Crazy crackpots melting steel/rock with an energy beam (VIDEO)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It is an irrefutable fact that a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure is an anomaly, and a dangerous one since it necessarily means support columns meant to only be positioned straight up and down were now semicircular.

Right, and can you show us the picture of this three-story bulge again?

It is also an irrefutable fact that the out of control fires were in the same location as the three story tall bulge which necessarily means there was a corelation between the two, and it is an irrefutable fact that eyewitnesses in the vicinity knew from the poor condition of the building that it was going to collapse.

Actually even NIST says the debris damage was insignificant to global collapse, and there were also people on the ground who said there was no way it was giving any indication it was about to do what it did, and also people that were witnesses to explosions in the building. Anyone who predicted a collapse wasn't basing the prediction on any established science since this was a total first, and the word "collapse" doesn't even begin to paint the full picture of a 47-story skyscraper sinking straight down into its footprint, accelerating at the rate of gravity.

So if you're going to be trashing everyone else for having no proof, where's the proof from that damned fool NIST report "Dave"?

The NIST report never says their scenario was the definitive reason why WTC 7 collapsed, and in fact they openly state the report was an estimate.

Then you must be the ultimate hypocrite. You demand rigorous proof of everything from everyone yet don't base your own preconceived ideas on the same standard. I suppose you also think an "estimate" is good enough for 9/11 and we don't really need to know for certain why they fell.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I personally subscribe to it because the eyewitness accounts show there was in fact thermal expansion from the fires going on, which gives the NIST account at least some credibility.

Wow my thread is picking up nice,

Anyway, Dave i notice you say eyewitnesses add credibility to the NIST report. so then does that mean that eyewitnesses that heard and saw explosion add credibility to so a controlled demo theory?

How do you decide what eyewitnesses are credible and which ones aren't? you can't really argue that only the eyewitnesses that support the OS are credible can you, that's not very fair is it? I mean i've seen a few videos of people saying they saw/heard explosions(even some in the basement).

i feel this statement you made shows that your opinion is bias when it comes to the events of 911, because there seems to be allot more witnesses contradicting the OS then there are supporting it(i could be wrong) but that's what it seems like.

reply to post by okbmd

There are a few broken pieces of concrete in the bottom of the debris, however I may have used the wrong word as to “all” of the concrete been pulverized, but I will stand behind 90% of the concrete been pulverized.

Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.
The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

911research.wtc7.net...


Your photo only shows some little pieces, not much to see.
I notice that you avoided my article and never commented on it.

Twin Towers' Dust Clouds
Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
This page lists photographs which show the dust clouds that continued to expand after the waves of destruction that demolished the towers reached the ground. Photographs listed on the collapses page also show a great deal of dust, whose production started within the first second of each collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

Ground Zero
Photographic Evidence of the Twin Towers' Remains
These photographs show overall views of Ground Zero, or the central portions once occupied by the Twin Towers and the four other buildings. Photographs specifically of the remains of Building 7 are listed on the Building 7 page.
Aerial photographs
Ground photographs
Photographs during cleanup/excavation
Photographs from nearby buildings
Surrounding buildings
Aerial photographs from NYC's OEM
Photographs by anonymous photographer
Analysis using this evidence

911research.wtc7.net...

then we must assume that those firemen planted chunks of concrete throughout the pile , right ?

No, YOU assumed the firemen planted the concrete, I never made that claim.

Once again , you are lying when you say all the concrete turned to dust .

Further analysis and photos that prove your claim that all the concrete turned to dust , is nothing but a lie that is being foisted upon those who aren't aware that you are lying :

Obviously you lack the education to know the different between a lie and a slight exaggeration. Clearly, THE MAJORITY of the concrete was pulverized. Yes, about 90%, leaving maybe 10% “chunks.”

You are a perfect example of how distorted the debunkers see the truth.

reply to post by ANOK

LOL those are huge chunks of concrete in your pic?

Do you know how large the floors were? Typical of debunkers, you find the 1% that didn't turn to dust.

And please tell me how you know that is from the floors, as I asked, and you didn't show pics of the steel floor pans either. You didn't show me what I asked for that you claimed you had, sorry

Actually , there is indeed a very large slab of concrete in the top center of the photo , anyone who denies this , just doesn't want to admit it .

