Creative Speculation

cbrer

(1,831 posts)

19. And...

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

Feb 2012

"Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of
the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to
crush the lower section of the building."

Logic failure? At my level of understanding, it seems that the upper block must lose force when impacting lower block. So there would be a diminished effect on the remaining structure. No?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK then. Just the facts. 9-11 [View all] cbrer Feb 2012 OP

I stopped at #1. zappaman Feb 2012 #1

actually it doesn't weaken steel Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2012 #30

Did I use the wrong word? zappaman Feb 2012 #31

Facts? These questions show that you've already been bamboozled William Seger Feb 2012 #2

Pancake theory leaves Politicalboi Mar 2012 #63

Nonsense will never change my mind, but actual evidence certainly would. William Seger Mar 2012 #67

I would really like to know what you believe to be the relevance of point 1 jberryhill Feb 2012 #3

Not completely cbrer Feb 2012 #4

Keep up the inquiry, please. earcandle Feb 2012 #5

"Conflicting data"? William Seger Feb 2012 #6

Indubitably (sp?) cbrer Feb 2012 #7

If you don't have the background to wade through the equations used... AZCat Feb 2012 #8

Not asking for defense cbrer Feb 2012 #10

If you could apply the laws of physics to 9/11 as you claim, you LARED Feb 2012 #13

Uh... Yes, you did. AZCat Feb 2012 #15

I stand corrected cbrer Feb 2012 #17

Have you read the NIST NCSTARs? AZCat Feb 2012 #22

If you "don't have the background to wade through the equations"... William Seger Feb 2012 #23

Those curves are typical... jberryhill Feb 2012 #9

Steel cbrer Feb 2012 #11

No one has told you to STFU jberryhill Feb 2012 #12

I need to start using the sarcasm emoticon cbrer Feb 2012 #14

"Lots of conflicting information by credible sources exist" jberryhill Feb 2012 #34

Google cbrer Feb 2012 #20

I misremembered the name jberryhill Feb 2012 #24

Thanks for the link cbrer Feb 2012 #25

This is pure nonsense.... jberryhill Feb 2012 #33

Maybe you can answer this for me then BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #54

And your explanation for that is....? jberryhill Mar 2012 #57

Here's one BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #58

Yes, David Chandler is a kook William Seger Feb 2012 #16

Potential yes, but... cbrer Feb 2012 #18

"... is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared." William Seger Feb 2012 #26

He states that it's in the video. cbrer Feb 2012 #27

I meant "shown" as in "demonstrated conclusively" William Seger Feb 2012 #28

Thanks cbrer Feb 2012 #29

Two weeks have passed and still no response, even LARED Mar 2012 #45

Weak assed effort cbrer Mar 2012 #46

Here is what I am seriously suggesting LARED Mar 2012 #50

An open mind cbrer Mar 2012 #53

Honestly is appreciated nt LARED Mar 2012 #62

I'll quibble with #4 OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #59

Quibble noted LARED Mar 2012 #61

seems fair, although personally I would avoid legal terms of art OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #70

nice post -- I'll just point out a recurring typo OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #32

And... cbrer Feb 2012 #19

For someone who claims to be curious, why have you not read any critical analysis of this POS? jberryhill Feb 2012 #35

Partial link- sorry cbrer Feb 2012 #21

"2. Timing does show some free fall throughout collapse of towers." jberryhill Feb 2012 #36

As I previously noted cbrer Feb 2012 #37

It doesn't require any particular expertise... jberryhill Feb 2012 #38

You were able cbrer Feb 2012 #39

No, you are not seeking information jberryhill Feb 2012 #40

here's the thing OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #41

Based on sources cited here cbrer Mar 2012 #47

"Please read these quotes and comment as to veracity." jberryhill Mar 2012 #51

My little personal story libodem Mar 2012 #42

I don't understand zappaman Mar 2012 #43

I know it is silly libodem Mar 2012 #48

"a bunch of nomads and a camel" jberryhill Mar 2012 #52

yes and no OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #60

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #55

I would have got it a lot sooner zappaman Mar 2012 #56

Well... terrafirma Mar 2012 #44

So amazing...after all these years libodem Mar 2012 #49

Lobby windows blown out Politicalboi Mar 2012 #64

Situational evidence cbrer Mar 2012 #68

You can add two more indicators of an inside job.... Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #69

huh? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #71

Sure, Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #73

Nonsense William Seger Mar 2012 #74

darn it, you type too fast! OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #76

I guess it depends... William Seger Mar 2012 #78

yeah, it's easy to end up making people's arguments for them OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #81

seriously? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #75

lots of odd assertions here OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #72

Oh and Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65

Oh boy, such nonsense sgsmith Mar 2012 #66

This thread is a hoot!!! Broderick Mar 2012 #77

I was hoping cbrer Mar 2012 #79

Have you drank too much Broderick Mar 2012 #80

you're not familiar with "formulae"? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #82

chime in about what? I'm confused OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #83

No reason cbrer Mar 2012 #84

yes, there is a lot to be learned (or that can be learned) OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #85