Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

wildbilln864

(13,382 posts)

2. Chandler's correct! You are not!

Reply to William Seger (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:32 AM

Nov 2015

You ignore that as the towers got taller the core columns get smaller. The lower you go in the towers the larger and more robust the steel! Doesn't stop you from making up bullshit long paragraphs though. Chandler is a physicist. You are what again?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What a Gravity Driven Demolition Looks Like by David Chandler - sottotitolato in italiano [View all] wildbilln864 Nov 2015 OP

What a paranoia driven cognitive dissonance looks like e.g. David Chandler William Seger Nov 2015 #1

Chandler's correct! You are not! wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #2

The floor pans did not get more robust lower in the structure. hack89 Nov 2015 #3

show me the specs that prove your claim or else you... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #4

Why would it slow if the falling mass was getting heavier every second? hack89 Nov 2015 #6

much of that "falling mass" wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #7

So it didn't collapse in its own footprint? hack89 Nov 2015 #8

7 did yes... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #9

Since the collapse left a towering pile of debris that filled a massive hole in the ground hack89 Nov 2015 #10

you'd be wrong... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #11

So you are denying there was a huge pile of debris that fill a huge hole in the ground? hack89 Nov 2015 #12

so now you are saying... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #13

Pretty much. How else would heavy objects fall except straight down? hack89 Nov 2015 #15

so how did wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #21

Wasn't the basement mainly open space? hack89 Nov 2015 #23

Relatively little debris was going over the side William Seger Nov 2015 #16

well that's obvious bullshit! wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #22

A lot of dust and the external walls hack89 Nov 2015 #24

RELATIVELY little debris was going over the side William Seger Nov 2015 #25

We've been through all this before William Seger Nov 2015 #5

you are embarrasing the board not I. wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #14

"And Chandler shows how he comes to his conclusions which you cannot do." William Seger Nov 2015 #17

did you do the wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #18

No need to hunt for math errors William Seger Nov 2015 #19

so you can't. ok. n/t wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #20

so you won't. ok. n/t William Seger Nov 2015 #26

but I did William... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #27

are you asserting there was... wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #28

No, I'm saying there was no "uniform" resistance to produce "constant" acceleration William Seger Nov 2015 #29

akin to that ridiculous wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #30

You're ignoring gravity William Seger Nov 2015 #31