Oh dear. What you say about the building coming apart isn't very good for the explanation that the towers collapsed due to the upper mass dropping onto the lower aprt of each tower. If this mass is breaking up before it even hits the lower building, how can it have caused such destruction? By definition, the mass is no longer as large or effective.
Gibberish and in direct contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy didn't get destroyed. The "connectedness" of the matter doesn't change the amount of energy it is about to impart.
Furthermore, the building doesn't need to "come apart" to break the glass, it needs to torque only very slightly in order to break glass and cause reflections. Since the collapse has already started, that means the vertical stability is already in question, and it's very easy to knock the window frames out of alignment and break the glass.
Broken glass causes reflections all over the place during the collapse. Why do you keep ignoring the 100s of identical flashes in the actual collapse debris? Since you keep accusing people of being dense and unobservant, feel free to admit that you see the 100s of other flashes that occur towards the bottom in the debris (even the debris that goes off to the side, proving conclusively that the flashes come from the debris, not the building).
Do you see all those flashes? Or do you only see what you want to see?
Quote:
You still have not explained why there is such a definite flash and debris on the nearside corner. It certainly isn't flying glass so forget that argument.
I'll answer that once you admit all the rest of the flashes are glass. I wouldn't want you jumping around to different goalposts.
Oh dear. What you say about the building coming apart isn't very good for the explanation that the towers collapsed due to the upper mass dropping onto the lower aprt of each tower. If this mass is breaking up before it even hits the lower building, how can it have caused such destruction? By definition, the mass is no longer as large or effective.
Gibberish and in direct contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy didn't get destroyed. The "connectedness" of the matter doesn't change the amount of energy it is about to impart.
Furthermore, the building doesn't need to "come apart" to break the glass, it needs to torque only very slightly in order to break glass and cause reflections. Since the collapse has already started, that means the vertical stability is already in question, and it's very easy to knock the window frames out of alignment and break the glass.
Broken glass causes reflections all over the place during the collapse. Why do you keep ignoring the 100s of identical flashes in the actual collapse debris? Since you keep accusing people of being dense and unobservant, feel free to admit that you see the 100s of other flashes that occur towards the bottom in the debris (even the debris that goes off to the side, proving conclusively that the flashes come from the debris, not the building).
Do you see all those flashes? Or do you only see what you want to see?
Quote:
You still have not explained why there is such a definite flash and debris on the nearside corner. It certainly isn't flying glass so forget that argument.
I'll answer that once you admit all the rest of the flashes are glass. I wouldn't want you jumping around to different goalposts.
No you are getting confused - forget about the non-relevant scientific laws of thermodynamics. The argument that NIST and the other shills propogate is that the upper mass of each tower fell onto the lower part of the building. However, if you are saying that the video of WTC2 shows the upper rotating body to be breaking up then how can the mass of the building remain in place to cause this collapse? By your analysis, the upper mass of WTC2 would have fallen to pieces by the time it fell only a few floors in which case the debris would not have had sufficient weight to sustain the collapse.
Indeed, I see plenty of flashes probably caused by flying glass and debris. But there is no flying glass and debris up until the first flashes appear. You still haven't answered my question regarding why there would be flying debris in the first place. Perhaps you'd care to show me some pictures of collapsing buildings where this happens naturally. I bet you can't find any.
Lastly, how do you know that the top of WTC2 'torqued' as it rotated. I agree that any slight deflection would have broken the windows, but where's your proof for such a deflection? Where's your absolute proof that the upper flash is glass breaking to defeat my opinion that it was due to explosives?
wobbler, did you finish reading the thread yet or are you ignoring the answers to your questions?
I haven't been ignoring anything, I've been engaged in real world social matters - so I haven't actually read all this thread yet as it has appeared to grow to monstrous dimensions while I was at work today.
