reply to post by ReptileRipper
You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
You make a lot of unsupported assumptions very quickly. It's no wonder you can only imagine demolition as the answer.
Haha yeah ... its no wonder![]()
Still waiting for your own scientific and mathematical understanding of what happened that day ..... atleast point out where im wrong here ....... and i didnt come to any "unsupported assumpitons very quickly" ... as i have said , i have been looking into this for years now ..... i know what im talking about .. unlike some![]()
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by wmd_2008
Ok ..... since your being ... sensible![]()
Look at those pictures of ground zero ........... then since you dont seem to know what im talking about , may i suggest you actually look into pancake collapses and compare them to the rubble left at ground zero ..... once you have something reasonable to say ... get back to me.
Oh and impact damage to concrete ? i`m guessing you dont mean just the area of impact ... infact im hoping thats not what you mean....... i hope you mean the amount of concrete that was oblitorated from all parts of the towers ?
Originally posted by wmd_2008
![]()
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by wmd_2008
![]()
You don't see in those pics how the debris is outside of the footprints? A pancake collapse does not have the energy to both collapse from its own weight, and eject all the rubble horizontally. That is why pancake collapses are never complete collapses, there is always floors piled up in the footprint, the 'pancakes', that is how it gets it's name you know.
edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by wmd_2008
you must be "daft" to think such a thing was at ground zero....
Plenty pictures of that on the web .... make a point worth making pal.
3rd