0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ohhh!Sorry, excuse me. A bit of misunderstanding from my part. [:I]But now I see. Now isn't that wierd? [] What kind of a plane was it? How many passengers were on it and how many people were in the building? Are we given this information?
I say it could not but accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete is the minimum information needed to begin analyzing this so why weren't the EXPERTS demanding this SEVEN YEARS ago?
The problem with this theory is that skyscrapers are not stronger at the bottom than the top- they're *thicker* at the bottom, but then again they've got more weight on them, so they have to be.The kind of failure you saw at 9/11 is exactly what you would expect.
PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.
Quote from: psikeyhackr on 18/04/2009 01:49:45PS - There seems to be a BIG jump in the number of views.You mean this thread or your Youtube video?Is that good [] or bad []?
But unfortunately this means that when the building begins to pancake the proportion of the weight it's designed to withstand is exceeded all the way down, by the same proportion- basically each floor is trying to catch all the floors above it moving downwards, but there's more and more weight moving downwards as the failure propagates.
Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?
Quote from: Chemistry4me on 18/04/2009 11:20:58Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?Mostly.
Quote from: psikeyhackr on 18/04/2009 19:06:38Quote from: Chemistry4me on 18/04/2009 11:20:58Is it official that the collapse took less than 18 seconds?Mostly.So is that a Yes or a No?
Okay, if you say so.
So are you and psikeyhackr on the same page here about this WTC business? Except you seem to have a theory that they were blown up! Or is that just my misunderstanding? []