Here's what that roughly translates to in diagram form:
Here's what would be necessary for the block to have toppled over:
Clearly such a condition was never reached.
Seems to me what Mackey said must be right (or what I understand Mackey to have said, rather.) As columns fail, the upper block rotates and falls one way, to which the intact structure resists, transferring the weight towards the other side. But the other side now has fewer columns to support the (greatly increased dynamic, falling load) and so they fail too, and the block falls and rotates again the other way.....and back and for....until the block is destroyed and the whole lot falls on the structure below, with level after level failing consecutively.....right to the ground.
I liked how someone summed it up - you can balance a brick on your head no problem perhaps, but lie down on the floor, and let someone drop it onto your head. You know there's a major difference - so much so you would never do it. The dynamic load is crucial.
Anyway, the upper block never got anywhere near toppling, so it fell.....down....not sideways.
So why all this stuff about how it should have toppled over? I thought so too, intuitively at first. But it surely isn't possible when you think about it....and it certainly never tilted enough to do so.
24 comments:
Oh jesus christ--how fucking insane.
Naturally your stupid diagrams don't explain why the towers fell in near-free fall time when each tower had about 50-80 floors of UNDAMAGED resistance underneath the falling collapsed portion.
already covered - try balancing a brick on your head. then try it lying down and get someone to drop it from head-height.
A static brick and a moving brick are very different, no? You understand that?
"already covered - try balancing a brick on your head. then try it lying down and get someone to drop it from head-height.
A static brick and a moving brick are very different, no? You understand that?"
You just keep topping yourself with dumbest comments EVER made.
Are you telling me that there would be NO DIFFERENCE in amount of collapse time if you put two buildings beside each other---the first building you put explosives in it so that it can blow away all the resistance before the top of it comes crashing through---and the second building, just a top portion collapses on top of 80 floors of UNDAMAGED building?
Youre telling me they will fall in the SAME amount of time?
Then why do controlled demolition people take the time to rig a building if all they had to do was blow up a top portion and have it come hurling through the bottom portion of it?
And dont you dare say it's because they dont want to damage other buildings beside it, because that's not the ONLY reason they take down buildings with explosives. Not ALL buildings that get demolished are beside other structures, but they ALL are rigged the same way.
Shit head.
You used a BRICK analogy to explain the twin towers! LOL. I just pissed my pants!
You think using a brick to illustrate acceleration of gravity and its effect on mass is dumb?
Try your Richard Gage....with his cardboard boxes:
http://youtu.be/DFVoencqfZw
----
Anyway, why do you think there were explosives used? There simply isn't any direct evidence of explosives - certainly no ignition cord, no detonators and no shockwave, and seemingly none of the sound one hears in controlled demolition.
So there's no evidence at all of demolition. You even say
"Not ALL buildings that get demolished are beside other structures, but they ALL are rigged the same way."
All the same way? Yet with the towers we have none of the usual indications and yet you still believe it to be a controlled demolition.
L: why do controlled demolition people take the time to rig a building if all they had to do was blow up a top portion and have it come hurling through the bottom portion of it?
--------------
yep - even regular demolition takes considerable effort and TIME to setup. Where are all these people that did it? Who? What? When? How? 911 Troof has provided none of this and NOBODY has shown up claiming to have rigged the WTC with explosives. Now if Troof had that, it'd be something. But they really don't.....
As to why they wouldn't normally demolish things in such fashion......well.....I don't know.
By definition a 'controlled demolition' is not a chaotic gravity-driven one. I imagine they usually try to control it as much as possible. Likely you don't want it to be pulverised into dust.
Regardless, gravity is always the real power in any demolition, surely? It's always gravity which ultimately is at work......and so why not with WTC?
Gravity as demolition works much better on large (tall) buildings, right?
What is the force of 15 stories of WTC falling 10 or 20ft? I think that would be pretty substantial. It's obviously a lot more than a static 15 stories.
And that's a major point imo - where the collapses began.
Each collapse began at different points of the building - but exactly the level the planes crashed.
That's very easy to explain by way of damage from the aircraft hits and subsequent explosions and fires, but it makes real problems for any idea of controlled demolition.
Two different places, exactly where each plane. Where there was fire, explosions, and a plane entering the building.
How could explosives have started at the right places and under such conditions?
Planes hitting buildings is surely not an exact science. Not exact enough to assure carefully placed explosives would survive, especially at the level the planes hit. And yet that's where they had to survive.....twice.....at different locations.....if the demolition theory is to be believed.
