Watching the video tells you who jr is working for and he isn't up to date on their proclamations because NIST says there was no molten metal.




jr would have us all believe that the buildings took the path of greatest resistance on their way to the ground.

jr would have us believe that the core columns were unbroken which precluded the tops from sheering off the building and falling to the ground by themselves. But once the either tower started to fall the core columns had to have been broken. Both towers tops tilted when they fell, both tops should have sheered off the buildings but that is not what happened. What happened is the tops were blown to bits in the early stages of the demolitions.

[Swordfish]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Walter

Quote:James (Jimmy) W. Walter, Junior is an American venture capitalist, author, formerly involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He is best known for sponsoring advertisements asking to reopen the investigation of the September 11, 2001 attacks and offering financial rewards ($1,000,000) to anyone that could prove the World Trade Center was destroyed without the use of explosives.

Hey Jazroc, looks like you missed out on earning a few bucks here if you are so confident of your interpretation of events

[sekular]

(09-04-2011 12:25 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

(09-03-2011 07:44 PM)sekular Wrote:  The building by itself can not release enough energy to pulverize itself (all the steel and reinforced concrete in the building below it).

And it DIDN'T. It crushed, pulverized and HEATED much concrete, snapped, twisted, and HEATED the steel. It didn't pulverize steel.
There was NO reinforced concrete in the building below it.

Firstly you say that it did not, then you say that it did. "Crushed, pulverized and heated much concrete", is what you said. But some how that is different than saying it pulverized itself. A 110 story building can not exhibit spontaneous combustion. So much concrete, compared to just concrete, is there any difference? So not all the concrete, but most of it then? ok. What is "it" and how is "it" generating heat to pulverize concrete? What is the mechanism there? You can't expect any rational person to think that a falling chunk of steel and concrete has enough energy pulverize "much" concrete and break 1000s of welded joints in a perfectly timed sequence. Ok, if you want to be an old fart about the semantics of saying it did not pulverize itself, as it did not pulverize the steel. Then you concede that there was pulverized concrete. Well I will continue to say that you think it pulverized itself, with both of us knowing that the steel was like as we have seen pictures of the pile of cut up steel ready for transport. Yes, There was steel reinforced concrete in the building.

(09-04-2011 12:25 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:The building would fall over before it just fell apart.

The building couldn't fall over because it was still restrained by its CORE columns, which were vertical and unbroken

You see Jazzroc, this is where you logic fails you. You are also contradicting yourself without knowing it. As the building suffered damage on the side as we have observed. IF the building was to break at the point of damage, it would fall over and in to the path of least resistance. One of the main reasons for this is because the building below it is still completely intact and as you say the core columns, they would not allow for the building to fall apart due to increased load. The pancake theory is nonsensical because it is the path of greatest resistance for any top section of the building. There was also no evidence of pancaked floors in the debris of the building.

(09-04-2011 12:25 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

Quote:It goes against the basics of physics to think that a building like that could just fall apart.

How would you know that, sunshine? Well you DON'T, do you?
If you did, you'd know this:

How much structural steel COULD the tower's potential energy melt?
The calculated mass of one tower is 253,000 metric tons, and the total potential energy above grade is 3.98 * 10^11 Joules.
The heat required to raise a metric ton of steel to its melt temperature (temperature range 1110 deg C, specific heat of iron 500 J/kg) and then melt it (latent heat of melting of iron 98 kJ/kg) is 1000 * (1110*500 + 98000) = 1.53 * 10^8 Joules.
Therefore the maximum possible amount of structural steel that could be melted by the TOTAL CONVERSION of the tower's potential energy
is 3.98 * 10^11 / 1.53 * 10^8 = 2,600 metric tons.

Why are you calculating the energy of the building from its mass and some how thinking that energy could melt steel. What sort of energy that would be released from the building could melt steel. Please explain to me the chemical equation for the combustion. Sure large objects can mathematically release a lot of energy but dropping half of the wtc building on the bottom half is not necessarily going to pulverize all the concrete in the building. You are missing key aspect to your energy conversion and that is material science. You could drop 20 tonne of steel on a block of steel and concrete, that will not necessarily generate heat. Not the sort of heat that is prolonged enough to melt steel and pulverize concrete, especially not 90000 tons of it.

(09-04-2011 12:25 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  "The building was designed to take an impact from a passenger plane and remain standing."
Comparison between the 707 and 767 impacts upon WTC2:
--------------------------------707------------------------767
Empty Weight Kg-------------55,580---------------------86,000
Fuel Weight Kg----------------1,000---------------------12,100
Speed m/sec--------------------111------------------------272
Kinetic Energy Joules------3.49 x 10^8--------------3.92 x 10^9
Thermal Energy Joules-----4.28 x 10^9--------------5.18 x 10^10
Total Energy Joules--------4.63 x 10^9--------------5.57 x 10^10
So what's the difference? Just divide the total energies, and you get a difference of TWELVE times.
For WTC2 there was more than TWELVE times more TOTAL energy in the actual 767 strike than there was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.
The kinetic (IMPACT) energy of the 767 was ELEVEN times greater than it was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.

...IS physics, and it contradicts you.

Quote:not only improbable but it is also ridiculous.

Your position, I think. A bit like Wil.E.Coyote a moment before the end.

Regardless of what hit the building, we are talking specifically about the nature of the buildings disintegration. Damage in such a way as seen on 9/11 to the upper sections of the buildings, would not trigger or cause a spontaneous combustion of the buildings.

---

You see this guy disrupts the debate about certain topics on this forum by hijacking them. We could be discussing and sharing our knowledge about the event, instead we have to pretend to try and convince this guy who is obviously being disingenuous.

---

If you dropped the top 55 floors on the bottom half of the building this is what would happen in most cases of high rise steel and steel reinforced concrete buildings.

Newtons third law.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

This means that if we take as an assumption that the building would fall perfectly straight, which it probably will not. There would be equal symmetrical damage to the top half and the bottom half of the building. Except the bottom one would be beneath the load due to gravity. Most of the energy would be released on impact and damage would be seen, most likely over 10-20 floors at the most. Then the building at the bottom would have the weight of the building above it to carry. As the bottom section of the building is already built to withstand the entire buildings weight above it, the building would not disintegrate immediately. But most likely the building will not fall exactly straight. Then it will most likely break less floors and end up tipping over with the top section still in tact, as there is not anything in the top section of the building to destroy itself. Then the top section would receive more damage when impacting other buildings or hitting the ground. It would not disintegrate in midair.

---

---

[sophist]

can`t believe people are still arguing about this ! surely enough evidence and material has been released over the years to make most normal people question the official version of events.