Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, you wrote this:



It's a lie.

I showed you that it's a lie.

You're a liar.

There's no wiggle room here. Wear your badge with shame. You have some nerve posting here at all.

The point is that the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt. You apparently can't defend that and now want to show that the upper block could have remained tilted the whole way down. Finally, it is not germane and I shouldn't use that as an argument so I will withdraw it.

Now get onto the reality of no jolt occurring and no observable mechanism for natural collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I've said this before TONY, although I know I'm wasting my time with you. The mechanism is progressive collapse induced by structural failure. And for you to suggest that there's no deceleration because some mystery cataclysmic jolt didn't happen is a rather bald assertion considering much to the contrary of that claim of yours.

You apparently understand the materials relating to your field, there's obviously a road block somewhere preventing you from applying it competently, so I think Mackey's statements are justified, no offense. Sorry... I won't be wasting further time with you.

What mechanism is necessary to produce a progressive collapse of a structure built with a high reserve strength?

Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait, so if I am reading this right, Heiwa believes that a large debris field is evidence of CD. But, I have heard other CTs say that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, in a nice neat pile, which is evidence of CD.

What I want Tony and Heiwa to do, is pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION.

When you have a building collapsing, and pieces of said building faalling with great speed, do you think that they will just fall straight down?? Especially from a height of 1300 feet, they are going to crash into each other, change directions, crash into more things, move in different directions, etc.

Now, how is this possible without CD??? Its called physics.

If two things are moving in the same direction, and one strikes another, one of them is going to change directions, even if just slightly.

Now, how could this slight movement make something fall 300-400 feet from its origional position you ask?? Same way that a wall 100 feet long can be out of square by feet, when it was only off by 1/8th of an inch and the begining.

You get it now??? CD didn't happen. Plain and simple.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wait, so if I am reading this right, Heiwa believes that a large debris field is evidence of CD. But, I have heard other CTs say that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, in a nice neat pile, which is evidence of CD.

What I want Tony and Heiwa to do, is pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION.

When you have a building collapsing, and pieces of said building faalling with great speed, do you think that they will just fall straight down?? Especially from a height of 1300 feet, they are going to crash into each other, change directions, crash into more things, move in different directions, etc.

Now, how is this possible without CD??? Its called physics.

If two things are moving in the same direction, and one strikes another, one of them is going to change directions, even if just slightly.

Now, how could this slight movement make something fall 300-400 feet from its origional position you ask?? Same way that a wall 100 feet long can be out of square by feet, when it was only off by 1/8th of an inch and the begining.

You get it now??? CD didn't happen. Plain and simple.

I never said a large debris field is evidence of CD.

My point is that the lack of evidence of an impulsive load, which is the only way a natural collapse could progress, implies CD.

 

[GlennB]

Bump ....

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

Why not?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bump ....




Why not?

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

 

[GlennB]

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

Yes I did. You didn't answer my question. 'Germane' means 'relevant' or 'on-topic'. Withdrawing an irrelevant argument is not the same as conceding that the (no-tilt) argument is untrue.

Do you accept that there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse? It's a very important point for any future debate with you here.

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

Heiwa, i'd love to see how you came to this conclusion. Once the floor trusses become severly damaged or disconnected from the perimeter columns, the structure loses stability. Neither the perimeter nor the core columns were designed to stand on their own without that connection.

You keep harping about "local damage". How much local damage was done to those floor trusses in the initial drop after the perimeter columns bowed in, buckeled and failed? I've watched the videos and you can see the perimeter columns peeling outwards in the initial phase of the collapse.

Once those perimeter columns peeled out wouldn't the upper block now be able to start " telescoping" so to speak into the lower block causing more and more perimeter columns to peel away? Since those perimeter columns were 3 stories high, wouldn't you lose 3 stories worth of floor connections instead of just one at a time causing a greater, faster loss of stability INCREASING the rate of collapse?