However, I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean - I raised three questions, one which elicited the response:
Quote:
I don't think there's too much disagreement on the argument that the Bush administration dropped the ball in its handling of the environmental aspects of 9/11. This is not too surprising given the fact that its view on environmental issues seems based more on wishful thinking than on science.
from AR
and the other two I responded to earlier. The other stuff in this thread ain't mine. Scanning through it, it appears to be mostly about the collapse of the towers - an issue I generally read with interest but don't engage with due to my knowledge being less than most others here (I can thus be easily bamboozled), and what your qualifications are - I couldn't care less if you've got a degree in fashion design. Oddly enough, my current boss has and he's running an NHS community service. And he's good at it. So there you go. Be careful of all that maths stuff, though - it used to be considered witchcraft, you know; you never know where it may lead.
I'm trying to raise a few anomalies, unaddressed issues as opposed to the usual fiercely polarised debate. I think the the environmental one is actually pretty important; you don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to believe that people are dying because of it. I can't see how that issue itself isn't worthy of some kind of enquiry. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
So are we saying that the flashes come from explosives? Because themite/mate/marmite doesn't flash, it burns with a steady flame, so we're talking explosives. This is a problem because the explosives placed on core columns would be shielded, as these explosives are supposed to be hidden from view, as no-one working in the building has seen them. This means that we wouldn't see the flash from core column explosives, they're all supposedly hidden behind dry wall, plaster etc. If they were perimeter column explosives then we would see the perimeter buckle outwards with the flash, but we don't.
So we don't don't see any evidence of explosives. _________________
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
The argument that NIST and the other shills propogate is that the upper mass of each tower fell onto the lower part of the building.
Yes, the mass fell on it. It didn't vanish into thin air.
Quote:
However, if you are saying that the video of WTC2 shows the upper rotating body to be breaking up then how can the mass of the building remain in place to cause this collapse? By your analysis, the upper mass of WTC2 would have fallen to pieces by the time it fell only a few floors in which case the debris would not have had sufficient weight to sustain the collapse.
It doesn't vanish. Just because it is "in pieces" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is where I invoke the "non-relevant" laws of thermodynamics, in a moment where they happen to be extremely relevant. When are you going to realize that I bring up these issues for a reason? I don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics for the fun of it. I do it because they are relevant. You disagree with me and then say "don't worry about those irrelevant laws" and proceed to violate them.
Again, the "connectedness" of matter has nothing to do with its existence, it's potential energy, or it's kinetic energy. That is something you've made up because you have no ida what you are talking about. A pound of sand exerts the same pound of force as a pound of rocks do.
Further, we've already established that it didn't "break into little pieces", it torqued just enough to break the glass and cause reflections. I didn't say it disintigrated.
Quote:
Indeed, I see plenty of flashes probably caused by flying glass and debris. But there is no flying glass and debris up until the first flashes appear.
Quote:
You still haven't answered my question regarding why there would be flying debris in the first place.
I've explained it to you 5 or 6 times already. As the building lost structural integrity during the initiation of the collapse, small torques took windows frames out of alignment breaking glass. Puffs of air did alot of damage, too, during the actual collapse.
Quote:
Perhaps you'd care to show me some pictures of collapsing buildings where this happens naturally. I bet you can't find any.
Who cares? I bet before 1990 you couldn't find any pictures of what happens when a comet hits Jupiter. Does that means it's impossible? This is gibberish CT talk where I need to produce photographic evidence to prove basic physics.
Quote:
Lastly, how do you know that the top of WTC2 'torqued' as it rotated.
Hahaha. Your ignorance of physics is too funny. What do you think causes rotation? Maybe you should look up the words before asking stupid questions.
Quote:
I agree that any slight deflection would have broken the windows, but where's your proof for such a deflection? Where's your absolute proof that the upper flash is glass breaking to defeat my opinion that it was due to explosives?
Due to the fact that's identical to every other reflection, the rest of which are obviously glass. The fact that building was being torqued is evidenced entirely by the fact that it rotates. The building and the window frames were never meant to successfully survive torques. It should be obvious that twisting a building to rotate it would almost certainly break some of the glass in the exterior, especially when combined with massive structural failings to the vertical columns.
I'm trying to raise a few anomalies, unaddressed issues as opposed to the usual fiercely polarised debate. I think the the environmental one is actually pretty important; you don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to believe that people are dying because of it. I can't see how that issue itself isn't worthy of some kind of enquiry.
