Posted: Nov 30, 2010 9:12 pm
by uke2se
psikeyhackr wrote:
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.


So, let's hear you say it: What took down the WTC (According to the scientific findings of NIST)?

psikeyhackr wrote:
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.

psik


You really shouldn't accuse others of believing something idiotic when you can't understand building physics. According to your understanding, every building would need to be a pyramid, every floor supporting all those above it.

:lol: