Building The World's Tallest

[jasonc]

Sorry 'bout that, ....it's not considered a conspiracy in other parts of the world.

its just this site. it wasn't always that way.

 

[Mike S]

I'm from California, but the Lord moved me to Tahiti.

Nice.

I fear God might move me to someplace like the Sudan. Then I'd be in a position like Jonah "No! I don't want to go." And, we know how that works out.

 

[Lewis]

We used to be able to talk about here, but it got abused, I was still on staff when it was changed so it has been a while, I had forgot all about it, completely.

 

[Karl]

Nice.

I fear God might move me to someplace like the Sudan. Then I'd be in a position like Jonah "No! I don't want to go." And, we know how that works out.

No worries Mike, Father gives us the desires of our hearts, as a child in the '50 I saw the Disney movie "Swiss Family Robinson," I though it would be so cool to live in the tropics, ...I don't do cold, ...that and I wanted to see water swirl in the opposite direction from the Northern Hemisphere going down the drain, ...no kidding.

 

[tim-from-pa]

While I agree that weakened steel (as opposed to melted) can collapse and the buildings could pancake, still there are two main things that bother me about this catastrophe.

1) Why would normal collapsing be virtually free-fall (i.e virtually frictionless fall)? While I think it is possible to fall, why not more slowly than it did? And a corollary to that, why straight down as opposed to part of the building not as hot or compromised than other parts causing the debris to fall to one side?

2) What about WTC7 which was not hit by a plane, and yet fire debris from the others just made it fall "straight down" in a "free-fall fashion" like the others? So that's 3 buildings that fell "straight down" in a "free-fall" in one day supposedly from hot fires when in all the history of sky-scraper fires there hasn't been one case like that in all the world. Hmmmmm.

But as Linus of the Peanuts comic strips once said, there's 3 things you don't talk about:

1) Religion
2) Politics and
3) The Great Pumpkin.

I'm going to add a forth, the WTC complex. People get way too emotional about it. So I won't say anything past my observations cited above.

 

[Lewis]

While I agree that weakened steel (as opposed to melted) can collapse and the buildings could pancake, still there are two main things that bother me about this catastrophe.

1) Why would normal collapsing be virtually free-fall (i.e virtually frictionless fall)? While I think it is possible to fall, why not more slowly than it did? And a corollary to that, why straight down as opposed to part of the building not as hot or compromised than other parts causing the debris to fall to one side?

2) What about WTC7 which was not hit by a plane, and yet fire debris from the others just made it fall "straight down" in a "free-fall fashion" like the others? So that's 3 buildings that fell "straight down" in a "free-fall" in one day supposedly from hot fires when in all the history of sky-scraper fires there hasn't been one case like that in all the world. Hmmmmm.

But as Linus of the Peanuts comic strips once said, there's 3 things you don't talk about:

1) Religion
2) Politics and
3) The Great Pumpkin.

I'm going to add a forth, the WTC complex. People get way too emotional about it. So I won't say anything past my observations cited above.

Weight and momentum and as the floors pancaked down much more weight was landing on the floor below. That is why both towers went straight down.