67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

So PROVE it!

 

The towers descended at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity
and WTC7 spent 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration.
This alone is plenty to support the knowledge that WTC1,2 & 7
were blown up rather than "collapse" because of the fires & damage
from a terrorists attack.

 

More incredulity?..you make the claim without any math to back it up..you're claiming that the towerws fell at around roughly 22feet per second/per second and then claim some 90 feet of building 7 fell towards terminal velocity before being stopped by the rest of the building?

get real.

 

You allege that all I have is "incredulity"
and then you provide a "rebuttal" with no substance?
whats up with that?

 

Show sources to back up these (incorrect) claims, please.

 

RE:

You make the claim that these FACTS are incorrect
do you have anything to prove your assertion?

 

Sorry, but according to you and your quote, it is.

If you have some other meaning to that statement, please feel free to elaborate.

 

Do you realize that you just totally destroyed your "explosives were used" argument?!

According to you, explosives went off SIMULTANEOUSLY on each level. That means ZERO resistance right? Why then, did the towers fall at 2/3 the acceleration of gravaity? What was providing the resistance?

 

WRONG!

WTC7 was AVERAGED to be at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. Go look at the graphs and explain why the data points are either above or below free fall acceleration. You have been asked this before and you blatantly ignore it.

 

Absolutely.

The combined descending debris load (columns, 4" thick concrete floors, plus a crap-load of other items) would have been WAY to much for the floors to handle. The fact that you can't understand this is amazing.

 

When the falling structure of the north tower impacted the top of the lower intact structure it did not move the bottom half of that intact structure. It had to move mass from the top level by level and the Conservation of Momentum would be a factor ar each stage. Just because you choose to interpret what is said in an idiotic manner don't try blaming me for that.

psik

 

Despite your snide remarks, the fact remains,momentum is not conserved when acted upon by an outside force.

Gravity

 

No, it means additional force is applied affecting the result. But energy is also lost bending, breaking and crushing things. So if that energy is greater than what is imparted by gravity then the system could still arrest.

psik

 

There is also a sort of marginally supported point
here that I really must address, the assumption that
since the floor loading specification would have been
exceeded so as to break parts of the floors as the
damaged upper part of the structure descended upon
the lower ( and as yet undamaged part of the building )
the floors would simply give-way, that is be totally destroyed
all at once and that would be that. Not so fast, this is based
on an assumption that the falling stuff from above would as
a guaranteed certainty completely remove the floor below,
that is break ALL of the floor trusses and do so all at the
same time.

Another part to this argument is the allegation that once the floor was destroyed, the destruction of the central core and outer wall would follow as a logical consequence. May I take issue with this in that if you consider the box column size in the upper third of the building, the ability of the core or outer wall to stand alone for any more than two stories may be in question, that is I say MAY, then again these structures may indeed have stood free standing for many more stories, but back to my point and that is in the lowest third of the building the box columns were much thicker and therefore the potential for a free standing core & outer wall for what 8 or 9, or even 10 stories is a distinct possibility, therefore defeating the floors alone, would not result in the total "leveling" of the skyscraper.

 

I have a problem with understanding what you are saying. That is why I have made a point of saying LEVELS versus FLOORS.

By floors do you mean the floor assemblies outside of the core and not referring to the columns and horizontal beams in the core? Or do you mean each 12 foot high LEVEL including the columns?

I think there are people who deliberately confuse this then accuse me of playing semantic games when I try to be specific.

psik

 

oops..... and now with marginal writing skills .....
oh well, My understanding of the "ROOSD" and
indeed other attempts to describe what happened
in the global collapse of the towers was that the
floor loading specification had been exceeded by
the stuff descending from above and therefore
simply as much as totally removed the floor from
that level, leaving the core and outer wall to be free-standing
and thus lacking the co-support or bracing afforded by the
floor trusses, the core & outer wall would destabilize and fall.
this scenario depends on a LOT of stuff happening right on
time and not a bit early or late, and this speaks of an engineered
event not something that just happened because an airliner crashed
into the building.

 

Gravity was 'lost'?

 

Yeah, that OOS refers to Open Office Space meaning they are talking about the floors outside of the core. But then they IMPLY that the core could not stand without the floors outside of the core and that it just fell down.

But then they do not talk about the column density of the WTC compared to a normal grid skyscraper. The WTC was 208 by 208 feet. Grid skyscrapers have columns 30 feet apart center to center therefore a grid skyscraper 210 by 210 would have 64 columns. But the core of the WTC had 47 columns in an area 85 by 135. So the core had DOUBLE the column density of a normal grid skyscraper but we are supposed to believe it could not stand without the floors outside of the core.

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=256425&postcount=14

Counting the perimeter columns the WTC had 4 times the number of columns as a normal grid skyscraper but the ROOSD people want to use the column distribution as an explanation for the collapse. They just leave out certain information.

And then how the steel is distributed down all skyscrapers does not come up either.

psik

- - - Updated - - -

So you are saying that gravity is "energy"?

psik

 

I said 'force' not energy,speedy

 

But you said:

Putting "lost" in quotes.

But I said it was ENERGY that was lost. You think you can play word games but win either way.

psik

 

Sorry,but you're the one confusing gravity with energy,I assumed as such when you posted...I said originally that conservation of momentum applies,unless acted upon by an outside FORCE

Gravity

 

Gravity expresses itself by making mass have weight,
therefore the weight of the stuff descending was an
expression of gravity. The descent of material from above
at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity then assigned the mass
only 1/3 of its weight that it would have if it were stationary.
the ONLY way that the mass could exert more weight upon
what was below it, would be for it to slow down or stop.

 

the mass weighs the same at all times....Gravity expresses it'self by pulling on objects to seek their own level.

 

So a satellite weighs the same in orbit as it did on earth?
or?

 

It has the same mass.
and.

(I'm curious about the trend of inserting random conjunctions at the end of sentences.
but.)