Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

Superfreak said:
Now look at our two sites.... yours says it occured in about 13 seconds... mine in roughly 14. Both sites state that they do not know for sure due to the cloud. That said, free fall speed is roughly 9 seconds (that is backed up by actual calculations... something your site does not do). So even at 13 seconds, that shows there was resistance. It was slow at first (as your site also states) and then it accelerated (which makes sense given that each subsequent floor would be met with greater force and thus offer less resistance).
Click to expand...

NANANANANANANANANANANA
 
blackascoal said:
I appreciate your concern brother, but I've been right about a lot of my observations in life .. and I'm right about this. This nation has a history of creating false flags for war and even watching innocent people die for war.

You act as though we don't engage in anything but the pure of heart. As if history doesn't exist. .. even recent history.

What is most troubling is that we can't have the conversation without name-calling and hysteronics .. even from people who have been wrong about every damn thing they've said about every damn thing.

Also individually calling for a new inquiry are two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.

Are all those people and the millions of Americans like me all lunatics and tin-foil hat wearers .. or could it be that there are legitimate questions that people all over the world have about these events? Is everybody stupid except those who agree with you?

There is no possibility of engaging in any real sane conversation here about this .. I acknowledge that. I'm resigned to waiting for further events to unfold, as I'm absolutely sure they will.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused... we are not suggesting that there aren't legitimate questions that need to be answered with regards to the events that occurred on 9/11. But the building collapse is not one of them.

One thing the conspiracy people have never been able to explain with regards to their theory that demolition is what brought those buildings down....

HOW is it that the wiring and explosives were hidden from view of everyone in the building for days/weeks (that is normally taken to properly set explosives for demolition?

WHY would the buildings collapse from the top rather than the bottom if explosives were used?
 
Superfreak said:
I think you are confused... we are not suggesting that there aren't legitimate questions that need to be answered with regards to the events that occurred on 9/11. But the building collapse is not one of them.

One thing the conspiracy people have never been able to explain with regards to their theory that demolition is what brought those buildings down....

HOW is it that the wiring and explosives were hidden from view of everyone in the building for days/weeks (that is normally taken to properly set explosives for demolition?

WHY would the buildings collapse from the top rather than the bottom if explosives were used?
Click to expand...

I heard some eyewitness testimony that people in black were in there in off hours installing shit.
 
blackascoal said:
Speed of Fall
The Towers' Tops Fell Virtually Unimpeded
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

How fast did WTC7 .. the mystery building that wasn't hit by a planbe fall?

Rate of Building 7's Fall
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html
Click to expand...

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

Again, WTC also did not fall at "nearly" free fall speeds. It actually took just as long to fall as the twice as high twin towers. Nowhere near free fall speed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I heard some eyewitness testimony that people in black were in there in off hours installing shit.
Click to expand...

Then I would ask them (and you) to answer my two questions....

HOW is it that the wiring and explosives were hidden from view of everyone in the building for days/weeks (that is normally taken to properly set explosives for demolition)?

WHY would the buildings collapse from the top rather than the bottom if explosives were used?

Assume that in a perfect scenario they could have hidden the explosives... the second question makes little sense. Controlled demolitions occur from the BOTTOM of the building, not the top. In the case of the towers and WTC 7... the fall started at (WTC 7) or near the top (towers near where planes hit).

Assume further that the dasterdly conspirators deliberately hid the explosives high so as to avoid looking like a controlled demolition... in the perfect scenario that might explain WTC7... but how could they ensure the planes hitting the twin towers wouldn't disrupt the demolition set up and thus lead to the discovery?
 
Superfreak said:
Assume further that the dasterdly conspirators deliberately hid the explosives high so as to avoid looking like a controlled demolition... in the perfect scenario that might explain WTC7... but how could they ensure the planes hitting the twin towers wouldn't disrupt the demolition set up and thus lead to the discovery?
Click to expand...

SF, didn't you see the big red X painted on the windows?
 
Superfreak said:
Then I would ask them (and you) to answer my two questions....

HOW is it that the wiring and explosives were hidden from view of everyone in the building for days/weeks (that is normally taken to properly set explosives for demolition)?

WHY would the buildings collapse from the top rather than the bottom if explosives were used?

Assume that in a perfect scenario they could have hidden the explosives... the second question makes little sense. Controlled demolitions occur from the BOTTOM of the building, not the top. In the case of the towers and WTC 7... the fall started at (WTC 7) or near the top (towers near where planes hit).

Assume further that the dasterdly conspirators deliberately hid the explosives high so as to avoid looking like a controlled demolition... in the perfect scenario that might explain WTC7... but how could they ensure the planes hitting the twin towers wouldn't disrupt the demolition set up and thus lead to the discovery?
Click to expand...

They could time them to start from the top. stop making up stupid shit.

They could have them be activated individually with radio transmitter detonators.

Miring people down in stupid questions is Medved's tactic too.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They could time them to start from the top. stop making up stupid shit.

They could have them be activated individually with radio transmitter detonators.

Miring people down in stupid questions is Medved's tactic too.
Click to expand...

So ignoring the questions because they go against your theory is your response?

ducking questions is BAC's way of avoiding having his conspiracy bubble burst as well.
 
Southern Man said:
In the towers, the steel was softened by the heat at the impact site so that the weight of the floors above collapsed it.

WTC7 burned out of control until its lower floors collapsed for the same reason.

The Pentagon is mainly masonry and concrete and not multi-story. Heat was easily dissipated out through the sides and roof.
Click to expand...

I was going to say much the same thing myself, the Pentagon is a total red herring.
 
AssHatZombie said:
If you notice. I answered them.
Click to expand...

To an extent, the problem is your answers did not answer the question.

For the towers, if they planted the explosives on the upper floors... HOW could they account for the impact of the planes to the extent that the plane's impact didn't screw up their explosives?

Given the fall began around where the planes impacted, it makes your answer inexplicable.
 
Superfreak said:
To an extent, the problem is your answers did not answer the question.

For the towers, if they planted the explosives on the upper floors... HOW could they account for the impact of the planes to the extent that the plane's impact didn't screw up their explosives?

Given the fall began around where the planes impacted, it makes your answer inexplicable.
Click to expand...


They made them extra sturdy?

Maybe there was an element of risk they were willing to take?

Your "gotcha" questions suck.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They made them extra sturdy?

Maybe there was an element of risk they were willing to take?

Your "gotcha" questions suck.
Click to expand...

It isn't meant as a gotcha... it is meant to show you why it doesn't make sense.

You cannot explain the collapse of the buildings in the manner they did with the theory that they were brought down by explosives. Period.
 
Superfreak said:
It isn't meant as a gotcha... it is meant to show you why it doesn't make sense.

You cannot explain the collapse of the buildings in the manner they did with the theory that they were brought down by explosives. Period.
Click to expand...
Which is why they desperately try to use the "thermite" theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top