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

Already did.......And now I suppose you'll move the goalposts even more by saying it wasn't HUGE enough...


Or?.....

 

The original line of reasoning was to get a handle on the magnitude of the energy at work as the tower(s) "collapsed" so with that said, the quantity of concrete left over in solid form, is relevant.
This is yet another facet of the poorly documented nature of 9/11/2001.

 

I've shown you entire walls still standing ... how far will you move those goalposts?

 

and that accounts for the decks, exactly how?
the pix you showed was of a basement wall, the
towers "collapsed" down to ground level. so where
is evidence of mass quantities of concrete in solid form
from the above ground level part of the tower?

 

No amount you are shown will matter, so what's the point?

 

I asked about the decks and obviously there isn't any substantial remnant of the decks, therefore all the concrete was pulverized and scattered around Manhattan. & yes it is an issue, because it is an indicator of the amount of energy at work to destroy the tower(s).

 

Gravity is unrelenting.

 

and also gravity arranges for the bits to fall in exactly such an order as to cause total destruction of an entire level of the tower(s) before moving on to a lower level. is that what you mean?

 

Billions and billions of 'bits', falling en masse. Think of a massive sandstorm, blasting away rock.

 

so, the towers were being sand-blasted into oblivion(?)
and all of the energy to do this, is a product of the potential
energy of the mass of the tower(s) ..... right?

Note that when an actual sand blast operation is done,
the sand is directed out of a pipe where compressed air
directs the stream at the target area.
In the case of the tower(s) how was focus achieved?

 

Not potential energy: Kinetic energy. The mass was moving.

 

The energy would have been Kinetic, but it was a product of the fact that there was potential energy in the mass before it started moving, the fact is, that neither side of this debate has the real numbers as to exactly how much energy was involved and exactly how much force it would have taken to break the multitude of connections required to break up the tower level by level. However, it is improbable that the forces at work, would totally destroy the tower down to ground level in the manner alleged by the official story.

 

Argument from Incredulity.

 

Where is your PROOF that the forces involved would indeed be sufficient and also focused to strike critical areas of the structure and do so consistently all the way down so as to "collapse" the tower down to ground level?

Because the default position is that if the forces were not sufficient
AND focused such to strike the critical areas of the structure, then
the outcome would NOT be total destruction of the tower(s) .....

 

Please show your math for this claim. You have been provided the math and physics regarding collapse on numerous occasions on this very forum.

 

do YOU personally have the figures for this?
the Bazant paper has been totally discredited
and with it, the whole peer review process, if
the "peers" will not recant on this bit, then the
entire process has been damaged by the publication
of total trash & approval by the academic community.

How is it that all of the rubble that constituted the "pile driver"
could then focus its energy on just the right bits of the structure
to produce the observed result?
this is like somebody rolling snake eyes 1,000,000 consecutively.

 

Link to the paper discrediting Bazant's, please.

Argument from incredulity. You diminish your credibility every time you use it.

 

and asserting that there is NO evidence at all that points to controlled demolition is either totally blind or disingenuous at best.

 

No,It's the TRUTH...

 

Thank you ever so much for expressing your opinion.
in the real world, there is a mix of evidence that points
all sorts of directions, the insistence that there isn't any
evidence pointing to Controlled Demolition, simply makes
a statement about the definition of evidence as you see it.

 

There is no evidence of controlled demolition, else you would link to the source of this evidence.

 

open invitation to anyone who reads this forum
check out the evidence, an on-line search engine
will locate all sorts of evidence ( pro & con ..... )
and you look at the INFORMATION and then come to a conclusion.

Simple ...... no?

 

So post your evidence!...Because Your incredulity won't do.

- - - Updated - - -

No,simple would be YOU backing up your claims with PROOF

 

The evidence has been posted, to a volley of complaints that what was posted doesn't constitute real evidence. oh well .......
you can lead a horse to water......

 

You haven't even drawn any water TO drink...You've posted NO 'evidence'