Remember the antenna that was on top of WTC 1?

[DoYouEverWonder]

I found a piece of it.



It's in amazingly good condition. Almost like it met no resistance on the way down?

[jgraz]

1. How does an unimpeded 1000-ft fall translate to amazingly good condition?

Wouldn't this make more sense if it were shielded and slowed by pancaking floors on the way down?

[hack89]

2. Stop it! There is no place for logic here. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. How would you look

after a 1000 ft fall? Impeded or unimpeded.

[hack89]

4. If it met no resistance

doesn't that mean that when it did hit, it hit with more energy? Or is my understanding of basic physic flawed?

[G Hawes]

5. Not amazingly good condition

considering it used to be 360 feet tall and considering that the piece shown in the opening post seems to have lost all of its outer attachments on the way down, but what you might expect from the type of collapse that happened, one that gave the tower some cushioning of sorts on the way down but still had enough force to break it into pieces and smash all of the outer attachments off.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Here's some more

We don't know what the condition the tower was in when they found it. It is possible there were bigger piece but they cut them down to transport them.

[G Hawes]

10. Here's some more

from the same site as the one in the opening post



http://tinyurl.com/yzce8f

http://tinyurl.com/yhurqv

[jberryhill]

6. What do you mean?

So "it met no resistance on the way down".

And it came to a stop, uh, how?

Or are you saying that it didn't meet any resistance on the way down, and thus slammed into the ground when it got to the bottom?

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. It must have met some resistance at some point

but considering the fact that just about everything inside the buildings was pulverized, I'm surprised to see such large sections that maintained most of their integrity.

[jberryhill]

13. Considering the fact that....

Considering the fact that most of the planet's surface is covered by water, are you ever surprised to see dry land?

[Contrite]

9. The whole issue of the WTC tower caps and the antenna

are subject to much analysis. Why DID the antenna start to sink if the cores were not destroyed below? Why did the entire cap turn to dust prior to its descent? Why did the antenna end up on top in such a way the rescue personnel were able to attach a flag to it? And why did the lower floors end up on top of the debris pile with the upper floors below them?

[hack89]

11. The cap was made of steel

are you really saying that steel was turned into dust? If so, just how the hell did that happen - alien space beams?

[Contrite]

12. I was speaking of the upper floors to the top

above the impact zone, not the steel of the antenna itself, which was apparently heavily supported across the top of the building by many steel members

[jberryhill]

14. Attach a flag to it?

What, pray tell, are you talking about?

The picture above appears to be a section of the big thing here:



Both of the towers had farms of antennae on top of them.

A flag was attached to something that looked like this:



Are you suggesting that flag is attached to something that looks even remotely like the thing in the first photograph in this thread?

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. It probably made

a good piledriver going down.

That and the 12 elevator hoists, when they broke loose.

[Contrite]

16. The airplane alert antenna which was previously on top

Why wasn't it pulverized too? If it came cascading down on top of the rest of the debris it would probably survive but why did it apparently drop cleanly through the center of the building as it descended rather than toppling into the rest of the morass or getting trapped in the columns or other parts of the structure?

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. It means that the pulverization

that happened to the contents of the building happened before the collapse began.

Everything inside the building turned to dust, everything outside the building survived surprisingly well. For example the people who were outside of the buildings when they collapsed and were lucky not to have anything heavy hit them, most of them survived. The people inside the building for the most part were pulverized.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. So you believe...

...that antenna piece plunged over 110 stories without any resistance (since everything below it was pulverized)...

...and then landed on the ground unscathed by that final impact?

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Certainly not unscathed

but large, recognizable, sections survived in relatively good condition.

Yet after looking at 100's if not 1000's of pictures of the debris pile, I've seen a recognizable desk only once. I've seen little in the way of file cabinets, computers, toilets, soda machines, or any of the things that you would expect to find in a typical office.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Maybe if desks were built out of the same thing as those antennas

...and with a similar design, you'd have better luck.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. I'm sure some of the VIP's

had some pretty fancy desks.

But aside from the little things. Where are the elevators? The bathrooms? The kitchen equipment for Top of the World? Where's the big stuff?

[hack89]

22. You make no sense..

are you really arguing that the plotters actually went to all the trouble to install tons of explosives to ensure that desks and kitchen appliances were destroyed? Why?

All you would need to bring down the towers would be to install relatively small cutting charges on key supports. Their focused energy would be sufficient to cut the steel but would not create a massive blast needed too pulverize everything. Why would they increase their effort and risk of detection if it was not needed to bring down the towers? Since pulverization is an obvious sign of CD, why would they do it?

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Where have I ever posted

that anyone installed tons of explosives?

The only people I ever see posting that crap are OCTers claiming that CTers must believe this in order for the buildings to be a CD.

I am also getting tired of your need to resort to putdowns, anytime you see information that upsets your delusion about what supposedly happened and didn't happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Resort to putdowns?

Repost anything you think hack89 said that you consider a putdown.

And then tell us: what destroyed all those desks and everything, but left that antenna in the state it's in? Tell us your position, and that will prevent us from "creating" it for you.

[hack89]

25. I see ..

so explosives weren't used for pulverization? It does make sense when you consider the PE of the towers. If the small amount of explosives you advocate were used only to severe structural steel one is led to believe that you believe that pulverization was simply a natural result of a huge structure falling. If that is not what you believe, then you have a huge energy deficit that only explosives can explain.

So how much explosives were used? Since you are so sure of yourself, you must have a general idea of how much explosives were used and where they were place? Have some faith in your beliefs and lay it on the line - what have you to be afraid of?