It beggars belief.
The collapses **both** initiated at the point the plane entered.
An explanation for that seems ...errr....pretty obvious.
Both collapses initiate similarly - one side gives way, before the entire floors around the impact site give way.....and the collapse progresses from there...all the way down to the ground. Not at freefall, but at a ferocious speed nevertheless.
To imagine the collapse was being caused by successive, intricately timed explosives all the way down.....at that speed....seems wild.
Whereas if the crushing weight is imagined to pulverise a single floor - as there's nothing different to the one below - then a progression can easily be imagined, all the way down and at a terrifying speed too.
It's much easier for nature to achieve than man.
I would imagine that it would take a lot of TNT to generate as much force as would be generated by gravity and 15 stories dropping 10-20ft.
And how did all that TNT and its firing mechanisms survive the fires, impact and explosions?
It doesn't add up. Not at all.
So Troofers switch to "super de dooper nano-thermite".
But thermite doesn't explain the nature of collapse - you can't do closely timed thermite reactions - so it doesn't explain the progressive collapse (which is what TNT is mooted to explain).
So, maybe the initial collapse was caused by thermite, which only initiated a gravity driven collapse?
But why then posit demolition at all?
If a gravity driven collapse could occur from simply being initiated by thermite, why posit thermite at all? There's no evidence of it and moreover what about 500mph 150 ton fuel-laden jetplanes flying into the towers, and the subsequent explosions and uncontrolled fires? Seriously? How much thermite to generate all that energy? How much TNT? How did it survive the fires? Who put it here? When? How?
It really does not add up. And - importantly! - there is simply no evidence for it.
Reality always adds up. The collapses each started at the level the plane hit - different at each tower. The most obvious explanation easily addresses that fact - whereas controlled demolition is immediately in deep trouble.
Thermite cannot explain the progressive timed collapse. Progressive timed collapse means TNT. But TNT and its triggering could not survive the fires.
And if progressive collapse is explained by thermite initiating gravity driven collapse, why suggest thermite at all when you already concede all it needs is a local failure (such as thermite might reasonably cause). Thermite is hot - so is fire. There were fires, but no evidence of thermite. Why suggest thermite? Because of progressive collapse.......but that's TNT....round and round and round.....
http://youtu.be/prwvj-npt5s
topdown demolition
they pull....and it comes down.
"What is the force of 15 stories of WTC falling 10 or 20ft? I think that would be pretty substantial. It's obviously a lot more than a static 15 stories."
NOT substantial enough for the whole thing to collapse in 10-12 seconds according to Steven Jones, PHYSICIST. Resistance REDUCES collapse time, but it fell in NEAR FREE FALL time. If the whole thing collapsed at ALL, it would have taken about 50 seconds--not 10-12.
Plus, you wingnuts NEVER address the molten steel question and why rescure workers and firefighters had to keep changing their shoes because they were melting.
Where does Jones say this?
On nearly every DVD I have that he appears on.
let me rephrase that - where are his calculations?
Are you content that demolition can work on gravity alone?
You saw the vids? Gravity can easily crush buildings, once triggered.
one question - why do you believe in CD for wtc? It used to be because they fell at freefall, in its own footprint, symmetrically.......but none of that's true....so they can't be the reason.
We've also seen how gravity can induce collapse once triggered, on much smaller buildings - in almost identical fashion to wtc.
So the fact it "can't happen" cannot be the reason either.
so, why believe CD?
Did the videos show pools of molten metal in the rubble?
Just curious
What pools of molten metal?
That's just yet another thing the CTs have completely failed to establish the existence of.
You speak of "pools of molten metal"........with no evidence to substantiate it.
There were pools of molten frogs there too. Honest. Explain that!
"What pools of molten metal?
That's just yet another thing the CTs have completely failed to establish the existence of."
This is FACT. The workers there even ADMIT it.
Here's a video of reports of it.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc
In that clip, you see firefighters even say there was molten metal there.
Here is WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson CONFIRMING molten metal at the WTC
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=JaR_j8uU_ck
There, you fucking FRAUD. PROOF! How will you SPIN and IGNORE this?
Did YOUR videos have witnesses that saw MOLTEN METAL in the rubble??? I'm guessing NO.
Not only did I SUCCEED in establishing the existence of it [you said we "FAILED"], but it took me about 10 seconds to find the videos PROVING it---which begs the question: WHY COULDN'T YOU FIND THIS EVIDENCE?