And yes , I am well aware of the size of the floors , were you expecting that I would be able to show you an entire floor section ? No , you weren't , this is just your way of refusing to accept and acknowledge that I showed you a photo of concrete chunks that automatically refutes the stupid claim that all the concrete was turned to dust . I notice now you guys have backed away from that claim , why ?

And , how can you estimate that only "1%" didn't turn to dust , just from the images I offered ? Oh wait , that's just more truther logic .

How do I know it's from the floors ? Well , maybe you could be so kind as to show where the walls or ceilings were constructed from concrete ? Other than that , COMMON SENSE would dictate that it is from the floors . Hmmm , imagine that .

Remnants of floor pans can be seen in the image , but you have to open your eyes to be able to see this .

More of your 'decomposed' concrete...

Wow , you guys are making progress , up until now , most of you have claimed that was evidence of molten steel . There's hope for the TM yet .

reply to post by impressme

There are a few broken pieces of concrete in the bottom of the debris,

Why do you continue to do this ? That image is littered with concrete chunks , and you say all you can see are "a few broken pieces" . You are steadily losing any and all credibility you might have ever had , by denying what is obvious to everyone who looks at the evidence . There is even a SLAB of concrete in the image , did you miss that ? Look again .

Please show the calculations you employed to arrive at your 90% versus 10% , just by looking at one image .

This should prove to be entertaining .

And no , I did not "avoid" your article , I countered it with one of my own , which you would have known if you had've read it . Here it is again , for the THIRD time :

www.uwgb.edu...

This was authored by Professor Steven Dutch , Natural and Applied Sciences ; University of Wisconsin - Green Bay .

It speaks for itself , and shoots holes all through your 90% versus 10% guesstimate . Maybe you'd care to refute it in a logical and educated manner ?

reply to post by okbmd


you two arguing about the percentages are getting a little ridiculous. their is noway either of you can prove the amount a concrete turned to dust.

the real question is how was the whole building crushed in the first place? a gravitational collapse would not supply enough energy to crush the entire building(regardless the size of the chunks). So what energy caused the whole building to be pulverized? let not forget these were very sturdy building.



I saw this video in another thread here on ATS. Its pretty straight forward and seems very logical to me.
is the information in this video incorrect?

A square meter of sunlight itself can melt an aluminum very quickly. Is that the same amount of energy being harnassed by solar panels? Is there a better way to harness solar energy such as focusing the light to a boiler?

Yep, those photos are pretty convincing. You have two buildings totaling 220 floors and you can even see a slab of concrete in one of the photos.

Here is a pretty simple solution to determine how much concrete turned to dust. Take the number of tons of concrete in both towers and subtract the number of tons of concrete recovered at the site? And, low and behold, there is your answer.

Unless these figures are being withheld for National Security purposes, I'm sure you debunkers, who are so sure of the Official Fairy Tale, can point us to some official sources for these figures. Since there were oh so many man hours spent investigating 9/11, I am sure this was done with unbiased independent observers supervising to make sure there wasn't any hanky panky involved.

I don't think 9/11 should be a question of who did it anymore. It is pretty clear now and the evidence speaks for itself. It was a massive conspiracy. The question is what happened to those people that were claimed to be on the planes that were replaced by remote planes for the towers and missiles for the Pentagon and flight 93 and what are people going to do about it?

reply to post by okbmd

I have provided you some credble articles which you refuse to read and discuss.

Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:
•pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
•pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
•unrecognizable pieces of metal
•pieces of paper
•dust

Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.
Pyroclastic Flows
Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of [color=gold]scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage:
Evidence indicates that the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the Twin Towers was converted almost entirely to dust.

911research.wtc7.net...

There are a few broken pieces of concrete in the bottom of the debris,

Why do you continue to do this ?

Do What? Continue to give credible sources? Credible photos, which constantly refutes your opinions?

That image is littered with concrete chunks

Now look who is exaggerating?

You are steadily losing any and all credibility you might have ever had , by denying what is obvious to everyone who looks at the evidence .

As for as my credibility I am not in here to win a contest and the topic is not about Truthers credibility, or my credibility. The casual ATS readers will have no problems in making up their own mind to who is presenting the facts; furthermore, you do not speak for the ATS community and to what they think.

