The Dynamics of the 'Official' 911 Report

Hi all - I guess this is just another 911 forum.

There is the fact that - if a standard billiard ball were to be dropped from the top of a 110 storey structure, I think the buildings actually fell faster.

As I am by no means a scientist, engineer or physicist (merely a pool player), this fact seems to be incongruous to the whole 'official' explanation. That is, the 'pancake theory' so expounded takes at least 23 seconds (according to the model I have seen), and if this theory is official, then how did this same collapse happen in approximately ten seconds ?

The only mental picture I get in my mind from this explanation is the cartoon coyote holding something in his hand while everything else around him falls, and whatever he's holding is the last to fall.

I have been racking my mind trying to explain this to myself, and my hope is that someone out there who has larger mental capacity than I do would be able to explain this incongruity.

Personally, I don't want to explain 'life' from cartoons - so hopefully someone out there can shed some light.

Thanx, take care all

[edit on 3-7-2007 by effinlunatic]

People who do not take the Official Explanation as being gospel have been asking the same question for years.

If NIST's computer models do indeed show it is quite plausible for the building to collapse the way it did, by floors pancaking onto each other then why do they not disclose those models for people to view?

BeZerK



[edit on 3-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Well, the only explanation I can come up with is that these NIST folk are genius in that they are the first to apply quantum rules to the macro world - "yes PNACky, the cores of these towers just diappeared, quantum-like, into their footprint".

I don't, personally, want to live a life as explained by a "PNACky and the Brainless" Saturday morning cartoon - so hopefully 'they' can explain this.

I'm sorry, my bad - I had meant the "Pinky and the Brain" Saturday morning cartoon. I guess I'm kinda stoopid and get cartoons and 'real life' mixed up sometimes.

From my experience if they are not going to disclose the computer models that show collapse initiation then we can simply dismiss there facts as just being there brainless assumption.

I really don't know what the hard task is, if they indeed believe without a shadow of a doubt that collapse initiation happened the way the official explanation states there should be no problem in disclosing those models.

Read my signature below, that is what i think of NIST.

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk
I really don't know what the hard task is, if they indeed believe without a shadow of a doubt that collapse initiation happened the way the official explanation states there should be no problem in disclosing those models.

Well, I guess it goes deeper then this '711 the two towers' cartoon episode then huh ?

Gives me an idea for a next thread.

I lied, I already had the idea.