Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The momentum gained by falling would explain why the lower sections of the buildings were badly damaged.
My concern is why they fell from the top instead of the area of most damage and why was the fall vertical, not to the side of greatest damage?
View attachment 58374The planes impacted about the 92nd floor, which means that only 18 floors were above the impact.
So 18/110 means approximately 16% of the total building's weight was affected.
Now ask yourselves, if you cut the support between 84% of something, and 16% of something, how does that change the relationship that 84% of something can still HOLD THE FUCKING WEIGHT of 16% of something?
The basic principles of engineering would require us to believe that since the building could already support the top floors severed by plane explosions, that the only event that could happen is the top of the buildings would have collapsed onto the remaining 84% and either jammed, or fallen off like the top of a tree breaking off.
When's the last time you saw a branch fall off a tree, and collapse the entire fucking tree?
I say "probably" because I'm trying to think creatively how 16% of something can gain enough "weight" to collapse something that is holding up itself and is 5.25x as massive as the thing falling on it.
Either the acceleration of the remaining 16% is enough to overcome the support allowed by the remaining 84% or it isn't.
Again if it isn't, then it'd just bounce off and fall to the side or fall around it like water balloon falling on a post.
The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.
And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.
Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.
Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.
Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.
Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.
You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.
Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )
Buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell in a free fall manner and 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. I am not buying the official story whatsoever. Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.
We know.
None of you Truthers ever listen or learn, or reason beyond what you want to hear.
It's more fun to just make fun of you.
I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.
If the floors had actually pancaked, it would have taken longer to collapse. WTC 1 collapsed in 9.2 seconds start to finish.Holy shit my facebook's supposed to be private!
But seriously, how does 16% of the weight already supported, collapse the other 84%?
I'm probably wasting my time here but you have a poor understanding of structural engineering. They floors pancaked. The floor just under the crash site couldn't hold the above 16%. It collapsed and added to the weight which collapsed the floor under it, which added to the weight and so on until eventually the collapsing weight was now 50% of the total weight, and it grew from there to eventually 99%.
Wrong again. It is complete consistent with the tremendous weight pressing down. Also, there was an enormous amount of debris and dust obstructing the view of the collapse.
Tremendous weight? Are you stupid?
18 floors is not tremendous compared to 92 floors.
92 floors can more than easily support an impact from the 18 floors above it that it is designed to HOLD UP.
I already explained that to you. It's only 18% for the floor directly under that. It grows with each collapsing floor.
Predfan, do you realize that hitting structurally sound 92 floors with the 18 floors above it that it is designed to support the weight of, is like hitting a fence post with a water balloon?
so you finally stopped listening to the CIA controlled media huh? i would recommend listening to drudge and american free press to get out of the brainwashing you have experienced all this time.AFP is a really great source for whats REALLY going on in the world.Damn dude you been brainwashed THAT long by the government that 19 muslims were behind the attacks?View attachment 58374The conduction and convection of heat traveled along the ( steel ) supports - heating adjacent building materials, as well as weakening the steel - causing the collapse of the building.
And you do not have to be an arson investigator ( I have certified arson investigation education ), or a structural engineer to know that.
Heat travels by = Conduction - Convection and Radiation.
Heat from superheated gases, as well as smoke from the fire ; met with some building components ; such as wood siding and other materials......causing them to meet their ignition temperature ( The lowest temperature needed for self sustained combustion - like holding a piece of paper over a lit lighter ) and burst into flames. Smoke carries heat, and the particles of what ever is burning. Yes, smoke can cause secondary fires.
Superheated gases from fires.....can cause secondary fires.
Smoke and Superheated gases......can be very - very dangerous.
You have to "read the signs" inside a burning building.
Shadow 355 ( Fire & EMS certified )
Buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell in a free fall manner and 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. I am not buying the official story whatsoever. Anyone that believes 17 arab hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters singlehandedly defeated NORAD, the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon is living in La-La Land.
We know.
None of you Truthers ever listen or learn, or reason beyond what you want to hear.
It's more fun to just make fun of you.
I believed the official story for 11 years but when I found out that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11/01 and the spy grid was put in place before 9/11? I decided maybe I should look into the events that day more carefully. If I can wake up, anyone can.
you mean to say you been listening to the CIA controlled media for 11 freaking years? jesus christ dude,it only took me THREE years before i spooted the bullshit lies of the 9/11 coverup commission.
Yeah, I was late to the reality check but I have been making up for lost time.
uhh thats because its been exposed for being an inside job.lolI didn't say collapse, I said damaged.
Frankly, the whole story of 9/11 stinks.
