Posted: Nov 30, 2010 8:43 pm
by psikeyhackr
uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
The idiocy used to rationalize the belief that an airliner could TOTALLY DESTROY a building 2000 times its mass in less than 2 hours and then not tell people the distribution of mass even though that was part of getting it to hold itself up is pretty boring.

Why do 9/11 conspiracy theorists always pull out this whopper? I mean, lying this boldly isn't making their "movement" look less like the laughing stock it is.

For those with a few brain-cells to rub together: nobody is claiming that an airliner TOTALLY DESTROYED the WTC. Airliner impact damage and FIRE removed the supports. Gravity did the rest.

I don't give a damn about any movement.

Are you saying the building was not 2000 times the mass of the plane?

The fire was the result of the plane and supposedly the fire allowed the start of the collapse. I am not interested in quibbling over semantics.

It is not my fault that you BELIEVE something that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC and yet you don't expect to be told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers. Let's see you build a model that can support its own weight and yet collapse completely from the top 15% or less being dropped on the rest. The building had to be designed to hold itself up against gravity and for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds it had to accelerate at more then 50% of G. So the stationary mass below had to be accelerated and the supports for that mass had to be overcome.