Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Mar 29, 2014.
Just WHY can't it be expected to?
A: all of the connections within the tower(s) are not perfectly uniform
(being the work of human hands and therefore not perfectly uniform)
B: the falling rubble from the upper part of the tower(s) can not be expected to be perfectly uniform in the force it applies to any given bit of the lower and as yet undamaged part of the tower(s).
Lot of assuming going on there,bob..
is it to be considered an assumption(?)
that the work of human hands can not be relied upon to be perfectly uniform?
and that the assumption of uniformity in the forces applied to the structure by a falling mass of rubble & pulverized material is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
You're assuming,THAT I know.
That assumption bit cuts both ways, it is an assumption
that the falling mass would apply a uniform enough force
to the lower and as yet undamaged bit of the structure to
insure "collapse" right down to ground level.
What magic kept the mass of the "pile driver" centered on
the tower, rather than slipping off to one side or another?
Gravity. It pulls straight down.
so was the south tower a case of gravity pulling straight down?
You can't have it both ways, if this was strictly a gravity powered
"collapse" then the tipping of the south tower, proves that any non-uniformity in the structure will cause asymmetrical "collapse"
and that leads to dumping mass over the side of the tower thus
stopping the action. This "collapse" as alleged by the official explanation is dependent on the building having a uniformity in the structure and also a uniformity in the forces applied by the falling rubble, because if either one were non-uniform, the other would have to compensate by being non-uniform in a manner that meshed with its polar opposite to produce the observed result.
like somebody rolling snake-eyes 1,000,000 times.
Argument from Incredulity. You have been shown (using math and science) why the south tower tipped and the result.
And I submit to this forum, that "peer reviewed" papers that seek to support the official fiasco, are an injustice and indeed damage the whole academic process.
The fact is that two towers "collapsing" down as did the twin towers, allegedly in response to airliner crashes but to have two skyscrapers
"collapse" in the manner that was observed and its a great deal more
than personal incredulity, what is the probability of having 2 skyscrapers completely destroyed in this manner? and then there is WTC7,
and people insist that basically chaotic damage can produce the exact same result ( that is total destruction of the building ) as a controlled demolition. There is proper logic & reason to support the knowledge that WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by Controlled Demolition.
Argument from incredulity. Where are the papers refuting the peer-reviewed findings?
This is one of many rebuttals to Bazant ( etc.... )
the official story is a FARCE, and I submit to this forum
that it is damaging to the whole academic process to have
a peer reviewed paper of this sort ( that is the Bazant fiasco )
stand rather than be retracted by the author and corrections
issued. How can anybody trust the peer review process if this
is the sort of thing it produces?
Did you even bother to read your link?
Excellent. Your cited paper agrees with gravity driven collapse. Well done.
Point to a specific quote from the paper that supports your claim.
what do you have?
You should really read it, you know ... since you posted it.
I did read it and YOU are depending on the lurkers to not read it and NOT get the INFORMATION contained therein, just like you posted totally bogus links to "reports" that had nothing to do with the investigation of ground zero for explosives and then had to admit that there is no report that indicates anybody actually tested for explosives at ground zero post 9/11/2001. I understand the tactics in use here, and I do NOT approve, this does NOT constitute proper debate, its more like psychological warfare and we all know that the real perpetrators of 9/11 are engaged in psychological warfare.
Quite the contrary: I encourage everyone to read it thoughtfully and thoroughly.
and of course come to their own conclusions as to the validity
or not ..... of the bazant paper.
I say read it all, consult with experts on points you don't understand. Take it to real engineers, pilots and physicists. Ask them personally.
If you have to take this issue to a professional engineer,
what? do you not have eyes to see?
We have been shown skyscrapers that simply disintegrate
as if hit by some sort of science fiction movie super weapon,
and we are expected to believe that these buildings simply
"collapsed" in response to chaotic damage & fire.
THINK ..... before it becomes ILLEGAL!
If I have something I am curious about I'll take it to an expert, of course. I won't invent 'magic space beams' in my head to explain what i don't understand. That approach is Neanderthal.
What did you observe about the destruction of WTC 1, 2?
they both simply disintegrated, could have been blown up
by explosives, or...... (?) whatever it was, it required engineering
to make it happen like it did, skyscrapers are designed to stand,
so why have 2 skyscrapers simply disintegrate as was observed?
Because two passenger jets crashed into them, causing structural damage and igniting major fires across multiple floors, which compromised the integrity of the towers.
so what magic prevented the outcome as shown in post #23 in FEA regarding WTC1 ..... rather than the outcome that leads to total destruction of the skyscraper.
Separate names with a comma.