simple physics is it? so why did nothing fall outwards in wtc7? defying physics? or implosion? for something to descend in a parabolic curve it has to be thrown by some force, if you drop something heavy it will fall straight down, something like a beam.... Laudrup said it himself, "if something is projected" where did the force come from to project such an object if the buidling just gave way? 2 planes took down 3 buildings, if only Einstein was still alive.
The 2 remote controlled planes that George Bush was controlling from a school in Sarasota. They were then made to look like jet airliners so that when the planned detonation of the towers (which apparently Bush's daughter fixed up hersel) happened he could just say "yeah it was those terrorist folk". I think the voices we heard form the planes were his nieces and nephews reading from a script - some way to earn your pocket money eh?
Where did I say I was no longer responding? Please do feel free to point it out. If you cannot even recall basic details of this argument then perhaps you should give it up because you clearly are not up to the task. Your method of conducting a debate seems to be throwing insults when you don't get the response you expected. It's small wonder that you are an "ex" teacher, what sort of example must you have set your students? When they could not grasp things did you simply cast insults at them in an attempt to bully them into your way of thinking? I said : And that was the last anyone saw hide or hair of you and your risible patter. It was a welcome break I can assure you. Now unless you have anything worthwhile to add - apart from tired insults and repetitive assumptions - why don't you go and sit in the corner and keep quiet.
How do you know when the debris was scattered? Some of it could've fallen from the collapsing buildings, but some would clearly have been thrown out by the impact of the planes.
eddie, think about this please. Remember the videos showing "explosions" in the floors below the shockwave as the building collapsed? That clearly shows that there was material inside the building (as well as gases) that was being forced outwards. Material being ejected from the buildings as they fell would still have a parabolic arc but who knows how much energy was exerted on these rogue flying beams (of steel or Aluminium) which impacted the buildings only a couple of hundred feet away. Even if a beam simply "fell off" the top of the building it would still fall in an arc as the diagram I posted shows. It does not fall straight down and land at the base of the building a few feet away. And who says "nothing fell outwards" on wtc7? Physics again would prove that to be utter and complete fantasy.
Physics would prove the whole day to be complete and utter fantasy but that dosent seem to bother you.
If you dropped a beam off the top of the world trade center it would not fly hundreds of feet across and impale a building. Unless you want to use Bush Science.
So you are now admitting that there was explosions? Well its about time. Video evidence says it, watch the towers collapse and you see beams being propelled vertically, watch wtc7 fall and there is nothing flying out, the building collapses perfectly in on itself.
If it was a controlled explosion, then why would material be found hundreds of feet away? There was a building in Waterloo Street 6 years ago that fell without a single plane hitting it, and it wasn't a controlled demolition either 2 buildings fell because planes hit them. The third building fell because of a few possible reasons. It was close to the towers, so maybe the force of these two skyscrapers crashing down jeapordised the foundations of the third building. A failure of the foundations would mean the building is effectively holding itself up, instead of transferring it's load into the underlying bedrock. Combine this with fires throughout the building and I think it is a reasonable assumption that the third building fell due to these special circumstances
Because when an explosions occurs, it pushes things out and away. Can you show me this building and the way it fell? The third building fell because of office material on fire, that is the official verdict, according to your prized popular mechanics, you know, that corporate magazine who would have no conflict of interest in defending corporations.
So go on then - tell us what actually happened on that day then. Not "oh how can you believe A, B and C?" but exactly what you think happened.
But you have said it was an implosion, not an explosion. Big difference between the two. The building was on the corner of Waterloo Street and it was taken down to a fire. I remember it well because it was a few weeks after I started with my company, which is just along the road. As the masonry fell off, you could clearly see that it was a steel frame. After a few hours on fire it was down. They have built a new building in its place now. I have no idea what you are talking about in the last part of your post.
