How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

So on the excuse that some faction would simply call it fake anyhow,
there is NO inventory of aircraft bits, no accounting for the airliners
( because the airliners were never there )

There is a huge breach of standard procedure here,
any other airliner disaster would have the NTSB
meticulously collecting up aircraft bits and taking
inventory.

 

Your proof of this is?

 

Nope.

The my point is that no matter WHAT evidence, expert explanation, calculations, etc. are provided to you showing a gravity driven collapse is what caused the destruction of the towers, you will forever believe that it was a conspiracy and controlled demolition.

The evidence and math far for a gravity driven collapse far surpasses anything you or your truther brethren can put forth to support a controlled demolition.

 

There is a very serious problem here, and that is: so many people
have been fooled by the fraud that is the 9/11/2001 lie, that its going
to be VERY difficult to get traction with ideas that are true to real world
not only physics but probability. Two towers experience ( & to quote NIST )
TOTAL COLLAPSE, and nobody is questioning exactly how that happened?
or the few who do question it, are instantly labeled nut cases...... oh well .....

airliners as much as melt into the sides of buildings and people
say "ya, it could happen like that" ...... WHAT?

 

They punched through,they didn't 'melt into' anything.

As evident by those big assed holes

 

so an aluminum airliner gets to behave as if it were a hardened steel punch, right?

 

No,a 120 ton mass at high speed does

 

how does speed alone impart special qualities to the aluminum
such that it can be expected to behave as a hardened steel punch?

 

Same way a jacketed lead bullet can go through a steel plate

 

Newton's Law. That's how.

 

How can a hand break through a cinder block or wooden board? Are you telling us that flesh is stronger than those materials?

 

Furthermore, it's not just aluminum. It's AIRCRAFT aluminum. Go look up it's properties. It also has to do with the SHAPE. Certain shapes have greater strength than other. Go look THAT up. The planes also have in internal structure BEHIND the aluminum skin designed for strength. Go look THAT up.

You have a bad habit of trying to minimize certain entities and exaggerating others to try and make your points.

 

Yes, I can get it that aircraft are made as a monocoque, therefore,
once the aircraft began to shred in the course of penetrating the wall,
the monocoque would have been violated and most certainly become
much more likely to break/deform.

 

But the mass of the aircraft remains the same.

 

If part of the front (15 feet? 20 feet?) of the fuselage impacts the perimeter columns and shears/penetrates them, what was remaining of the perimeter columns to deform the REST of the plane as it continued to move into the tower?

 

Note that the hole in the WTC wall was not a perfect cut-out, the airliner
would have had to take damage on the way in, while entering the building through that hole. Taking damage, uses up energy, not to mention, having to break up internal bits of the building in order to have the aircraft actually disappear inside. and there are those allegedly severed core columns, that stuff doesn't happen without expending energy.

 

And the momentum of the aircraft had more than enough. Good of you to point that out.

 

Takes two things, energy and FOCUS, exactly how was the KE of the aircraft focused to sever core columns?

 

Wrong. It takes Velocity and Mass. The plane had plenty of both.

 

However, once the aircraft started penetrating the wall, the resistance would increase by orders of magnitude. + there is no guarantee that all of the shredded bits of aircraft would stay connected to one-another therefore the
effective mass of the aircraft would decrease as it penetrated.

 

Huge Velocity & Mass = huge KE, however, how that energy is applied matters,
if not focused, its a gamble if the desired result will happen or not. it is a sure thing that somebody planned the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7 because of the manner of that destruction. How was the energy of an aircraft crash focused so as to break just the right columns and enough of said columns to do the job and do it properly?
it is total speculation the the airliner cut certain core columns. Why should the aluminum aircraft after expending energy to penetrate one wall, then have additional energy sufficient to break core columns?

 

The desired result happened.Period.

 

"desired result" therefore the result was the result of planning by an intelligent being.

 

The suicidal pilot of the hijacked plane. Also, the terrorists that planned the attacks.

 

When "news" from the middle east filtered through, the story was that "al CIAda" did not intend for the buildings to collapse, but that was a bonus to the event.