The enviornmental one is really important. I asked for a source and was never given one. I don't know enough about it.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not evidence of a conspiracy. I don't need "re-open 9/11" to investigate the enviornmental concerns. You seem to think that I meant if you could a single unanswered question, that would mean I would need to accept a complete reinvistigation. That's gibberish.
If there are actual, valid, unanswered issues, let's address them. The physics of the collapse of the WTC, flight 93, and flight 77 aren't on the list of unaddressed issues.
he enviornmental one is really important. I asked for a source and was never given one. I don't know enough about it.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not evidence of a conspiracy. I don't need "re-open 9/11" to investigate the enviornmental concerns. You seem to think that I meant if you could a single unanswered question, that would mean I would need to accept a complete reinvistigation. That's gibberish.
I want to find the tme to find out more about this issue as it's one I don't know enough about. I totally agree it's not evidence of a conspiracy and I don't think anyone has ever suggested it is. It is potentially an instance of something that does require its own investigation. I wouldn't myself suggest it in itself requires a complete investigation, I was just winding you up about your earlier comment that if one unanswered question could be found you'd call for one. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:41 am Post subject:
[quote="Anti-sophist"]
Quote:
The argument that NIST and the other shills propogate is that the upper mass of each tower fell onto the lower part of the building.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Yes, the mass fell on it. It didn't vanish into thin air.
No it didn't 'vanish', but it did spread out radially to approx twice the width of the building, reducing the impact force on the remaining structure.
Quote:
However, if you are saying that the video of WTC2 shows the upper rotating body to be breaking up then how can the mass of the building remain in place to cause this collapse? By your analysis, the upper mass of WTC2 would have fallen to pieces by the time it fell only a few floors in which case the debris would not have had sufficient weight to sustain the collapse.
Anti-sophist wrote:
It doesn't vanish. Just because it is "in pieces" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is where I invoke the "non-relevant" laws of thermodynamics, in a moment where they happen to be extremely relevant. When are you going to realize that I bring up these issues for a reason? I don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics for the fun of it. I do it because they are relevant. You disagree with me and then say "don't worry about those irrelevant laws" and proceed to violate them.
Again, the "connectedness" of matter has nothing to do with its existence, it's potential energy, or it's kinetic energy. That is something you've made up because you have no ida what you are talking about. A pound of sand exerts the same pound of force as a pound of rocks do.
Disingenuous. The impact of a solid rock on a point is a concentrated force compared to the larger area of impact and energy absorption of the sand (or dust in this case).
Anti-sophist wrote:
Further, we've already established that it didn't "break into little pieces", it torqued just enough to break the glass and cause reflections. I didn't say it disintigrated..
And yet it did. How many rpm would it need to be 'torquing at' to grind itself to dust? No need to answer, that's a rhetorical question.
Quote:
Indeed, I see plenty of flashes probably caused by flying glass and debris. But there is no flying glass and debris up until the first flashes appear.
Quote:
You still haven't answered my question regarding why there would be flying debris in the first place.
Anti-sophist wrote:
I've explained it to you 5 or 6 times already. As the building lost structural integrity during the initiation of the collapse, small torques took windows frames out of alignment breaking glass. Puffs of air did alot of damage, too, during the actual collapse.
It sounds like an invention, but I'm sure that with your usual certainty you must have some evidence for this.
Quote:
Perhaps you'd care to show me some pictures of collapsing buildings where this happens naturally. I bet you can't find any.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Who cares? I bet before 1990 you couldn't find any pictures of what happens when a comet hits Jupiter. Does that means it's impossible? This is gibberish CT talk where I need to produce photographic evidence to prove basic physics.
When you blithely quote phenomena as 'common', which are disputed by others, then you do. Otherwise its gibberish OCT talk.
Quote:
Lastly, how do you know that the top of WTC2 'torqued' as it rotated.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Hahaha. Your ignorance of physics is too funny. What do you think causes rotation? Maybe you should look up the words before asking stupid questions.
Your arrogance is astounding, and quite unfounded. Maybe your mother finds it endearing.
Quote:
I agree that any slight deflection would have broken the windows, but where's your proof for such a deflection? Where's your absolute proof that the upper flash is glass breaking to defeat my opinion that it was due to explosives?
Anti-sophist wrote:
Due to the fact that's identical to every other reflection, the rest of which are obviously glass. The fact that building was being torqued is evidenced entirely by the fact that it rotates. The building and the window frames were never meant to successfully survive torques. It should be obvious that twisting a building to rotate it would almost certainly break some of the glass in the exterior, especially when combined with massive structural failings to the vertical columns.
Far from it, it's only 'obvious' when you're attempting to explain point sources of light as emanating from passive sources such as 'reflections'.
You do realise that your 'reflections' are from an area that's in shadow?
When you run the clip back and forth in “Virtual Dub” (VD) you do see quite a few very similar flashes and what might even be thermite. (another pic below)
This clip of the north tower collapse has many many flashes at about 19 seconds onward that can be seen in the smoke. I suppose the shills will tell us it's glass and when that doesn't work there tell us it's burning debris. Maybe it's simply thermite that is still reacting?
I can email a better quality 2meg windows media file to anybody that wants to study the flashes. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
No it didn't 'vanish', but it did spread out radially to approx twice the width of the building, reducing the impact force on the remaining structure.
Huh? Do you even know what we are talking about? We are talking about the very initial collapse.. the first few floors beneath the collapse zone. The building didn't spread out to twice the width of the building until much, much, much later. Try keeping up with the conversation.
Quote:
Disingenuous. The impact of a solid rock on a point is a concentrated force compared to the larger area of impact and energy absorption of the sand (or dust in this case).
It's not disingenous. It's basic physics. The force and the energy is still exactly the same. You are the one trying to rationalize away the most basic laws of physics.
Quote:
And yet it did. How many rpm would it need to be 'torquing at' to grind itself to dust? No need to answer, that's a rhetorical question.
I didn't say it torqued to grind itself to dust. I said it only needed a very slightl torque to break glass and show refleections.
RPM isn't a measure of torque, either. Try to keep up, I know its hard. So far you've made 2 irrelevant statements and 2 wrong ones.
Quote:
It sounds like an invention, but I'm sure that with your usual certainty you must have some evidence for this.
So are you denying the fact that glass broke and broken glass reflections can be seen in the video?
Quote:
When you blithely quote phenomena as 'common', which are disputed by others, then you do. Otherwise its gibberish OCT talk.
Who the * said that the events of 9/11 are common?
Quote:
Far from it, it's only 'obvious' when you're attempting to explain point sources of light as emanating from passive sources such as 'reflections'.
You do realise that your 'reflections' are from an area that's in shadow?
Again chek, try to keep up with the conversation instead of jumping half in trying to make a stupid point. I've already said that the flash you see on the right probably isn't a glass reflection, due entirely to it's duration. It lasts much longer than the rest.
However, all the rest, appear much shorter and all look identical to what is -obviously- glass reflections that occur later in the video.
Again, are you denying the existence of 100s of glass reflections towards the end of that video clip?
us it's glass and when that doesn't work there tell us it's burning debris. Maybe it's simply thermite that is still reacting?
In that clip, it's entirely broken glass. Thermite doesn't "flash" like that, unfortunately, so it's almost certainly not thermite.
It looks like glass reflections. It doesn't look like thermite. We have conclusive evidence that glass was present in the correctform in the debris cloud to produce reflections. We have no evidence that thermite in the correct form was present in the debris cloud.
Looks like glass. There was glass. Doesn't look like thermite. No proof of thermite even existing.
The argument that NIST and the other shills propogate is that the upper mass of each tower fell onto the lower part of the building.
Yes, the mass fell on it. It didn't vanish into thin air.
Quote:
However, if you are saying that the video of WTC2 shows the upper rotating body to be breaking up then how can the mass of the building remain in place to cause this collapse? By your analysis, the upper mass of WTC2 would have fallen to pieces by the time it fell only a few floors in which case the debris would not have had sufficient weight to sustain the collapse.
It doesn't vanish. Just because it is "in pieces" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is where I invoke the "non-relevant" laws of thermodynamics, in a moment where they happen to be extremely relevant. When are you going to realize that I bring up these issues for a reason? I don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics for the fun of it. I do it because they are relevant. You disagree with me and then say "don't worry about those irrelevant laws" and proceed to violate them.
