Where is the documentation for skyscrapers being taken down by explosive controlled demolition from the top down?
we will eventually know the complete truth. first we need to get all the people in this current republican party OUT of government
Greetings Small Town G0y^h^h^hGuy ..... We have gone from a discussion of the physics of skyscraper collapse to Democrats & Republicans ( OH MY! ) and far as I'm concerned space aliens could abduct ALL of the Democrats & Republicans and they would be doing the rest of us a huge favor. and now back to the topic at hand, who thinks its plausible that a falling mass from above the as yet undamaged part of WTC1 could crash into a floor, pulverize tons of material and eject said material out the sides of the tower and still have energy enough to accelerate downward?
What is the matter with your spelling? I think you misspelled GUY, just my humble observations. Beyond that it gets my attention when someone likens a particular issue to a particular party....did you have a concern with me asking my question? Just an FYI, as someone who happened along recently to peruse this particular portion of the forums and one I might add who hasn't paid much attention to the conspiracy portion of the 911 discussion, you seem to be getting your you know what handed to you by the current bevy of posters, looking at evidence produced as a starting point. Interestingly enough the posts started me following links and googling stuff on my own and it seems this issue has been decided by experts long ago. (not in your favor either) Frankly I cannot believe it is still ongoing and personally I don't care. You carry on though, personally I do not have the expertise or desire to do any further follow-up.
To make things unnecessarily complicated. I worked for IBM. I saw it all of the time. Funny how the devices are all von Neumann machines but they never mentioned him. IBM hired him as a consultant in 1952. Once you understand the principles they repeat with minor variations over and over. But I had to build my own computer at home to learn them. One fellow IBMer actually asked me, "Why do you want a computer at home?" That sounds really hilarious today. Many people are content to be ignorant and trust experts. psik
Yeah, like economists are experts but they do not mention what the country loses on the depreciation of automobiles every year. There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. Sure, trust the experts. Let them do your thinking. At $1,500 per car that is only $300,000,000,000 per year. So it is almost 20 years since then. Small change. But what is really important is the Keynes versus Hayek debate. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/keynes-vs-hayek-great-debate-continues That is the funny thing about 9/11. Economically the destruction of the towers is trivial compared to the depreciation of cars that we ignore. Dummies trust the "experts". psik
To address the WTC 1 "collapse" issue, the top 15% by linear measure most probably makes up only about 5% of the mass of the tower. This mass was allegedly responsible for "collapsing" down upon the remaining bit of the tower, ( that is from floor 93 down ) and causing total destruction of the whole tower. The idea that the action picked up mass on the way down by way of incorporating the mass of each level as destroyed into the mass that was bearing down upon the as yet undamaged part of the building is most certainly questionable at the very least. The ejection of tons of pulverized material clearly indicates that the incorporation of mass from the newly destroyed level, isn't total, and also the energy expended in pulverizing the tons of material and ejecting same, should expend enough energy to cause a slowing down of the action, but in fact the downward wave of destruction is seen accelerating. obvious question ..... WHY?
1) Gravity 2) Newton's Laws You have made a lot of assumptions in the above, can you back any of them up with math or engineering principles?
Very simple, does anybody have a source for accurate data as to the exact mass of the upper 17 stories of the tower?
"obviously" it was enough(?) with or without help from some additional source of energy? Given that the "collapse" right down to ground level, of two skyscrapers is a VERY suspicious event, because it is very rare to have total destruction of anything unless somebody planned on it being exactly that. The only thing that the supporters of the official story have is: "well.... it could happen like that" just like it could happen that somebody rolled snake-eyes 1,000,000 times.
so from the faction that beats the drum about the "truthers" needing to present pages of numbers to justify their claims, now we get "Gravity. Plenty of it to do the job" However, how can you be certain that there was not only plenty to do the job, but that the falling rubble focused on the critical parts of the structure to bring down the skyscraper as was observed? I submit to this forum that there had to have been an additional source of energy present to make certain that the job was done, that is the demolition of WTC 1,2 & 7 .....
<sigh> It was enough with the assistance of gravity.. You keep circling back to asked and answered questions
This one direction bit ignores then the tip of the south tower, and this is significant in that if gravity was responsible for the motive force to cause the "collapse" event and the south tower experienced the tipping that was seen, then there is something going on to cause the NOT STRAIGHT DOWN behavior. The fact is that the falling rubble would have to be a uniform force imposing upon a totally uniform structure to cause the observed result, however the structure can not be relied upon to be totally uniform and also the falling rubble that constituted the "pile driver" could not possibly be uniform in nature, so that then mandates that there would have to be an off-center nature of the falling mass, causing a result that would NOT be total destruction of the tower(s).
