9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: South Tower Should Have Toppled

[newsmanbluesman]

two words - hat truss. makes all of this much less explicable - but has to be included or it will be used against us by RKOwens4 - although it cant do anything for him - we have to be game-tight, no talking about a b 52 running into the Empire State and shit

[kerryike]

The top section crushed up as the botton section crushed down. Newton's law.

[ShadowLinkxMaster]

The tower collapsed because of the pancake collapse, the upper floors remained intact at the initial lean but once it began to come down the upper floor's weight crushed on to the lower floors, the upper section disintegrated once it reached the lower floors.

[flynnsam]

If the 9/11 commission wasn't corrupted and an adequate investigation was done then maybe there wouldn't be so many questions. The commission didn't even mention Building 7 in their report. I think it would be strange for someone NOT to think it was an inside job......Not to mention Bush and Company were warned on Aug. 6, 2001 via CIA Memo that a domestic attack was coming from Bin Laden. (that is a fact). And they did NOTHING about it.....Inside job, very possible.

[stelley08]

here are 3 facts for everyone... FACTS, not theories but FACTS

1. jet fuel burns at no hotter than 985C (or 1800F)

2. concrete will liquify at approx 1600-1750C (or 2000-3000F)

3. steel will melt at 1370C (or 2500F)

i encourage anyone interested to google any answers for themselves and really think about all possibilties

[InvernessMoon]

@stelley08 Here is another fact, steel looses 60% of its strength at 1000-1300F depending on quality. Your second and third facts are irrelevant. The whole melting steal idea is a strawman.

[stelley08]

@InvernessMoon yes. the whole av gas fire thing bringing down the towers is BS on so many levels. the real discussion should be why hasn't the the public been told about the nukes placed under the 3 towers (and sears tower in chicago) before construction? why try cover up with a half assed av gas fire excuse? see dimitri khazelov video about nukes under towers

[stelley08]

@stelley08 dimitri khalezov has exactly why the towers fell.

[ShadowLinkxMaster]

@stelley08 The towers were burning at 1100F that day, Steel didn't melt however because it was close to the melting point the steel weakened to the point of structural failure which caused the steel trusses to bow inward and break, causing the top portion of the building to fall due to a loss of support at the 82nd floor

[stelley08]

@ShadowLinkxMaster sorry, that doesn't wash with me. it was brought down by nuclear demolition, hence all the dust and molten steel found 3 months later. see dimitri khazelov video

[ShadowLinkxMaster]

@stelley08 There is no evidence to prove any kind of demolition, but there is a bunch of facts to disprove them, Demolitions make noise and not a single explosion was heard, in demolitions all floors would have to be imploded at 1/2-second intervals, and the buildings would fall upwards, and fall right into their footprints. At the WTC all we heard was a wave of debris falling, the building fell down instead of up and the debris covered a 16 block radius, ultimately there are 0-hallmarks of demo

[stelley08]

@ShadowLinkxMaster There is MORE evidence that proves they were demolished by nuclear demolition. please see dimitri khalezov video on it. This is why there was redhot liquified molten steel being pulled out THREE MONTHS after the towers fell. Now i know u don't believe av gas can do that so whats your answer to this molten steel. keeping in mind that the temperatures didnt melt this steel, in your opinion it weakened the steel. how do you answer this?

[LolzeroDePP]

@stelley08 Steal doesn't have to melt to cause structure failure. At almost 1000C steal has lost about 70% of it's strenght

[stelley08]

@LolzeroDePP yeah we all know this, and there in lies my point, molten steel being pulled out THREE months later.. . still think kerosine can do that?

[SuperYesyesyo]

lets be honest:

the towers were made out of fine-graned sandstone, so it was WTC sandcastle south and WTC sandcastle north.

Then WTC 7 didn`t want to be alone, so it decidet to fall too. But stylish - so it fell the other way round, starting with the floors on the ground up to the top.

Bush must be totally innocent cuz he was in a classroom full of innocent american children

Pentagon/Rumsfeld must be innocent , cuz they where hit too

US Firemen are heroes, they even came the day before 9/11

[waypastprime]

All true IF the base was not collapsing under the center of mass. Simple calculations.

[BOINKHeadshot]

The towers fell at freefall speed? Were you driving it or something? "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking, we're going down at freefall speed right now, please fasten your seatbelts for the impact."

