WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

reply to post by billybob

okay.
you wanna do one on one, wrath?

Your confrontational approach is neither necessary or warranted so kindly can it.
And it's Wraith.

so, the first floor impacted is equal to the the floor impacting it.

hence, they are BOTH destroyed. there is no 'thor's hammer' smashing down. it is one against one. it is not ten against one, ten against one, ten against one. it is ten against one, nine against one, eight against one, seven against one, six against one, five against one, four against one, three against one, two against one, one on one, zero.

So your going to tell me all the material on and that made up that floor is going to be annihilated? Thats what I am getting here. You break up a ten ton slab of concrete you will have ten tons of debris sure you lose some to nature of concrete and what happens when it breaks up but it is NOT suddenly going to become a light pile.

so, you have ten floors crushing one hundred floors. get it, yet?

You do know how not to be insulting or do I need to point out what the mod said AGAIN? I am not attacking YOU just what your claiming as fact. Kindly give me the same respect.

But to answer your question, nope. Your logic is flawed.
Like I said. Ten floors hitting one floor. Then eleven floors hitting one floor.
Sure once you get along you MIGHT lose a maybe a floor's worth (if THAT) of concrete to dusting but NOT all that much in the big picture.

let's say with gravity's 'push', i'll give you two floors from above for one floor from below.
that still only crushes thirty floors, total, and it doesn't account for the fact that the cap was leaning off to the side and unable to transfer one hundred percent of it's mass onto the floors below.

I thought you said the mass of the floors hitting each other annihilated each other? Or alluded to that. I underlined the statements of yours that says that.

And besides. It was a internal collapse (core columns = internal) of course the material is mostly going to fall into the foot print.

sorry if i let a name slip, defender of the official story.

Your not sorry. As I said, kindly leave the NAME CALLING out of it. As a mod has said not very long ago. I am not calling you any names. How about giving the same respect I give you?
Or do you think you can name call me into accepting theories I don't agree with?

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

oh, lighten up, wraoth.

listen, here's a physics lesson.

you have to understand the difference between a solid body and a fluid one. you have to also realise the difference and effects of elastic vs. inelastic collsions.

(in the real world) you can't have the top, weakened, broken off, angled section acting as a solid body. you can have the bottom intact portion act as a solid body(once again, see "newton's cradle" to see how in absence of plastic deformation in highly elastic materials, momentum is INVERTED).
yes, there is plastic deformation. however, it is not a sole property of the bottom portion.
and, with each plastic deformation, energy is effectively spent(of course, you can't acually 'spend' energy, only change it's form).

so, we have ten on 'one'(for you, because this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE, due to COUPLED STRENGTH, gordon ross estimated seventeen floors, IIRC), and then eleven on one, and then twelve on one....according to you. so, you assume that the top piece acts in concert, but the bottom doesn't. TOTALLY backwards.

this does not account for
a. "mass shedding" ie. stuff falling over the side, which there was literally TONS of, due to the lean(among other things like explosive force)
b. coupled strength of columns. (here's a test. pick up an anvil directly against gravity, and then hold it straight out at arm's length. why is it "heavier" at arms length?)
c. the angle of the top piece. got jenga? make a stack where the top leans as far away from the base as possible without tipping.
now, make a perfectly vertical straight stack. which one is more resistant to pressure from above OR below? because, once the 'cap' is tipped on an angle....well, HOPEFULLY you get the picture.

i don't want to insult you, wraoth. i'm sorry if you feel i am.

reply to post by bsbray11

Yeah, and I'm still wondering why 10 floors are instantly falling together.
Can we start with just 1 floor's worth of trusses somehow all falling together? Because, even though NIST says this is an unlikely event to occur, they also say that each floor could withstand the dynamic loading of more than 5 floors.

Vertical situation? If you break something below something that it DEPENDSon to help keep it up would it not fall? Knock the supports out from under something. Down it goes.

Which leads me to a question I don't think you would be able to answer.

Try me. Or does the cop out stand?



reply to post by billybob

yeah.
there were HUNDREDS of connections. each one should failed individually(ish) in an unassisted collapse. there should have been SLOW warping and sagging. yet, we have in all three cases all four corners, and the core giving out instantaneously.

Wasn't instantaneous. Couldn't see inside the building could we?

the more connections there are, the less likely that they will all let go at the same moment.

Ok. Say we have 500 connections. 250 of which fail. That means the remaining 250 connections have to hold twice the weight. Which I severely doubt they could, especially when being heated. The weaker ones (structurally due to most likely small imperfections) will fail. Which will cause the stronger ones to fail eventually.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
They were sagging and falling because the damage the planes did to the core columns that was aggravated by the fire.

The hypothesis that the central columns were damaged by the aircraft is just that, an hypothesis. Just because NIST said that's what happened doesn't mean it did. NIST has no more evidence to make that claim than you do.

Now looking at it with common sense it's very unlikely any part of the central structure was damaged to the point of failure. If they were the buildings would have collapse sooner. The plane that hit WTC 2 didn't even hit the central columns at all, and that's according to the NIST report. So how did WTC manage the ‘pancake’ collapse you imagine? How did the top section tilt and then change it angular momentum?
Once initiated angular momentum is very hard to stop.
Yes more questions, because these are the questions that haven’t been answered, and are constantly ignored by the official story apologists. It’s quite plain to see you all don’t really understand the problems we’re trying to get you to see, and the fact that ‘official story’ didn’t address them. That just shows me you are parroting what someone else has told you and not offering results of your own research. Researching is not looking at 9-11 sites that want to tell you what happened.

You are basing your argument on false logic that cannot be verified or even tested in the lab. Jugging by your attempt at explaining the lack of resistance above shows you really don’t understand the problem. You also didn’t read my post very well. When I said ‘don’t ask for proof’ what I mean was I do not need to supply proof of explosives to prove that the global collapse was NOT cause by impacts and fire. Most misunderstandings like that come from skimming threads instead of reading, equivalent of being a bad listener.
You all keep asking for proof of explosives when that proof is not necessary. Unless someone can explain the lack of resistance in the collapses, then there is nothing other than explosives, of some kind, that can explain it. You don’t have to believe me, as I keep saying everything I’m saying is testable. Re-read my other post about building a test, you gonna give it a try? Or ya gonna keep denying the problem of resistance?

The sagging and failing was because the core columns were damaged.
So if you have a break in a structure with stuff above it what will logically happen?
Especially when you bring into consideration the fact a plane penetrated 75% more or less (with parts going all the way through) way through the darn thing.

Problem is when metal under stress gets heated it sags, bends, twists, but what we see is instant global failure. The event doesn’t match your hypothesis, without even testing your hypothesis in the lab, which you need to be able to do to make your hypothesis a theory.

Where do you get 75% from. The damage wasn’t even close to 75% of the building.
Even if some of the central core was completely damaged it still wouldn't course a global collapse. The lower structure would still resist the collapse slowing it down.
But having said that the central core could not have been damaged enough by the planes impact for failure to occur, especially WTC 2.

The core was a latticework of steel.
If the damage over time is enough to cause the latticework to start failing there will be a cascade effect of failure once a point is reached. As each part was NOT designed to work alone.

How do you know this? How did you come to this conclusion? In fact how can anybody come to this conclusion when it’s never happened before. You need a precedent to be able to make that claim, cause on paper it’s not possible. So without a precedent, so we can re-write our laws of physics, we have to go with what we know from all our present knowledge of physics.

You’re right each part is not designed to work alone, that’s why there would be resistance. All those box columns and I beams were welded bolted and braced together, basically making it a structure by itself. If one column fails the other columns take up its load. You seem to be under the illusion that if a column fails they all will because ‘each part was not designed to work together’.
It seems to me you have read de-bunker dis-info but don’t really understand what you are supporting, as your logic and the understanding and application of the relevant physics is a little off. Not a personal attack just being honest and trying to figure out why you’re thinking the way you are.

I also note your frustration; don’t like being asked questions that ruffle your belief in the ‘official story’? At least you tried to answer, more than what most have done.

reply to post by billybob

oh, lighten up, wraoth.

