You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

4
-1

[–] Butterbread 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago  (edited ago)

I'm open minded. I am not saying you're wrong. However, the upper floors were like a hammer on the lower floors. The potential energy was immense. Also, it was not technically freefall. There was friction. When you mention freefall as some kind of proof, it strikes me that you don't understand the Physics.

Building 7, ok I don't understand either but I don't know the true extent of the damage. Seems very odd in some ways, it's true.

1
5

[–] belphegorsprime 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

There is a misconception spread widely about this. For starters, there is no such thing as "freefall speed". There is a concept of "free-fall acceleration", however. Towers 1 & 2 did not show such acceleration (they accelerated at a rate lower than gravitational acceleration). But building 7 did in fact fall at free-fall acceleration for about 2 seconds. There was a really good analysis of building 7 done by David Chandler.

Some odd details about towers 1 & 2: although the buildings collapsed and descended at a rate slower than the acceleration due to gravity, the trajectory of various pieces of large debris suggests a source of energy other than that available from the mere gravitational potential of the mass in the structure. The horizontal component of the velocity vector of each item being projected laterally cannot be accounted for by gravity alone. If you examine the footage of the first two towers, you can see massive structural elements being ejected laterally at high velocities from some of the highest floors of the building. This alone should raise some eyebrows, without even mentioning the squibs, and all the other questionable details.

0
0

[–] Butterbread ago 

Sounds true, but I really don't know the data enough, and I am sufficiently rusty on the Physics so as to be ignorant. I cannot make the judgement.

I understand things look odd, including sideways trajectories and squibbs, but in a massive fucking catastrophe things tend to get chaotic to say the least. That is, the sideways action and dust/smoke puffs could have legitimate non-explosive causes and so I am open-minded but not convinced it is proven.

1
3

[–] ScannerDarkly 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

A smaller, not as massive upper portion of a building can crush at most its own mass as it falls. It is physically impossible for that upper portion of either tower to crush a much stronger and talller lower portion without the removal of the lower floors with additional explosives of some kind.

0
0

[–] Butterbread ago 

I believe you are wrong. The potential energy of those upper floors was immense. The statement that they could only destroy it's own mass has zero basis in Physics. Even if you were right, which you absolutely are not, you can add the mass of the collapsing floors and be wrong by your own rules.

2
3

[–] Pubiclouse 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

I encourage you to watch "Anatomy of a Great Deception" it goes much more in depth than what I wrote. It couldn't hurt and it's free on yt. Definitely worth watching and everyone that's watched it that I've argued with about the subject came back with a different attitude.

I never thought I'd feel so strongly about it myself because like I've said people look at that whole truthers thing as nutters. I used to laugh at them as well... not anymore.

2
6

[–] Butterbread 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Cool, I'll check it out. Like I said, I'm open-minded.

If only more disagreements could be this civil