I don't recognize these pictures. What are they(Wanna say trade center pics but I don't recognize these angles)
Trade Center pics.
Karma, get real. We've seen enough of this goofy stuff already.
Where? Here on the forums? If I knew that, I wouldn't have posted, but I haven't seen anything.
LOL. The infamous Popular Mechanics article debunked nothing, and in fact has itself been debunked. Why don't you try to think critically and for yourself instead of relying on what Popular Mechanics or anyone else says? I can post dozens of links too, from top Ph.D. scientists, and teams of them, supporting my claim - stuff which has been peer-reviewed and published. But I won't do that - I'd rather people just think for themselves, if that's possible.
Yah read Daiwa's link, and also take some structural engineering classes.
Ah, I not only took structural engineering classes, I worked within the structural engineering group of a defense contractor for years. Actually, we blast tested building designs, came up with new designs, blast tested those, etc. Quite ironically and unbelievably, this same defense contractor was hired by... geez, it was either NIST or FEMA I belive... to investigate the cause of the "collapse" (cough) of building 7.
I guess I shouldn't have expected anything different. But instead of throwing quips out there like "read this Popular Mechanics article" or "take some structural engineering classes," why don't you explain how thousands of tons of concrete just jumps up into the air and explodes into dust? In other words, why don't you actually address the points being made?
Gravity is a bitch.
Anyone who thinks that there was enough gravitational potential energy in those buildings to do THAT is a moron. In fact, no one believes that. I have never seen a claim that gravity pulverized all that concrete. Instead, this fact just seems to be ignored by mainstream media, governmental investigations, etc.
The amount of potential energy in those buildings has already been calculated. The amount needed to pulverize that much concrete into dust has also been calculated. You lack the energy needed by many orders of magnitude.
EDIT: It's worse than that. The concrete turns into dust from the very second of "collapse." In other words, as the first floor goes, that concrete turns to dust. As the second floor goes, that concrete turns to dust... all the way down. Where is the gravitational potential energy coming from to turn the TOP floors into dust? Did you look at the photos? Don't you see a tower standing, with the top engulfed in concrete dust?
Fact is the WTC is the only skyscraper in history to be demolished like this, so short of crashing a jet into another skyscraper to see if the same thing happens, there's really no basis to say it's atypical.
Yes there is. You don't need to crash a jet into a skyscraper to understand that hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete don't suddenly pulverize into dust without a mechanism for it. You don't need to crash that jet to understand that jet fuel (kerosene) fires do not melt steel. You don't need to crash that jet to understand that the top 30-something floors of those buildings cannot fall through the rest of the buildings, at free fall acceleration, taking the path of most resistance... ESPECIALLY considering that those floors had already disintegrated into dust anyway.
And last but not least, you have forgotten about building 7. It was never hit by an airplane. Yet it "collapsed" (cough) too (yes, a 3rd skyscraper was destroyed that day). Do we need to crash a jet into another skyscraper to explain how a building that WASN'T hit by a jet was destroyed?
The disaster has been so heavily studied by structural engineers that if there were serious discrepencies with the models there would be more serious discussion by now.
A tree is not an analog for a skyscraper, since a tree is mostly solid whereas a skyscraper is actually mostly empty space held up by relatively tiny support beams. And that's before considering how far apart they are in size and mass.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying a tree is a skyscraper. I'm simply suggesting that if a tree turned itself into sawdust from the top down, no one would call it a "collapse." They'd call it something else, i.e. "weird, top-down disintegration" or whatever.
My apologies, that website seems to be removing the pictures. I'll try to rehost elsewhere, but I bet the same thing will keep happening.