Ohhh PLEASE. Need I remind you of the many complaints of such treatment I have heard from your side of the divide?

listen, here's a physics lesson.

you have to understand the difference between a solid body and a fluid one. you have to also realise the difference and effects of elastic vs. inelastic collsions.

Stop insulting my intelligence.

(in the real world) you can't have the top, weakened, broken off, angled section acting as a solid body. you can have the bottom intact portion act as a solid body(once again, see "newton's cradle" to see how in absence of plastic deformation in highly elastic materials, momentum is INVERTED).
yes, there is plastic deformation. however, it is not a sole property of the bottom portion. and, with each plastic deformation, energy is effectively spent(of course, you can't acually 'spend' energy, only change it's form).

The towers weren't nor were ever going to be solid and you keep alluding to saying they were. Many parts welded and riveted together was the building.

so, we have ten on 'one'(for you, because this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE, due to COUPLED STRENGTH, gordon ross estimated seventeen floors, IIRC), and then eleven on one, and then twelve on one....according to you. so, you assume that the top piece acts in concert, but the bottom doesn't. TOTALLY backwards.

Keywords Gordon Ross ESTIMATED. Estimated = essientially a guess.
And:
They were all under the influence of gravity and falling due to a failure in the building's parts to hold them up. Which incidentally comes into play if it was intentional controlled demolition and you seem to forget that.

this does not account for
a. "mass shedding" ie. stuff falling over the side, which there was literally TONS of, due to the lean(among other things like explosive force)
b. coupled strength of columns. (here's a test. pick up an anvil directly against gravity, and then hold it straight out at arm's length. why is it "heavier" at arms length?)
c. the angle of the top piece. got jenga? make a stack where the top leans as far away from the base as possible without tipping.
now, make a perfectly vertical straight stack. which one is more resistant to pressure from above OR below? because, once the 'cap' is tipped on an angle....well, HOPEFULLY you get the picture.

Your anvil analogy is not a good one nor was the Janga sticks.
I understand what your saying but I see fallacy there.

The building was not like a some board that if you chop it with a samurai sword the top would just slide off.
Especially when your remember the whole of the plane did not make it out the other side it damaged the core though. Bad enough to cause a cascade failure once the other parts were heated up to the point they couldn't take the added strain.

It's worth noting that gravity pulls uniformly DOWN. Other factors can bump an object this way and that but gravity pulls down.
In a cascade effect failure within a building the top isn't going to just slide off or anything like that.
The collapse was caused by things failing and falling INSIDE the building. A building which by its very nature has empty spots for which debris to fall. Your going to get some spillage as a matter of course.

i don't want to insult you, wraoth. i'm sorry if you feel i am.

Keep the passive aggressive non-apologies to yourself. Just cease.



[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I'm not convinced that the NIST study of the collapses did anything more than push and pull the parameters they were comfortable with varying like force of impact and heat/extent of fires until the most extreme of these values led to collapse. Was there some evident aversion to suggesting the the buildings themselves were not as strong as certain parties would prefer them to be? (thinking about possible litigation here)

It's an obvious principle of highrise construction that each level of the intact building must support all levels above it so the bearing strength diminishes as the building rises. Where this bearing strength was concentrated was in the outer walls and the core structure but was any floor of the building any stronger than any other?

I'm talking about the individual floors consisting of trusses, dampers, truss seats, corrugated sheeting and 100mm of concrete which all appeared to be exactly the same as they only had to support themselves and the material sitting on them with an adequate safety factor built in to prevent an individual floor collapsing due to isolated overloading. A large falling mass will exert the greatest impact force on surfaces it meets a right angles to its motion and the vectored force on the core and walls is minimal in comparison to what those floors would experience.

Unless someone can show me that the trusses and seats in the lower floors were stronger than those in the upper floors...

The truss seats themselves seem to have made it through mostly undistorted with indication that it was the bolts that sheared allowing the trusses to be disconnected.

[edit on 29/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

i'll just put you on ignore.
congrats. you're the second one in five years.
it's pointless discussing this with you. you have too much homework to do before you understand the laws of motion. and you're a little touchy about it.

bye, wrath, er, wraith, er, wraoth.

reply to post by billybob


Nice cop out there friend. Good day.

And end it on an insult to my intelligence. LoL!


And should be noted that more than just the laws of motion are involved in building collapse.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Pilgrum

I'm not convinced that the NIST study of the collapses did anything more than push and pull the parameters they were comfortable with varying like force of impact and heat/extent of fires until the most extreme of these values led to collapse. Was there some evident aversion to suggesting the the buildings themselves were not as strong as certain parties would prefer them to be? (thinking about possible litigation here)

I am convinced that corners were probly cut in the construction in materials and etc. After all doesn't construction contracts often go to lowest bidder?
I think that fact was more or less what they were trying to hide.
Of course seems to me alot of people seem to want to think they were some masterwork of perfection. Almost like patriotism gone strangely woo woo.

It's an obvious principle of highrise construction that each level of the intact building must support all levels above it so the bearing strength diminishes as the building rises. Where this bearing strength was concentrated was in the outer walls and the core structure but was any floor of the building any stronger than any other?

I am inclined to believe not.

Great points pilgrum.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Like I said. Ten floors hitting one floor. Then eleven floors hitting one floor.
Sure once you get along you MIGHT lose a maybe a floor's worth (if THAT) of concrete to dusting but NOT all that much in the big picture.

That's the crux of the problem though. How did we get ten floors crushing down onto one floor in the first place? Steel bends when it looses it's elasticity. It doesn't just snap. It snaps in a dynamic loading situation but before collapse initiation, we didn't have a dynamic situation.

So, how did the columns holding up those ten floors (which have been holding them up since day one) suddenly all snap at the same time to give us your "ten floors crashing down onto one floor" scenario?

The only way I can see it would be some kind of controlled snap. Not a progressive failure. Progressive failures may be fast, but they aren't fast enough to hinder a tilting momentum.

That is why in a CD they sever the columns at the exact same time if they want to bring it straight down. If they want it to tilt, there is a split second difference between the severing and the building tilts toward the first severed columns. Simple conservation of momentum tells us this. And can be seen in numerous CD's where they had to force the building to one side.

Or ask CDI how to lean a building toward one side as oppossed to straight down.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not convinced that the NIST study of the collapses did anything more than push and pull the parameters they were comfortable with varying like force of impact and heat/extent of fires until the most extreme of these values led to collapse. Was there some evident aversion to suggesting the the buildings themselves were not as strong as certain parties would prefer them to be? (thinking about possible litigation here)

It's an obvious principle of highrise construction that each level of the intact building must support all levels above it so the bearing strength diminishes as the building rises. Where this bearing strength was concentrated was in the outer walls and the core structure but was any floor of the building any stronger than any other?

I'm talking about the individual floors consisting of trusses, dampers, truss seats, corrugated sheeting and 100mm of concrete which all appeared to be exactly the same as they only had to support themselves and the material sitting on them with an adequate safety factor built in to prevent an individual floor collapsing due to isolated overloading. A large falling mass will exert the greatest impact force on surfaces it meets a right angles to its motion and the vectored force on the core and walls is minimal in comparison to what those floors would experience.

Unless someone can show me that the trusses and seats in the lower floors were stronger than those in the upper floors...

The truss seats themselves seem to have made it through mostly undistorted with indication that it was the bolts that sheared allowing the trusses to be disconnected.

[edit on 29/2/2008 by Pilgrum]

To be sure, NIST played with the parameters of the impact to get the results they needed. Of course, many take this as a sign of a coverup. But they played with the parameters of the crashes to get the observed things. Namely, in some of their simulations, the engines and landing gear didn't fly out the far side of the building, which didn't match the observations. So they changed that. They didn't change the fire effects, though, from what i can read.

Regarding litigation - consider the fact that one of the partners of the design firm - Magnusson - was on the NIST team. And so was the wife of Leslie Robertson. Then consider the fact that the buildings were owned by the Port Authority, which wasn't subject to local building codes. Can you say CYA on the part of the designers and PA?

Also consider that a professor from Berkeley - his name begins with an A and sounds Arabic _was asked to be on the NIST team, and then said no friggin way when he got the feeling that members were being selected or deleted to achieve those ends. This is the guy that went to the NY and set up shop at the landfill, and found the steel under the piles that exhibited the eutectic melting. He later wrote a paper that stated he was appalled at the design parameters of the building. Very damaging to Skillings, Magnusson, etc, IMO.

