| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is the most compelling evidence for MIHOP? |
| World Trade Center 1 & 2 Collapses |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
| World Trade Center 7 Collapse |
|
50% |
[ 8 ] |
| Flight 93 anomalies |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Pentagon anomalies |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
| Other |
|
25% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Chek,
I have posted work from a member at jref for you to consider before, you did exactly what you have done here with Mark Roberts work, dismissed it.
To say jref is not your forum is nonsense; it is an open forum for critical thinking. Anybody is welcome, anybody can sign up.
You have, as far as I can see simply dismissed anybodies work, that counters your believes because they are members of jref.
The authors of these pieces are over on jref. If you are so sure that those on this forum are talking rubbish and are simply US shills, why not go over there. Why do you continue to dismiss, people that have put in time and effort?
This effort is open to criticism; it is published welcoming input and comments. You can right now comment directly to the author of this work, but you won't. Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | Chek,
I have posted work from a member at jref for you to consider before, you did exactly what you have done here with Mark Roberts work, dismissed it.
To say jref is not your forum is nonsense; it is an open forum for critical thinking. Anybody is welcome, anybody can sign up.
You have, as far as I can see simply dismissed anybodies work, that counters your believes because they are members of jref.
The authors of these pieces are over on jref. If you are so sure that those on this forum are talking rubbish and are simply US shills, why not go over there. Why do you continue to dismiss, people that have put in time and effort?
This effort is open to criticism; it is published welcoming input and comments. You can right now comment directly to the author of this work, but you won't. Why? |
SoG,
I hope that in both cases you refer to, I have had the courtesy to explain my reasons for rejecting the ideas that have been presented here. I certainly hope that has not been perceived as knee-jerk rejection because of the source. I appreciate the work that Roberts has done - a 106 page document with original reportage certainly counts as that, yet in my reply to CS a couple of posts ago, I detail why it does little to advance either case beyond what is already known (the building did collapse, the mechanism still remains a mystery) in my opinion.
While I thank you for the invite - and I don't rule it out completely - I have other groups I am also involved in that I neglect far too much already to take on new ones.
Also, while it might seem that I somehow enjoy discussing the dynamics of collapsing buildings et al, to me that is only a facet of the larger picture which is the political movement to discover the roots of 911. That's my main interest in this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
|
The conclusion that the firemen were expecting an asymmetric collapse simply does not follow. Any safety precautions would hardly be worth the name if they were made only in relation to what was probable, rather than what was possible. The firemen would naturally clear a safety zone large enough for any possible type of collapse, not just what they thought was most likely.
Just what do we now know about the structure of the building that makes a symmmetrical collapse exceedingly unlikely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
|
The conclusion that the firemen were expecting an asymmetric collapse simply does not follow. Any safety precautions would hardly be worth the name if they were made only in relation to what was probable, rather than what was possible. The firemen would naturally clear a safety zone large enough for any possible type of collapse, not just what they thought was most likely.
Just what do we now know about the structure of the building that makes a symmmetrical collapse exceedingly unlikely? |
I was thinking of the cantileverd trusses (if that is the correct term) over the Con Edison substation, which was generally unknown except to architects on the day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
|
The conclusion that the firemen were expecting an asymmetric collapse simply does not follow. Any safety precautions would hardly be worth the name if they were made only in relation to what was probable, rather than what was possible. The firemen would naturally clear a safety zone large enough for any possible type of collapse, not just what they thought was most likely.
Just what do we now know about the structure of the building that makes a symmmetrical collapse exceedingly unlikely? |
I was thinking of the cantileverd trusses (if that is the correct term) over the Con Edison substation, which was generally unknown except to architects on the day. |
I take it you now accept that the conclusion you drew from the size of the safety zone does not follow.
In what way does the existence of the braced frame over the Con Ed substation make a symmetrical collapse exceedingly unlikely, bearing in mind it is not known on which floor the collapse sequence commenced? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
|
The conclusion that the firemen were expecting an asymmetric collapse simply does not follow. Any safety precautions would hardly be worth the name if they were made only in relation to what was probable, rather than what was possible. The firemen would naturally clear a safety zone large enough for any possible type of collapse, not just what they thought was most likely.
Just what do we now know about the structure of the building that makes a symmmetrical collapse exceedingly unlikely? |
Buildings do not, and as far as I can tell never have, collapsed symmetrically, unless they are induced to do so by careful planning of the sequence of destruction.
Of course a safety zone for any eventuality would be cleared - an asymmetric collapse being the most likely form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Buildings do not, and as far as I can tell never have, collapsed symmetrically, unless they are induced to do so by careful planning of the sequence of destruction.
|
If that were true, then it would be very foolish for anyone planning to fake the non-CD cllapse of a building to arrange for it to collapse symmetrically. The world's structural engineers would all be shouting that a non-assisted collapse in that manner was not possible. In actual fact not a single structural engineer, from anywhere in the world, including places by no means sympathetic to the US, has said that. Instead it has been left to retired professors of theology to claim the collapse was a controlled demolition. Those who demolish building for a living say the towers collapsed from the fires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Buildings do not, and as far as I can tell never have, collapsed symmetrically, unless they are induced to do so by careful planning of the sequence of destruction.
|
If that were true, then it would be very foolish for anyone planning to fake the non-CD cllapse of a building to arrange for it to collapse symmetrically. The world's structural engineers would all be shouting that a non-assisted collapse in that manner was not possible. In actual fact not a single structural engineer, from anywhere in the world, including places by no means sympathetic to the US, has said that. Instead it has been left to retired professors of theology to claim the collapse was a controlled demolition. Those who demolish building for a living say the towers collapsed from the fires. |
Then it sure beats me why CD companies take weeks to plan and execute as tidy a CD as possible when all it takes is anyone with a box of matches to achieve the same result.
But if you think your observations are indeed logical, then who am I to disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Then it sure beats me why CD companies take weeks to plan and execute as tidy a CD as possible when all it takes is anyone with a box of matches to achieve the same result.
|
Oh, and a 110-story building falling on it. Funny how we keep forgetting about that! Seemed pretty memorable at the time.
| Quote: |
But if you think your observations are indeed logical, then who am I to disagree?
|
Nobody special, apparently. You make the same oft-refuted arguments and disingenuous ommissions that all CTists make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Then it sure beats me why CD companies take weeks to plan and execute as tidy a CD as possible when all it takes is anyone with a box of matches to achieve the same result.
|
Oh, and a 110-story building falling on it. Funny how we keep forgetting about that! Seemed pretty memorable at the time. |
I can just see the Truth, Inc. demo team: "Well, we'll just light 'er up, clear a 600' radius around 'er and cross our fingers. We'll probably end up smashing the hell out of one or two surrounding buildings. There's a good chance that the damage will be so bad that they'll have to demolish their buildings too. We'd be happy to come back and do theirs, depending on what this building does. We're not really a controlled demolition team--we use a patented method called the Pull It method. No one else in the industry is doing it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
I can just see the Truth, Inc. demo team: "Well, we'll just light 'er up, clear a 600' radius around 'er and cross our fingers. We'll probably end up smashing the hell out of one or two surrounding buildings. There's a good chance that the damage will be so bad that they'll have to demolish their buildings too. We'd be happy to come back and do theirs, depending on what this building does. We're not really a controlled demolition team--we use a patented method called the Pull It method. No one else in the industry is doing it." |
"And they said we were 'crazy' to use airliners and thermite. BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Then it sure beats me why CD companies take weeks to plan and execute as tidy a CD as possible when all it takes is anyone with a box of matches to achieve the same result. |
In another five years, we're still going to be hearing things like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | Then it sure beats me why CD companies take weeks to plan and execute as tidy a CD as possible when all it takes is anyone with a box of matches to achieve the same result. |
In another five years, we're still going to be hearing things like this. |
You're probably right. Hopefully it will just be from a sad handful of diehards, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I done got it now!
Random damage + random fires = perfect collapse!
I knew some of you guys approach to logical problem solving would rub off.
Thanks fellas.
CD fame and fortune here I come! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, you have correctly understood our point that a perfect collapse means falling on neighboring buildings and causing severe damage to them.
Fast forward to 2011 and repeat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Yes, you have correctly understood our point that a perfect collapse means falling on neighboring buildings and causing severe damage to them.
Fast forward to 2011 and repeat. |
Hey - a 500+ft building falling in perimeter +70ft (NIST figure) is good going, considering 20+ stories are the highest attempted CD's so far.
