Nope, not at a tertiary level, but even a numpty like myself can see that you're not too concerned about sticking to facts.R. Prime wrote:Just out of curiosity Emperor Fossil, have you studied physics?
For example, you state that the twin towers fell "with no resistance, and fall at free fall speed."
Yet anyone can view the videos of the collapse and see rubble and debris from the tower falling at a faster rate the main collapse. And not just debris -- there are videos that clearly show large sections of the outer structure falling faster than the main collapse. Now, you might want to respond with some carefully massaged or misinterpreted data that attempts to suggest otherwise, maybe those readings from the seismic stations, but all it takes is a look at the videos to see that the towers aren't collapsing in freefall.
Also, you state:
Here, you appear to be making no distinction between the force applied by a static weight versus the force applied by a weight that is falling. Even a high school student shouldn't make that kind of error.The core columns and the steel matrix that makes up the support for the building are effectively as strong as solid block. The weight that fell on them was already supported by those same columns.
And I'm dubious about your rather vague claim that the 'core columns and the steel matrix' are 'effectively as strong as a solid block' even before the impact, let alone after those outer columns have been weakened due to heat and some severed due to impact.
Frankly, I'm having trouble believing that you studied physics in any formal capacity. Did you study physics at university as part of a course in which you were enrolled? If so, did you actually pass? I don't really mean to be rude. I'm just a bit, well ... puzzled.
You know what? These conspiracy theories are contagious. I'm starting to think this thread is a conspiracy intended to waste my time and deepen my frown lines. Is there a camera in this room somewhere?
Excellent, one down, 16 to go.