Please don't respond with your standard "only local damage occurs". Exactly how much damage could the truss system sustain before the SYSTEM becomes unstable? I've read your pages and looked at your goofy pictures, none of which explains how you came to the above conclusion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes I did. You didn't answer my question. 'Germane' means 'relevant' or 'on-topic'. Withdrawing an irrelevant argument is not the same as conceding that the (no-tilt) argument is untrue.

Do you accept that there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse? It's a very important point for any future debate with you here.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

 

[sylvan8798]

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

Did you read what I said?

Your problem is that you seem to think you should be able to OBSERVE the mechanisms in the collapse of a monster building composed of thousands and thousands of parts which also happens to be on fire. Sorry, but you simply cannot see what is happening to most of the components during this process. You are grasping at straws.

The real question should be: If you believe this carp, what are you doing about it, aside from posting your outrage on the internets?

 

[GlennB]

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

Then why did you state "The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall. " ??

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What mechanism is necessary to produce a progressive collapse of a structure built with a high reserve strength?

The most basic mechanisms don't really change at all. Column failure by means of buckling, crushing, or a combination of the two. Shear failure of the bolts and welds... all of which can result from eccentric loading of these parts. The only thing that progressive collapse defines is that these failures are not impacting the entire structure at once, rather only parts of it at any given moment. You should know better than most people in this thread what happens when the load paths change. Where do you think that reserve strength comes from?

Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.

I don't see why he would need to show evidence for it. You correctly stated:

The dynamic load doesn't happen just because the mass is in motion. It occurs if the moving mass transfers it's kinetic energy and decelerates at a rate greater than gravity.

What seems to be your assumption is that the strength of the structure being impacted should have had the strength to take most of that dynamic load before it reached it's ultimate strength. Problem is this changes with the eccentricity of the load and the material strength. My understanding is you seem to be conflating exactly how the loads were received once the upper mass was in motion. I'm not quite sure how you observe a load so much as you observe the resulting effects of it being applied. Nobody needs to make wiggle room for anything to discredit your argument, it's a bald assertion and it's wrong, if the failure occurs too quickly then it just means that not all of the potential energy in the mass was required to be transferred in the form of kinetic energy to induce failure at a given point.


EDIT: For the anyone interested, I've extracted this excerpt from the 6th edition of the Steel Designer's manual

Steel Designers' Manual - 6th Edition (2003)

Accidental loading
A series of incidents in the 1960s culminating in the partial collapse of a systembuilt
tower block at Ronan Point in 1968 led to a fundamental reappraisal of the
approach to structural stability in building.
Traditional load-bearing masonry buildings have many in-built elements providing
inherent stability which are lacking in modern steel-framed buildings. Modern
structures can be refined to a degree where they can resist the horizontal and
vertical design loadings with the required factor of safety but may lack the ability
to cope with the unexpected.
It is this concern with the safety of the occupants and the need to limit the extent
of any damage in the event of unforeseen or accidental loadings that has led to the
concept of robustness in building design. Any element in the structure that supports
a major part of the building either must be designed for blast loading or must be
capable of being supported by an alternative load path. In addition, suitable ties
should be incorporated in the horizontal direction in the floors and in the vertical
direction through the columns. The designer should be aware of the consequences
of the sudden removal of key elements of the structure and ensure that such an
event does not lead to the progressive collapse of the building or a substantial part
of it. In practice, most modern steel structures can be shown to be adequate without
any modification.

Based on this the concern is preventing an event whereby the whole of a building section begins to fall in the first place.

 

[R.Mackey]

The point is that the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt. You apparently can't defend that and now want to show that the upper block could have remained tilted the whole way down.

I not only can defend it, I already did months ago, and linked to it in this very thread:

As I explained in this post, it takes a mere 2.9^o of tilt before the upper block-lower block interface is basically a continuous phenomenon, and no "jolt" of any kind is measurable.

Moving on:

Mackey cannot address the fact that there is no evidence of an impulsive load being observed. He has no argument for it and needs to move around the edges of the argument looking for a way to try and disingenuously discredit his opponent and take the focus off of what they are saying, without providing a mechanism to support what he says happened. It is basically a sophist approach he takes here.

Ad hominem, incorrect, and more lies. Explained above.

Not only that, but I'm not the only person who's told you this. Gregory Urich explained this to you, as an informal but invited reviewer of your whitepaper. Dr. Greening, Dr. Benson, Dave Rogers, all concur.

Not sure who, exactly, you think your whining above is going to impress.

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument. It is not germane to the argument that since the upper block of WTC 1 did not decelerate it shows there could not have been an impulsive load and a natural mechanism to explain the collapse continuation.

No, you "withdrew" it because it was a lie, and you got caught. Funny how before you used it to support your argument, but once you realized you'd dug yourself a hole, suddenly it became unimportant -- your belief persists, even when we knock away the supports. Textbook definition of Irreducible Delusion.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

I thought you just "withdrew" this? How can you deny ever saying something you chose to "withdraw?" What the hell is wrong with you?

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

The onset and progression of collapse is a smooth phenomenon. The upper block rotates roughly eight degrees, equivalent to crushing a floor and a half worth of material opposite the hinge, and maintains a comparable angle as it descends. This makes failure of the structure below a disordered mixture of column failure, floor failure, and momentum transfer at various times. Think of the difference between a thousand soliders marching over a bridge in step, or walking out of sync. Only one delivers a "jolt," though the total impulse is the same.

Your paper argues against the simplified, deliberately worst-case, scenario of Bazant and Zhou, which is that the upper block hit flat and square, and right on the columns below. This didn't happen. The impact was not squarely on columns but largely on the far weaker floor system, and the angle of impact makes the impacts gradual no matter what they hit.

Seriously, Tony, this is so simple that anyone can figure it out. This is rejection of reality on par with Ace Baker. That's why nobody's defending you.

I also like how, above, you insinuate that I'm a "witting component of a cover-up," viz. in on the plot. You should strongly consider getting a professional evaluation for paranoia.

 

[GlennB]

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

My point has always been that any tilt would not remove the need for an impulsive load to continue the collapse and that it would be observable. Some are trying to say the tilt obviates the need for a jolt without showing a mechanism for how it could occur. That is the nonsense I am objecting to.

The more I read this pitiful apology for a so-called 'defence' of your position, the more I have the horrible urge to be cruel and kick you in the groin while you are down. But that wouldn't be nice at all. Why don't you just go away and stop talking demonstrable, palpable and almost smellable bilge?
Oh ... and stop lying. Your actual words are recorded here in black and white.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your problem is that you seem to think you should be able to OBSERVE the mechanisms in the collapse of a monster building composed of thousands and thousands of parts which also happens to be on fire. Sorry, but you simply cannot see what is happening to most of the components during this process. You are grasping at straws.

The real question should be: If you believe this carp, what are you doing about it, aside from posting your outrage on the internets?

It might be news to you but measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.

There was a constant acceleration while it was falling through the two removed stories and then a severe deceleration of the roof was measureable when the upper block contacted the intact lower stories.

The deceleration occurred at exactly the time in the fall when the upper block would have been contacting the intact lower block and it was more than significant enough to be easily measured.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The more I read this pitiful apology for a so-called 'defence' of your position, the more I have the horrible urge to be cruel and kick you in the groin while you are down. But that wouldn't be nice at all. Why don't you just go away and stop talking demonstrable, palpable and almost smellable bilge?
Oh ... and stop lying. Your actual words are recorded here in black and white.

Why don't you just shut up if you can't contribute anything technical and useful, which you haven't thus far.

Your words have been nothing but an attack with no basis. You sound like Mackey's lackey.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I not only can defend it, I already did months ago, and linked to it in this very thread:

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.

