A Truther writes...

[Oystein]

It's fascinating isn't it ? Maybe the readers will have a look at that after they consult their own intuition.

The smart readers understand scale. They understand why a flea can jump many hundreds of times its own height, most humans jump half their height, elephants can't jump at all and whales die when stranded.

Or why ants can carry a hundred times their body weight, humans only about their own, and elephants only a fraction.


You must be hoping for the erroneous intuition of dumb readers

 

[T.A.M.]

let me ask you this bill, if we were to build 2 floors of the WTC from the ground up, and then rest the block of floors that were above the impact zone atop them, would they be any more or less capable of holding the load of those floors then if we built lets say 50 floors from the ground up and laid the block of floors atop them?

In there, lies your answer.

TAM

edit: note, this is a simple model which does not even take into account the added forces of wind.

 

[bill smith]

The smart readers understand scale. They understand why a flea can jump many hundreds of times its own height, most humans jump half their height, elephants can't jump at all and whales die when stranded.

Or why ants can carry a hundred times their body weight, humans only about their own, and elephants only a fraction.


You must be hoping for the erroneous intuition of dumb readers

Well we shall see..

 

[T.A.M.]

you see bill, the top section crushed the single floor below the impact zone. This floor, and the top section then together, as a new and larger mass crushed the floor beneath it. As this went on, the mass and momentum was so overwhelming, that multiple floors were crushed at a time, and these floors added to the ever increasing mass of the top section, creating even more momentum, and so on and so on...

do you fail to understand that concept?

TAM

 

[bill smith]

let me ask you this bill, if we were to build 2 floors of the WTC from the ground up, and then rest the block of floors that were above the impact zone atop them, would they be any more or less capable of holding the load of those floors then if we built lets say 50 floors from the ground up and laid the block of floors atop them?

In there, lies your answer.

TAM

edit: note, this is a simple model which does not even take into account the added forces of wind.

You mean like a 12-story building ? Sure, no problem.

 

[bill smith]

you see bill, the top section crushed the single floor below the impact zone. This floor, and the top section then together, as a new and larger mass crushed the floor beneath it. As this went on, the mass and momentum was so overwhelming, that multiple floors were crushed at a time, and these floors added to the ever increasing mass of the top section, creating even more momentum, and so on and so on...

do you fail to understand that concept?

TAM

Actually that reminds me. Richard should make a ' top block ' module that shows as 13 single floors so that he can illustrate clearly that one upper floor stikes one lower floor at a time and with exactly the same force acording to Newton's inviolable law. Resulting in annihilation of both floors of course. And then it's 'bring on the next two''.

 

[T.A.M.]

You men like a 12-story building ? Sure, no problem.

The buildings were not solid objects they were hollow layers 12 feet high each, stacked atop each other. The downward accelerating mass of the top section only had to crush one such layer to get things going, once the momentum begins, there is no stopping it unless the forces acting up, are greater then the forces acting down...on the Next SINGLE layer...and so on.

Why do truthers fail to grasp these things?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Actually that reminds me. Richard should make a ' top block ' module that shows as 13 single floors so that he can illustrate clearly that one upper floor stikes one lower floor at a time and with exactly the same force acording to Newton's inviolable law. Resulting in annihilation of both floors of course. And then it's 'bring on the next two''.

Yes and what he fails to realize is that crushing aside, the mass of the top part continues to get bigger, continues to accelerate...crushed or not.

TAM

 

[Andy_Ross]

I already gave a good example of why Lego isn't a good simulation without a lot of extra weight.

I have a model railway loco that is to 1/72 scale. it's built from a kit of cast and etched metal parts. It weighs about 2 lb the real thing weighs over 90 tons. If the weight was to scale it would weigh over a ton. Your 6 foot high scale model would have to weigh well over a ton to even come close to the scale weight.

 

[bill smith]

Yes and what he fails to realize is that crushing aside, the mass of the top part continues to get bigger, continues to accelerate...crushed or not.

TAM

Or, as is far more logical the bottom part gets bigger as the upper part wears away.After all the lower part is almost ten times bigger than the upper part and is more strongly built.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Or, as is far more logical the bottom part gets bigger as the upper part wears away.After all the lower part is almost ten times bigger than the upper part and is more strongly built.

If you're standing at the base of a building, then by all means the bottom would seem bigger. But you lack the concept of reality here Bill, you're slipping.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.

You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity.

 

[Dog Town]

.. as the upper part wears away.

If by "wears away", you really mean picks up mass. You would be only half right.

 

[bill smith]

If by "wears away", you really mean picks up mass. You would be only half right.

One is dashed to pieces on the rocks. One does not dash the rocks to pieces.

It's the same with the upper one tenth of WTC1 dashing itself to pieces on the rock of the massive lower nine-tenths of the building.

 

[Dog Town]

One is dashed to pieces on the roocks. One does not dash the rocks to pieces.

It's the same with the upper one tenth of WTC1 dashing itslf to pieces on the massive lower nine-tenths of the building.

Is English, not your first language?

 

[Bell]

One is dahed to pieces on the roocks. One does not dash the rocks to pieces.

It's tye same with the upper one tenth of WTC1 dashing itslf to pieces on the massive lower nine-tenths of the building.

Thou hasset been explained ad nauseam about thou way of errors in regards of ye 1/10th part of ye Towers of ye Twins crushing ye 9/10th part of ye Towers of ye Twins.

 

[dafydd]

Complete failure by you to understand anything anyone posts to you noted. Really Bill, you are really not interested, are you? Why post here if you don't care about the responses?

Because Bill is an attention seeking troll who will say anything just to get a response,hasn't that sunk in yet?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

One is dashed to pieces on the rocks. One does not dash the rocks to pieces.

It's the same with the upper one tenth of WTC1 dashing itself to pieces on the rock of the massive lower nine-tenths of the building.

Comparing rocks to steel isn't getting you very far Billy.

Dashing – adjective

1. energetic and spirited; lively: a dashing hero.

2. elegant and gallant in appearance and manner: a dashing young cavalry officer.

3. showy; stylish.

I'd hardly say that WTC1 was dashing, although they had a beauty to them on the NYC skyline.

 

[Oystein]

One is dashed to pieces on the rocks. One does not dash the rocks to pieces.

It's the same with the upper one tenth of WTC1 dashing itself to pieces on the rock of the massive lower nine-tenths of the building.

It really is not important which part crumbles first. The only interesting part is always: Can a floor arrest the momentum of the top floors?
Answer is a resounding NO.
Therefore, top floors retain most of their momentum, crush next floor, pick up mass doing so, and pick up more velocity by accelerated falling to the tune of g. As the whole mess, crumbled or crumbled, hits the next floor, story repeats: We have a lot of mass with a lot of momentum. Can the next floor arrest the now increased momentum of the now heavier top floors?
Answer is AGAIN a resounding NO.
And so forth
And so forth

 

[BadBoy]

Why don't you try to prove me wrong by coming up with an example that is not the usual debunker rubbish ?

Billy Boy,

Get one of your goofy mates to drop a buckets worth of dry sand from an upper story window, in one go, onto you head. Should be ok because most of it will be blown away, but what does "land" on your head will settle down into a nice little pile.

(it must be scarey living insode your head sometimes.)