Please show the calculations you employed to arrive at your 90% versus 10% , just by looking at one image .

This should prove to be entertaining .

Entertaining?
I simply applied my visual judgment from looking at all the internet photos including all the photos I have presented to you in my above posts.
Can you calculate to how much concrete that was “not pulverized”? I didn’t think so.

And no , I did not "avoid" your article , I countered it with one of my own , which you would have known if you had've read it . Here it is again , for the THIRD time :

Sure you did, you didn’t mention anything to my previous articles and photos as you still haven’t made any comment to the written articles of what was observed by firemen and ground crews at ground zero. All you are doing is ignoring everything I have shown you and a refusal of discussing the close examination photos that were presented, and what the experts are saying.
You just presented a photo and said:

911.yweb.sk...

Oh look , I wonder who planted those chunks of concrete in this photo ? Since all of the concrete turned to dust , in mid-air , then we must assume that those firemen planted chunks of concrete throughout the pile , right ?

Once again , you are lying when you say all the concrete turned to dust .

What have you proved in supporting the OS? Nothing.

www.uwgb.edu...

This was authored by Professor Steven Dutch , Natural and Applied Sciences ; University of Wisconsin - Green Bay .

It speaks for itself , and shoots holes all through your 90% versus 10% guesstimate . Maybe you'd care to refute it in a logical and educated manner ?

edit on 31-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta

It speaks for itself , and shoots holes all through your 90% versus 10% guesstimate . Maybe you'd care to refute it in a logical and educated manner ?

What shoots holes through my theory? Your one photo? Please explain how your photo proves that 90 percent of the concrete was not pulverized? I didn’t think so.
Apparently, you do not know what “logical educated manner is,” for I have been speaking to you as respectfully as I can, despite your rude accusations towards me. Perhaps, you should try being a little respectful, instead of attacking people that do not support your beliefs’.

Technical Articles

www.ae911truth.org...

“52 Technical papers” written by credible Scientists, such as Professors, Architects, and Engineers. Their papers punch holes in your “Professor Steven Dutch” bias report. His report was written to only support the OS. It is my opinion the report you gave us is very bias, and one sided.

It is pretty evident who did it and how they did it if you know what to look for.

Originally posted by okbmd
And , how can you estimate that only "1%" didn't turn to dust , just from the images I offered ? Oh wait , that's just more truther logic .

So, you showed me enough concrete to make up maybe one floor, if you're lucky.

Where are the other 109 floors?

And 1% wasn't an estimate, it was me being facetious.

Now tell me what it was that caused the last floor to be destroyed, when it was the floors supposedly doing all that work to destroy themselves? You can't account for the energy needed to do that.

Newtons 3rd law tells us that colliding bodies exert equal force on each other. You've got approx. 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, if floors are being destroyed then both the colliding floors must be destroyed (equal forces on equal masses will create equal damage). The collapse should have stopped around the 50th floor, as the top section would have ran out of floors by this point. But of course that is way too simple, as you would also be losing mass and velocity due to resistance, so 50th floor is VERY generous. And we all know from video evidence the collapse didn't happen that way anyway, the top section was losing floors before the bottom started to collapse. But then of course no one can even explain how it all started collapsing in the first place.

So no there is not enough concrete left post collapse, there should have been whole floors left if the OS is to be believed.

It isn't worth squabbling over every little detail because there isn't enough time! When you prove every aspect about this conspiracy that it is part of the conspiracy, what happens next? You've wasted time bitching about how you think this happened as opposed to how he thinks this happened. What are you getting out of this?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It is an irrefutable fact that a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure is an anomaly, and a dangerous one since it necessarily means support columns meant to only be positioned straight up and down were now semicircular.

Right, and can you show us the picture of this three-story bulge again?

If such pictures exist, I don't have them. I'm going by eyewitness accounts, and the eyewitness accounts didn't come from some drunk guy lying in his own urine in the gutter, nor did it come from the speculation of some researcher who was over in Los Angeles at the time. It came from a deputy fire chief of the NYFD who was standing there fighting the fires in WTC 7 who reported this. Noone has been able to suitably point out why his testimony isn't credible.

