Originally posted by Lord Jules
The proof for me that the wtc was controlled demolition is enshrined in the 9/11 memorial: It's a fountain BELOW GROUND! Yes it would make sense for the building to collapse but the basement too? Why was the basement dug out and not simply filled in with concrete? Because in a controlled demolition the building collapses into the basement because the core columns are cut. If the building simply collapsed, yes maybe lower floors would get crushed but at a certain spot there would be resistance. The fact that the basement could not even be salvaged is a telling sign.
Originally posted by hooper
Huh? This is one of the best ones yet. I would look into this a little more if I were you. Particularly with what did and did not survive in the lower levels and about how controlled demolition works.
Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by hooper
Thanks for the reply, I checked your link out and it contained a lot of useful information, especially about controlled demolition, and I think I have now changed my opinion about 9/11.
Oh wait, you provided no link, no facts, not even an argument. So thanks for nothing.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Alfie1
Have you seen this recent report by Dr J Millette ?
It doesn't matter.
They will just move on to another theory.
Until that happens, don't you understand that minds, mouths and ideas will run rampant? What's the problem? Be part of the solution and not the problem, please!
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.
Originally posted by magma
Thereis only one way to really test if it is true.
We nened to duplicate the exact same situation.
it is going to take a little while to do and will cost a bit to do it, but that will prove once and for all.
So who is in?
We just need to get people to understand the square cube law.
The square-cube law (or cube-square law) is a mathematical principle, applied in a variety of scientific fields, which describes the relationship between the volume and the area as the shape's size increases or decreases. It was first described in 1638 by Galileo Galilei in his Two New Sciences.
Loosely speaking this principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its area.
When a physical object maintains the same density and is scaled up, its mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier while its surface area only increases by the square of said multiplier. This would mean that when the larger version of the object is accelerated at the same rate as the original, more pressure would be exerted on the surface of the larger object.
Thus, just scaling up the size of an object, keeping the same material of construction (density), and same acceleration, would increase the thrust by the same scaling factor. This would indicate that the object would have less ability to resist stress and would be more prone to collapse while accelerating.
This is why large vehicles perform poorly in crash tests and why there are limits to how high buildings can be built. Similarly, the larger an object is, the less other objects would resist its motion, causing its deceleration.