Really? You're going to pull the "overly-simplistic" card? Look in the mirror for once. What about your "overly-simplistic" explosives claim? That's all you ever give. Never any details. - - - Updated - - - How? You're making a claim now explain it. Hey genericBob?! Isn't this considered an "overly-simplistic" explanation?
Gravity simply pulls things down, explosives can be used in a variety of ways, and account for a variety of actions. My question is still valid, and that is WHY should there be consistently sufficient mass on top and centered to keep destroying the as yet undamaged part of the tower?
You believe that F=M*A accounts for not only the forces involved, but the focus of said forces so that the tower could be consistently destroyed.? BTW: F=M*A is incorrectly applied here, the actual formula should be KE = M*V
They weren't 'consistently' destroyed. Each tower hesitated at the hat structures. Some structure was still visible after the collapse. Construction was critical in how they came down. No other structures like this had ever been damaged as much as they were damaged. The falling mass was tremendous and the force involved many many times greater than the design capability. Remember, this was a lightly constructed building that required interconnections to remain solid. Remove those interconnections with falling debris and it comes apart like a house of cards.
in this case, the "house of cards" was held together with bolts, welds, pins and the destruction observed, depended on all of these connections failing exactly in sequence, on-time, in order to produce the result observed.
The tower wasn't crushed. It was torn apart by the descending debris. Why are you assuming that the floors would hold together in order to shift rubble to one side or not? LOCALIZED FAILURES. You are not understanding this point. Let's use a scaled example. Let's use a 20' x 20' sheet of drywall as one of the "floors". Let's use 2x4s as columns around the perimeter of the sheet of drywall and also in a 5' x 3' rectangle opening in the middle (the core). Let's pound one nail, sticking out horizontally, into the inside of each 2x4 at the same level, all the way around the inside. Now let's place the drywall sheet upon the nails. If quickly poured gravel from 30' up onto one corner of the drywall and then quickly moved the "pouring" to the opposite corner to simulate a non-uniform debris front, do you honestly think the gravel would not punch right through the drywall where it impacted? Localized failure? You think the drywall would hold and then tilt?
is that how its done in a controlled demolition? attach explosives to every single connection within the building? Each explosive device may be responsible for taking out a number of connections from a few hundred to thousands of bolts/welds ... etc... My thought on this subject is the concept that in order to believe the official explanation of why WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed, one needs to embrace the concept that chaotic fires & damage can do exactly the same job as weeks of careful study of the structure, & precision placement of explosives. .... what are the odds?
Could you fill that out a little bit, your short answers are most frustrating in that its difficult to find proper meaning in so few words.
Do you believe that every controlled demolition needs to have explosives attached to every connection in the building?
This appears to be the same circular logic that claims because we saw the towers destroyed by what we were told had been airliner crashes, therefore the damage was sufficient to cause the total collapse of the tower(s) and this is offered up as proof that the airliner crashes were indeed real. Right ..................... & Adam Sandler is the Easter Bunny
Funny how it is, that not one piece of either "FLT11" or "FLT175" had surfaced with serial numbers to verify that indeed the authorities had examined the bits recovered and found a part that proves the airliner was real and indeed was the specified flight. oh yea, the collapsing tower ground everything up so badly that none of it could yield any useful information at all. The statement by the NIST "total collapse was inevitable ........ " is total FRAUD. do you understand this?
Where is it documented that any parts specifically identifying the aircraft for "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93" were found & identified?
Only four big jets went missing that day,and controllers were in contact with them..If that isn't 'documentation' enough for you,too bad,get used to disappointment.
So all you have is the allegation that the airliners took off from an airport and were in contact with air traffic control, but as to having an identifiable artifact from the crash site that positively confirms the aircraft thought to be there was indeed there, what do you have, a puzzle with bits missing. and YOU buy this? .... sad really ....
The problem here is that it appears you accept without question the mainstream media's assertion about 19 radical Arabs ( etc.... ) when in fact there isn't any documented evidence that proves airliners were used as weapons, no documented evidence that explosives were not used to destroy WTC 1, 2 & 7 what you have are unsupported assertions from the propaganda machine ( that is mainstream media ) You say its not a puzzle .... only for people who do not question the official fiasco.
<sigh> it's NOT the 'mainstream medias assertion',it's the facts,given the evidence.....Something YOU lack.
