well, yes i agree. The shape of the object has an influence on its abillity to penetrate. But that is not an argument against, that if the momemtum of an object is large enough, it will still be able to crush another object.
it does NOT depend on the area !! you can think of that yourself! If you throw a bullet at the steel plate, then it will not penetrate, because the speed is very low, and therefore the momentum will be very low, but it hits the same area as, if you shoot the bullet from a gun.
@klingest When I am talking about the area it hits, I am talking about distribution of energy. A bullet is focused (often with a pointed tip) to deliver most of its energy in a concentrated area in order to penetrate. Experiment: 2 projectiles, same momentum. 1 regular bullet, 1x30cm steel plate. Both with the weight 20g , both at 1000 kmh. The target: 10meter squared steel plate. Will both have the same ability to penetrate? Hopefully that cleared something up for you.
@klingest And there is where you should have tried understanding newtons third law and more specifically: Equal and opposite reaction. If 1 floor from the top section destroys the one beneath, it destroys itself in the process until there is no more driving force and the motion will rest. The same way as in a car crash, even if you drop a small car from 100m above a semi-truck, it does not contain the necessary energy to destroy the truck. It will destroy itself well before the truck is gone.
@roxxphatcox that is not right!! it all depends on the momentum of the falling semi-truck. if the momentum os large enough, they will both disintegrate into dust. That is why a bullet with a weight og 20 grams can penetrate a steel plate!!
@klingest "That is why a bullet with a weight og 20 grams can penetrate a steel plate!" OFC IT CAN PENETRATE THE STEEL PLATE BECAUSE IT ONLY HITS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE MASS! THAT IS WHY YOU CALCULATE 20g BULLET TIMES VELOCITY VS THE AREA OF THE STEEL PLATE HIT AND POTENTIAL ENERGY. BUT IF YOU SHOOT A 20G STEEL PLATE INTO AN EXCACTLY SAME STEEL PLATE , MAYBE THE RESULT WILL BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT?!?!?!???! Holy mother of Jesus. THIS IS THE SAME BUILDING , NOT A TITANIUMBLOCK VS GLASS
@klingest "it does not depend on the area the bullet hits hits. It only depends on the momentum of the bullet and the thickness of the steel" no, there are other factors like the density of the material in the bullet and it`s composition. Would a bullet made of glass, paper,water have the same piercing abilities as to one made of tungsten or depleted uranium (all with the same momentum)? And would the shape of the bullet matter? According to you, none of this matters.
and yes the 1 floor from the top will destroy itself in the process, but the momentum will still be the same or higher because the falling mass is the same.
@klingest No and absolutely not, when objects collide the momentum does not increase. If you run as fast as you can into your front door, does your momentum increase? I mean, I`m not sure if you are having a hard time formulating what you mean but if that is what you believe, I will have a very hard time getting through to you. Lets go back to the car crash, what happens if you crash your car into a wall? Does it gain momentum? what if you dropped the car onto the house? gain momentum?
@roxxphatcox what i mean is that the momentum depends on the speed and the mass of the projectile( or the upper structure) . So if the speed or the mass, is large enough, then the floors will break. I did not say that the momentum would increase when the objects collide. The momentum is determined by the speed and mass. So if you have a small speed and a very large mass, like the wtc upperstructure, then you wil have a large momentum. p = m*v.
I totally agree, and if it was a 1km in diameter meteorite hitting 1000 ikea glasstables on top of eachother, it is highly plausible it would crush them all. Not a very good analogy. A good one would be 2 cars with similar composition yet one of them being 8 times bigger. If you drive your car (assuming you have one) across to the other lane and collides with a car 8 times your size. Will you : A completely destroy the 8 times bigger vehicle or B : Be destroyed well before that happens?
@roxxphatcox well, so it all comes down to the question: was the upper structure heavy enough to break the floors below. If it wasnt, the structure would just disintegrate on top of the lower structure. If it was, the floors would break, and we would see something like, what we see in the videos. i think it is safe to assume that a 10+ floor building is heavy enough, but If you can prove that the upper structure wasnt that heavy, then i am ready to discuss alternative theories, like bombs.
