The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

they should have thought about that before they attacked us huh?

 

You mean back in the 90's when you launched Desert Shield and then Desert Storm?

Iraq never attacked the US, they attacked Kuwait

 

Meh, off the top of my head...
Terminal Velocity of the falling objects
Overcoming the initial inertia
Air Friction
Mass of The plane
How much mass was lost by objects flying off of the building, and object being burnt.
Possibility (actually fact) that the building did not collapse perfectly strait down.

Also:

Has it happened again since. I feel like an ass saying this, but I hope Australia gets attacked, and maybe you lose someone you care about. I wonder how much you would be bringing up the past then, hmm? Maybe put yourself in other people's shoes for a while before constantly brining these things up...

 

Terminal velocity wouldn't be reached in one story of falling.

Air Friction works in out favor

Mass off whatever burned would counter mass of the plane and the differance wouldn't be significant

What did it collapse at? 0.1 degree? You saw the footage it collapsed right in to basement!

If I lost someone I cared about I would want to know WHO was responsible not just trust the totally flawed offical report!

 

First off, you spelled difference wrong


Secondly, Most conspiracy theories are based on insignificant details, that was a cop out.

 

This one isn't.

It's insignificant conpared to the total weight of the building. It's like sticking a marble to a bowling ball and dropping it through concrete. The marble won't make a difference

 

Don't say that, unless you are willing to test every possible placement of the marble on the bowling ball.. That is just a moronic statement.. you have NO proof. At some point the marble may increase the structural integrity of the ball, or counterbalance it in a way it would land differently...

 

sorry if i was hard to understand, but i was in fact on your side of the arguement... kinda. although we both agree that the towers fell slower, thats a good start.

are you in a COMA? iraq didnt attack us , terrorists that have people living in iraq may have. if you are talking about desert storm, then you are even more retarded. bush didnt start the war because of that 90's crap, its about the insurgents within iraq. do me a favor and listen to this: PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAY. nothing pisses me off more then when someone posts somthing completely retarded in an intelligent conversation.

 

Let me rephrase.

It's like adding the mass of a marble to a bowling ball.

 

It doesnt really matter to me how they fell. I saw them fall on video, and no matter how they fell pancake etc. . .It was the direct effect of those 2 planes

 

No. The author of this post is correct. use your logical Thinking. There's A perfectly Fine tower. The plane Hits it. theres a Giant hole in it 3/4 of the way up. Assuming the plane went all the way through, that leaves the 1/4 of the building left to collapse on the wrest of the 3/4 Steel Supported Sky scraper. now tell me. Why would all that steel bend and collapse from only 1/4 of it's Weight.


Demolition was involoved, If you watch how the building Falls. a plane hitting a roof can't, and won't bring a building to it's knees. And if you watch when it collapses, the building caves in as it does. When a bomb explodes, so much energy is exherted outward, that it sucks back inward. Kind of like a Backdraft but not really.


Inside Job Yes. Conspiracy? I dunno. But were there demolitions? yes =/

 

Right and I assume based on you seeing it totally changes.

Yep

 

Hm too many variables that no one on earth could take into account. Many slight misshaps occur in that period of time that can't be accounted for or calculated. I hate saying this, but just live with what happened. It's bad enough that it happened, I wouldnt beat the dead horse.

 

So why do you believe the offical report?

If you took your perfectly healthy dog to the vet and came back 1 hour later and the vet told you your dog had died, but wouldn't let you see your pet, and wouldn't give you a reason for how/why your dog died, would you just accecpt it?

 

Well, that's a bad example because in this case America could see the twin towers were dead and the reason was pretty obvious.. a plane crashed into it.

 

Okay, I'll change that. Your perfectly healthy dog that the vet shows you is dead and you see a knife wound in your dog. You know how it died, and why. If the vet told you that another person (not him/her) commited the act would you just believe them?

Common sense says no. Why do you just believe the government when there is PROOF against it.

 

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2014121360
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2014127109
both completely changed my view of it.

 

Okay, I'll admit that case is much better then the last- but

1.) I might believe him
2.) I might not

Would depend on the specifics.

But with the Twin Towers theres a logical flow of actions that resulted in a somewhat cohesive destruction of the Twin Towers. How would it be a demonlition? Where would they put the charges? Where? Who? How?
WAIT I SOLVED IT- It wasnt a demolition.

The hell do you expect when a plane crashes into a building?

 

Read Sythe's Post. Fool.


Too many people on this topic are eather consumed by mass-media. Or have no idea what they are talking about...