Have you guys seen the makers of Loose change debate popular mechanics? It’s pretty sad, but good entertainment. Here’s part 1 of both -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7tMHMQ863Q&feature=related.
The host in the second interview/debate actually talks to them as if they were children, it’s pretty funny, but he’s spot on by addressing them as such. Such ignorant people who sway others to waste their time with all this crap. These aren’t the smartest of the bunch, but they build up followers nonetheless.
Looking back on all this, I totally overestimated the whole movement and its opposition when I first heard about it. In the beginning, I thought hey, maybe they’re on to something. Turns out these people are trying to clash their alternate reality with actual reality, and when they try and use science it always backfires. Their perseverance will be their own downfall.
Of the many passing articles I’ve come by, this one here from last year provides more than enough explanation. As soon as you mentioned lower floor support, psikey, a few posts ago, it rang a bell. I’ll copy/paste a few phrases for those who aren’t interested in reading the whole thing, but the full article is a nice summarization of the whole truther movement and their main claims 10 years later. Here’s a few bits to explain the power behind the collapse part of your argument.
“Each floor of the towers contained over two million kilograms of mass. The gravitational potential energy of a standing tower with twelve-foot floors extending upward 110 stories can be calculated straightforwardly; it comes to over 420 billion joules of energy, or the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT per tower. This energy, which was released completely during the collapses, is more than the energy of some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-48 (72 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006).”
“The Twin Towers used a “tube within a tube” architectural design, which provided considerable open office space in the interiors of the Towers. Much of the structural support was provided by a dense grouping of thick central core columns in the interior and the perimeter walls on the outside. When the towers began to collapse, large parts of the inner cores (called “the Spires” in 9/11 Truth circles) were actually left standing, briefly, before they, too, toppled over. The perimeter walls were largely forced to peel outward in large sections, producing the iconic images of Ground Zero with which we’re all familiar. Between the outer perimeter and the inner core, the weight of the upper sections plowed through one floor after another, breaking the floor connection brackets and support columns, pulverizing concrete decks, and gaining momentum and mass with each additional floor failure.”
Read on if you want. I’m happy SI put it online in this case. Although the main claim it addresses is the “free-fall” claim, it also happens to cover this bizarre idea you have, if what you’ve been claiming is that the building should not have collapsed because the bottom was made to hold up the weight. Is that what you’re saying? Here’s the article.
which means the further down the building you come the more weight had to be supported. Which means more weight of steel must be put into that level to support what is above but that means that weight must be supported from below
Like I hinted earlier on, what you said there concerns static loads. Bring a dynamic load in, and your “further down the building you come the more weight had to be supported” is irrelevant to a collapse of this nature. So I don’t know what your are trying to say.