The only floors that were stronger were those on the mechanical floors, since they had to hold the weight of elevator motors, HVAC, etc.

reply to post by Griff

That's the crux of the problem though. How did we get ten floors crushing down onto one floor in the first place? Steel bends when it looses it's elasticity. It doesn't just snap. It snaps in a dynamic loading situation but before collapse initiation, we didn't have a dynamic situation.

So, how did the columns holding up those ten floors (which have been holding them up since day one) suddenly all snap at the same time to give us your "ten floors crashing down onto one floor" scenario?

Um. A compromised core columns that could no longer hold those floors up?
As I have been saying. And they didn't snap all at once. As I cover below.

The only way I can see it would be some kind of controlled snap. Not a progressive failure. Progressive failures may be fast, but they aren't fast enough to hinder a tilting momentum.

Yes I understand what your saying but..................
1) Progressive failures start out slow then speeds up progressively. I have never envisioned it as quick except once the proverbial ball was in motion and we all watched in horror as it all fell down and went boom. Sure once the outside started to show by markedly falling down it was fast. But there was alot going on inside before we saw it outside. Case in point right before the collapse you can actually SEE from the hole the plane put the walls bend.

2) The idea the top would just fall off seems to denote to me the idea that the core columns were effectively one complete solid solid structure. They weren't, they were well a stronger material version of matchstick building. Replace matchsticks with steel and replace glue with welds and rivets. And then you have that steel hold up tons worth of concrete and whatever was on the floors to begin with.

3) If you'll remember alot of material didn't collapse into the foot print. It was strewn all about WTC plaza. With a few pieces to be found IN the buildings of WTC plaza.

Look at this: Pics of Ground Zero Ten Days After

And THANK YOU!!!!!! for being keeping it civil man.
Much props.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant



Watch what happenes when just one side of a structure is "pulled" as oppossed to severing all at the same time.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Same would happen with a "progressive failure" that suppossedly started on one facade and wrapped it's way around to the other facades. There is no way around this.

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff



Ok. The silo.
Nothing like the Twin Towers structurally. Its as a matter of course going to fall differently. Especially when it was blown at the base with nothing to break up the top part except well the ground. As is the case with both videos.

The hotel. They blew the thing at the bottom. Not at ALL, similar to the visible damage to the Twin Towers.

Both seemed like rather sloppy controlled demolitions which was ok because there was nothing around them which could be messed up.

Please don't take this the wrong way but there is only no way around it in your mind because you don't allow for the possibility. I perceive a LARGE lack of objectivity within the "truther" movement. Especially when you note that I have seen alternative interpretations in most if not all so called evidence or out right spin doctoring to support claims. Not also to forget the sheer rancor someone gets from others here just for objecting.
Psychology the little devil that always messes with mankind's pursuit of knowledge.

Same would happen with a "progressive failure" that suppossedly started on one facade and wrapped it's way around to the other facades. There is no way around this.

The progressive failure was INTERNAL seeing as the core columns (the main thing that held them up) were INTERNAL. You'd only see the problems on the outside when the whole thing was to the point it was coming down.



[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Yeah, and I'm still wondering why 10 floors are instantly falling together. Can we start with just 1 floor's worth of trusses somehow all falling together? Because, even though NIST says this is an unlikely event to occur, they also say that each floor could withstand the dynamic loading of more than 5 floors.

Vertical situation? If you break something below something that it DEPENDSon to help keep it up would it not fall? Knock the supports out from under something. Down it goes.

That doesn't answer my question and you know it. One floor would have to fall first, and we know that each floor could withstand multiple floors impacting it (more than 5 intact floors as I remember).

By their geometries floors can only fall on floors, not onto columns because the columns extend above and below on both sides of each area of floor. If you want to contend that everything was ripped out by the truss/core connections then that's also a load that absolutely no one or nothing else supports or ever has supported.

