This has been dumbed down as much as possible for him. He doesn't want to understand he would rather be argumentative
GK and Raoul, for your review and comments
- Thread starter Bankerreturns
- Start date
It's called "google," you stupid f*ck. Try it sometime. Took me all of 30 seconds to find this. My gosh, you are an idiot.
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
Ah, a geologist using seismic records to rate the speed of the collapse. Even longer than other reports say. But certainly not "free fall", no matter how you look at it.
That makes more sense. I had read somewhere that the fall only took about 10 seconds. If it took 12 seconds or more then the "resistance" shows up and satisfies my question.
If you hold a brick over 80 panes of glass, with a 1 inch space between each pane, will the brick break thru all 80 panes? I don't know the answer, but it would seem that each pane would reduce the speed of the brick until it would not have the momentum to continue to break through at some point.
The difference, (as I see it), in the case of the WTC would be for every pane of glass broken there is another brick added to the mass.
I had only the 10 second time of fall as my information. You're the moron trying to tell me a pane of glass wouldn't slow down a brick.
It was an honest question, super moron. As I said I had only the 10 second fall data. It should have been obvious I was asking to better understand when I asked this question: "I don't either, so how about an explanation in layman's terms explaining how the towers fell at a freefall rate?"
Nowhere did I say it wouldn't slow the brick down. I said it would be so negligible that you wouldn't be able to tell. There is a difference MORON
"drop a brick through a window. It doesnt slow down."
Of course you didn't say that, moron.
Building 7 went down because the internal structure buckled
When i watch and read this stuff agsin it makes me think our response to 911 was too mild
When i watch and read this stuff agsin it makes me think our response to 911 was too mild
I'm 100% convinced that plane was shot down, and it was the right call.
Once again you were schooled on a topic. Anyone paying attention knows what was implied with my comment. It's not my fault you are to stupid to understand basic physics. Go do the experiment and see if you can distinguish the slow down
Okay but what caused that? No plane hit that building.I read these debates all the time. I am no engineer so help me understand how a building not connected to either of the other two fell.
At least two from everything I have read, and that's just on the floor pancaking. The core took a few seconds longer to fully collapse, we just couldn't see it well on TV through all the dust.
I was asking to be schooled, you moron. You attempted to argue against a point I wasn't making, and when you got around to trying to address my actual question, you offered false data. What is it with several of you cons on this board who simply cannot refrain from lying?
Lol. That might actually be the only topic I have never watched a video on. And why is it the drunker you get and the deeper down the YouTube rabbit hole you go you always end up on cat videos?
Yeah, one of the sites gives about 15 seconds for the fall. If that's the case then there was actually a fair amount of resistance considering what the structure was being asked to bear.
The planes may explain the two towers falling but that doesn't explain Building #7. I don't know who was responsible for that but something brought it down and it wasn't debris from the other buildings. Maybe the Muslims put explosive device in it IDK.
I explained it all to you in my first reply to you. You just didn't or wouldn't understand what was being explained
I am at work or I would go into greater detail, but basically one of the towers falling ripped a giant gash in the front and corner of 7. It was like Godzilla took a couple of swipes at it. Firefighters described a huge gash down the south side, and there are photos from the back side where you can see buckling before it collapsed.
No everybody else didn't get it. You certainly didn't get it Mr. Glass Won't Slow Bricks.
Everyone understood but you. It's not your fault you can't understand simple physics
That's rich coming from the glass wont slow bricks guy. Maybe this hasn't been dumbed down enough for YOU.
whats rich is you got schooled and get hung up on semantics like you always do. Of course the glass would slow the brick down. Would you be able to tell by your naked eye. No.
No, glass won't slow bricks guy. I didn't mention anything about timing the fall by the naked eye. That's 2 pieces of false data. Here's a 3rd...you also said the resistance of the floors wouldn't make much difference, yet if the collapse took 15 seconds instead of 10 that's a 50% increase in the time it took to fall. Any more false data that you've spewed that you'd like to get schooled on?
Mathematically it is a decent difference, but to the casual observer's eye it is not. It's still "free falling", as you said (and believed). It's less than five hundreds of a second per floor. Almost like....planes of glass breaking.
Mathematically it's a 50% increase. I didn't mention anything about the naked eye. It's almost like.....a 50% increase in time, which means....there was actually a decent amount of resistance.
Ironically the unique design of the Twin Towers saved a ton of lives because of the way its load bearing was engineered. A "normal" skyscraper design would have taken out half of lower Manhattan.
Similar threads