And how the hell could they have a seismic reading of the whole collapse, and calulate its timeframe from it... IF IT DID NOT CONNECT THE ENERGY TO THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE?!????!?!???
One floor at the time? Are you suggesting the wtc floors were suspended in midair without supports? OR MAYBE they were interconnected like a building "USUALLY" is? How can you claim to be an engineer when you do not understand that when the top section hits the lower section the energy is distributed THROUGH THE WHOLE LOWER BUILDING TO ITS FOUNDATION, ALSO CALLED THE GROUND. Unless you are correct and WTC was composed of floors floating in the air. You sir , are not an engineer. period.
You will destroy the 1st glass table with the top glass table making only glass bits fall on the 9th glass table.. still you have most of the structure intact.
@roxxphatcox okay so we have this tower of interconnected glass tables.Let there be 2 meters between each floor of the tower, and place a lot of heavy stuff on each glass floor. Now drop a heavy stone, from 2 meters hight above the top floor. I am pretty sure that the stone will go right through each of the floors!!
@roxxphatcox lets say you have a glass table. The reason why the table is able to hold you stuff up is because of the third law of newton. The stuff on the table is affecting the table with a downward force, and the table is affecting the stuff, with and equal but upward force. Since the forces are equal and opposite, the stuff doesnt move. But if you throw a stone at the table, and the glass breaks, the table wont affect you stuff with any force anymore, and the stuff will fall down.
@klingest excactly the point! You need to take out THE SUBSTRUCTURE to make the "stuff" ON the table to move downwards, yet it in the WTC there is another 85 "glass" tables to penetrate and each one has potential energy to decelerate the descent. And since both structures in the wtc(top section vs the lower bigger section) is of same composition (steel/concrete) it will be the same as you throw 1 glass table on 10 interconnected glass tables.
Sorry if i misunderstood something, but didnt you say that steel was pulverized? If not, what did you say? try to make yourself clear. English is not my mothers tongue, sorry! I do understand Newtons laws. I am an engineer and works with these concepts every day. Maybe you know the laws too, but it doesnt seem like you really understand them. Nothing in these laws is against what happened to the wtc towers. Sorry to say, but i really think you should study the laws again if you think different.
@klingest au contraire mon frère, if the fundemental laws of physics is valid (after 200 years of experimentation I`d be inclined to even say vigorously tested) then there is a severe problem in terms of the collapse mechanics. The top 10-15% can`t possibly obliterate the lower intact 80-85% according to newtons third law of motion. If we still are on the planet earth ofc, if 9/11 happened on Saturn on the other hand it would be highly plausible since the gravity pull is vastly stronger.
@roxxphatcox you are simply wrong, and havnt understood the third law of newton!! if you were right, you would never be able to break anything!! go study that law again!! I am using these laws very often, so dont tell me i am wrong!! honestly, what do you think would happen if you drop a large building upon another large building like wtc? That the top building wouldnt destroy anything and go to rest?
@klingest "If I am right , It would be impossible to break anything" ? I said 10-15% of the top structure cant OBLITIRATE the lower intact 80-85% of the structure ACCORDING TO NEWTONS THIRD LAW OF MOTION.
I will give you a pointer on how the law works: EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. The top 15% would destroy itself WELL before it can destroy the lower BIGGER/STRONGER portion of the building. Analogy: A ford fiesta@100mph hiting a parked semitruck: WTF do you think happens?
@roxxphatcox the top structure is destroying the lower structure ONE floor at a time. That is no problem if the weight is in the order of millions of tons.
"I will give you a pointer on how the law works: EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. The top 15% would destroy itself WELL before it can destroy the lower" NO because the top structure breaks each one of the floors as it hits, so the floors does not affect with an force equal and opposite. You just dont get it do you? This is really fundamental!
the fire could not have melted the steel. its just impossible. another interedting hole in the official story. what the hell is going on? why is the official stoy full of so much obvious bullshit?
@sr19 look at south tower corner gets twisted and fails. It don't have to be 100% melted to collapse. High amount of pressure, temp make the material weak. you can see that it fell right. you would have seen a bigger explosion . why underestimate terrorists anyway.. I hate what happen but i still try it was a terrorist attack.
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
@muzicmaker2001 Well i refuse to think those facts are accurate, since they never build a full scale model to test. Witch they actually build sometimes for fire tests when lots of ppl died. Anyway i think my fire stove can reach 400ºC+normal lighter 300ºC.Ventilation+burning for a long time the material get weak. My evidence is that the building collapsed and if there was big explosion it would maby look like this
It's very simple. There were people seen at the North Tower impact hole 20 minutes before collapse. Obviously, in those locations, the heat did not reach temps to cause total failure of the steel beneath them.
@klingest "tons of steel fall... really simpel!!" Did you just copy/paste random words from google, or did you completely misunderstand my initial statement? Let us for fun sake explore your answer using crude analysis. In your world : (tons of) Steel falling = pulverized steel ... Out of curiosity, what would happen in a head-on car crash , both cars at 50kmh or mph where the energy exchange is much higher per quantity steel. Do they turn into atoms like in a cartoon !POOF! and disappear?
@roxxphatcox well concrete was pulverized, steel was broken! What makes you think that the energy in a car crash is higher? i would say that the energy from a falling tower is much higher, than in you car crash.
Ekin = ½*m*v you remember? i cant see anything weird about the fact that the tower below the falling part was destroyed BIG time. Try studying some physics. Maybe that will help your understanding!
@klingest Since you have difficulties reading/understanding I will sum up the discussion: "What makes tons of steel pulverize to dust in 0.1sec?" your reply "Tons of steel fall... really simpel!!" later you say that "concrete was pulverized and steel broken" And I made an analogy "head-on car crash where the energy exchange is MUCH HIGHER PER QUANTITY STEEL" You had difficulty reading/understanding and replied : "I think the energy from the falling tower is higher"
@roxxphatcox i am not having difficulites understanding/reading. i do understand that you think that tons of steel was pulverized in 0.1 sek. i am just telling you that steel was not pulverized, it was broken, because steel does not pulverize, it breaks. Concrete was pulverized. And it is wrong that a head on car crash contains much more energy per quantity steel, than the WTC crash did. Simply wrong!! you can make calculations on this to see it yourself. !!
@klingest Then how come they found tons of powdered steel? Especially since according to you "Steel does not pulverize". That is the point I am making, falling steel constructions does not equal large quantities of powdered steel. So what can be the cause of this phenomena? If you are not familiar with it, I suggest reading FEMA`s preliminary report and the NIST report.
@roxxphatcox well even though steel in general does not pulverize, small bits of steel might break off if the force is strong. Nothing weird about that
@klingest The point would be: If we were to discuss physics anomalies, it would be vital for the discussion that you have the capability to read and understand what is written. Why would I take your advice to study physics when you obviously can`t read the language, let alone understand it? And if you can`t see anything weird about the tower below the falling part was destroyed big time, you should try high school physics and find something called "newtons laws of motion" Reply when u have.
The amount of pressure from the upper floors would have blown out windows on lower floors. All it needs is one point of failure, and then the pressure is equalized.
well, yes i agree. The shape of the object has an influence on its abillity to penetrate. But that is not an argument against, that if the momemtum of an object is large enough, it will still be able to crush another object.
klingest 6 months ago
sorry, that i am not so good at writing english, but i hope you will understand me anyway!
klingest 6 months ago
it does NOT depend on the area !! you can think of that yourself! If you throw a bullet at the steel plate, then it will not penetrate, because the speed is very low, and therefore the momentum will be very low, but it hits the same area as, if you shoot the bullet from a gun.
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest When I am talking about the area it hits, I am talking about distribution of energy. A bullet is focused (often with a pointed tip) to deliver most of its energy in a concentrated area in order to penetrate. Experiment: 2 projectiles, same momentum. 1 regular bullet, 1x30cm steel plate. Both with the weight 20g , both at 1000 kmh. The target: 10meter squared steel plate. Will both have the same ability to penetrate? Hopefully that cleared something up for you.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
what i mean is,,, whas the structure heavy enough to break ONE floor?
Because if it was then it would certainly break all the other floors too!!
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest And there is where you should have tried understanding newtons third law and more specifically: Equal and opposite reaction. If 1 floor from the top section destroys the one beneath, it destroys itself in the process until there is no more driving force and the motion will rest. The same way as in a car crash, even if you drop a small car from 100m above a semi-truck, it does not contain the necessary energy to destroy the truck. It will destroy itself well before the truck is gone.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox that is not right!! it all depends on the momentum of the falling semi-truck. if the momentum os large enough, they will both disintegrate into dust. That is why a bullet with a weight og 20 grams can penetrate a steel plate!!
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest "That is why a bullet with a weight og 20 grams can penetrate a steel plate!" OFC IT CAN PENETRATE THE STEEL PLATE BECAUSE IT ONLY HITS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE MASS! THAT IS WHY YOU CALCULATE 20g BULLET TIMES VELOCITY VS THE AREA OF THE STEEL PLATE HIT AND POTENTIAL ENERGY. BUT IF YOU SHOOT A 20G STEEL PLATE INTO AN EXCACTLY SAME STEEL PLATE , MAYBE THE RESULT WILL BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT?!?!?!???! Holy mother of Jesus. THIS IS THE SAME BUILDING , NOT A TITANIUMBLOCK VS GLASS
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox it does not depend on the area the bullet hits hits. It only depends on the momentum of the bullet and the thickness of the steel.
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest "it does not depend on the area the bullet hits hits. It only depends on the momentum of the bullet and the thickness of the steel" no, there are other factors like the density of the material in the bullet and it`s composition. Would a bullet made of glass, paper,water have the same piercing abilities as to one made of tungsten or depleted uranium (all with the same momentum)? And would the shape of the bullet matter? According to you, none of this matters.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
and yes the 1 floor from the top will destroy itself in the process, but the momentum will still be the same or higher because the falling mass is the same.
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest No and absolutely not, when objects collide the momentum does not increase. If you run as fast as you can into your front door, does your momentum increase? I mean, I`m not sure if you are having a hard time formulating what you mean but if that is what you believe, I will have a very hard time getting through to you. Lets go back to the car crash, what happens if you crash your car into a wall? Does it gain momentum? what if you dropped the car onto the house? gain momentum?
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox what i mean is that the momentum depends on the speed and the mass of the projectile( or the upper structure) . So if the speed or the mass, is large enough, then the floors will break. I did not say that the momentum would increase when the objects collide. The momentum is determined by the speed and mass. So if you have a small speed and a very large mass, like the wtc upperstructure, then you wil have a large momentum. p = m*v.
klingest 6 months ago
I totally agree, and if it was a 1km in diameter meteorite hitting 1000 ikea glasstables on top of eachother, it is highly plausible it would crush them all. Not a very good analogy. A good one would be 2 cars with similar composition yet one of them being 8 times bigger. If you drive your car (assuming you have one) across to the other lane and collides with a car 8 times your size. Will you : A completely destroy the 8 times bigger vehicle or B : Be destroyed well before that happens?
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox well, so it all comes down to the question: was the upper structure heavy enough to break the floors below. If it wasnt, the structure would just disintegrate on top of the lower structure. If it was, the floors would break, and we would see something like, what we see in the videos. i think it is safe to assume that a 10+ floor building is heavy enough, but If you can prove that the upper structure wasnt that heavy, then i am ready to discuss alternative theories, like bombs.
klingest 6 months ago
And how the hell could they have a seismic reading of the whole collapse, and calulate its timeframe from it... IF IT DID NOT CONNECT THE ENERGY TO THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE?!????!?!???
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
One floor at the time? Are you suggesting the wtc floors were suspended in midair without supports? OR MAYBE they were interconnected like a building "USUALLY" is? How can you claim to be an engineer when you do not understand that when the top section hits the lower section the energy is distributed THROUGH THE WHOLE LOWER BUILDING TO ITS FOUNDATION, ALSO CALLED THE GROUND. Unless you are correct and WTC was composed of floors floating in the air. You sir , are not an engineer. period.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
You will destroy the 1st glass table with the top glass table making only glass bits fall on the 9th glass table.. still you have most of the structure intact.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox okay so we have this tower of interconnected glass tables.Let there be 2 meters between each floor of the tower, and place a lot of heavy stuff on each glass floor. Now drop a heavy stone, from 2 meters hight above the top floor. I am pretty sure that the stone will go right through each of the floors!!
klingest 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox lets say you have a glass table. The reason why the table is able to hold you stuff up is because of the third law of newton. The stuff on the table is affecting the table with a downward force, and the table is affecting the stuff, with and equal but upward force. Since the forces are equal and opposite, the stuff doesnt move. But if you throw a stone at the table, and the glass breaks, the table wont affect you stuff with any force anymore, and the stuff will fall down.