If you don't tell me exactly how you came up with 10 floors falling first (ie NOT "the stuff below it was knocked out" ) then I'm putting you ignore for being so full of it. You're not even thinking about your responses anymore.


Also -- why do you keep referencing the core columns? None of what you're saying about them is backed up by anything, anywhere. If a core column is heated the trusses are NOT just going to all fall off. NIST didn't even bother with the core columns with their hypothesis for collapse initiation because they were too large and redundant to efficiently heat, especially in such a small amount of time, and they couldn't have been sufficiently damaged by the impacts in their models to initiate a collapse either (which makes sense, or else the buildings would have fallen immediately). And the only thing that came after the impacts was heat, which I just mentioned. Again I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


It was never ment to be a direct comparison to the towers and 7. Only to compare what happens when the supporting structure of a building (doesn't matter if it's steel, concrete or timber) isn't severed at the exact same moment. I.E. the nature of resistance will make it tip. For WTC 1, 2 & 7 to come straight down, there would have to be no resistance.

That's all.

reply to post by bsbray11

Again I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

But then again I just remembered why I had you on ignore.
Buh bye.


[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Griff


Not when the building is internally crumbling towards the top and not the bottom, it didn't reach the bottom til the collapse was almost over. Like I said Cascade Effect.
If the supports at the bottom was blown you would have what those videos were showing with the silo and the hotel.

I think I might have to put together some animations for you to illustrate what I mean. I have the feeling I am not communicating what I mean well.

But suffice it to say I think your forgetting that gravity (and the weight they hold) pulls on each individual part. When parts (especially a number of them) of it fail there is a chance it will cause a cascade effect.


Once again thank you for not being insulting.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Not when the building is internally crumbling towards the top and not the bottom, it didn't reach the bottom til the collapse was almost over. Like I said Cascade Effect.

Not to be rude, but I agree with bsbray that I don't believe you are understanding the physics. Please don't take that as destructive criticizm, but constructive criticizm. A mass dropping 12 feet from 1,000 feet above sea level will have the same kinetic energy as the same mass dropping 12 feet at sea level.

Kinetic energy is MGH. Where M is the mass, G is gravity and H is the height of the free fall. It doesn't matter if the fall is 100 miles above sea level, well if gravity is constant. BTW, the farther away from sea level, the the weaker gravity becomes...so 1,000 feet above sea level would have slightly less gravity effect than at sea level.

So, my examples have EVERYTHING to to do with the physics involved. BTW, I use caps to emphasize, not yell. So, when I do, I'm not yelling.

If the supports at the bottom was blown you would have what those videos were showing with the silo and the hotel.

Agreed. This, I believe you have correct.

I think I might have to put together some animations for you to illustrate what I mean. I have the feeling I am not communicating what I mean well.

Please do. I'd like to see your work and what your thoughts are. I think you're close but not quite there yet. Again, I mean no offense by saying that. You seem like a bright person. We just might get you to "turn to the dark side" just yet.

But suffice it to say I think your forgetting that gravity (and the weight they hold) pulls on each individual part. When parts (especially a number of them) of it fail there is a chance it will cause a cascade effect.

I really can't say one way or another specifically. As I'm not a dynamicist (sp?) and I don't have access to the needed documentation to fully analyze the situation. They could be right that it would start a global collapse. I just don't see the evidence presented by "them" to just accept it. Not as a professional myself and able to analyse this if given a chance.

Once again thank you for not being insulting.

I really try not to be to people who aren't to me. It's a two way street. Nice discussing with you and I hope you take what I've said. Don't just except it at face value, but research it yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

reply to post by Griff

Not to be rude, but I agree with bsbray that I don't believe you are understanding the physics. Please don't take that as destructive criticizm, but constructive criticizm. A mass dropping 12 feet from 1,000 feet above sea level will have the same kinetic energy as the same mass dropping 12 feet at sea level.

No I am quite sure now that I am not explaining myself good enough.
I shall get to work on the animation.

And I at least don't view your theories as a "dark" side. I just have contrary opinions.

And the crux from what I am seeing is most if not all of you treats structures as one piece which will never be the case til we somehow come up with molecular bonding that essentially makes a bunch of material and bonds them on the molecular level into one piece.


[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]