Again, the "connectedness" of matter has nothing to do with its existence, it's potential energy, or it's kinetic energy. That is something you've made up because you have no ida what you are talking about. A pound of sand exerts the same pound of force as a pound of rocks do.
Further, we've already established that it didn't "break into little pieces", it torqued just enough to break the glass and cause reflections. I didn't say it disintigrated.
Quote:
Indeed, I see plenty of flashes probably caused by flying glass and debris. But there is no flying glass and debris up until the first flashes appear.
Quote:
You still haven't answered my question regarding why there would be flying debris in the first place.
I've explained it to you 5 or 6 times already. As the building lost structural integrity during the initiation of the collapse, small torques took windows frames out of alignment breaking glass. Puffs of air did alot of damage, too, during the actual collapse.
Quote:
Perhaps you'd care to show me some pictures of collapsing buildings where this happens naturally. I bet you can't find any.
Who cares? I bet before 1990 you couldn't find any pictures of what happens when a comet hits Jupiter. Does that means it's impossible? This is gibberish CT talk where I need to produce photographic evidence to prove basic physics.
Quote:
Lastly, how do you know that the top of WTC2 'torqued' as it rotated.
Hahaha. Your ignorance of physics is too funny. What do you think causes rotation? Maybe you should look up the words before asking stupid questions.
Quote:
I agree that any slight deflection would have broken the windows, but where's your proof for such a deflection? Where's your absolute proof that the upper flash is glass breaking to defeat my opinion that it was due to explosives?
Due to the fact that's identical to every other reflection, the rest of which are obviously glass. The fact that building was being torqued is evidenced entirely by the fact that it rotates. The building and the window frames were never meant to successfully survive torques. It should be obvious that twisting a building to rotate it would almost certainly break some of the glass in the exterior, especially when combined with massive structural failings to the vertical columns.
You really do talk rubbish. If the upper mass of the building had broken into pieces then that mass was no longer effective as a destroyer of the very complete, larger and intact mass below it. 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' (Newton's third law), so if a building is hit by a piece of steel weighing one ton then the building will react with the same force in the opposite direction. If that piece of steel weighs 100 tons then the rest of the building will have to react against that weight by the same force if it is to remain standing. If it cannot then it will be crushed. A thousand pieces of steel weighing a few hundred kilograms each falling on different parts of the tower is very different to one complete piece weighing tens of thousands of kilograms hitting only one part of the tower. You know that perfectly well but you just cannot admit it. Neither would it appear can NIST. So forget the laws of thermodymanics. Will a one ton boulder falling onto a car cause the same damage as one ton of gravel. No. Now accept you are wrong and move on. A distributed load is very different to a point load.
You still haven't proved that the upper mass 'torqued' at all and why there was so much flying debris. You'll also notice in my post above that I put apostrophes around my use of the word 'torque' to signify that I was using the word as described by you even though I felt your use of it to be misplaced.
us it's glass and when that doesn't work there tell us it's burning debris. Maybe it's simply thermite that is still reacting?
In that clip, it's entirely broken glass. Thermite doesn't "flash" like that, unfortunately, so it's almost certainly not thermite.
It looks like glass reflections. It doesn't look like thermite. We have conclusive evidence that glass was present in the correctform in the debris cloud to produce reflections. We have no evidence that thermite in the correct form was present in the debris cloud.
Looks like glass. There was glass. Doesn't look like thermite. No proof of thermite even existing.
Occam's Razor....
I just think some of the flashes are a bit to high up to be glass. And if those higher up flashes aren't glass then maybe all the other aren't glass.
I would expect glass to fall not rise up. Also some of the flashes are quite long so do we really think a large piece of glass from and exploding building would show the same face, to reflect the light, for any extended period (half a second).
