simple question for the WTC collapse

[TakeAStepBack]

It was sheared apart as it descended! It was turned into a massive pile of debris consisting of steel, concrete, and everything else within those towers.

So it broke the laws of physics...interesting....

What laws of physics were broken?

The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives? If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down? OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims? No reason to do BOTH.

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives? If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down? OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims? No reason to do BOTH.

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

Well, under the demolition theory (a theory I do not subscribe to), there would need to be cover of some type. How could any cover story be provided if the buildings suddenly just "collapsed"?

(As the demo theory goes)

 

[eots]

Why fly the planes into the buildings AND use explosives? If the objective is to drum up support for war, wouldn't the planes flying into the buildings be enough even if the buildings didn't come down? OR...Why not just plant explosives, collapse the towers, and blame the muslims? No reason to do BOTH.

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

much easier to explain failures that allowed aircraft to hit the towers than..explain who and how terrorist set charges throughout the towers
butt hats all speculation..what is not speculation is these buildings could not collapse in the manor they did without the use of explosives

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

Well, under the demolition theory (a theory I do not subscribe to), there would need to be cover of some type. How could any cover story be provided if the buildings suddenly just "collapsed"?

(As the demo theory goes)

They don't need a cover, Osama did it, he killed 10,000 people.

I agree, the demo theory is idiotic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

much easier to explain failures that allowed aircraft to hit the towers than..explain who and how terrorist set charges throughout the towers
butt hats all speculation..what is not speculation is these buildings could not collapse in the manor they did without the use of explosives

I was ready to go to war after the second plane hit, no need for a demo to go to war.

I disagree that they couldn't collapse. Just how strong do you think the steel brackets were?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

no massive death toll from plane crashes alone..

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

much easier to explain failures that allowed aircraft to hit the towers than..explain who and how terrorist set charges throughout the towers
butt hats all speculation..what is not speculation is these buildings could not collapse in the manor they did without the use of explosives

At least from a conventional knowledge standpoint. There are, however, other theories as to what occurred.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

Well, under the demolition theory (a theory I do not subscribe to), there would need to be cover of some type. How could any cover story be provided if the buildings suddenly just "collapsed"?

(As the demo theory goes)

They don't need a cover, Osama did it, he killed 10,000 people.

I agree, the demo theory is idiotic.

Well, it's really no more idiotic than the NIST conclusions.

 

[Ernie S.]

lol it left a sliver of the core that stood for 2 secs then oddly collapsed into itself instead of falling over
WTC 1 core collapse - YouTube

A "sliver" eots?

I find your static picture highly questionably

So, you may or may not find the picture?

 

[numan]

If they had just demo'd the buildings, they would have killed thousands more.
Why warn everyone by crashing planes first?

Well, under the demolition theory (a theory I do not subscribe to), there would need to be cover of some type. How could any cover story be provided if the buildings suddenly just "collapsed"?

One aspect of the operation was providing an hour of terrible fear and suspense, and then forcing an entire nation to endure traumatic stress, over and over, as the events were re-broadcast endlessly. The nation, in shock, was then subject to hypnotic brainwashing and subliminal conditioning, which was very effective (as can be seen by the idiotic people here who totally accept the "official story."

And don't forget the anthrax terror (funny how that seems to be no longer remembered) which maintained the shock for days and days, and caused many, many people to fear for their own safety.

.

 

[Gamolon]

So it broke the laws of physics...interesting....

What laws of physics were broken?

The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.

Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.

This should be interesting.

 

[Gamolon]

lol it left a sliver of the core that stood for 2 secs then oddly collapsed into itself instead of falling over
WTC 1 core collapse - YouTube

A "sliver" eots?

I find your static picture highly questionably

Translation: I can't defend my previous statement.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What laws of physics were broken?

The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.

Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.

This should be interesting.

IThat wasn't the issue at hand, though another point that needs to be addressed. The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

 

[eots]

A "sliver" eots?

I find your static picture highly questionably

Translation: I can't defend my previous statement.

translation: a questionable unsourced static picture is all I can provide

 

[Gamolon]

The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.

Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.

This should be interesting.

IThat wasn't the issue at hand, though another point that needs to be addressed. The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

Interesting.

Please explain how the building at 3:22 of this video completely collapsed.

 

[Days]

In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies. So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot. That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread. We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old. This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength? It clearly does not exist. Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question? Nope. That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point. How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question? I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies. zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework. Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens. Is that a serious reply? The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not. I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits? An honest first grader can answer that question. So how pathetic is this batch of posters?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube

For the sake of argument,they would hardly have started at the bottom if they wanted it to look like an accident.

 

[Gamolon]

The first law of thermodynamics, and the conservatio of energy. What you're essentially saying is that the building acted as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Work was done without energy input. Anyway, this debate has been gone over ad neaseum.

Explain why, using the laws stated above, you think the lower structure should have halted or stopped the upper section.

This should be interesting.

IThat wasn't the issue at hand, though another point that needs to be addressed. The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

So let's see.

The upper section starts to fall. The first lower floor of the upper section impacts the first top floor of the lower section. Both floors are sheared and become "debris". The mass of the upper floor hasn't changed at all.

Are you suggesting that some of the mass/weight of the upper section evaporated when the it impacted the lower section? Sorry, but the mass of the upper section INCREASED because you now added the mass of the sheared first floor of the lower section to the descending debris mass. Instead of being just the upper section that is moving downward, it is now the upper section +1 floor.

Isn't this what happened in the video I just posted?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies. So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot. That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread. We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old. This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength? It clearly does not exist. Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question? Nope. That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point. How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question? I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies. zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework. Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens. Is that a serious reply? The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not. I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits? An honest first grader can answer that question. So how pathetic is this batch of posters?

are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits?

They're still there. They still weigh 10s of thousands of tons, even if they broke into pieces on the way down. Clear?

 

[Gamolon]

In a forum built for discussion, I have six replies in this thread from Rat in the Hat, and he writes exactly zero words aggregate in all those replies. So, I conclude that he/she is a wordless Rat, and some other poster gives me negative reputation for that and comments that I am an idiot. That poster doesn't even bother to post in the thread. We have no way to know whether this is the behavior of a 13 year old or just someone that acts like a 13 year old. This top post asked one simple question; where's the weight bearing down upon the structure that NIST ascribes super force strength? It clearly does not exist. Did any of these posters who replied in the negative bother to answer that question? Nope. That was the title of the top post, that was the whole point. How can they reply to the thread and not respond to the question? I wrote a post about energetic particles and got similar replies. zero intelligent content, about what you would expect from a 3rd grader playing around on the site instead of doing his/her homework. Look at that first response; all the guy writes is one word: Aliens. Is that a serious reply? The guy might as well just type; I'm too stupid to look at a picture and see whether a giant object is there or not. I'm not asking them to spot a dime on the ocean floor, we are looking at pictures of the World Trade Center, are the upper floors there or are they already blown to bits? An honest first grader can answer that question. So how pathetic is this batch of posters?

I did answer you. It's not there as the intact, structural upper section you are expecting to see. It was turned into a pile of sheared/torn apart components.