Actually even NIST says the debris damage was insignificant to global collapse, and there were also people on the ground who said there was no way it was giving any indication it was about to do what it did, and also people that were witnesses to explosions in the building. Anyone who predicted a collapse wasn't basing the prediction on any established science since this was a total first, and the word "collapse" doesn't even begin to paint the full picture of a 47-story skyscraper sinking straight down into its footprint, accelerating at the rate of gravity.

I never said NIST claimed the damage from the collapse of the north tower caused fatal structural damage to WTC 7. I said it was the thermal expansion from the fires that caused the collapse. I subscribe to teis scenario because the unnatural bulging that witnesses had seen support the scenario. If you can explain how controlled demolitions can cause a three story tall bulging in the side of the building as well as cause a building to collapse from the inside out then I'd like to hear it.

I don't know who it is you're referring to that didn't know WTC 7 was going to come down. I'm referring to firefighters who were physically there and could see the poor condition of the building up close who knew it was coming down. I pointed this out becuase the conspiracy mongers are notorious for manufacturing innuendo with their "firefighters mysteriously knew WTC 7 was going to come down before it did" games and I'm pointing out the facts show it was anything but mysterious.

Then you must be the ultimate hypocrite. You demand rigorous proof of everything from everyone yet don't base your own preconceived ideas on the same standard. I suppose you also think an "estimate" is good enough for 9/11 and we don't really need to know for certain why they fell.

I'm not demanding rigorous proof. I'm demanding to see ANY proof. Up until now, all you people have provided is innuendo, quotes deliverately taken out of context, unsubstanciated accusations, and the occasional con artist selling books claiming it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. I shouldn't have to point out that accusing Ted Olson of lying to cover up the murder of his wife isn't proof of anything. It's circular logic in that you're simply repeating your original statement in different terms in order to prove itself. And no, Bush knowing someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew Hitler isn't proof of anything either. Its a five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game where you can link anyone on the planet with anyone else on the planet throught the correct five people.

If the 9/11 commission report tried to pull stunts like this, you'd be all over them like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake. You know that and so do I.

Originally posted by PonyoSon
Anyway, Dave i notice you say eyewitnesses add credibility to the NIST report. so then does that mean that eyewitnesses that heard and saw explosion add credibility to so a controlled demo theory?

How do you decide what eyewitnesses are credible and which ones aren't? you can't really argue that only the eyewitnesses that support the OS are credible can you, that's not very fair is it? I mean i've seen a few videos of people saying they saw/heard explosions(even some in the basement).

Easy- I assume ALL eyewitnesses who were there are credible, unless a legitimate reason can be shown for why it isn't. One eyewitness claimed to have seen a predator drone hit the Pentagon, but his own son says the eyewitness was in Maryland at the time and wasn't near the Pentagon to even be an eyewitness. Another person inside the Pentagon filed a lawsuit claiming that it wasn't a plane that ht the Pentagon, but she couldn't see outside and wouldn't know what it was that hit the Pentagon one way or the other. You get the idea.

Noone is denying that witnesses heard explosions. We even heard explosions on the news coverage on that day. What you're failing to comprehend is that the building was chock full of flammable objects that would go BOOM in a fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you), so if even one of the explosions came from a component of the building that would go BOOM in a fire then we logically have to presume they all came from components of the building that would go BOOM in a fire, particularly when they were randomly going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, rather than a mathematically coordinated BOOM as controlled demolitions would have been.

There problem isn't with the evidence. The problem is with the conspiracy people seeing what they themselves want to see in the evidence.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If such pictures exist, I don't have them. I'm going by eyewitness accounts, and the eyewitness accounts didn't come from some drunk guy lying in his own urine in the gutter, nor did it come from the speculation of some researcher who was over in Los Angeles at the time. It came from a deputy fire chief of the NYFD who was standing there fighting the fires in WTC 7 who reported this. Noone has been able to suitably point out why his testimony isn't credible.

I try to have an open mind to the things you write Dave but you are not being logical here, I have yet to see any urine drenched 911 witnesses (would you please show me were i can see this info), plus i don't think there were many homeless people hanging around the world trade center (again i could be wrong), but i lived in NYC for 5 years and the majority of the homeless tend to reside is other parts of the city.


are these the drunk urine drenched guys you were talking about? looks like blood and dust to me. and this isn't the only video of credible witnesses.

also Dave i'd love for you to address this video

is this info not accurate?