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest excactly the point! You need to take out THE SUBSTRUCTURE to make the "stuff" ON the table to move downwards, yet it in the WTC there is another 85 "glass" tables to penetrate and each one has potential energy to decelerate the descent. And since both structures in the wtc(top section vs the lower bigger section) is of same composition (steel/concrete) it will be the same as you throw 1 glass table on 10 interconnected glass tables.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
Sorry if i misunderstood something, but didnt you say that steel was pulverized? If not, what did you say? try to make yourself clear. English is not my mothers tongue, sorry! I do understand Newtons laws. I am an engineer and works with these concepts every day. Maybe you know the laws too, but it doesnt seem like you really understand them. Nothing in these laws is against what happened to the wtc towers. Sorry to say, but i really think you should study the laws again if you think different.
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest au contraire mon frère, if the fundemental laws of physics is valid (after 200 years of experimentation I`d be inclined to even say vigorously tested) then there is a severe problem in terms of the collapse mechanics. The top 10-15% can`t possibly obliterate the lower intact 80-85% according to newtons third law of motion. If we still are on the planet earth ofc, if 9/11 happened on Saturn on the other hand it would be highly plausible since the gravity pull is vastly stronger.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox you are simply wrong, and havnt understood the third law of newton!! if you were right, you would never be able to break anything!! go study that law again!! I am using these laws very often, so dont tell me i am wrong!! honestly, what do you think would happen if you drop a large building upon another large building like wtc? That the top building wouldnt destroy anything and go to rest?
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest "If I am right , It would be impossible to break anything" ? I said 10-15% of the top structure cant OBLITIRATE the lower intact 80-85% of the structure ACCORDING TO NEWTONS THIRD LAW OF MOTION.
I will give you a pointer on how the law works: EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. The top 15% would destroy itself WELL before it can destroy the lower BIGGER/STRONGER portion of the building. Analogy: A ford fiesta@100mph hiting a parked semitruck: WTF do you think happens?
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox the top structure is destroying the lower structure ONE floor at a time. That is no problem if the weight is in the order of millions of tons.
"I will give you a pointer on how the law works: EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. The top 15% would destroy itself WELL before it can destroy the lower" NO because the top structure breaks each one of the floors as it hits, so the floors does not affect with an force equal and opposite. You just dont get it do you? This is really fundamental!
klingest 6 months ago
The world went down the shitter right after that.
WedgeAntillies1 8 months ago
the plane dosent collaps the tower to start IT WAS A BOMB
antontobiassen873 9 months ago
@antontobiassen873 no it was a missle but it was shaped like a plane
wuinfantry 9 months ago
@wuinfantry And it had snakes on it
cartmenkillsyou 9 months ago
@cartmenkillsyou yeah, and motherfucking snakes! lol.......people are stupid
wuinfantry 3 months ago
@wuinfantry Woa did you not have internet for five months! Sharon! Somethings wrong! See if your internet is working!
cartmenkillsyou 3 months ago
@cartmenkillsyou lmfao thats hilllarious, i was doing stuff, touring
wuinfantry 3 months ago
IT WAS A BOMB NOT THE PLANE
antontobiassen873 9 months ago
russians made it.. i hate em
MrBratkenSolov 10 months ago
the fire could not have melted the steel. its just impossible. another interedting hole in the official story. what the hell is going on? why is the official stoy full of so much obvious bullshit?
sr19 1 year ago
@sr19 look at south tower corner gets twisted and fails. It don't have to be 100% melted to collapse. High amount of pressure, temp make the material weak. you can see that it fell right. you would have seen a bigger explosion . why underestimate terrorists anyway.. I hate what happen but i still try it was a terrorist attack.
