posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by pteridine
So do death rays and elves and there is no evidence for them either.
The old "laws of physics" ploy doesn't cut it.
Oh, are the laws of physics not valid in our day and age? What about September 11th
exempts the WTC7 from the action/reaction law? Was there some sort of forcefield set up by those death rays and elves that you just mentioned that
transported the building into another sector of space and time that was outside of the universe in which the universal laws of physics apply?
Using explosives to "remove the material" on #1 and #2 would have required massive amounts of explosives which would have been very
You mean like people would have reported hearing explosions? Or there would be massive projectiles following paths that aren't
caused by the force of gravity? Or like concrete turning into a fine powder?
Fire would heat the beams and cause them to expand several inches, more than enough to shear the bolts at the joints and initate gravitational
Even if this was true, collapse initiation and therefore the collapse itself would not be symmetrical because the building sustained
asymmetrical damage. This isn't even high school physics, this is just basic common sense. Then the gravitational collapse would not have been at
free-fall speed, because as floors and material within the building at the point where the collapse was initiated interacted, the building would slow
Then have them tell you how they would initiate and time the explosives. There is not one who could do it because they know they will run into
the problem of placing charges at one end of every floor truss on every floor. Then they have to initiate and time them so gravity doesn't over run
the demolition. Nothing would be more embarrasing than having a falling truss assembly suddenly explode in the air.
Yes, demolitions can go
wrong. They can also go exactly as planned.
As to the collapse times, not many had those correct, especially early on. You still don't. Here is a source that uses video frames: "Despite
the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they
collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread."
and the video at two second intervals
Tell that to lead NIST investigator Shyam Sunder, who reported 9 and 11 seconds. ( I just noticed that, 9 and 11 for
the collapse times on 9/11. How odd )
But even those original numbers were not free-fall speed I believe, they were just near it. Regardless of whether it was 9 or 11 or 13 seconds, the
Twin Towers still accelerated constantly when they should have been destroying the bottom section upon collapse initiation, which, in accordance with
those pesky laws of physics that you're not too fond of, would have caused it to slow down. That's just one of the many anomalies that hasn't been
explained by the official report, and is one of the many reasons that these experts are calling for a new investigation through which they can answer
these questions and figure out why things like this occured.
edit on 13-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)