But it is so you are wrong, for a hugely damaged and on fire building building it is entirely possible to fall straight down. Especially when one floor gives way and all the upper floors crash down on the ones below.
I dont even know what to say about the first law of thermodynamics being used in this argument :-))
No matter how many experts you say you have asked, whether you did or didnt there are also experts saying the opposite. Scientists spent 2 years making an exact computer model of the plane and towers structure and found that it was possible.
But it is so you are wrong, for a hugely damaged and on fire building building it is entirely possible to fall straight down. Especially when one floor gives way and all the upper floors crash down on the ones below.
I dont even know what to say about the first law of thermodynamics being used in this argument :-))
No matter how many experts you say you have asked, whether you did or didnt there are also experts saying the opposite. Scientists spent 2 years making an exact computer model of the plane and towers structure and found that it was possible.
Any links? I would like to read that, I have no put much stock into the opposition, but I do not dismiss it. Nor am I asking for proof to discredit you, but I do wish to see what you have read.
I dont think you quite understand physics mate. Literally nothing broke the laws of physics no matter which side of the argument you look at.
No sir, I believe you are the one who does not understand the concept of physics. A steel framed building would never have dropped at free fall speeds in its own foot print, never, ever in a million years, to the sounds that the Commission report would have us think.
In reality, all three buildings were classic demolition style explosions and removal of the towers.
Newtons law of Motion for example: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
There should have been force applied to the upper half of the building preventing it from falling in its own footprint, every engineer, physics professor, demolitions expert, all say the same thing. If the official story says it fell because the jetfuel heated the steal causing the floors to collapse creating a chain reaction, then the tower could have NEVER in a million years fallen at free fall speeds in its own footprint. The top half would have collapsed down then fallen over onto the street causing WAY more chaos then what was actually done.
My last ideal that it was explosives is this:
If the Jetfuel was hot enough to melt that steel causing the building collapse, how could human beings be found standing at the whole of impact, waving white cloth out trying to get help.
The jet fuel is hot enough to melt that steel but not hot enough to harm humans... Hmmmm
lol
do you know what free fall speeds is, and do you know how to calculate it, and the time to takes to achieve free fall speeds, considering everything in play?
What the hell happened to this place while I was gone. I come check in and find I totally agree with qwj and disagree with my homies. You all bots now? That is the only logical explanation I have.
I dont think you quite understand physics mate. Literally nothing broke the laws of physics no matter which side of the argument you look at.
No sir, I believe you are the one who does not understand the concept of physics. A steel framed building would never have dropped at free fall speeds in its own foot print, never, ever in a million years, to the sounds that the Commission report would have us think.
In reality, all three buildings were classic demolition style explosions and removal of the towers.
Newtons law of Motion for example: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
There should have been force applied to the upper half of the building preventing it from falling in its own footprint, every engineer, physics professor, demolitions expert, all say the same thing. If the official story says it fell because the jetfuel heated the steal causing the floors to collapse creating a chain reaction, then the tower could have NEVER in a million years fallen at free fall speeds in its own footprint. The top half would have collapsed down then fallen over onto the street causing WAY more chaos then what was actually done.
My last ideal that it was explosives is this:
If the Jetfuel was hot enough to melt that steel causing the building collapse, how could human beings be found standing at the whole of impact, waving white cloth out trying to get help.
The jet fuel is hot enough to melt that steel but not hot enough to harm humans... Hmmmm
lol
do you know what free fall speeds is, and do you know how to calculate it, and the time to takes to achieve free fall speeds, considering everything in play?
I believe it's 2*H/10, Havn't been in studies for some time . Which means at free fall speeds, the towers if met with no resistance would have fallen in about 9.3 seconds.
I've been to a casino when then implode it with explosives. Problem with your conspiracy theory. Building would require many large explosions set up in progressive sequence. People would hear the bang bang bang bangbang explosives for miles. Didn't happen.
do you know what free fall speeds is, and do you know how to calculate it, and the time to takes to achieve free fall speeds, considering everything in play?
I believe it's 2*H/10, Havn't been in studies for some time . Which means at free fall speeds, the towers if met with no resistance would have fallen in about 9.3 seconds.
sqrt(2h/g) = 9.06 seconds, where h = height (Around 410m), and g = acceleration due to gravity (Rounded up to 10 ms^-2)
A more accurate answer after googling the height of the WTC would be:
sqrt(2h/g) = 9.22 seconds, where h = height (417m for North Tower), and g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 ms^-2)
I've been to a casino when then implode it with explosives. Problem with your conspiracy theory. Building would require many large explosions set up in progressive sequence. People would hear the bang bang bang bangbang explosives for miles. Didn't happen.
Did happen, many many many eye witness counts including police men, fire fighters, people who were actually in the tower to which escaped. Some of the reports actually claim the people thought it was bombs before they found out it was a "plane"
the air resistance at the different parts inside of the tower based on the heat from the kerosene heating the atmosphere at different points, the air resistance on the sides of the trade centre, the true value of the gravity to be calculated at the height of the WTC at that level, not the sea-level value. lets also add in the quantity of the kerosene and its specific heat range of the specialized fuel used for commercial airplanes, the structure of what the WTC foundation consists of and figuring out all of its properties, how long it would take for the foundation to collapse from its own pressure from the weight above the WTC based on the stress and length of heat on the foundation, and whatever foundation that is exposed to the sun, adding in the radiation from the intensity of it. The calculation of the enthalpy caused from the collapse of the towers, the torque caused by the towers due to the rotation of the earth
Some of those points are relevant, others are irrelevant (e.g. the variance in 'g' at WTC level compared to sea level is miniscule).
Going back to the subject matter - When there are what seems to be like a billion inconsistencies and "coincidences" that happened on that day, it's hard not to question the Official Story. I actually want the OS to be true based on the available facts, but the OS doesn't tie up with the facts of what happened. If an individual wants to believe the OS, believe it. I'm sure you would've been one of the naive majority throughout history who believed in a lot of different things thinking the government can do no wrong. If only it were that simple.
Some of those points are relevant, others are irrelevant (e.g. the variance in 'g' at WTC level compared to sea level is miniscule).
Going back to the subject matter - When there are what seems to be like a billion inconsistencies and "coincidences" that happened on that day, it's hard not to question the Official Story. I actually want the OS to be true based on the available facts, but the OS doesn't tie up with the facts of what happened. If an individual wants to believe the OS, believe it. I'm sure you would've been one of the naive majority throughout history who believed in a lot of different things thinking the government can do no wrong. If only it were that simple.
Comments
I dont even know what to say about the first law of thermodynamics being used in this argument :-))
No matter how many experts you say you have asked, whether you did or didnt there are also experts saying the opposite. Scientists spent 2 years making an exact computer model of the plane and towers structure and found that it was possible.
Will try to find it online when I am home
btw, heres another one I was watching about our current topic
do you know what free fall speeds is, and do you know how to calculate it, and the time to takes to achieve free fall speeds, considering everything in play?
A more accurate answer after googling the height of the WTC would be:
sqrt(2h/g) = 9.22 seconds, where h = height (417m for North Tower), and g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 ms^-2)
Going back to the subject matter - When there are what seems to be like a billion inconsistencies and "coincidences" that happened on that day, it's hard not to question the Official Story. I actually want the OS to be true based on the available facts, but the OS doesn't tie up with the facts of what happened. If an individual wants to believe the OS, believe it. I'm sure you would've been one of the naive majority throughout history who believed in a lot of different things thinking the government can do no wrong. If only it were that simple.