Seriously, only in vacuum stuff falls at the same "free fall" speed, but in reality, "freefall" speed depends on weight. And to be honest, I don't really think they made a replica of the towers before the attack and timed how fast it came down...

[LegionarioCruel]

@BOINKHeadshot - "Freefall depends on weight" LOL!!!!! 

[BOINKHeadshot]

@LegionarioCruel What falls faster? a feather or a heavy piece of steel?

Freefall speed also depends on size, forgot to mention that.

[LegionarioCruel]

@BOINKHeadshot - Near the surface of the Earth, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2, independent of its mass. LOL!!!!!

[BOINKHeadshot]

@LegionarioCruel And the point of that is? Aside from learning me something. The towers didn't come down in a vacuum...

[forgottencitizen]

@BOINKHeadshot Freefall speed depends on weight? Our friend Galileo would like to have a word with you... watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

[BOINKHeadshot]

@forgottencitizen weight, mass, shape, size, whatever, it depends on at least something...

Throw a feather and a big, heavy stone from the same height and I'm 100% sure the stone falls faster, unless it's in vacuum.

doesn't matter anyway, there was no way to check/know what the freefall speed was of those towers, since they weren't in vacuum

[arlichar11]

thanks citizens...keep up good work

[DKaijuGomoMan]

The toppling that you showed started from the bottom parts of the buildings.

Did it begin from the 80/90 floor like the Twin Towers? Thought so.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

Nothin to see here, folks. Just stubborness and junk science.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

And nothing to see from you except trolloing and ad hominems.

[forgottencitizen]

@AlexanderTheGood89 If you lived in Germany 70 years ago you'd be arguing that terrorists burned down the Reichstag building too.

[forgottencitizen]

@AlexanderTheGood89 If you lived in Germany 70 years ago you'd be arguing that terrorists burned down the Reichstag building too.

[theFunnierWill211187]

@AlexanderTheGood89 hey nice trolling man! You an expert?

[robbytjuuh]

BTW, An Airplane cant break the skeleton of that building, so why did the skeleton got down too? That's an question you can't give answer to if there were no BOMBS at the building.

[robbytjuuh]

3 stair down the collapse you see the windows break from the pressure its having, but, if you watch the north tower collapse, only 1 stair down the windows are breaking, so its an proof that there were explosions at the WTC.

[chaosad09]

Those buildings where built like 110 story brick shit houses. The engineers that designed those buildings had taken everything that happend on 9/11 into acount when they built them. They could have taken alot more punishment then what they recieved and still stayed standing tall. And building 7. That was a clasic demo job if Ive ever seen one.

[DzignK]

lollll...thank you to make me laught! Zéro rigueur intellectuelle dans la construction de ce vidéo...pas plus d'ailleurs que tous les vidéo crée par citizenfor911truth! Vous fabriquez vos vidéos avec une réponse que prédéterminé que vous voulez entendre!

[CuzPBz]

ps> does welding 100's of pieces of metal together have the same strength and building one big metal beam?

everyone knows them beams a peace by peace taken up there then welded

seem to notice car accepdents its usually weld seems that crack before the metal does

[CuzPBz]

alot of ppl would see this diffrently if wtc 7 never fell, and cause it did the way it did, it puts alot of dought in the minds for wtc 1 and 2...

wtc 1and 2 are structure falure, either help from external or the planes them self, u can see them colapsing

i believe in gravity cause 10 times out of 10 if i drop a ball it falls down, but

if i drop a ball on a 45degree slanted table top it would hit the table bouncesideways then fall down again

[slauzon11]

This hasn't debunked a thing. Speculation is not fact.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@slauzon11

And saying I'm wrong does not prove me wrong. If you'd like to specifically address anything I got wrong, be my guest.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1 You say that in every video, but never address anyone's evidence yourself. For instance, would you like to scientifically challenge NIST's report on the collapse?

One aspect that I'd like to discuss that you CLEARLY got wrong is this: all the videos shown of buildings toppling over begin falling at the BASE of the structure, not the middle or top of it. Just out of curiosity, what is your educational background, because you seem to misunderstand a lot of physics.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"would you like to scientifically challenge NIST's report on the collapse?" Others already have. Maybe you should address them.

