SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TigerPaw who wrote (14983)9/6/2006 10:29:22 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) of 20039
 
One would expect that in a controlled demolition some of the air would be ejected out of the building. In most controlled demolition the buildings do not lift up. That would mean wasting explosives. Because the building is in tact when the explosive force is delivered and the weight of the building hold it down as well and the size of the charges are only as big as needed to take out the columns.

One would expect a building that had all support removed to fall in free fall time. If a vacuum was created by the explosions, then that time would be shorter, free fall without the air resistance. This is exactly how building under controlled demolition fall...in free fall time. Buildings that fall due to pancake type collapses take much longer. Look at the University of Washington Stadium collapse back in the 80's. It was only 140 feet tall or so but took 17 seconds to collapse. If the columns were blown up it would have taken only a few seconds to fall down.

You're wearing me out with your ignorance.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News