Not only that, but I'm not the only person who's told you this. Gregory Urich explained this to you, as an informal but invited reviewer of your whitepaper. Dr. Greening, Dr. Benson, Dave Rogers, all concur.

None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.

No, you "withdrew" it because it was a lie, and you got caught. Funny how before you used it to support your argument, but once you realized you'd dug yourself a hole, suddenly it became unimportant -- your belief persists, even when we knock away the supports. Textbook definition of Irreducible Delusion.

What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down. You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar. Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.

The onset and progression of collapse is a smooth phenomenon. The upper block rotates roughly eight degrees, equivalent to crushing a floor and a half worth of material opposite the hinge, and maintains a comparable angle as it descends. This makes failure of the structure below a disordered mixture of column failure, floor failure, and momentum transfer at various times. Think of the difference between a thousand soliders marching over a bridge in step, or walking out of sync. Only one delivers a "jolt," though the total impulse is the same.

This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block. The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.

Your paper argues against the simplified, deliberately worst-case, scenario of Bazant and Zhou, which is that the upper block hit flat and square, and right on the columns below. This didn't happen. The impact was not squarely on columns but largely on the far weaker floor system, and the angle of impact makes the impacts gradual no matter what they hit.

This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

With the evidence we see for controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 and the way events have unfolded in the last eight years it is not hard to realize that Dick Cheney's war on terror was nothing more than a disguise for the use of the U.S. military for resource grabs, and that 911 was done to gain support for it. With the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Obama administration supported Clean Energy bill yesterday, it seems the post 911 world of Dick Cheney is withering away. We should not be killing people for energy when we have the ability to do something for ourselves.

I think most people are starting to see this and it is less necessary to put down the fallacious ramblings of someone like yourself.

 

[R.Mackey]

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.

Wrong. What you mean is either you're too stupid or too stubborn to admit that you made a basic, but fatal, mistake. The angle of incidence of 8^o means that, at all times, bits of two entire floors make up the contact plane. The columns aren't all being hit at once.

There is no possible way for all columns to resist at once in this scenario. That is what is required for your stupid "jolt." This is not up for debate.

Once again, I've told you this, Gregory Urich has told you this, Dr. Greening and Dr. Benson have told you this -- independently. Are you claiming we're all in on the plot?

None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.

Except for the inconvenient fact that what we're telling you is true. What you're doing is usually called "paranoid delusion."

What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down.

Again, liar, this is what you said:

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

You lied then, and you're lying now. It's pathetic!

You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar.

Nothing to debate. You lied, in direct contravention of graphical evidence that was made public years ago and of which you are well aware. And you're still trying to cover it up with still more lies.

But by all means, keep digging, if that's what you want.

Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.

Sayeth the liar...

This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block.

And now you once again betray stupidity about the most basic physics. It's not the same thing AT ALL. Your hypothesis depends on a "jolt," or the third derivative of position. It requires the impulse to be delivered at once. But since it's smooth, there is no jolt, even though the total impulse is the same.

The lower structure does resist. It just doesn't at once. As a result, the upper block descends at a more-or-less constant acceleration, but noticeably less than one g. This is utterly consistent with the smooth collapse initation caused by an initiating rotation. It also requires no explosives whatsoever.

Dumb, Tony, just plain dumb.

The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.

Wrong.

This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Apples and oranges. Again, Bazant & Zhou 2002 consider the worst-case impact, which is flat and column-on-column. They said nothing about the expected behavior once tilt is taken into account.

Go ahead and ask him, if you dare, if he supports your hypothesis. And post it here. I'm not done laughing at you yet.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

Connected together -- by the floors, yes? The ones with an ultimate strength of about 250 psf, getting the entire structural weight of the upper block suddenly dumped on them (about 490 psf static, best possible case, and which was moving..?) Bye bye connections.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

There's no "both ways" about it. Bazant & Zhou demonstrate the total energy absorption of the lower structure is insufficient for arrest, even in the best case, even if the lower structure isn't compromised by penetration, which of course it will be. And since the collision is not flat, face-on-face, column-on-column, the energy absorption is a smooth phenomenon rather than one puncutated by gaps, because floors don't fail individually and simultaneously.