"Just out of curiosity, what is your educational background, because you seem to misunderstand a lot of physics." Well, here's someone who has a very good understanding of physics and has a much more extensive analysis of the South Tower's collapse: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3lkblom

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

The quotes you provide at the end of your video are also extremely misleading. Claude Robert Briscoe is a civil engineer who specializes in the construction of roads, not buildings. Ronald H. Brookman has no experience in highrise buildings, either. Paul W. Mason--same thing, no experience in steel skyscrapers. I'm not entirely sure Alfred Lee Lopez even exists. Of the entire AE Petition List to investigate 9/11 only a tiny fraction are structural engineers.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"Claude Robert Briscoe is a civil engineer who specializes in the construction of roads, not buildings." He has desiegned and constructed buildings.Even if they havene't specifically designed high-rises, that still doesn't discount their expertise.

"I'm not entirely sure Alfred Lee Lopez even exists." Well, better provide some evidence for that claim!

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

It's pretty difficult to provide evidence for someone not existing. But my mistake. He does exist. He lives in Michigan. Once again, however, he has absolutely no experience with high-rise buildings. In fact, he builds ground level homes. And yes, it does matter if they have expertise in steel-based highrise buildings. It's the same reason you can't take your broken-down BMW to many NA autobody shops and expect it to be fixed--because they're made of different parts!

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"In fact, he builds ground level homes." Care to cite that?

"And yes, it does matter if they have expertise in steel-based highrise buildings." They have the same education and expertise as any engineer, regardless of what they have worked on. And to be fair, I doubt many engineers have designed buildings the size of the WTC anyway.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

"Care to cite that?" lopezengineers(dot)com(slash)c­ontact

hahaha. You obviously have absolutely no understand of how specialized the engineering department is. Not all engineers recieve exactly the same education! There are civil, structural, geothermal, material, environmental, and computer engineers--and all those disciplines are highly specialized and separate. Oh my god, you've seriously just lost all your scientific credibility. U been to a university campus?

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

He has obviously worked in other types of buildings, as can be seen on his website.

"There are civil, structural, geothermal, material, environmental, and computer engineers--and all those disciplines are highly specialized and separate." And AE911Truth has engineers from all those backgrounds.

"Oh my god, you've seriously just lost all your scientific credibility. U been to a university campus?" Yes I have. Again, I never claimed to be a scientific authority.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

"And AE911Truth has engineers from all those backgrounds."

Exactly! And only a tiny sliver of AE911Truth, which is in itself only a tiny sliver of all engineers and architects, are structural engineers. Meaning the vast majority of AE911 Truth "experts"--mostly students and grade-school teachers--are unqualified to make expert judgements on the WTC collapse. They, like you, have either been manipulated by others or are grossly misunderstanding the facts.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"And only a tiny sliver of AE911Truth, which is in itself only a tiny sliver of all engineers and architects, are structural engineers." How many architcts and engineers do you know that have actually read the NIST report? As a matter of fact, have you read the NIST report? Have you read the FEMA BPAT report? Have you read any of the papers published by Zdenek Bazant?

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

lol. I love the conspiracists who claim to have read the NIST report. Believe it or not, I actually have read the NIST report--it's long, boring, but accurate, and it confirms what the vast majority of experts already claim caused the collapse. The FEMA BPAT report? Nope. Never read that. Could you provide a link? I've researched Zdenek Bazant, who also supports the "official story." Face it:No credible experts agree with you, and you admit to not being an expert yourself.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"lol. I love the conspiracists who claim to have read the NIST report." I've also read much of the NIST reports, and that includes their WTC7 report. "Could you provide a link?" It was just the initial investigation, and I wondered if you had read it. "I've researched Zdenek Bazant, who also supports the "official story." His papers have been refuted by other peer-reviewed articles. "No credible experts agree with you" Pretty big judgement to make.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Let's get this right... you're offering no evidence, no expertise, no experience, no explanations... Give me a break. R.I.P. Truth Movement.

Really, I just don't want you to become a tinhatter. You seem reasonable enough, just don't be fooled.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

Unfortuneately, if I do provide you with links to evidence, you just call it spam. And no, I'm not a "tinhatter." I've seen examples of that already: watch?v=TibL-cmqLIw

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"They, like you, have either been manipulated by others or are grossly misunderstanding the facts." OK, sure. We've been mysteriously manipulated by these "wealthy people." Ya got us.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

This is the stupidest comment you've made so far, because it expresses anger over someone suggesting that you've been manipulated by others. Isn't that exactly what 911 truthers do by challenging the "official story"? I love how y'all get angry and all "YEAH. OKAY. SURE" when someone merely suggests that you are the one being manipulated and not the rest of us.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

"I love how y'all get angry and all "YEAH. OKAY. SURE" when someone merely suggests that you are the one being manipulated and not the rest of us." What I am getting angry about is this pointless debating about who's got the better experts, rather debating the actual science of the issue.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

That's ridiculous given that you admit to not understanding the science, whatsoever. 

