This Post Is One Of The Most Logical Posts Yet - thanks to the commenters for making this point come to me.
Have we all seen the video of the towers collapsing? Just this past weekend I watched three or four specials on TV which showed the collapse again, so it's fresh in my mind.
Think about it for a second: Did the original collapse of each building NOT START from right at the bottom of the floors that were impacted by the plane crash? It sure looked like to me it did, in both buildings. Right where the explosion and fire had done the most damage to the interior of the buildings. Those of you who remember the image - can we agree on that? Can we agree that the first floor which collapsed in each building was at or near the bottom of the areas which were damaged by the planes crashing into the buildings?
OK, so, since the collapse started there, and the building was SUPPOSEDLY blown up from the INSIDE with BOMBS, that would mean that in each building there was a bomb located on the EXACT FLOOR which was located at the bottom of the floors where the plane damage occured which was detonanted and that started the collapse?
Such an AMAZING BOMB that must have been !! The bomb which did not explode from the jet crashing into the building and starting the fire and stayed away from the fire until it was "time to explode"? The bomb which was adequately hidden from all the survivors on each floor. The bomb which, when it WAS supposedly finally detonated, gave NO VISUAL INDICATION that it had been exploded to the MILLIONS of people watching on live TV and the MILLIONS who have seen that image dozens of times each !! What an AMAZING BOMB !!!
And the planters of the bomb beforehand KNEW RIGHT EXACTLY WHERE to put the bomb so that it would be RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM of the plane crash damage (it had to be there so it could be hidden from the TV cameras, right?) and start the collapse? And how to protect it from the plane damage and the fire until it was "time" to blow down the building? They knew EXACTLY where the planes were going to crash so they could put the bombs RIGHT THERE on the CORRECT FLOORS? Is that what happened?
You see how goofy that sounds?
If anyone can show me ANY REAL EVIDENCE that the collapse DID NOT START right at the bottom of the plane damaged floors, I will delete this blog.
Use the "hate-free" portion of your brain for a second and think about this:
What were all the floors UNDER the top 50 floors SUPPOSED TO DO when hundreds of tons of concrete and steel started falling down on top of it? Were any of those floors rated for support of 600 tons of water dampers? What was supposed to happen when the top 50 floors collapsed onto the floor right under it? Was that floor supposed to then support the weight of the 50 floors above it?
Pancake collapse was INEVITABLE once the first floor collapsed. And from the above points I made, HOW ON EARTH could a bomb have made that first floor collapse?
Explain that to me. I'm waiting. Patiently.
Have we all seen the video of the towers collapsing? Just this past weekend I watched three or four specials on TV which showed the collapse again, so it's fresh in my mind.
Think about it for a second: Did the original collapse of each building NOT START from right at the bottom of the floors that were impacted by the plane crash? It sure looked like to me it did, in both buildings. Right where the explosion and fire had done the most damage to the interior of the buildings. Those of you who remember the image - can we agree on that? Can we agree that the first floor which collapsed in each building was at or near the bottom of the areas which were damaged by the planes crashing into the buildings?
OK, so, since the collapse started there, and the building was SUPPOSEDLY blown up from the INSIDE with BOMBS, that would mean that in each building there was a bomb located on the EXACT FLOOR which was located at the bottom of the floors where the plane damage occured which was detonanted and that started the collapse?
Such an AMAZING BOMB that must have been !! The bomb which did not explode from the jet crashing into the building and starting the fire and stayed away from the fire until it was "time to explode"? The bomb which was adequately hidden from all the survivors on each floor. The bomb which, when it WAS supposedly finally detonated, gave NO VISUAL INDICATION that it had been exploded to the MILLIONS of people watching on live TV and the MILLIONS who have seen that image dozens of times each !! What an AMAZING BOMB !!!
And the planters of the bomb beforehand KNEW RIGHT EXACTLY WHERE to put the bomb so that it would be RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM of the plane crash damage (it had to be there so it could be hidden from the TV cameras, right?) and start the collapse? And how to protect it from the plane damage and the fire until it was "time" to blow down the building? They knew EXACTLY where the planes were going to crash so they could put the bombs RIGHT THERE on the CORRECT FLOORS? Is that what happened?
You see how goofy that sounds?
If anyone can show me ANY REAL EVIDENCE that the collapse DID NOT START right at the bottom of the plane damaged floors, I will delete this blog.
Use the "hate-free" portion of your brain for a second and think about this:
What were all the floors UNDER the top 50 floors SUPPOSED TO DO when hundreds of tons of concrete and steel started falling down on top of it? Were any of those floors rated for support of 600 tons of water dampers? What was supposed to happen when the top 50 floors collapsed onto the floor right under it? Was that floor supposed to then support the weight of the 50 floors above it?
Pancake collapse was INEVITABLE once the first floor collapsed. And from the above points I made, HOW ON EARTH could a bomb have made that first floor collapse?
Explain that to me. I'm waiting. Patiently.
posted by Kanji at
7:57 AM
7 Comments:
It doesn't matter where the buildings started to collapse. The problem is you have NIST and FEMA reporting fires not exceeding 600degrees that only burned a little over an hour. All buildings have atleast a 2 hour burn limit. Couple that with the fact that the damages as depicted in the NIST report shows only damaged columns on one side. Think about that, and imagine how a building weaker on one side could possibly fall straight down?
It disobeys the laws of physic for a building damaged structually at the top to fall completely to the ground. It's not possible, buildings are built their strongest at the bottom and get smaller towards the top, it's commonsense. So how are 80 flors of Structually sound building just going to give out? Go watch this video of the construction of these buildings and tell me these 47 MASSIVE steel Box Columns just folded into themselves. We're talkin 3'X2' 4" thick steel box columns... 47 all the way up 80 floors. If those buildings where going to naturally fall they would of done it from the impact of the plane. Not the heat from the "fires" afterwards. FEMA and NIST disprove these FIRES in their own reports.
By
Anonymous, at 4:47 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aZS5a7je5Vs
By
Anonymous, at 4:49 PM
NIST - Fires reached Temperatures of 1000C = about 1800F.
ASTM E119 - Not tested Steel without fireproofing, only tested Steel floor support with Fireproofing on it. Never tested Columns, either with or without fireproofing.
NIST - Fireproofing was near completely removed from columns due to plane impacts.
For info to all that is posted here, go to...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
By
The Artistic Macrophage, at 2:30 PM
So how are 80 flors of Structually sound building just going to give out?
Because they were only meant to stand when the 20 floors above them stood. IT's basic physics - once the set of floors above starts collapsing, the weight and momentum carry it through the next floor. Each floor destroyed offers less resistance and adds weight to the force acting downwards.
It's called common sense.
If those buildings where going to naturally fall they would of done it from the impact of the plane.
No fires, no collapse. End of story.
By
shawn, at 2:32 PM
You want to talk BASIC physics? Okay: acceleration due to gravity is independent of the weight of an object. So no matter how heavy something is, on this planet, it will fall at the same rate. If something (say, each of the 90 floors below) is in the way, it should fall more SLOWLY.
Strangely, the towers collapsed at about the same rate as an unimpeded object falling from the same height. How could that happen?
Run the numbers.
By
Anonymous, at 4:38 PM
It is certainly curious that after SIX YEARS that we don't have a table telling us the TONS OF STEEL and TONS OF CONCRETE on every level of the building. Didn't they have to figure that out before they even started digging the hole for the foundation.
But people at engineering schools all over the country aren't raising a question that simple.
Impact Response
By
Anonymous, at 8:43 PM
We need physics for 6th graders.
Collapse
psik
By
Anonymous, at 6:56 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home