an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

Of course they explain what happened but then you would have to read it and understand it to begin with.

 

You really don't get it do you?
the assumption is that ALL of the floor trusses
and ALL of the outside wall box columns and
ALL of the core columns would have to give way
at the same time in order to produce the result as
observed, otherwise, the breakage of the structure
would develop a bias to one side and the additional
weight of rubble shifted to that side would insure further
failure to the point of dumping mass quantities of rubble
out one side of the building and thus stopping the action.

There are many thousands of possible scenarios and
the one that results in total destruction of 110 stories of
skyscraper is the least probable.

 

Just as I thought, you never take the time to investigate anything but fall back on your incredulity. The buildings had a fatal flaw. 9/11 just pointed it out.

 

Your interpretation of the WTC towers "fatal flaw"
made the floor trusses and the outer wall box columns
and the central core columns all fail at exactly the same
time in response to chaotic forces? is that what you believe?

 

Why is it that so many sources say 25 seconds?

Why is it that people do not understand what the word CONTROLLED means?

The objective of a NORMAL controlled demolition is to minimize collateral damage. If what happened to WTC1 and WCT2 was a controlled demolition then whoever did it did not care. NORMAL controlled demolitions do not usually leave people in the buildings. So somebody did not care.

CONTROLLED means it does what the people who designed it WANTED IT TO DO.

So the question is: "Could the physics of skyscrapers allow aircraft impact and fire to cause what we see?" How do you analyse the physics of skyscrapers without even knowing the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers? When does Richard Gage or David Chandler ever talk about that?

psik

 

The only one making that claim is you, and it runs counter to the evidence.

 

Why was there a tilt in the south tower if all the structural components were removed all at the same time?

 

The tilt in the south tower is yet another very problematic bit,
WHY ( if GRAVITY acts straight down.... ) did the top of the
tower tilt at all, and what happened to it after tilting?
and indeed, after tilting as it did, how can it be counted
as responsible for the destruction of the rest of the tower
below the alleged aircraft crash site.

 

Structural failure along that side, since all of the columns did not fail at exactly the same time.
Once they all failed ... gravity did the rest.

 

a simplistic and not very satisfying answer.
the fact is that once the top of the south tower
tipped, it would either have to get back in place
totally square on to the bottom, or be off-center
of the bottom part and therefore unable to totally
crush the bottom part of the building. Thus the
tipping ( unless some other correcting mechanism
were at work .... ) made it a guaranteed certainty that
the destruction would have to leave a significant part
of the tower still standing if the tipped part was the
only instrument of destruction for the lower section
of the tower.

 

Prove it. Show your math (and the physics) that prove your incredulous claim.

or is it just a feeling you have?

 

ROFLMAO

It has math!!! LOL LOL LOL

I shot Greening down about that in May of 2008.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

Greening's math assumes that every LEVEL had the same weight. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy. And didn't the total weight of the building include the 6 basement levels. So Greening should have divided by 116 anyway.

My entire point about the horizontal steel in the core is that the weight would increase on levels further down the building.

People too dumb to figure out the flaws in the math are so impressed by defective math as long as it is sufficiently complicated to keep them confused. But then they figure everyone else is supposed to be impressed by the junk also.

psik

 

Show your math.

 

do you deny that in the case of the WTC towers
the top floor of the skyscraper would definitely NOT
weigh as much as the say any of the other floors for
example in the lower third of the structure. This isn't
an exercise in heavy math, its an exercise in thinking.
The top 15% of the skyscraper does NOT = 15% of
the total mass of the building.

 

He said show your math.

MOD EDIT - OFF TOPIC

 

Math,my eye...each level of the WTC was the same as the next...the core columns only got bigger at ground level..

 

"each level of the WTC was the same as the next"
can you support that with documentation?

 

Better yet,can you prove me wrong?

Everything says that each level was the same 10cm poured concrete over corrugated decking,held up by trussed hung on the core columns and the outside wall

 

Kind like your wonderful video showing how the building should oscillate based on your tower model using wood and swinging a weight from a string.

Classic...

You dropped that subject like a hot potato didn't you?

 

When the engineer who wanted to warn NASA about a potential
space shuttle disaster did an experiment, all it took was an ice cube
and a rubber band to prove the point. Experiments do not have to
duplicate the exact physical items being mimicked, just demonstrate
the properties of the systems. Check some of Johnathan Cole's work.
or for that matter some of the old Don Herbert Videos on youtube.
this is what experiments are for, being able to test a hypothesis without having to build & test an entire solid fuel booster rocket to see what happens in freezing cold weather.

 

Physical impossibility.

How much weight would level 5 have to support compared to level 105? Only the weight of 100 more stories. So you say 5 and 105 had the same amount of steel?

Totally idiotic!

There were 2900 perimeter wall panels from the 9gh floor to the top. The average weight had to be 9 tons. But an article from 1970 says the heaviest was 22 tons. So some had to be lighter than 9 tons to maintain the average. The total weight was 27,000 tons.

psik

 

You presented a subject? I said I was not going to fire a bullet at a model to satisfy idiots. In order to apply enough momentum I needed a larger mass with lower velocity. Actually I regarded that as obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

The structure still responded to the momentum of the impact and changed behavior with mass and distribution of mass which was the point.

psik

 

It is NOT an impossibility,each floor only had to support itself on the core and perimiter columns,which I never mentioned

 

I didn't say FLOOR. I said LEVEL.

psik

 

Ahhhh,down to parsing words,eh?