OK, let's start with the law of conservation of momentum... do you know what that is? Didn't think so. Please explain to all of us how 10 stories of a 110 story building can go completely through 100 floors as if there were no resistance below, while doing so at literally free fall speed, and while the pile driver was being incinerated itself upon initiation of the destruction??? This should be good. And while you're at it, please explain why the towers' destruction looked exactly like a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Go!
OK, let's start with the law of conservation of momentum... do you know what that is? Didn't think so. Please explain to all of us how 10 stories of a 110 story building can go completely through 100 floors as if there were no resistance below, while doing so at literally free fall speed, and while the pile driver was being incinerated itself upon initiation of the destruction??? This should be good. And while you're at it, please explain why the towers' destruction looked exactly like a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Go!
How much weight was each floor rated to carry?
- Doc
Look it up. Tell us how gravity and 10 floors can reduce a 110 story skyscraper to dust in 12 seconds?
If we were in a court of law and I was presenting my evidence and you yours, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. You, sir, need to go back and re-take physics 101, or 099, that's how ignorant you are.
This, from the sock who posted these anti-physics gems:
but tell me how a small amount of jet fuel can be sprayed into a building, travel 1,000 feet to ground level and then burn as molten steel?
I especially like BND's alchemic description of how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene travels 1000 feet and then turns into molten steel. That's a gift, right there, for whatever wizard can manage that.
The other thing these guys blithely don’t address is the stress of the steelwork being impacted by a jetliner, in addition to the heat from burning material, and the stress of millions of pounds weight bearing down on a damaged and burning superstructure.
- Doc
These nimrods never explain the logic of anything they're proposing. I mean, what's the endgame here anyway? Why in the bejeezus would anyone in the government think it would be a good idea to collapse several buildings in NYC?
They say the twin towers came down by demolition explosives after we all saw two jumbo jets crash into them. Then, Building 7 had fires started because of that falling debris, which eventually led to its collapse as well. So what does this mean? What a crazy coincidence that the one building that caught fire was the one other building that also had demolition explosives planted. For what purpose? No one in this crowd of raging idiots has been able to explain this. And it turns out the group who follows this argument also believes Sandy Hook was a false flag operation.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
If we were in a court of law and I was presenting my evidence and you yours, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. You, sir, need to go back and re-take physics 101, or 099, that's how ignorant you are.
This, from the sock who posted these anti-physics gems:
but tell me how a small amount of jet fuel can be sprayed into a building, travel 1,000 feet to ground level and then burn as molten steel?
I especially like BND's alchemic description of how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene travels 1000 feet and then turns into molten steel. That's a gift, right there, for whatever wizard can manage that.
Face Palm.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
The other thing these guys blithely don’t address is the stress of the steelwork being impacted by a jetliner, in addition to the heat from burning material, and the stress of millions of pounds weight bearing down on a damaged and burning superstructure.
- Doc
These nimrods never explain the logic of anything they're proposing. I mean, what's the endgame here anyway? Why in the bejeezus would anyone in the government think it would be a good idea to collapse several buildings in NYC?
They say the twin towers came down by demolition explosives after we all saw two jumbo jets crash into them. Then, Building 7 had fires started because of that falling debris, which eventually led to its collapse as well. So what does this mean? What a crazy coincidence that the one building that caught fire was the one other building that also had demolition explosives planted. For what purpose? No one in this crowd of raging idiots has been able to explain this. And it turns out the group who follows this argument also believes Sandy Hook was a false flag operation.
Why wouldn't we expect this from a 100 ton projectile, traveling at 460mph, filled with tens of thousands of liters of combustible liquid? I've personally seen portions of a railroad rail that had melted from "rail-burnt" that was caused by nothing more than friction of the locomotive.
Heck a normal house fire (which has comparatively laughable insulative capability and fuel potential) can have flashover that reaches well above 3000 F.
Many of you need to take physics 101 to understand why your arguments don't hold any water. First off, the plane wasn't traveling at 460 mph at just 1,000 feet above ground level - ask any aviation expert what would happen to a plane traveling 460 mph 1,000 feet from the ground. Second, have the steel grates that hold your frying pan above an open flame ever melted on your stove? Or weakened? Jet fuel is 3/4 kerosene and does not burn with intense heat. Lastly, most of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireball outside the buildings and what didn't combust would have went into the towers as liquid and ignited fires inside or possibly gone down the elevator shafts, but tell me how a small amount of jet fuel can be sprayed into a building, travel 1,000 feet to ground level and then burn as molten steel? Even the first responder firefighters were perplexed by the sight of molten steel flowing like lava...
Too much whack a mole for me. If you're not willing to answer basic, sensible questions about the basis for the conclusions you assert, that's the ultimate "tell" of crank pottery and not worth spending time on.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Look it up. Tell us how gravity and 10 floors can reduce a 110 story skyscraper to dust in 12 seconds?
See. This is the basic problem you have. You’re making assertions about physics and other datapoints, but when pressed for basic information you’re deflecting because you understand that to answer the question would cause you to become accountable to that information. Once you know the answer to a basic interrogative, your theory that you “spent time researching” will fall apart quickly. Here’s my question for you in context to this exchange, if I provide the basic floor load for the WTCs, would that move the needle ref the towers collapsing?
Look it up. Tell us how gravity and 10 floors can reduce a 110 story skyscraper to dust in 12 seconds?
Sure. Here you go:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Look it up. Tell us how gravity and 10 floors can reduce a 110 story skyscraper to dust in 12 seconds?
Not to point out a consideration for context and physics, but I'm betting that you can balance a bowling ball on top of an empty toilet paper core just fine. After you've done so, lift the bowling ball up 1/4" off of that roll, and let go. Tell me how the roll holds up, with exactly the same weight bowling ball landing on it, as opposed to resting on it.
Also, BnD, you've left a few posts behind with only a link (after quoting another post). Please be mindful of Universal Rule 10:
"Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it."
And while you're at it, please explain why the towers' destruction looked exactly like a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Go!
And while you're at it, please explain why the towers' destruction looked exactly like a pyroclastic flow from a volcano. Go! 
