How would explosives have been used to create a 64% of g acceleration in the towers?

Let's make this even easier.

How would explosives be used in the scenario above to prevent free fall yet maintain ANY constant % of g descent. Free fall equals total removal so you are claiming they DAMAGED/WEAKENED the components?

Is that correct?

 

Your mistake here is to focus on the % of g
as a rate of descent, if the goal is not to produce
a specific rate of descent, but to destroy the building,
then all that needs to be considered is the engineering
of the demolition of said building, and that is already an
established science.

Now, as yet, you have produced nothing that would
even suggest that the destruction of the tower(s) wasn't complete.
what do you have?

 

I guess those "engineers in charge" really messed up their "calculations" huh?

They didn't foresee the "explosive power" they "calculated" was going to be strong enough to "eject massive steel sections horizontally" or effectively "peel" the perimeter columns off the structure like peeling a banana?

If this was the case, the "demolition was carefully calculated", why did the debris field extend to a 600 foot radius around EACH tower?

 

Ignoring this are you genericBob? Have I got you stumped? Go ahead. Apply your claim that the "engineers of the demolition" calculated the amount of explosives used were enough to destroy the towers, but not enough for overkill or to make the upper section come down at free fall. I mean, you made the claim below did you not?

I guess "over-doing it" = "free fall" in your eyes?

Concentrate on the red part of your quote above. Are you saying you think the "engineers of the demolition" compared both the "free fall" and "lesser explosives" scenario and determined that the "lesser explosives" scenario would be used because it would cause less damage to the surrounding buildings?!

 

I'm not focusing on anything.

I want you to explain, using my scenario below, how explosives can affect a supporting structure to reduce the resistance of said supporting structure to maintain a CONSTANT rate of descent of an object the supporting structure was once holding up in a static environment.

I could care less WHAT % of g it is. It's the MAINTAINED, CONSTANT rate of descent I'm talking about that you keep referring to. You keep going around in circles and the more you try and expound about what you THINK happened, the more you put your foot into your mouth.

So, using the scenario below, try and explain how a "lesser amount of explosives" could be applied to not create "over-kill" and cause the block being supported to not fall at free fall. A by-product of this experiment was that the block was measured and was found to have fallen at CONSTANT/STEADY rate of descent (take your pick of which rate as it doesn't matter), but was NOT free fall.

Remember, you have been quoted many times here showing that you think this whole process was engineered. That the perps DIDN'T want to create free fall, which was over-kill, and didn't want to damage other surrounding buildings.

Have at it. This should be fun.

 

Interesting.

So if the right rate of descent is achieved based on the upper mass of a complex structure, the upper section of said complex structure can CRUSH the remaining intact lower section (a lower section which had supported the upper section all along) of said complex structure. Also in the process the upper section, upon meeting the rubble pile, destroyed itself?


All this destruction happened from just 8 floors being detonated to cause 2.25 seconds of free fall of the upper section?

 

Explain genericBob.

How can a 519 ft worth of a structure completely destroy itself from the lower section impacting the ground at 40 mph? That was enough to completely shear ALL connections in the building????

 

Your silence is deafening...

 

Do you understand what you are asking here?
Explosives were used to cause destruction of the tower(s)
not used to "slow" anything.

 

That's not what you claimed.

 

There are doubts about explosives being used.