Because you are a fucking FRAUD....THAT'S WHY!
FOX news?
What made this "molten metal" then, Lars? Do tell?
First, you say THIS:
"What pools of molten metal?
That's just yet another thing the CTs have completely failed to establish the existence of.
You speak of "pools of molten metal"........with no evidence to substantiate it."
Then after I PROVE it and PROVIDE the evidence you claim DID NOT EXIST, THEN, in your panic, you're ONLY way out of the argument is to question WHERE it came from----although its ORIGIN was NOT in question, but rather the EXISTENCE of it---which I PROVED.
You say this:
"What made this "molten metal" then, Lars? Do tell?"
That's the entire POINT, dickhead...the ONLY place it CAN come from is EXPLOSIVES...you fucking asshole.
hahahahah
Now the molten metal (which there's no positive evidence of) can only be caused by controlled demolition.....
The thread is instructive to see how it goes........
everything (but nothing) is indicative of CD.
I give up. Tired of this rubbish. Believe what you want. I am happy to have shown how the process goes - nobody can expect any more.
here's RTO aka Larry writing back in August 2010
=====
......the old, tiresome, debunked issues, like: WTC 7 did not fall in freefall time; WTC 7’s collapse was not symmetrical [oh really?]; WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint;
=========
So Larry aka RTO no longer believes his own (old) arguments
"Now the molten metal (which there's no positive evidence of) can only be caused by controlled demolition....."
I posted two fucking videos that shows FIREFIGHTERS and the structual engineer for the WTC CONFIRMING molten metal at ground zero, and you, being the colossal DICKHEAD you are, KEEP REPEATING THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. Calling the 9/11 HERO FIREFIGHTERS LIARS????? ARE YOU??????????
FUCK YOU, YOU LYING FAGGOT
Yeah, you give up because you have been DEBUNKED----for the 75th time now! Eat my shit FAG.
Ah such is the level of debate.
Impressive.
Having nothing else to rest upon, you have retreated to "molten pools of steel".
Nevermind that there's nothing about it on your ultimate arbiter of reality - YOUTUBE.
GOT PICTURES OF THAT MOLTEN STEEL???
No, thought not.
But anyway, now we're down to "pools of molten steel" being the signal evidence for controlled demolition.
Is the "molten steel" what you rest your claims about controlled demolition upon?
Because it isn't
1) freefall
2) symmetrical collapse
3) into its own footprint.
You've (finally) disregarded all those previous claims on which your belief rests.
So now it's.....molten pools of steel.
Correct?
Is that what you are resting your claims of demolition on? Molten steel?
Please be clear........is that all that you rest your claims of demolition upon? If not.....please give your reasons for believing controlled demolition.
Let's have your reasons for your belief.......1, 2, 3 etc.
Fail to answer and you will NEVER have the opportunity to respond on this blog again.
You can take that to the bank, as they say.
Let's have your reasons for believing controlled demolition.......fail to answer and you will NEVER be allowed to respond on this blog again.
"Having nothing else to rest upon, you have retreated to "molten pools of steel".
Nevermind that there's nothing about it on your ultimate arbiter of reality - YOUTUBE."
So when I DEBUNK your claim that truthers have NO EVIDENCE that molten steel was in the rubble, you DIVERT the attention to it's ORIGIN and NOW you divert to "is it the ONLY thing I rest my beliefs on?"----you are a total fucking fraud.
With you, it's all about DIVERSION, because I posted EVIDENCE of its existence by the very people you see to RESPECT when they utter words that coincide with YOUR beliefs [firefighters] but when they utter words that agree with ME, then you IGNORE them.
"Fail to answer and you will NEVER have the opportunity to respond on this blog again."
Oh FUCK YOU, YOU BIG GODDAMNED MOTHER FUCKING FRAUD.
FUCK YOU.
Who gives a shit about posting on your worthless fucking blog?? Two people visit it a day---me and you.
"Let's have your reasons for believing controlled demolition.......fail to answer and you will NEVER be allowed to respond on this blog again."
I gave you all my reasons ad nauseum. And FUCK your threats you piece of shit-filled monkey spunk.
FUCK YOURSELF.
haha
well, you could have politely pursued the point about molten metal.......
as it's the only point you have left.
But no.
Don't let the door hit you, all that jazz.
your cult needs you.....
Post a Comment