Originally posted by PonyoSon
I try to have an open mind to the things you write Dave but you are not being logical here, I have yet to see any urine drenched 911 witnesses (would you please show me were i can see this info), plus i don't think there were many homeless people hanging around the world trade center (again i could be wrong), but i lived in NYC for 5 years and the majority of the homeless tend to reside is other parts of the city.

Do you ever actually read my posts before you comment on them? I'm not quoting any homeless guy lying in his own urine. I'm quoting NYFD personnel and I consider his testimony as being credible because is ISN'T a homeless guy lying in his own urine. I used that analogy because crackpots have always come out of the woodwork to throw bizarre monkey wrenches into the mix, and you shouldn't be mindlessly quoting such people simply becuase they happen to be saying things you want to be true.

There was one guy who claimed he saw a predator drone hit the Pentagon but it subsequently turned out he was nowhere near the Pentagon on 9/11 and he was making things up. I remember back during the Long Island railroad shooting how one guy on the train testifies the shooter ran amok becuase he had a computer chip on his neck and he was being directed to shoot people by remote control. There was one immensely obese guy wearing women's clothes in the courtroom during the OJ Simpson trial who was thrown out becuase he was eating twinkies. I'm NOT making this stuff up, guy.

...and what does this have anything to do with lasers melting steel/rock with an energy beam, anyway?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Easy- I assume ALL eyewitnesses who were there are credible, unless a legitimate reason can be shown for why it isn't. One eyewitness claimed to have seen a predator drone hit the Pentagon, but his own son says the eyewitness was in Maryland at the time and wasn't near the Pentagon to even be an eyewitness. Another person inside the Pentagon filed a lawsuit claiming that it wasn't a plane that ht the Pentagon, but she couldn't see outside and wouldn't know what it was that hit the Pentagon one way or the other. You get the idea.

Noone is denying that witnesses heard explosions. We even heard explosions on the news coverage on that day. What you're failing to comprehend is that the building was chock full of flammable objects that would go BOOM in a fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you), so if even one of the explosions came from a component of the building that would go BOOM in a fire then we logically have to presume they all came from components of the building that would go BOOM in a fire, particularly when they were randomly going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn, rather than a mathematically coordinated BOOM as controlled demolitions would have been.

There problem isn't with the evidence. The problem is with the conspiracy people seeing what they themselves want to see in the evidence.

edit on 1-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

To argue that the explosion were cause by "electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you" is fine and i can except that as a possibility, but i would then have to also except that maybe the explosions were caused by explosives (the case for either can be made). Also explosions cause by "electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or what have you" would only account for the explosions during collapse not those before.

Im afraid you are guilty of the very thing you accuse the "conspiracy people" of of doing. which is seeing what you want to see in the evidence.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by PonyoSon
I try to have an open mind to the things you write Dave but you are not being logical here, I have yet to see any urine drenched 911 witnesses (would you please show me were i can see this info), plus i don't think there were many homeless people hanging around the world trade center (again i could be wrong), but i lived in NYC for 5 years and the majority of the homeless tend to reside is other parts of the city.

Do you ever actually read my posts before you comment on them? I'm not quoting any homeless guy lying in his own urine. I'm quoting NYFD personnel and I consider his testimony as being credible because is ISN'T a homeless guy lying in his own urine. I used that analogy because crackpots have always come out of the woodwork to throw bizarre monkey wrenches into the mix, and you shouldn't be mindlessly quoting such people simply becuase they happen to be saying things you want to be true.

There was one guy who claimed he saw a predator drone hit the Pentagon but it subsequently turned out he was nowhere near the Pentagon on 9/11 and he was making things up. I remember back during the Long Island railroad shooting how one guy on the train testifies the shooter ran amok becuase he had a computer chip on his neck and he was being directed to shoot people by remote control. There was one immensely obese guy wearing women's clothes in the courtroom during the OJ Simpson trial who was thrown out becuase he was eating twinkies. I'm NOT making this stuff up, guy.

...and what does this have anything to do with lasers melting steel/rock with an energy beam, anyway?

I guess i miss understood your comment, i thought you were implying that some 911 witnesses were drunk guys (my mistake).