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

I admit that I am not a scientific authority, not that I don't understand it.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

Furthermore, your science is coming directly from your experts. And I too am willing to admit that I require others to backup my claims as well. Thus, the idea that a debate over whose experts are "better" is not pointless, it's essential. If I pull together a group of nine structural engineers, which I could do by merely walking down the hall of my dormitory. And told them to build some story about reindeers flying into the WTC, wouldn't their credentials matter to you?

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

So far you have not presented me with any experts you are getting your info from. Just saying that "universities" and others have done the science, but haven't bothered to note anyone specifically.

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@citizenfor911truth1

There are honestly too many experts who've confirmed the "official story" and written on the collapse of the WTC. MIT has probably done more tests on the WTC collapse than any other institution. Read them to get another side of the story. I've read your articles, it would only be fair. Oh! And disprove them, as well--with all of your scientific expertise that you admit to not having.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@AlexanderTheGood89

I've seen many of those articles, and they (including MIT) have already been addressed: tinyurl(dot)com(slash)3nqp5cs

[pixarian72]

@slauzon11 Idiot. A huge leaning toppling mass cannot shed itself miraculously of it's angular momentum unless what it is rotating on as a fulcrum is destroyed by something other than the weight of thetoppling object, as the more pressure the toppling mass provides, the more it rotates about the fulcrum. An off centre leaning mass cannot cause a symmetric collapse, lol!

[Galv140577]

Notice the puffs off powder from the timed explosives going off coming out of the building as each floor is demolished to bring it down.

[plasterdbastard]

This analysis fails to address what the symptom of rotation was caused by. This analysis depicts the tower as having rotated on a fixed fulcrum when, really, the majority of rotation/torque occurred post collapse initiation, and continued as the building continued its collapse. In the absence of a fulcrum, the building would have simply tumbled along the path gravity dictated, particularly given the inertia of such a large mass.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@plasterdbastard

The tower rotated about a fixed axis for approximately 2.5 seconds.By that point, its center of mass was highly off center, with more weight on acting on one side than the other.Also, it's worth noting that once the top of the Tower started its vertical plunge, its rate of rotation slowed down.This can only be explained by the breakup of the top, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia.So, what could have destroyed the top before the lower section began to collapse?

[plasterdbastard]

@citizenfor911truth1

2.5 seconds prior to collapse? I'm not sure where you've obtained that number if that's the case. All of the footage that I've observed demonstrates a rotation post collapse initiation. There is a lean right before the collapse, but rotation occurs once the collapse begins.

If rotation begins post collapse, the moment of inertia is a product of the gravitational draw you've noted. Vertical gravity is stronger than angular gravity, slowing the rotation. Damn 500 char limit

[citizenfor911truth1]

@plasterdbastard

"Damn 500 char limit"

Would you prefer to continue this discussion via personal messages? I too get annoyed by the character limit.

[plasterdbastard]

@citizenfor911truth1

No, it's alright. I was once told that I was too verbose. Perhaps that's starting to ring true...

[pixarian72]

@citizenfor911truth1 It's obviously controlled demolition. The only thing that can destroy the building without explosives is the weight of the toppling section. The more weight the section applies, the more toppling occurs about the point of contact as the mass is leaning and rotating. THEREFORE, the only way the mass can cease toppling is if the building below is destroyed by something else removing the fulcrum/pressure point of rotation. Simple really.

Keep fighting evil citizen!

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard The only thing that can destroy the building without explosives is the weight of the toppling section. The more weight the section applies, the more toppling occurs about the point of contact as the mass is leaning and rotating. THEREFORE, the only way the mass can cease toppling is if the building below is destroyed by something else removing the fulcrum/pressure point of rotation. Simple really.

[plasterdbastard]

@pixarian72

No, it's not simple, and you've omitted a critical component of the collapse in that rotation occurred post collapse initiation.

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard You're not making any sense. Of course it occurred post collapse initiation, the section has to detach to start rotating.

You're not addressing the issues I raised, namely the rotating mass should continue rotating, toppling off and can in no way produce the symmetric collapse observed. Please refute.

