I'm game BJ. Show me your math. Let's see you prove this. Show me what the floors were designed to support loadwise and then show me the approximate load/force of the descending upper section. Let's see if the flor would have resisted like you show above. Or are you denying the fact that the is a point and time where load vs. resistance can become almost nil.
Plus for all intents,the WTC buildings peeled like bananas,with the exterior load bearing wall leaving the core unsupported...
It is nothing like what we witnessed from the videos of the WTC collapse. Go to [video]http://911speakout.org/[/video] if you don't understand deceleration. Newton's diagram I posted shows the deceleration of the block when it breaks one connection. WTC Tower I had 95 floors below the mass above. If not for the explosive demolition, it would have decelerated at each floor and would stop. The mass above would destroy the mass below while the mass below would destroy the mass above. If not for explosives, there would not be a total collapse. That is what Jonathan Cole is proving. It is impossible for the upper mass of a building to become a piledriver on the lower mass. To claim otherwise is silly nonsense. It is impossible.
I am not here to prove anything to you. I realize I can't because you don't have an elementary understanding of physics. I am posting so that more and more people will look into what actually happened on 9/11. The people who did it are still on the loose.
Correct - which left the self supporting floor rated at about 5000 tons trying to hold up 50,000 tons of building. A lot of people dont realize the inner core was not meant to be self supporting either, so once the load transfers started with the outer walls failing, it was all over
Ahhh nice attempt to weasel out of providing proof.........Just wave your hand and sniff ' you don't understand, and I'm not going to explain'
I am not handwaving. I am linking to a professional engineer who explains it so that even a middle school student can understand. Jonathan Cole demonstrates Newton's laws of motion with scientific experiments. He is saying the exact same thing I am saying except he does a better job through visuals. Go learn for yourself: http://911speakout.org/
Round and round we go.... Show me the math BJ. Show me that an individual floor should have decelerated the descending upper mass. Prove me wrong. You can't. That's the problem. That diagram is nothing with out the math. Let's supposed that the "connection" on the diagram was a 3" long nail pounded into a wall 1/4". Let's say the "block" in that diagram was a sledgahmmer that I am swinging down upon it. Will I see the nail in the wall slow down the sledgehammer? So blinded... The upper portion, consisting of floors 96 and above, impacted floor 95 and sheared it from the core and perimeter columns. Now add floor 95 to the descending mass. Are you suggesting that the dinginess mass disappeared as it went down? Ah ah ah BJ. You are not in agreement with Jonathan Cole and his video remember. It was INCENDIARIES that supposedly demolished the towers, not explosives. Nope. You have no math to prove this. Why is that?
Who is saying it was? I said the upper section descended down and sheared the lower section apart. Nothing to do with "piledriving" or "crushing". Why are you having problems with comprehension?
Does Jonathan Cole explain, using math and calculations, how the connections should have resisted the descending force/load? Does he SHOW it is impossible?
So let me get this straight. The only "evidence" that BJ, Koko, etc. has that it is NOT possible for a global collapse to have occurred because of a weakened structure do to plane impacts/fire is their incorrect application of Newton's Law? Whoo boy! No wonder they haven't had any breakthroughs in 12 years.
keep in mind that you are again dealing with debunkers who do not know what a physics book looks like so they simply make up their own definitions for which freefall they will argue can only take place if it matches mathematical ideal which is abstract bounds and outside the real world. Of course anyone who graduated grade school physics realizes mathematically ideal precision freefall is impossible even in outer space.
We're not talking "ideal precision freefall Koko. Quit muddying the waters. We are talking visible/probable/detectable in which the upper portion should have been stopped. There is NO way that the connections within the towers could have resisted the downward force of the upper portion. NO WAY! The fact that you truthers cannot show numbers proves it. How much was each floor designed to hold? How much of a load was created by the descending upper portion? Numbers please. What are you afraid of?
You are quite right BJ!!! They did hold up the upper portion for decades. When the structure was 100% functioning that is Who said anything about cutting? Let's see. Plane impacts and severs many perimeter columns and damages others. The plane severs several core columns and damages others. The resultant fire WEAKENS the remaining columns. So answer me this? How can you, with all your building knowledge, make a statement like you did above? How can you compare what an undamaged structure, functioning at 100% capacity to a damaged weakened structure? Did you run the stress numbers? No? Hmmm.
now this is precious debunker at its best! There is NO way that the connections within the towers could have resisted the downward force of the upper portion. then this: How much was each floor designed to hold? How much of a load was created by the descending upper portion? Numbers please. what a convincing argument NO WAY and doesnt even have any numbers to work with, totally ingenious.
It is frustrating for sure. It is hard to differentiate between the shills and the sheep. I figure some the people who just think 9/11 truth will go away will actually read the information and take the time to watch what the high rise building experts are actually saying in their videos. I raised several children. I have a lot of patience. Thanks for your support.
It is amazing bro, how these 'bedunkers' use terms like 'muddying the waters' and 'round and round' to do their dance. I used these terms HERE, long ago, and now they spin them back out, I guess as an attempt to keep the rhetoric of back and forth of who said what, it keeps the actually debate from occurring. I'm telling you bro, they AREN'T interested in the actual debate. They're ONLY interested in derailing, 'fuzzing it up', or flat out avoidance of discussing it in a reasonable, or intelligent manner. You're spinning your wheels on these guys, and you'll get ulcers trying to make sense of their dance tactics. They're well versed in how to combat specificity about anything without successfully derailing it. Years of practice from 'professional' disinformation specialists and other hired guns. They're very good at what they do so, try to save yourself the ulcers and don't beat your head against the wall so much.
