I don't know how accurate these distance measurements are so let's say for the sake of argument they're close. That means that structural components from the tower were ejected at such high velocities and momentum that some of these embedded themselves at the 16th and 18th floor of the corner of the building shown in the photograph at approximately 500 feet (???) from the tower. Any guess as to the weight of these embedded components (a ton?).
Here's another photo showing severe damage to the Winter Garden, over 600 feet from the North Tower. And a closeup of the damaged building: And according to a FEMA map, the type of debris that rained down on the Winter Garden included at least 3 exterior columns. Another exterior column was located at 3 World Financial Center, a bit further. Note that ALL the above is 9/11 EVIDENCE (i.e. FACT), not conspiracy theory. Furthermore, nothing above is included in either the 9/11 Commission Report or any NIST report or even mentioned, never mind investigated/analyzed.
Yet another photo I found where 3 WFC (north of the Winter Garden) is shown damaged at the 24th floor and higher). Hopefully the photo will remain intact in this post but if it doesn't, this is the link to it. https://madison.com/gallery/news/na..._7074ca92-7c2e-52b0-9764-3625862e694a.html#47
So the photos posted show an incredible number of structural components weighing multiple tons spread 400-600 feet from the North Tower and damaging buildings 24 floors up and higher. This thread is called What Truthers Believe and I tend to think that those who want the truth about 9/11 would want a full science based investigation into how it's possible that a gravitational collapse caused by plane, damage, fire or a combination plus gravity could possibly have created this scenario. Those who are satisfied with the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, which contain no mention of the possible cause of this scenario, would either not be interested or would believe that this is a natural result based on "physics" (i.e. "bouncing") and that no other cause is possible and therefore would not require any investigation. Of course, everyone is entitled to decide for themselves. Accepting explanations from anonymous internet jockeys as valid and especially as fact is not a very intelligent approach to any personal analysis.
And these are fine examples of why: Thanks for your input "ya", you rarely fail to provide reasons to ignore your posts.
What all those pictures show is the damage observed could not possibly have been caused by office fires and gravity. Gravity works in only 1 direction--vertical towards the center of the earth. Not laterally.
For the "bouncing" theory to be true, one would have to imagine that debris weighing multiple tons fell on the lower static structure, caused it to be destroyed at a constant accelerating velocity (approx. .67 G) and bounced off it at 50-70 MPH laterally finding its way up to 600 feet from the tower or embedded itself into adjacent buildings about 400-500 feet distant (or caused severe damage) up to 20+ floors. For me that theory is only very slightly more plausible than fire alone causing a steel framed structure to fully destroy itself evenly at about G for the first 100 feet and near G the rest of the way. But on 9/11 literally hundreds of convenient miracles occurred that helped make it a rousing success. And following 9/11, hundreds of convenient investigative failures occurred that supported (or ignored) those hundreds of convenient miracles, including but not limited to the criminal destruction of evidence and extreme over-classification of documents/evidence. So "truthers" may not buy the above (they actually have the audacity to question all this and demand a legitimate investigation into 9/11 - the truth) but those who swear by the OCT and defend it 24/7 certainly do for the most part.
yup ... that's how gravity works ... very good E ... but you are leaving out a part of the picture ... where did the air between the floors go? ... you don't know all that much about physics do you? ... I can suggest an easy model that you and Bob could try if you like ...
Into the atmosphere I'm guessing. Where do YOU think it went? So as a claimed "engineer" you should be well versed in the science of physics, correct? And I'm pretty sure (based on all your posts) you don't believe explosions caused all that damage. Perhaps you don't even believe explosions/explosive forces COULD HAVE caused all that damage. So do you believe these structural components "bounced" or do you believe air (pressure) caused them to be hurled up to 600 feet distant at about 50-70 MPH (or a combination)? And if you do, please explain the physics phenomena involved to me (if you can).
just wow Bob ... are you really that uninformed about physics??? ... the air had NOWHERE to go but lateral ... very quick experiment for ya Bob ... if you understand this one, I can provide you more ... make a flat pile of sand about the size of a floor mat, about 3 inches thick ... now, drop a brick on it from whatever height ... doesn't matter ... videotape it and watch ... then look at the sand pile ... what happened Bob? ... Have you ever taken Physics I at the college level? ... ask anyone who isn't a math savant and they will tell you that it is one of the toughest courses that stresses everyone ... the only course that I had to take twice ... URI ... go Rams!!! no explosions bob ... why did the collapses initiate at the impact zones bob??? ... you love to talk coincidences but you can't explain that one can you? ... get a grip bobby ... but I fully expect you to go into a tirade about a "legitimate investigation" now ... you so want the government to be complicit in the terror attack and you are getting delusional about the hard facts ... come back to earth bobby ...
Are you saying you're such an authority on physics that you have the standing to judge who is not? So you're also saying you know physics better than 3,048 (and GROWING) architects and engineers who contradict your claim? Also in your opinion, if they "collapsed STRAIGHT DOWN", why is it tons of structural material were found up to 600 feet distant and other structural material severely damaged adjacent buildings 400-600 feet distant 20+ floors up, some of it embedded into those buildings up to 18 floors up? Do you think the building "collapsed" straight down then the structural components bounced up off the ground then laterally at great distances?
So in your opinion, it didn't go into the atmosphere because it went lateral? Last I checked lateral to all buildings is the atmosphere. Perhaps you believe that air no longer existed because it went "lateral". Interesting logic. Well that answers my question as to how well versed you are in the science of physics. That is an amazing detailed technical physics explanation of your opinion as to what caused these multi ton structural components to be hurled up to 600 feet from the WTC tower and cause severe damage to adjacent buildings up to 20+ floors up. It's almost as good as "go Rams!!!". I'm so impressed at your physics prowess Shiner.
That's about as good an explanation of your opinion as "go Rams!!!". And you people have a problem with What Truthers Believe? Talk about pathetic, the above doesn't even rise to that level. But yes I have seen all the videos and not one looks like a natural "collapse" caused by the events of 9/11 (planes, damage, fire or combination plus gravity) to me. Here's one for example. But that's not what bothers me as much as the total official explanation is "the collapse was inevitable" and nothing more. NIST could have also said "go Rams!!!" and it would have amounted to the same thing.
Look to the architect. Are you familiar with any of his other buildings? And remember the NJ Ports Authority screwed around and made the building taller. I knew it would collapse.. didn't you?
Let’s assume that 2-3 floors structurally vanished ( for what ever reason)... and that as a result, the 20 floors above the vanished floors become unsupported And those 20 unsupported floors above the vanished floors would fall downward They would fall until they hit some floor below the vanished floors In the above scenario.... what would be expected to happen next? What happens when 20 floors worth of mass falls? It seems to me that the building below the 20 falling floors could not support the weight of the 20 falling floors.... so what is gonna happen? To my way of thinking.... what actually happen whe the 20 floors fell is pretty much what I would expect
None of that has anything to do with the fact that structural components weighting multiple tons were found up to 600 feet distant or that they were embedded into adjacent buildings about 400 feet distant at the 16th and 18th floors and severely damaged these buildings 20+ floors up. None of that has anything to do with the fact that this was never officially investigated. Neither does that have to do with anything or any question I asked you. You have no basis or standing to "know", you're just making that up because that's what you were told (or who knows what?). No I didn't expect it to, neither did most (if not all) 9/11 firefighter respondents nor did well over 3,000 architects and engineers or the designer.