[plasterdbastard]

@pixarian72

If the building is collapsing, how can the upper structure topple off? It's impossible to topple off of something when the toppling motion is a product of the gravitational acceleration that is also bringing down the base from which it should topple. This is why the rotation does not progress: it is a product of the initial lean and gravity.

This video also refutes your claim of a symmetric collapse by demonstrating that the collapse happened asymmetrically from numerous angles.

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard The only way the building can collapse is under the weight of the upper section correct? The more weight the upper section applies the more it topples as the contact between the two sections is the pivot point. If the rotation ceases, that means the pressure between the sections has been removed by something else, as the top section no longer has a resisting surface to exert pressure on and pivot around. I hope that clears it up for you.

[plasterdbastard]

@pixarian72

Again, the rotation began post collapse initiation. The initial "pivot point" you are referring to was only as a result of impartial failure ie. the lean.

This is a fluid building, not wooden blocks. The "pivot point" you are referring to was fluid, and the failure of individual floors demonstrated that gradually the upper portion did fall out of the building's footprint to the south east, as the "pivot point" progressed down the building.

I don't know why I bother... We're done.

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard The structure in order to lean has to fully detach (less some structure about the pivot area ), it is a block structure. It is not a fluid building, I'm pretty sure they're made out of concrete and steel, not fluids. If it was fluid it could not apply pressure as it would be distributed sideways like the top 15 floors of the north tower that disintegrated before the lower section inexplicably exploded. Complete, symmetric destruction is impossible from a leaning toppling mass

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard No it doesn't refute it. The building collapsed symmetrically as you will see here watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA.

[plasterdbastard]

@pixarian72

That clip shows precisely that the building collapsed asymmetrically from multiple different angles. You can visibly see the upper floors of the south tower breaking the building down, then breaking apart themselves and then falling outside of the footprint to the south east.

It's obvious that you want to believe this, so feel free, but I'm done explaining. You want to make your claims, I want to explain engineering. Fundamentally different perspectives.

And no, I don't like Bush.

[pixarian72]

@plasterdbastard Wrong, it shows from beneath the explosive, symmetric collapse front all the way down. Angular momentum cannot cease unless the resistance or pressure between the sections is suddenly removed, this is basic physics.

We are done.

[zenoist2]

When a building takes asymmetrical damage it collapses asymmertically got it?

The planes hit one side right?

You hit a tree on one side with an ax?

It just might lean towards the damage.

None of the buildings that collapsed on 911 leant the least tiny amount to the area of most damage.

Got it?

They all fell perfeclty evenly as is easily observable.

[daveygravey123456]

the only way to prove this it 2 build 2 twin towers again and get jason beiber to knock them down again

[BadBunnyRides]

Fail...every "example" this vid puts up to demonstrate the de-bunkers as wrong, follow exactly the predicted fall pattern when there IS a fulcrum. This is not the case in the Towers collapse, as everyone knows who's watched the vids. Perhaps had the author of this vid watched the "Debunked" version a bit more closely, he would have seen the physics demonstrated as they address this very subject in a much clearer way.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@BadBunnyRides

I hardly see this as a "fail." I did watch the debunker vid and found it to be incorrect. As I make very clear in my video, the angle at which the top tilted put the centroid laterally off center from the fulcrum to a point where more than three times as much weight would have acted on one side than the other. If you'd like to see a more detailed analyzation, you should read the paper by Dr. Crockett Grabbe, entitled "Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center"

[BadBunnyRides]

@citizenfor911truth1 I was leaving the UN (I'm a PMC) that day and saw it. Not the first plane, that I heard though, but the rest I watched unfold and I will never forget turning to a friend/coworker who was with me and saying "Looks like we're going to the Middle East this year". However, my statement still stands, your examples show a stable fulcrum whereas there was not one in the towers collapse as seen in the vids. Its very clearly shown, they even zoom in and pause on it happening.

[OneVoiceMore]

@citizenfor911truth1 Thank you. Dr. Crockett's lectures, of which I have attended three at U of I, still raise the unanswered questions. This isn't some nutbag, or some YouTube 'Scientist'. This is a guy who -reluctantly- acknowledged his disagreements with the official story, based on...golly...science and stuff.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@OneVoiceMore

Dr. Grabbe is very brilliant. I used an audio of him in this video.

watch?v=hcHXKNnhREM

[kev492001]

Look what happened to the Marriott also, and then imagine the building falling right on it, it wasn't under the towers it was beside and got half destroyed by the first fall then the 2nd tower falling finished it off, also looking at the old pictures while they was building the twin towers on the corners we can clearly see it has 2 big spots where holes are, not much support on the corners.

[aqz1233]

the building was falling at about 100 mph. when steel hits stuff at 100 mph it smashes and twists. and when concrete smashes into the ground and it compresed under thousands of tons of concrete and othe debris, it turns to dust.

[xAnacondax]

"Thus still the same strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years"

I'm pretty sure during those 30 years the building never had to deal with the weight of the upper mass falling on it off axis at an angle either. If you think there's no difference between a load that has a direct path to the ground and one that is eccentric then you are frighteningly undereducated and should return to school at once to retake physics.

[heafers84]

you used all examples of buildings with fulcrums, congrats on not making your point at all

[mooners40]

@heafers84 go on say it again - the towers were not a solid structure - were they made of jello ? Spaghetti? - the physics of 9/11 are what we have to deal with and you think that these buildings were not solid - lol - you work in a building that is not solid and steel and concrete aren't solid - how about i bitch smack you with a crow bar and you tell me if it's solid - lol - do you think the core of the towers was hollow? Thick steel and steel reinforced concrete - sad idiot - get a clue

[heafers84]

@mooners40 Jello would actually be a solid structure. Are you really that stupid that you don't understand. Tree = solid Hollow Tree /= solid. Brick = solid Building /= solid. He's stating that there were different parts held together at different points. Maybe I should pull a definition. Here ya go.

solid - entirely of one substance with no holes inside; "a solid block of wood" Does that help?

[mooners40]

@heafers84 you're point is that the towers were not a solid structure - as we can all see in what you wrote - and now you are arguing that jello is solid and its relevance as a solid entity should be important in describing the strength of the twin towers - muppet - conservation of energy alone should tell you that this event cannot be a 'falling building' physics can't lie fuckwit

[mooners40]

@heafers84 " a solid block of wood "= your head does that help? Your is more woodwormed and swiss cheese like - all held together by that solid jello - you can build condos on your head = solid

[heafers84]

@mooners40 I'm tired of trying to explain something so simple to a complete moron. Goodbye, don't forget the helmet.

[mooners40]

@heafers84 You're now wearing a solid helmet of jello ? Or is it not solid ? - Is it a wooden helmet ? Is Wood not solid or is steel now jello? I've lost track of your amazing world of physics - you should have your own show

[heafers84]

@mooners40 This has nothing to do with physics, this has to do with the definition used in his speech you idiot. Your house or any usable building is not solid b/c it has space inside of it. The individual parts are solid, wood, brick, plaster, etc..... So unless you're suggesting that the towers were one big steel or concrete block (with no space inside, you know for people to work) then your idea/definition of solid as used in the video above is incorrect.

[mooners40]

@heafers84 "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS" -wow - you are clearly and sadly challenged - - put corks on your forks - no physics to see here - look away- nothing to see - " this has nothing to do with physics" - it has EVERYTHING to do with physics - that's the point and physics can't lie - people can - and some motherfuckers can even try and lie about physics - and morons like you will believe them rather than looking at the facts - this has nothing to do with physics? WTF lol sad

[heafers84]

@mooners40 our conversation is clearly not about physics. How the hell could you understand physics when you don't even understand the definition of "solid".

[mooners40]

@heafers84 do you think the twin towers were not solid ? Don't pick up anything sharp - be careful

[heafers84]

@mooners40 no, they're not solid, there's actual space inside the building, it is not one big concrete or steel block. I'm officially done explaining this to your dumb ass

[mooners40]

@heafers84 if they're not solid - i've got it - they are a gas or a liquid? lol Or maybe you have another option? Plasma maybe - "no they're not solid" lol.

[heafers84]

@mooners40 learn to use context clues idiot. You're using the wrong definition. Just admit you're a retard and we can call it a day

[mooners40]

@heafers84 still laughing

[mooners40]

"it's not a solid structure" @ 0:52 my word - , - what a joker - not solid? Maybe he should squeeze his nose and honk - bit this is serious

[heafers84]

@mooners40 you're an idiot. You understand that the towers were not a solid structure? That's his point. Wow, way to make yourself look like a retard.

[mooners40]

@heafers84 Steel and concrete aren't solid? You make retards look like Einstein

[Wyndup]

Great vid mate.