I am fully aware that people make stuff up, but there are multiple videos of fireman and people who worked/lived in the area that reported events that don't support the official story. It seems that allot of these people were ignored during the investigation, which might make the public feel a little suspicious, wouldn't you agree.

Also "SOME" credible engineers and architects have also spoken out showing the science that contradicts the official story. How would you explain this? How can you so easily ignore the science?

...and what does this have anything to do with lasers melting steel/rock with an energy beam, anyway?

are you referring to the video? the video just shows that some other force/energy was needed to cause the entire buildings to be demolished they way it did. the information seems pretty straight forward, and i'd love to see this idea investigated by both sides of the argument (lets talk about the information instead of the credibility of the people giving the information)

Originally posted by ANOK
Newtons 3rd law tells us that colliding bodies exert equal force on each other. You've got approx. 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, if floors are being destroyed then both the colliding floors must be destroyed (equal forces on equal masses will create equal damage). The collapse should have stopped around the 50th floor, as the top section would have ran out of floors by this point. But of course that is way too simple, as you would also be losing mass and velocity due to resistance, so 50th floor is VERY generous. And we all know from video evidence the collapse didn't happen that way anyway, the top section was losing floors before the bottom started to collapse. But then of course no one can even explain how it all started collapsing in the first place.

So no there is not enough concrete left post collapse, there should have been whole floors left if the OS is to be believed.

Apologies, but are you dense? This makes no sense at all!

If you had all other factors being equal, MINUS GRAVITY, the forces would balance out and the building would cease its collapsing. However, with gravity and the fact that the force does not completely dissipate upon demolishing a single floor, the collective debris becomes heavier and more kinetically active as it progresses downward. You can see proof of this looking at many other things.

FOR EXAMPLE:
If you remember some of those controlled demolitions of skyscrapers that went wrong, it was because when they blew the bottom support, the building began to fall and the earth resisted all the force, having far more mass with which to absorb energy. Plus the fact the building was a concrete exoskeleton in the one I"m thinking about. Regardless, it is an example of the physics.

This presentation is absolutely convoluted and you cannot say that the destruction defied physics when clearly you are misunderstanding the forces involved.

And to answer a problem brought up earlier about the heats which needed to be present to decompose concrete, I give you a link with a very interesting story which appears to describe broken and flaming gas lines after the collapse of the towers:

www.bowhunter.com...

The man in the above link describes the raging fireballs underground. If you read this information:

www.process-heating.com...

you will find that natural gas is very hot, up to a good 3000 degrees Fahrenheit in a heat-loss environment.

Take this to the boat and sink it!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
Newtons 3rd law tells us that colliding bodies exert equal force on each other. You've got approx. 30 floors dropping on 80 floors, if floors are being destroyed then both the colliding floors must be destroyed (equal forces on equal masses will create equal damage). The collapse should have stopped around the 50th floor, as the top section would have ran out of floors by this point. But of course that is way too simple, as you would also be losing mass and velocity due to resistance, so 50th floor is VERY generous. And we all know from video evidence the collapse didn't happen that way anyway, the top section was losing floors before the bottom started to collapse. But then of course no one can even explain how it all started collapsing in the first place.

So no there is not enough concrete left post collapse, there should have been whole floors left if the OS is to be believed.

Apologies, but are you dense? This makes no sense at all!

If you had all other factors being equal, MINUS GRAVITY, the forces would balance out and the building would cease its collapsing. However, with gravity and the fact that the force does not completely dissipate upon demolishing a single floor, the collective debris becomes heavier and more kinetically active as it progresses downward. You can see proof of this looking at many other things.

FOR EXAMPLE:
If you remember some of those controlled demolitions of skyscrapers that went wrong, it was because when they blew the bottom support, the building began to fall and the earth resisted all the force, having far more mass with which to absorb energy. Plus the fact the building was a concrete exoskeleton in the one I"m thinking about. Regardless, it is an example of the physics.

This presentation is absolutely convoluted and you cannot say that the destruction defied physics when clearly you are misunderstanding the forces involved.

Take this to the boat and sink it!

Haha your first and last lines are hilarious.
Anyway i know you feel all smart and cool, and you make a decent enough point, but your fancy talk still doesn't account for the lack of resistance in the falling debris. no matter how hard we try to explain these events something always seems to be left out.