I told ye Boris, people like Shotglass just like stirring the sh!t. They think they are more intelligent than everyone else and the only thing they can do when they run out of ideas is belittle people, I've been here before, just let him say whatever, ignore him and he'll get bored and go away...
I can't help it if you don't understand simple physics taught to 14 year olds. Seriously, physics is a non-negotiable science, until you start to get down to the atomic level or as big as the universe. You can't just not believe in it, this is not philosophy. You can't just make up your own physics, there are facts that must be observed, and things act according to the laws of physics.
It would appear to be some of the outer support columns that are still attached in a large chunk of wall, if we are seeing the same thing. Looks a lot like the section of wall still left standing on the left here:
Hey RAM, just to make things clear and avoid all this tech talk, are we saying here that buildings would still collapse even if the upper part that was cut off fell to the side of the building? i mean if we just removed the upper part, would it still fall like it did because it lost some integral strenght or whatever? Or did the upper part 'pushed' the rest of the building?
Also, just to bring back the CGI story for a bit, this is pretty interesting
Because you have the brain capacity of a banana slug in a lead mine.
Like I said these are a few engineers, there are bound to be a few wackos in any profession. I tend to believe the many, many articles from the professionals who are much more professional than these people, and write peer-reviewed papers on the subject. There have been no conspiracy papers that have made it through the peer-review process to be published in a reputable scientific journal, whereas the peer-reviewed papers on my side of the argument are numerous.
You don't have the majority of physicists on your side, you don't have engineers, architects.
I have already explained this in detail, the floors offer less resistance, so they progression of the collapse is further along on the inside. Thus the wall sticks up over the collapse going on in the inside, and when it breaks off it falls out of the cloud.
then stop asking questions if you don't want answers.
in placement, immediately below the impact zone. It is unclear whether it is a section from the wall from below or above the impact zone, as it may be a section of the wall from the falling upper half that has been torn off.
Is there any proof that these pictures are from the original footage captured live when the building fell? Can you find that footage anywhere else than in the documentary you mentioned? There's nothing easier than doctor some footage ex-post and claim it's "T3H PROOF". If I can question the authenticity of the official version, then I guess I can do the same with these conspiracy proofs, right?
I admit these images look a lot like a CGI thing though.
Ok, now tell me what are the chances of that upper part that is already tilted heavily, falling straight down, and crushing everything, and not just falling on one side, leaving at least a 3rd, or half a building standing?
I agree, this is nothing until proven, which i currently can't find that it was from the original fall..
And one more, the second frame is when it fell further down, those 3 beams somehow magically repairing themselves
I don't know, i see what you're saying but still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't in that case be a slower collapse, not instantenous? I mean they fell like there was nothing bellow the upper part On what evidence can people be basing this if nothing similiar ever happened?
What? When did I ever ask you to explain what happens in a pancake collapse?
Holy sh!t, you sound like Donal Rumsfeld when he was asked where are the weapons of mass destruction... "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
lol whatever, I'm just answering the questions you put forth. I have answered them all, in detail, with facts to back me up, and the official response to them seems to be 'I don't believe it' without ever disproving a thing I say with evidence.
There are two plausible explanations I see, either that is a bit from above that has been sheared off by the lower part (it's on the right angle that we see the top half of the building fall at) or it is the section just below the blast zone and has been pushed out by the top half of the building. Unfortunately, I can't see inside the dust cloud.
But the thing is I never asked you anything about pancaking, or to explain anything to me... and this is what I said in response to you first mentioning the pancake theory - "And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing... it's a bull sh!t theory..."
"blast zone", I like your wording, hehe...
Anyway, where the debris comes through the dust/smoke is actually above the impact zone, put your finger on the screen where the impact zone is and play the vid from the 1.07 mark in the description, you will be able to see the debris above your finger, not very scientific but it'll work, the camera doesn't move much once the collapse begins. So, that leads us to only one conclusion, the top (1/3) section of the tower falling was breaking into pieces as it passed the impact zone, which then begs the question: How the fcuk can a section of a structure that's breaking into pieces, have the structural strength to crush the remaining (2/3) section of the building, completely, but not actually demolish any other building it falls onto? (see WTC 4, 5 + 6)