Bananpelikan 1 year ago
@Bananpelikan
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Well i refuse to think those facts are accurate, since they never build a full scale model to test. Witch they actually build sometimes for fire tests when lots of ppl died. Anyway i think my fire stove can reach 400ºC+normal lighter 300ºC.Ventilation+burning for a long time the material get weak. My evidence is that the building collapsed and if there was big explosion it would maby look like this
Bananpelikan 1 year ago
@Bananpelikan
It's very simple. There were people seen at the North Tower impact hole 20 minutes before collapse. Obviously, in those locations, the heat did not reach temps to cause total failure of the steel beneath them.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 cant post links, youtube.com/watch?v=GTlCrPOxirA
Bananpelikan 1 year ago
What you looking at is air compressing and exploding windows. Anybody who knows anything would know that, there not bombs.
willsco76 1 year ago
What makes tons of steel pulverize to dust in 0.1sec?
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox tons of steel fall... really simpel!!
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest "tons of steel fall... really simpel!!" Did you just copy/paste random words from google, or did you completely misunderstand my initial statement? Let us for fun sake explore your answer using crude analysis. In your world : (tons of) Steel falling = pulverized steel ... Out of curiosity, what would happen in a head-on car crash , both cars at 50kmh or mph where the energy exchange is much higher per quantity steel. Do they turn into atoms like in a cartoon !POOF! and disappear?
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox well concrete was pulverized, steel was broken! What makes you think that the energy in a car crash is higher? i would say that the energy from a falling tower is much higher, than in you car crash.
Ekin = ½*m*v you remember? i cant see anything weird about the fact that the tower below the falling part was destroyed BIG time. Try studying some physics. Maybe that will help your understanding!
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest Since you have difficulties reading/understanding I will sum up the discussion: "What makes tons of steel pulverize to dust in 0.1sec?" your reply "Tons of steel fall... really simpel!!" later you say that "concrete was pulverized and steel broken" And I made an analogy "head-on car crash where the energy exchange is MUCH HIGHER PER QUANTITY STEEL" You had difficulty reading/understanding and replied : "I think the energy from the falling tower is higher"
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox i am not having difficulites understanding/reading. i do understand that you think that tons of steel was pulverized in 0.1 sek. i am just telling you that steel was not pulverized, it was broken, because steel does not pulverize, it breaks. Concrete was pulverized. And it is wrong that a head on car crash contains much more energy per quantity steel, than the WTC crash did. Simply wrong!! you can make calculations on this to see it yourself. !!
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest Then how come they found tons of powdered steel? Especially since according to you "Steel does not pulverize". That is the point I am making, falling steel constructions does not equal large quantities of powdered steel. So what can be the cause of this phenomena? If you are not familiar with it, I suggest reading FEMA`s preliminary report and the NIST report.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
@roxxphatcox well even though steel in general does not pulverize, small bits of steel might break off if the force is strong. Nothing weird about that
klingest 6 months ago
@klingest The point would be: If we were to discuss physics anomalies, it would be vital for the discussion that you have the capability to read and understand what is written. Why would I take your advice to study physics when you obviously can`t read the language, let alone understand it? And if you can`t see anything weird about the tower below the falling part was destroyed big time, you should try high school physics and find something called "newtons laws of motion" Reply when u have.
roxxphatcox 6 months ago
Lol, I bet this is going to get it's own little conspiracy nickname -- "the squirt"
plusplusplusplusp 2 years ago
The amount of pressure from the upper floors would have blown out windows on lower floors. All it needs is one point of failure, and then the pressure is equalized.
DevonC90 2 years ago
@DevonC90 its not like the collapsing floors are sealed
dangerbird89 1 year ago
the inner floors collapse quicker than the shell hence the blowout
wutangangel 2 years ago
Views: 358
HijoozuRakoi 3 years ago
Views: 136
zloben9000 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
pretty damn cool video if you want to know my opinion. good work man.
japanesexxxxxxxxx 4 years ago
Hey Muzik, did you make this video?
Koenig39 4 years ago