and so you assume that chaotic events can cause a structure to descend at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and have the roof-line remain level and it descend just like that, as a result of chaotic damage? right? This isn't rocket science! Can you dig the implications of that 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration?
and I also, stand by the statement about the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration and total destruction. Logic & reason
What about the other 95% of the building, bob? Why do you keep fleeing from the question? What are you afraid of?
But not in a controlled demolition. Only a portion of the support was removed (like on 9/11) and the building collapsed. Whoops.
a: did ALL of the building "collapse" and did it do so at 9.8 m/s^2 ? b: attempting to compare an event that was not supposed to have been the product of explosives, with one that was most certainly the product of explosives, is kinda off the mark, don't you think?
A) no. And neither did any of the buildings at the WTC complex. B) no. The comparison is valid. Neither event was the product of controlled demolition. Both had a portion of the building attacked and both buildings suffered catastrophic failure.
So you insist on holding on to your idea that WTC7 didn't spend 2.25 sec falling at 9.8 m/s^2 .... the evidence and indeed documentation is available for you to see, and yet you still hold that WTC7 didn't do what was documented to have happened..... oh well ....
You keep misrepresenting the facts, even when shown your errors. Hey bob: what about the other 98% of the building? What was happening with it at the time?
It's bee decades. Let put this one to rest: there was no "controlled demollition" at the Murrah building. The bomb used at Oklahomah is often called a fertilizer truck bomb. It would be better to just call it an ammonia nitrate bomb. Then it's easy for people to see for themselves exactly how destructive ammonia nitrate can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faversham#Great_Explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseburg,_Oregon#The_Roseburg_Blast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF_(factory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihăileşti_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryongchon_disaster Unfortunately there's no equivent easy comparison to visually debunk controlled demolilition. The Murrah building was probably where "truther" theoists got the idea to sell CD as an explaintion of how the towers were taken down(as well as proof of a CONSPIRACY). They are taking advantage of the average persons ignorace of materials science and explosive disasters.
So then, you personally are an expert in materials science and explosive disasters? right? So riddle me this, in the case of the towers, both towers "collapsed" completely that is completely destroying the whole skyscraper, and with that said, why then is it such a precision operation, that if any small bit goes wrong, the controlled demolition operation results in incomplete demolition of the structure. so then, why should we expect to see the exact same result of a very carefully planned and executed operation out of asymmetrical damage & fire? WHY did they publish in the taxpayer funded report the total FRAUD of saying "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" when in fact that statement is so completely WRONG?
One correction....It'a Ammonium Nitrate,And I believe the Murrah bomb had Diesel Fuel mixed with the fertilizer for that extra punch 67 years and we're still feeling the blowing up of those two ships in our harbor..
I did read about the diesel fuel added. Thanks for bringing that up. I didn't think it was relevant but, it is. "Truthers" keep shouting about how jet fuel didn't contribute to the tower's collapse. While it was not the same destructive mechanism that brought down the towers, it does underline that the jet fuel was not an insignificant destructive factor.
and exactly what pray-tell provided the FOCUS to have both towers "collapse" in exactly the manner that then did?
and it keeps coming back to the same WRONG assumptions about how physical systems behave. WHY should ALL of the bolts/welds ( etc.... ) fail exactly on schedule in order to produce the result observed? and exactly WHY should it be that you expect the exact same result as would be from a very well planned & executed controlled demolition as from asymmetrical fires & damage from an alleged airliner crash?
GRAVITY isn't an assumption, that is correct, however the assumption that GRAVITY alone was the driving force for the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 is truly reaching.... there would have had to be FOCUS of the energy used to produce the result as observed. Do you believe that the totally unfocused dumping of all of the material from the upper 17 stories of the North Tower could possibly have caused the total "collapse" of the whole 110 story building? The taxpayer funded report stating "total collapse was inevitable........ " is total FRAUD!
Itr's NO it's NOT a fraud...no matter how many times you claim that... And gravity alone was sufficient,and you can't prove otherwise,which is why you speculate.
thus, the death of common sense! The proof is starring you in the face and you don't get it. Bottom line here, can you expect for the exact same result of weeks of planning and preparation to be achieved by localized damage from an alleged airliner crash and fire?
Truth is,gravity was all the 'focus' that was needed for the collapse,yet you stubbornly refuse to admit that
There has been much back&forth about demanding proof when really the PROOF is in the viewing of the video from the day and then listening to the official explanation ..... and from that concluding that the explanation doesn't match up with the pictures...... very simple actually!
