Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

For the purposes of CD 99% destruction is considered a good job.
where is that documentation of whatever remained after the "collapse"
of the tower(s)....

 

Damage to surrounding buildings makes it vastly different than CD.

 

and complete destruction makes it identical to CD.

 

You've been shown engineering calculations that show it was possible, but choose to ignore it. If it's IMPOSSIBLE like you claim, then one of your 1,200+ engineering professionals should be able to show, with calculations, that it IS indeed impossible.

Nobody, not one single engineer has shown this to be the case in almost 13 years. Why not not?

 

Somebody may be able to come up with pages of math
that shows a bumble bee can not fly .... whatever

people alleged that its POSSIBLE,
for "FLT11" & "FLT175" to have penetrated the WTC
wall(s) as was said to have happened, but is it probable?
what are the odds, that is for 2 airliners to penetrate a wall
in such a manner as to leave behind holes such as were
shown on 9/11 and then the entire aircraft disappears inside
the tower, leaving no remnant of a tail or other bits in the hole
as evidence that there was even an airliner ever there. in fact,
where is the physical evidence of any of the 4 alleged hijacked
airliners?

somebody rolling snake-eyes 1000 times in a row......
whatever ......

 

Are you even reading what you post? Your discussion of "odds" and "probability" is a bunch of crap and have nothing to do with 9/11.

This is the dumbest thing I have have read from you yet. If I give you engineering data that shows the a 767 can penetrate the out perimeter columns and leave that type of hole, what are the odds that it could happen?

 

The assertion that the airliner penetrated completely
and left the sort of hole that was seen on 9/11
is dependent on the force required to break the box
columns of the WTC wall, was less than the force
required to break-up the aircraft, because if the wall
had offered sufficient resistance, the aircraft would
have broken up before it had a chance to penetrate.
the logic of "well it did happen like that, everybody saw it"
is really not logical at all in that the real question is
was the event really an airliner crashing into a building,
or was it faked and broadcast on TV as the crash of "FLT175"
when in fact its all B movie special effects & lies. (?)

The probability of it happening exactly as it was alleged to
have happened is a factor.

 

And I repeat. It has been shown using engineering modeling and calculations that the plane would have penetrated the perimeter columns and shear the columns, just like they did.

You and your engineering professionals have provided NOTHING in terms of a rebuttal to theses calculations nor have you or your engineering professionals provided ANY calculations or models showing that the perimeter columns should have resisted in any way.

Anyone who believes your bunk based on supposed "logic" and "probability" as evidence is delusional.

You have been asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your claims and all you can give is "shoulda, woulda, coulda".

 

What basis/statistics are you going to provide to support your claim that is was highly improbable? You do know how probability works right?

 

It is completely valid to ask what are the probabilities in
a case such as this. Also, I submit the fact that in the case
of the Engineering study that has as its output a cartoon
of an airliner smashing into the WTC, there isn't any source
data to be seen, therefore its only a cartoon.

 

The FEAs are based on material data and models. Do you know how they work? Anyone can do their own FEA provided they have the right software. If it's such a slam dunk that they are faked outputs, then why haven't any of your professional engineers come up with their own to show it's not possible?

They could blow the lid off this thing. It's easy.

You keep avoiding this question.

 

and what is that? ( like you need permission to post? ) what?

 

shrinking in size and significance is an interesting kind of "momentum".

 

I can see you're happy to applaud anything that keeps the truth buried, good and deep. We all have our agendas, I suppose.

 

Truthers buried themselves.

 

I didn't know about it until the 10 year anniversary.

 

What's the matter genericBob? Confused as to why your "professional" engineers have not come up with their own FEAs showing it's NOT possible for a plane to penetrate the perimeter columns like you claim? Should be fairly easy right? Especially when you've had almost 13 years.

 

There are all sort of reasons why anybody
may or may not have done what you expect.

There are huge problems in the official story
and one of them is the 2.25 sec of free fall
that WTC7 did, and people keep trying to
dismiss it as not relevant or something but
really what it means is that for the entire
falling mass, ALL of the resistance was
removed out from under it and all at the
same time. just exactly how does that
happen, given the random fires in the building?

 

Then why didn't freefall start immediately?

 

do you know exactly when the explosives went off?
right on time with the descent of the falling building.

 

Supposedly when the roofline started to descend? You don't know your own theory? All at the same time right? That means freefall should have started IMMEDIATELY.

 

That is why I asked you if you knew when the explosives
went off, because the explosive removal of the support,
would be the point when the descent started.

You want to mire the argument in your personal
complaints about this, OK, but it is abundantly clear
what happened, the timing of the explosive removal
of the support, can be known, because that is the time
that the downward motion began.

 

Explain why when supposedly ALL THE SUPPORTS were removed and the roofline started to descend, why it wasn't immediately in freefall.

 

I see what the game here is, you will press for an ultra detailed
explanation of everything in order to cast doubt upon the original
assertion. Fact is, that 2.25 sec of free fall is a show-stopper.
its the key piece of data that trumps all, you do not get that
free fall acceleration unless you have removed all of the resistance
out from under the falling mass, and it would have to be done all
at the same time to have the building keep its shape and descend
uniformly. You can have your fairy tale about 19 angry Arabs if
that is what floats your boat, but for people who can apply logic,
it is a sure thing that the angry Arabs story is just that, only a story.

 

There is an issue that will (hopefully) be on the NY ballot this next go round pertaining to 'automatically' investigating buildings that 'fall down' that are over 10 stories tall. That could lead somewhere. We'll see, obviously.