<p>Because bowling balls and glass have something in common with tens of thousands of gallons of AVIATION GRADE FUEL WEAKENING STEEL STRUCTURES. Good god. Found that demolition firm that can rig a 110 story building for demolition in 2 weeks yet?</p>
<p>You're missing the point. The bowling ball scenario was an illustration of something called RESISTANCE. Glass shatter easily so offers very little resistance. </p>
<p>How much MORE resistance would be offered by steel and concrete?</p>
<p>I am a Bush supporter, but no, he is not the best President the country has ever had. That distinction goes to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in a tie too close to call easily.</p>
<p>He is, however, the best President we've had in the 21st Century. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
He is, however, the best President we've had in the 21st Century.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say even that is highly debatable.</p>
<p>Typical liberals. No sense of humor at all. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>On a different note, now we're arguing that 9/11 was staged?</p>
<p>Wow. So THIS is where the CC moonbats hang out! :eek:</p>
<p>
[quote]
How much MORE resistance would be offered by steel and concrete?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not much when you have a lot of weight and air being pushed down onto it. Buildings aren't designed to have tons of extra force pushing down.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typical liberals. No sense of humor at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh...I know it's not the easiest thing to detect in threadwriting, but I thought it was pretty obvious to tell I was joking as well. </p>
<p>...typical conservative</p>
<p>so why don't we stop making stereotypical, and utterly false, claims like liberals aren't funny..etc. There's no point to it.</p>
<p>How about we not engage in personal attacks at all? Leave the mudslinging to politicians.</p>
<p>I agree; the politicians do enough mudslinging. Must we be like them?</p>
<p>"Not much when you have a lot of weight and air being pushed down onto it. Buildings aren't designed to have tons of extra force pushing down."</p>
<p>It doesn't take much. Even if each floor offered just a tiny bit of resistance, say, 1/4 of a second, that would have slowed down the collapse to the tune of around 25 seconds. Think about it. There's something wrong with this picture.</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>But that's the point.</p>
<p>" The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that ....</p>
<pre><code>Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows ...."
</code></pre>
<p>Sorry, but that totally doens't cut it. No way can you tell me that slamming into the next floor didn't present at least a bit of resistance. And you yourself even said 'little resistance' meaing there was SOME resistance. Even a bit would have slowed it down by more than a few seconds. Yet, the towers fell as thought there were NO resistance at all...a feature easily explained by explosives. </p>
<p>Also, the idea of the piston has been disproved.</p>
<p>If anyone can offer another plausible explanation, I'm listening.</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>So the BBC also has a stake in keeping the "lie" going? The Economist? Most of the European news agencies?</p>
<p>Why haven't the vast majority of European and Asian agencies jumped on this?</p>
<p>I don't know, but I don't think all those people are 'in on it.' I think most people basically just believed what they were told. They didn't question. Many people didn't start questioning until more and more of these anomalies began getting attention.</p>
<p>At the same time, what makes you think that all those news media haven't spoken up? I've seen coverage on C-SPAN, and I've heard of coverage in Europe. I suspect that there is a lot more than you realize. In fact, some polls have suggested that as many as 1 in 3 people think there was some degree of complicity by the US govt. (I'm not sure if that's accurate - at least not in my part of the country.)</p>
<p>(Complicity does not necessarily mean they did it. It can also mean that they just let it happen.)</p>
<p>Anyway, you are asking questions that I can't answer. I can only speculate. I repeat, once again, that I only recently woke up to all this stuff and I am still just trying to figure it out myself. I'm not trying to promote anything except free thinking and an open mind.</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>Some people think that remote controlled Jewplanes are what caused 9/11...it doesn't make it true. </p>
<p>However, I can bet you that at least a few respectable news outlets would have jumped all OVER this if the evidence were in favor of conspiracy.</p>
<p>Some people think there weren't any planes at all, but just holograms.</p>
<p>Not THAT's wacko!!!</p>
<p>You will find extremists in everything. That doesn't mean that everyone is a wacko extremist just because they are asking questions.</p>
<p>I disagree that news media would have jumped all over it. It's a very unpopular and inflammatory topic. I am amazed at how much people absolutely BRISTLE whenever I bring it up. They get extremely hostile.</p>
<p>No, I don't think the news media likes making people uncomfortable. (well they like making celebrities and politicians uncomfortable, but not their viewers.)</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>The BBC and Economist probably don't care nearly as much about upsetting Americans as you might think.</p>
<p>Why haven't foreign papers jumped on this?</p>
<p>Right now I'm watching the video of the victims' families. You might want to hear what they have to say:</p>
<p><edit> Whoa! I'm at 22:50 and there's this guy saying he was on the 911 Commission and he was told by the 'president' that only a 'minority' of the people on the commission could see certain documents, and they had to get it cleared with certain people before they could say anything.</edit></p>
<p>I haven't watched the whole thing yet. I wonder if the people on this forum are going to accuse the victims' families of being 'stupid' and 'crazy' too for asking these questions...</p>
<p>I wish they'd hear their story first. Watch the video. I'm telling you this and I haven't even watched half of it yet - I don't even know what their conclusion is going to be.</p>
<p>THE victims' families? </p>
<p>A few victims' families does not = everyone. Talk about a skewed sample.</p>
<p>Wait a minute! They are not claiming to be physics experts! That's not the point! But damn, they deserve to have their say more than any of us!</p>
<p>(and anyway, when did I use the word 'everyone'?)</p>