You're completely off the wall. The above isn't in any way a special case.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

I lose, sayeth the liar. Gee, I'm concerned.

Publish your paper, then, tough guy. I've got scads of published results that unanimously demonstrate the opposite. I suppose they all "lose" too, huh?

Or, perhaps, you're just wrong. Hmm, which to choose..?

ETA: Ah, you're adding a political rant, too. Surely that will make your pseudoscience valid!

 

[FineWine]

You haven't defended anything concerning the lack of deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper block. Your simply claim a smooth collapse occurred and try to claim victory.


None of these people have shown how a smooth natural collapse was possible either. You just say things that aren't true and claim victory. That is usually called propaganda.



What a joke. I never said there was no tilt in the initiation. I did say that it wouldn't have continued to tilt all the way down. You then said that you can prove it did and in the same breath call me a liar for saying I didn't think it would previously. You didn't even debate it with me before calling me a liar. Now what kind of person calls someone a liar at the same time they are first showing them what they claim is proof that the other person's hypothesis may be in error? Only a disingenuous person would do such a thing. There is a reason I say you use a sophist approach, because it seems apparent that you are trying to deceive more than elucidate others.



This does not support your smooth natural collapse scenario. You just stated a point I have made before by saying the total impulse is the same. The aggregate energy loss should have still caused the upper block to lose velocity. However, we see no velocity loss in the upper block. The only reason could be that there were no impulses to the vast majority of the columns. Something else had already removed their resistance.



This is nothing but a bad talking point you and your ilk have been trying to use. In the Addendum to his 2002 paper with Zhou, Bazant himself said that multiple smaller impulses were unlikely due to the rigidity of the upper block.

Additionally, the columns were connected and would have been unlikely to sever to accomplish your scenario.

The reality is that you want it both ways. You want to disregard the lack of a deceleration by saying column on column impacts didn't occur and at the same time disparage what Anders Bjorkman points out is a serious problem for the non-axial impact scenario, that it would tend to break up the upper structure quickly and minimize it's affect on the lower structure causing the collapse to arrest.

In the end you lose Mackey, because even a non-axial collapse would have caused a serious energy drain on the falling upper block and caused it to decelerate. The floors in the towers themselves could withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. These were robust structures that wouldn't just wilt away without large impulses and high energy and velocity losses, if it were a natural collapse.

With the evidence we see for controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 and the way events have unfolded in the last eight years it is not hard to realize that Dick Cheney's war on terror was nothing more than a disguise for the use of the U.S. military for resource grabs, and that 911 was done to gain support for it. With the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Obama administration supported Clean Energy bill yesterday, it seems the post 911 world of Dick Cheney is withering away. We should not be killing people for energy when we have the ability to do something for ourselves.

I think most people are starting to see this and it is less necessary to put down the fallacious ramblings of someone like yourself.

Does it trouble you at all that in "Dick Cheney's (why on earth is it Cheney's?) war on terror" no resources have been grabbed? Do you people keep screaming that America stole somebody's oil after absolutely everybody but the most brain-dead "truthers" have noticed that no oil was stolen?
When do you wake up and smell the coffee?

 

[sylvan8798]

It might be news to you but measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.

There was a constant acceleration while it was falling through the two removed stories and then a severe deceleration of the roof was measureable when the upper block contacted the intact lower stories.

The deceleration occurred at exactly the time in the fall when the upper block would have been contacting the intact lower block and it was more than significant enough to be easily measured.

So you compare A to B. Find that A does not have the same property as B. Then conclude that, therefore, A must equal B. Is that about it? Truther logic at work?