Armed Forces Building Demolition

Building implosion video of the Katrina damaged 11-story Armed Forces Retirement Building in Gulfport, Mississippi to make way for its replacement as seen live on EarthCam October 25,2007.

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• demolition
• katrina
• implode
• building
• collapse
• earthcam
• armec
• forces
• home

[DarksporkLeader]

Can we have JUST ONE video of a building being demolished without someone mentioning their obnoxious, insanely stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[MrLolololXD]

Oh look! 0:38 Two towers playing dominos! :D

[acoow]

@DarksporkLeader Those people are insane. What do you expect?

[DarksporkLeader]

@Nouganoid Har. If I had a nickel every time...

I don't always participate in stupid, pointless internet arguments, but when I do, it's because I'm really, really bored. Kudos to you for remaining civil throughout.

[Nouganoid]

@DarksporkLeader You clearly don't understand the physical principles involved. It doesn't matter that a building is 90% air.What matters is that it is built to stand and can only be brought down in the manner in which we witnessed through the use of well-placed explosives. You have been so persistent in this that I do wonder if you're paid to spread your lies across the internet. At any rate, I've had my say. You can get in the last word, if you like. Now go pick up your check

[DarksporkLeader]

@Nouganoid Consider this one question and this one question alone before you continue to pursue this argument:

IF 9/11 was a conspiracy somehow orchestrated by the US government, WHY is it so unfeasible that they would simply pay off or otherwise convince a terrorist group to fly planes into the buildings rather than some complex scheme? Also, IF the towers were taken down by explosives and not just the planes, HOW does that prove the US government was involved?

[DarksporkLeader]

@Nouganoid Furthermore, I wouldn't trust anything someone _said_ they saw when I have video of the event, and though eyewitness accounts may be good enough for a court of law, they are not acceptable in science. Since we're arguing science here, it's not important what people thought they saw. In addition, don't assume I'm "ignorant" just because I disagree with you. I've studied this quite a bit and even believed it for a time.

[DarksporkLeader]

@Nouganoid My argument, good sir, was that I was sick of seeing exactly these types of arguments on videos that are wholly unrelated to 9/11. You then played right into that and began stating your conspiracy theory. I've heard it before and it's wrong. Consider that the heat of the fire weakens the steel holding up the building (which is not a solid block, mind you) to the point of uselessness. Remember that any building is about 90% air and consider the margin of error in your calculations.

[Nouganoid]

@DarksporkLeader You say you can't trust eyewitness accounts. Then why are they considered evidence in a court of law?

[Nouganoid]

@DarksporkLeader I did not start this "conspiracy argument." You did. I was only replying to your ignorant arrogance. So we "can't apply simple equations to complex systems"? I agree! We can't apply the laws of physics to the official explanation for the collapse of Building 7. Matter cannot fall into the path of other matter and accelerate at freefall rate. (NB: I say "accelerate". It's not pure freefall because conditions are not ideal. But the acceleration curve is the same.

[DarksporkLeader]

@Nouganoid There's nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge. You can't apply simple equations to complex systems. I've heard this argument hundreds of times before, and it's already been disproven. Furthermore. I wouldn't trust eyewitness accounts further than I can throw a stone when we have video, as the human mind is a fickle thing. Besides, how am I "polluting cyberspace" when you're the one starting conspiracy arguments on unrelated videos?

[Nouganoid]

@DarksporkLeader The incontrovertible proof lies in the laws of physics. A 47-storey building cannot neatly collapse, through the path of greatest resistance, in 6.5 seconds, without that resistance--support elements, core columns, etc.--first being removed through explosives. I told you the incontrovertible evidence: eyewitness and forensic. It is obscurantists like you, who want to ignore the laws of physics, who pollute cyberspace defending crimes against humanity.