So was the glass of the twin towers mirror coated or non reflective? We "might" expect such intense flashes if it was mirrored glass but not regular glass. I'll have to look into this and get back to you. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject:
[quote="Anti-sophist"]
chek wrote:
No it didn't 'vanish', but it did spread out radially to approx twice the width of the building, reducing the impact force on the remaining structure.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Huh? Do you even know what we are talking about? We are talking about the very initial collapse.. the first few floors beneath the collapse zone. The building didn't spread out to twice the width of the building until much, much, much later. Try keeping up with the conversation.
Actually no, you're wrong here. As this sequence shows, events were happening much faster than you appear to have noticed. The video is shot at 29.97 fps (say 30fps for round numbers) and the following sequence happens between frames 90 and 190 - that's approx a shade over 3 seconds.
Note that the red line is a fixed point referenced to the lower mechanical floor stripe on the North Tower, and the yellow arrow in the last photo denotes the top corner of the blown South Tower.
Also note that in the last frame, the lower corner of the South Tower has not yet moved, but still the upper portion is already exploding into a dust cloud almost twice the original width of the Tower.
Quote:
Disingenuous. The impact of a solid rock on a point is a concentrated force compared to the larger area of impact and energy absorption of the sand (or dust in this case).
Anti-sophist wrote:
It's not disingenous. It's basic physics. The force and the energy is still exactly the same. You are the one trying to rationalize away the most basic laws of physics.
No I'm stating that a collection of small objects will behave differently to one coherent large object, still within the laws of physics..
Quote:
And yet it did. How many rpm would it need to be 'torquing at' to grind itself to dust? No need to answer, that's a rhetorical question.
Anti-sophist wrote:
I didn't say it torqued to grind itself to dust. I said it only needed a very slightl torque to break glass and show reflections.
Your explanation is that glass reflections are causing the flashes - an equally valid explanation is that other agents such as redundant small charges could be their cause.
Anti-sophist wrote:
RPM isn't a measure of torque, either. Try to keep up, I know its hard. So far you've made 2 irrelevant statements and 2 wrong ones..
I'm well aware that my torque spanner does not have an rpm guage on it thanks. And so far, while possibly poorly expressed, I disgree with your comment on the relevance of my statements or on them being wrong.
Quote:
It sounds like an invention, but I'm sure that with your usual certainty you must have some evidence for this.
Anti-sophist wrote:
So are you denying the fact that glass broke and broken glass reflections can be seen in the video?
I don't dispute that glass broke. I'm querying how they reflected bright light in an area of shadow.
Quote:
When you blithely quote phenomena as 'common', which are disputed by others, then you do. Otherwise its gibberish OCT talk.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Who the * said that the events of 9/11 are common?
You're surely not suggesting that CD'd buildings normally have the glass removed first are you?
Quote:
Far from it, it's only 'obvious' when you're attempting to explain point sources of light as emanating from passive sources such as 'reflections'.
You do realise that your 'reflections' are from an area that's in shadow?
Anti-sophist wrote:
Again chek, try to keep up with the conversation instead of jumping half in trying to make a stupid point. I've already said that the flash you see on the right probably isn't a glass reflection, due entirely to it's duration. It lasts much longer than the rest.
However, all the rest, appear much shorter and all look identical to what is -obviously- glass reflections that occur later in the video.
The obviousness of what is seen depends on what you think you are observing. Have you a theory on what the flash you concede isn't glass reflecting from shadow might be?
Anti-sophist wrote:
Again, are you denying the existence of 100s of glass reflections towards the end of that video clip?
[img]
There are certainly flashes that can be explained as that on the sunlit side.
When you run the clip back and forth in “Virtual Dub” (VD) you do see quite a few very similar flashes and what might even be thermite. (another pic below)
Why are you so obsessed by thermite? It isn't used in demolition. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
I just think some of the flashes are a bit to high up to be glass. And if those higher up flashes aren't glass then maybe all the other aren't glass.
You don't think there was glass above the impact zone?
Quote:
So was the glass of the twin towers mirror coated or non reflective? We "might" expect such intense flashes if it was mirrored glass but not regular glass. I'll have to look into this and get back to you.
All buildings have highly tinted glass (which is very reflective) for insulation purposes. All glass of all buildings is highly reflective to strong light (in the daytime).
That's why you don't "see" into buildings during the day like you do at night.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
