Viewing Single Post From: Evidence of a Top-Down Explosive Demolition

Viewing Single Post From: Evidence of a Top-Down Explosive Demolition
Miragememories	Aug 15 2008, 08:55 AM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "The load increased because it began to move. The forces being applied to the non-moving components were impact forces rather than static ones, and were thus much larger. Also, once it impacted the lower portion of the building it was not distributed where it had been before. The structure is designed to carry the load in a certain configuration. If you change the configuration or arrangement of the load, the structure may no longer be able to carry it even if it weighs the same amount." I would like to hear a reasonable explanation for these "impact forces". Certainly, if the upper section moved downward "as one", at a high enough rate of speed, the intact floor below would be overwhelmed. No one has ever provided a believable scenario that would adequately explain how enough of the upper section could suddenly "pile drive" into the lower intact section. All the Official Story theories require a close to "freefall" speed to make the math work and while those theorists steadfastly defend their math, they have never been able to explain the validity of the assumptions that provide the numbers they use. There was structural support damage of course and no doubt the fires had some effect as well. But we are asked to believe that the consequences of the office furnishing's fires were so well distributed and uniformly intense, that they were able to weaken the remaining vertical perimeter and heavy core steel column supports in such a way that they failed so rapidly that a "driving hammer" effect could occur. Is that a reasonable expectation or do we have a case of numbers being adjusted to make a pre-assumed cause conclusion work? Why is there so much symmetry in the collapses? Why isn't there a more realistic breakdown of structural support which would be expected with steel failing from heat? Why does the South Tower (WTC2) begin to dramatically topple, removing vertical load from it's backside and then suddenly have the topple "arrested" as the whole floor drops out from under it? Keep in mind that such uniform downward crushing forces could only be achieved through high speed removal of support across the complete floor, including the massive steel core. In the case of WTC1 (North Tower), imagine if it was say a smaller building, say 16-20 storys tall. Image, the original impact damage and the effects of a weakening fire leading it to the point of losing structural integrity. Would it make sense for it to come straight down or would it make more sense for it to topple or breakup in a piecemeal fashion? MM Edited by Miragememories, Aug 15 2008, 07:38 PM.
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08

Evidence of a Top-Down Explosive Demolition · World Trade Center