Footprint + 14% isn't bad going for one of those 'random' collapses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OK so you are sticking to your view that a successful controlled demolition (a "perfect collapse" in your words) tears huge chunks out of nearby buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | OK so you are sticking to your view that a successful controlled demolition (a "perfect collapse" in your words) tears huge chunks out of nearby buildings. |
Hmm - as you are sticking to yours that it didn't go down as if on rails in under 7 seconds.
Whoosh! down it went.
But don't worry - Mark Roberts has it all figured out.
Except for the 'like on rails in under 7 seconds' part.
Tee hee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | OK so you are sticking to your view that a successful controlled demolition (a "perfect collapse" in your words) tears huge chunks out of nearby buildings. |
Hmm - as you are sticking to yours that it didn't go down as if on rails in under 7 seconds.
Whoosh! down it went.
But don't worry - Mark Roberts has it all figured out.
Except for the 'like on rails in under 7 seconds' part.
Tee hee. |
By shifting the goalposts to the collapse time, can I assume that you've conceded the "tidy-ness" argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | OK so you are sticking to your view that a successful controlled demolition (a "perfect collapse" in your words) tears huge chunks out of nearby buildings. |
Hmm - as you are sticking to yours that it didn't go down as if on rails in under 7 seconds.
Whoosh! down it went.
But don't worry - Mark Roberts has it all figured out.
Except for the 'like on rails in under 7 seconds' part.
Tee hee. |
By shifting the goalposts to the collapse time, can I assume that you've conceded the "tidy-ness" argument? |
Not at all - it all comes in the same big improbable package. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | pepik wrote: | Yes, you have correctly understood our point that a perfect collapse means falling on neighboring buildings and causing severe damage to them.
Fast forward to 2011 and repeat. |
Hey - a 500+ft building falling in perimeter +70ft (NIST figure) is good going, considering 20+ stories are the highest attempted CD's so far.
Footprint + 14% isn't bad going for one of those 'random' collapses. |
Yes, of course it does help to keep it in a smallish perimeter when the perimeter consists mostly of other buildings the debris can pile up against, tearing large chunks off in the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | I think I done got it now!
Random damage + random fires = perfect collapse!
I knew some of you guys approach to logical problem solving would rub off.
Thanks fellas.
CD fame and fortune here I come! |
With a business plan involving demolishing buildings for your clients by dropping a nearby 110 floor building on it, insisting that the contents remain in it to fuel the fires, pumping some diesel into the fires to help them along and claiming a success when the debris rips the facade off neighbouring buildings, you will certainly win fame within the demolition business. Fortune may be rather longer in arriving, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I think I done got it now!
Random damage + random fires = perfect collapse!
I knew some of you guys approach to logical problem solving would rub off.
Thanks fellas.
CD fame and fortune here I come! |
With a business plan involving demolishing buildings for your clients by dropping a nearby 110 floor building on it, insisting that the contents remain in it to fuel the fires, pumping some diesel into the fires to help them along and claiming a success when the debris rips the facade off neighbouring buildings, you will certainly win fame within the demolition business. Fortune may be rather longer in arriving, though. |
Not quite correct - there was room to get a fire engine between the scrap pile of ex-WTC7 and the US Post Office, and the south side was also open. Yet that too was all contained within a +70ft. boundary without the help of neighbouring buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I think I done got it now!
Random damage + random fires = perfect collapse!
I knew some of you guys approach to logical problem solving would rub off.
Thanks fellas.
CD fame and fortune here I come! |
With a business plan involving demolishing buildings for your clients by dropping a nearby 110 floor building on it, insisting that the contents remain in it to fuel the fires, pumping some diesel into the fires to help them along and claiming a success when the debris rips the facade off neighbouring buildings, you will certainly win fame within the demolition business. Fortune may be rather longer in arriving, though. |
Not quite correct - there was room to get a fire engine between the scrap pile of ex-WTC7 and the US Post Office, and the south side was also open. Yet that too was all contained within a +70ft. boundary without the help of neighbouring buildings. |
So what is the correct range of boundary size for a collapsed building, and a CD building? CTists say "fell in footprint" "fell too neatly" etc, but what is neatly, and what isn't? Give me a range of diameters (or radii if you wish) that would indicate CD or indicate normal collapse. You might even be able to come up with a formula that expresses debris radius as a function of building height.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | I think I done got it now!
Random damage + random fires = perfect collapse!
I knew some of you guys approach to logical problem solving would rub off.
Thanks fellas.
CD fame and fortune here I come! |
With a business plan involving demolishing buildings for your clients by dropping a nearby 110 floor building on it, insisting that the contents remain in it to fuel the fires, pumping some diesel into the fires to help them along and claiming a success when the debris rips the facade off neighbouring buildings, you will certainly win fame within the demolition business. Fortune may be rather longer in arriving, though. |
Not quite correct - there was room to get a fire engine between the scrap pile of ex-WTC7 and the US Post Office, and the south side was also open. Yet that too was all contained within a +70ft. boundary without the help of neighbouring buildings. |
So what is the correct range of boundary size for a collapsed building, and a CD building? CTists say "fell in footprint" "fell too neatly" etc, but what is neatly, and what isn't? Give me a range of diameters (or radii if you wish) that would indicate CD or indicate normal collapse. You might even be able to come up with a formula that expresses debris radius as a function of building height. |
Here's a few pics of non CD building collapses to get you started while you improve your ludicrous time wasting and obscuring trolling techniques.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Here's a few pics of non CD building collapses to get you started while you improve your ludicrous time wasting and obscuring trolling techniques.
|
Now imagine if these buildings were ten times heavier. Do you think they would have held together just as well? (Hint: force = mass times acceleration, so the force the building would be subjected to once the foundation failed would be ten times greater. In order to hold together, they would have to be ten times sturdier.)
Try this experiment: Flip a doghouse upside down. Does it hold together?
Now flip a real house upside down (a cyclone/tornado will be needed for this). Does it hold together? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Here's a few pics of non CD building collapses to get you started while you improve your ludicrous time wasting and obscuring trolling techniques.
|
Now imagine if these buildings were ten times heavier. Do you think they would have held together just as well? (Hint: force = mass times acceleration, so the force the building would be subjected to once the foundation failed would be ten times greater. In order to hold together, they would have to be ten times sturdier.)
Try this experiment: Flip a doghouse upside down. Does it hold together?
Now flip a real house upside down (a cyclone/tornado will be needed for this). Does it hold together? |
They (particularly the third photo) would suggest that at least some
part(s) of the building should have held together. If, of course, they were 'natural' collapses. Not too much powder visble either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
They (particularly the third photo) would suggest that at least some
part(s) of the building should have held together. If, of course, they were 'natural' collapses. Not too much powder visble either. |
Let's ignore the fact that not every "natural" collapse produces the same result, even in buildings of comparable size.
Suffice it to say that buildings with different designs will behave differently in a collapse, and the larger a building is, the more the design has to be modified to accommodate the extra weight. There are thus two factors -- different design and much, much greater mass -- that would tend to make the WTC behave much differently than the buildings you have shown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
They (particularly the third photo) would suggest that at least some
part(s) of the building should have held together. If, of course, they were 'natural' collapses. Not too much powder visble either. |
Let's ignore the fact that not every "natural" collapse produces the same result, even in buildings of comparable size.
Suffice it to say that buildings with different designs will behave differently in a collapse, and the larger a building is, the more the design has to be modified to accommodate the extra weight. There are thus two factors -- different design and much, much greater mass -- that would tend to make the WTC behave much differently than the buildings you have shown. |
I accept the points you make are indeed valid. But given that, I would also expect some at least some characteristics in common to be visible. The skylobbies for instance were particularly strong parts of the building.
And yet they also 'disappeared'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Here's a few pics of non CD building collapses to get you started while you improve your ludicrous time wasting and obscuring trolling techniques.
|
Now imagine if these buildings were ten times heavier. Do you think they would have held together just as well? (Hint: force = mass times acceleration, so the force the building would be subjected to once the foundation failed would be ten times greater. In order to hold together, they would have to be ten times sturdier.)
Try this experiment: Flip a doghouse upside down. Does it hold together?
Now flip a real house upside down (a cyclone/tornado will be needed for this). Does it hold together? |
 Why Dorothy you've always had the power to go home, just tap your shoes together and say three times 'there's no place like home'
and when you prove that building foundations exist on the 100 or so floor we'll be waiting See I don't even need to know the exact floor number to know no plane destroyed the buiding foundations!
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
