WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

Over the years, there have been attempts at computer models and various ranges of mass, thickness of materials (etc... ) have been tried, within what I would consider believable ranges of values, it has been proven beyond any doubt that the destruction of the towers was a controlled demolition, however in order to satisfy a court of law, I believe that its going to be necessary to have the real numbers on this, and this may be a reason why the numbers are kept secret. In addition, I add that it is grossly improbable to expect for the events of 9/11/2001 to have happened as they did without some sort of human intervention to make the towers "collapse" exactly as they did.

 

You're wrong..It's entirely feasable for them to have collapsed as they did.

 

You are rather quick to say "you are wrong"
however, are you aware of the fact that there is a science
of probabilities? and this science calculates the probabilities of
many sorts of things either happening or not happening and I
submit to you that given the range of out-comes possible in the
case of "collapse initiation" for the WTC towers, the least likely
out-come is total destruction. and I encourage you to check with
your friendly local math professor as to that, because I can tell
you what it is, but if you do your own research and confirm that
its real, that will be better.

 

No I'm NOT 'quick' to say you're wrong..I've known it for months,based on the evidence

 

and I have known since 9/11/2001
that the whole bit was total fraud
as told by the mainstream media.

Note that you have been asked
many times to produce the documentation
that supports your assertions that no explosive
residue was found at ground zero, ( etc .... )
many assertions, zero documentation of anything.

I rest my case.

 

Rest well. You're wrong.

 

You ignored the question. If every bolt and weld failed at the exact same time in sequence like you claim is the only explanation, explain how the debris front traveled at 64% of g like you have been claiming. This fits right into my other thread asking how how the use of explosives created an environment that caused the debris front to fall at 64% of g.

You just won't answer because you painted yourself into a corner.

 

You are mistaken,
the only way to get all of the welds/bolts (etc...)
to fail in sequence is by way of some form of
malicious human intervention.

 

Purposefully flying a passenger jet into a building = malicious human intervention.

 

No you didn't...You just assumed it,without any evidence I might add

And explosives leave marks on the steel,and produce an odor,One that would have been noticed,Not to mention telltale residue

So you're asking for something that doesn't exist,because there was NO reason to test for explosives

I rest MY case

 

Please explain why you think all the bolts and welds fail at the same time in sequence. What visual characteristic supports this claim?

 

Furthermore, if all the bolts and welds were failed in sequence, what caused the debris to fall at 64% of g like you claim? You keep avoiding this line of questioning. Your claims are not fitting together here. You can't fail bolts, welds, connections at the same time in sequence and have something create resistance to cause the debris front to fall at less than free fall.

Again, you've painted yourself into a corner now.

 

and "You're wrong" is all I get for a rebuttal?

 

Where's your rebuttal to this?

And this?

And this?

 

Oh dear ........ NO corner, & no paint

the problem is that it is obvious that all of the connections
failed in sequence, because the destruction was complete.
if destruction had not been complete, you could counter the
in sequence argument with something, but since destruction
was indeed complete, its a moot point.

The additional bit about the 64% of g acceleration,
simply speaks of how fast the explosives were
detonated, it would have been possible to arrange
the timing such that the structure descended at 50% of g,
or 75% of g, I can't at this point in time second guess the
engineer who planned this demolition, so it is what it is.

 

HOW genericBob? You saying it's possible tells everyone here you have an idea that it could be done. Explain how it could be done.

You also said I misquoted you.

Read your statement above VERY carefully. How were explosives used to prevent the structure from coming down at freefall speeds? How were explosives employed to SLOW THE DESCENT to 64% of g? You're using g (9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) as the base and then say a percentage of that base. That means SLOWER than what should be happening.

You STILL don't get it.

 

Let me again define the reason why I complained that I was misquoted, I originally stated that Explosives could be used to remove resistance out from under the falling mass, and you then turned it around and alleged that I said Explosives could be used to slow the falling mass. not the same thing.

and as for what "should be happening" only in the case of a completely unobstructed descent will an object attain 9.8 m/s^2, in the case of the towers, the material on top had the obstruction of the lower part of the tower to contend with. there is no way at all to expect 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration with the mass of the WTC tower in the way. The bit from a probabilities perspective, is very simply that the tower + the forces acting on the tower, could not possibly be completely uniform, therefore, the material would have to breach a location someplace on the tower that would be in advance of the rest of the action and as soon as that happened material would flow from the higher locations to the lower, and spill out and be lost, stopping the action.
and given the imbalance of forces and the imperfections in the structure, it is much more likely that the action would stop due to dumping of rubble, rather than have all of that rubble remain balanced on top of the tower as it was being destroyed.

 

Just 'trust us' (again?), I suppose.

 

I guess that if they didn't test for explosives then, it's impossible to rule out their use?

 

Would you look for a knife if the dead body had a gunshot wound in it's head? Why didn't they look for a bow and arrow that was used for the Kennedy assassination?

 

Since the FBI did test for explosives, that point doesn't stand.

 

If they didn't look for it, then that means they couldn't possibly conclude that it wasn't used, and therefore certainly COULD HAVE BEEN used, is more the point.

 

Did they do that at the time (BEFORE anything was removed)? Please point me to where I should look to verify (for myself) such information.

 

No,because there was no VISUAL evidence of explosives...

 

Starting the day of, yes.

As you love to say: look it up for yourself.