It was a domino effect, plain & simple.
"domino effect" does NOT account for the fact that if the falling mass of WTC7
encountered any resistance at all, it would NOT have descended at FREE FALL ACCELERATION.
It was a domino effect, plain & simple.
The falling mass grew bigger & bigger and bigger (kind of like an avalanche), that the new mass it picked up approached negligible, and yes, it approached free fall acceleration - simple laws of physics!![]()
WTC 7 did not simply approach FREE FALL ACCELERATION, it attained it for 2.25 sec, also the mass pick up bit is from the lame excuse as to why the towers were completely destroyed, not just damaged but COMPLETELY DESTROYED.
& while we are about the physics, what % of the mass of an object is exerted against whatever is under a falling mass that is accelerating at 64% of the acceleration of gravity?
If the tower mass of 879, 683 lbs. is added to the equation r/qs-42.87 and equated to the minimal mass of the square root of the maximum mass of the bases of each foundational support....it is clear the towers were blown up by dolphins mutated by aliens from Jupiters moon Titan.
...duh....![]()
Tall city buildings are essentially a "house of cards". There is no practical way to design enough safety margin in the strength of buildings for lower floors withstand upper floors crashing down.
There have been many cases, whereby a floor of a building under construction collapses. You NEVER see the collapse just stop there. You see a domino effect where floor after floor collapses after that.
It is time for you to quit drinking the Kool-Aid, and get real!![]()
I cannot comment on some unknown source's wild-ass estimate.
OR, you could get a copy of physics toolkit and
examine the video record yourself.
from looking at the video of either tower collapsing
do you see the uniformity in the descent?
Physical objects only do that when somebody makes it happen,
this is not like some random event triggered an unstoppable "collapse"
The only reason why the pulverization continued, there had to have
been an additional source of energy brought to bear on this structure.
I an not in a position to state if it was C4, Thermite, atom bombs... or?
but there obviously was an additional source of energy.
Obvious to you...for myself it is not.
Thus...conspiracy forum material.
Reality sucks...don't it.
Some food for thought. The buildings were a maximum of only a few blocks from eachother, and two of them were over 1,000 ft tall. And the "3rd one" was hit by at least of them, seriously damaged and left to burn unfettered for several hours. Do you find it unusual that several buildings were virtually totaled because they were located adjacent to the WTC towers when they fell? Strange logic you have with your coincidences...what if in the course of say driving only a few miles, you observed 3 cars on fire by the side of the road, and all on the same day, would you wonder WHY?
Did you not see WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6? The first two were partially crushed by the 1& 2 when they fell. That's considered a total loss. WTC 5 got completely engulfed in flames and experienced a serious internal collapse of the structure due to fire, and WTC6 had a gaping hole down to the basement level. If you're wondering why they weren't "totally collapsed" it's because their designs differed from the WTC 1, 2, and 7. Unless you figure out why the design differences are important you will never ever be educated on why different results played out for them and the other three buildings.May I then focus upon the WTC towers and WTC7 note that these buildings were NOT just damaged as were other buildings in the same complex, but completely destroyed.
Because the towers were not designed to handle a dynamic load of the magnitude they experienced once the structure was sufficiently destabilized to initiate collapse. Buildings, 3,4,5, and 6 were shorter and had proportionally larger footprints compared to 1, 2, and 7, they didn't have the same failure mechanisms either due to their design differences. None had 30 stories being supported by a damaged floor area.In a report by the NIST they say "total collapse was inevitable
after collapse initiation ..." izat so? WHY should total collapse
be inevitable? Who sez and what do they have to back that statement?
Do explain... how does free fall acceleration prove the presence of explosives and other tools that would have been used in a CD? Let's take you claim at face value, do you have any pictorial evidence of damage to the buildings that show damages that could be linked to explosives? I belive the answer to that will be "no".The justification for saying that it had to be CD is quite simple really, you see ... WTC7 descended for
2.25 sec at free fall acceleration. the ONLY way you are
going to get free fall acceleration, is by NOT having any resistance
under the falling mass.
I guess I'll be one of those "shills" you like to refer to. I prefer to run with reality and legitimate, competent design/engineering knowledge, not the aboveNow do U C?
OR, you could get a copy of physics toolkit and
examine the video record yourself.
from looking at the video of either tower collapsing
do you see the uniformity in the descent?
Physical objects only do that when somebody makes it happen,
this is not like some random event triggered an unstoppable "collapse"
And so you have a dilemma when evidence contradicts public opinion. You call this so called "official story" a lie that only the fearful follow, yet offer no substance to back it up. I'm open to new evidence, but anything suggesting "holograms, no-planes, or controlled demolition" are off the table, because all theories thus far related to those have been nothing but snake oil
The falling mass grew bigger & bigger and bigger (kind of like an avalanche), that the new mass it picked up approached negligible, and yes, it approached free fall acceleration - simple laws of physics!![]()
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.:unsure:
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.:unsure:
two words
conspiracy forum
Intense heat tends to pulverize.
Yes, seriously! We got my mother's ashes the other day, and they looked very much pulverized, even though they only were exposed to extreme heat for 3 or 4 hours.![]()
I am merely telling you how it looked.![]()