Predfan, do you realize that hitting structurally sound 92 floors with the 18 floors above it that it is designed to support the weight of, is like hitting a fence post with a water balloon?
No of course I don't realize that. Because it's fucking idiotic!
trolls like predfan dont understand that the laws of physics were violated that day.guess he skipped through junior high school science classes.lolThe momentum gained by falling would explain why the lower sections of the buildings were badly damaged.
My concern is why they fell from the top instead of the area of most damage and why was the fall vertical, not to the side of greatest damage?
Ok lunatic, explain what really happened.
Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?
Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?
I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.
Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.
You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.
and tell me what you have left.
A moron with a stupid hypothetical.
I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?
Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.
Explain building 7 or the fact that 83 cameras surrounding the Pentagon were confiscated and all that has been released in 4 frames that make it impossible to tell what it was that caused that small hole on the south side of the Pentagon that was being used to search for the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld said on 9/10/01 was missing? People need to wake up because things are not what they seem at all.Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
the official conspiracy theory apologists never can account for bld 7,they ignore pesky facts and then resort to their childish tin foil hat comments when they are cornered and backed up against the wall.
they cant get around it that bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup.everytime i post a video that exposes it that explosives brought bld 7 down,they ignore it and never watch it since they are so much in denial.
Are you familiar with "Operation Northwoods'?
Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?
I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.
Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.
You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.
and tell me what you have left.
A moron with a stupid hypothetical.
I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?
Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.
I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training.
Great. How much weight was the 84th floor designed to carry?
How much did it carry just before the collapse?
We all saw the towers fall. We know they fell and we saw how they fell. We saw the planes hit the towers, people in NYC saw that live and in person.
Now, if you cannot accept the official report then you have to come up with an alternative. If you can't then you are just another loony Truther deserving of scorn and ridicule.
The very fact that the official report is incomplete, and possibly based on loose interpretations of engineering laws is actually proof that there was no conspiracy. They didn't know it was coming and had to piece together their theory based on what the found AFTER THE FACT.
Had it been some kind of conspiracy, they would have had a story devised to cover their asses. They didn't and that's because two planes were high jacked by Islamic Terrorists, flown into the buildings and they collapsed as a result.
If you cannot give a credible alternative theory, then you have nothing and are just a conspiracy nut.
The momentum gained by falling would explain why the lower sections of the buildings were badly damaged.
My concern is why they fell from the top instead of the area of most damage and why was the fall vertical, not to the side of greatest damage?
What momentum?
Let's say 18 floors finally give way at the 92nd floor and falls to the 90th floor (let's say there's a 2 floor gap).
So it breaks and 18 floors of weight accelerates for 20 feet.
You don't think the fucking engineer over engineered it enough that 84% of the building could support 16% of the building crashing down on on top of it by just 20 feet?
Explaining would be pointless,its was done years ago.Please pull your head out of your ass on this one.Ah yes, because buildings are just like trees. Well done, your logic is bulletproof.
I'm not saying it's exactly like trees, what I am saying is that the weight supported by an UNDAMAGED 84% of a building, is likely to just BOUNCE off the rest of the structure.
Explain how it ends up PULVERIZING that entire structure in both cases the SAME way.
Are you unable to articulate your beliefs? Is your answer simply to link to an author or blogger? Are you unable to think for yourself?
I don't have to try to answer what really happend, to illustrate the absurdity of what we are told happened.
Again, take a 10 foot bar, super heat and melt the top 1 foot of it, hit the bar with a pile-driver, and tell me what you have left.
You'll have a 9foot bar still standing...not a pulverized footprint.
and tell me what you have left.
A moron with a stupid hypothetical.
I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training. What do you have?
Guess what, most NYC Fire does not believe that WTC collapsed by fucking planes.
I have more than stupid hypothetical, I have a high rise firefighting background and understanding of building collapses through training.
Great. How much weight was the 84th floor designed to carry?
How much did it carry just before the collapse?
The floors don't carry the weight, asshole, the core carries the weight, and the 84th floor core is designed to carry not just the load of the core above it but the load of the floors above it.
That core is called a core because it is supported by a foundation "tap root". So the 84th floor core is supported entirely and stably by the entire structure and its weight below it.
Now you're telling me, that (in this case) 26 floors, drop 1 floor's distance onto the 84th floor, causing the core to do what exactly?
What will that core do?
If it breaks on the 84th floor, the whole TOP, slides off.
So not once, but 84 times, the N-1 floor's core has to break to allow the floor impacted to collapse onto the next floor?
That's 84 chances for the core of the floor impacted to break and cause the structure above it to be deflected.
SO HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE PANCAKE THEORY?
