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

so your position on all this is that explosives could not possibly have been used to facilitate the "collapse" of the towers or 7 ...... or?

 

My position is exactly that. There remains no evidence of explosives.

 

This is exactly where we part company on this issue.
there had to have been an additional source of energy
involved in the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
be that additional source of energy C4, atom bombs
or a weaponized ray-gun ..... whatever, there had to
have been an additional source of energy.

 

Why did there have to be? You've been shown math that proves no additional energy was required. You've been shown video and testimony from professionals that prove no additional energy was required. When asked to show your proof, or any evidence, you clam up or post incredulous nonsense.

 

First of all, the alleged mathematical "proofs" are somebodies exercise in playing with numbers to support a foregone conclusion.
the fact that is very telling is that there are at least two professors ( or PHD types ) who have offered up not only cash prizes but known bragging rights for having defeated the "truther" faction, that is there are offers on for debates to be held in public and open to anybody who has the academic credentials to be a proper candidate for this sort of thing, and so far, nobody has come forward to debate. WHY?

Is the faction that supports the official story ignoring the "truther" offers to debate, hoping this bit will all go away and stop bothering people with controversial issues? This is a matter of national security, if we do not get this nailed down right now, in this generation, the or-else is that our children & grandchildren ( ad infinitum ... ) will be subjected to oppression by a regime that has a free hand to launch false flag attacks at will and lead the world into perpetual war, because war is profitable.

 

Then supply the math to disprove those numbers. Until you do, you are simply arguing from incredulity.

 

The "math" is dead simple
note that the top portion of the north tower was observed falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, therefore it could only be expressing 36% of its weight against the lower part of the tower.
There is NO excuse for acceleration in this event at all,
that is without the use of an additional source of energy.

 

Show your math, Bob. You have left out the velocity and dynamic energy in your above 'equation'.

 

What created the resistance to the upper section that it only descended at 64% of g?

 

OK, Velocity is contained in the acceleration, in that
at any given time the velocity will be different based
on the acceleration. and as for this "dynamic energy"
Please define this term, what specifically are you asking for?

 

Note how much FORCE is being applied one floor at a time from the mass times the acceleration.

 

Is that applied to the horizontal beams and columns in the core or the FLOOR outside the core?

psik

 

Mostly the floor, which is why the outside peeled away and portions of the core remained standing for a while.

 

Please elaborate as to exactly how F=m*a relates to this case(?)

 

The force of the mass of the upper portion times the acceleration to which it fell equals the force applied to the floor below. Simple.

 

AH, and exactly what happens when the falling mass contacts the stationary mass?

 

In the case of the WTC it sheared off the supports.

 

and without slowing down the "pile driver" at all?
Ya, right & I'm the Easter Bunny!

 

Incredulity not based in fact,AGAIN

 

Not "incredulity" its a fact, in order to express its energy
a pile driver stops because it has delivered its energy and
therefore has no more motivation to continue. in the same
way, once the energy of the falling mass was used to pulverize
mass quantities of material, the mass would have to at the very
least slow down. however as observed in the event, the upper
mass continued to accelerate...... why?

 

THAT'S incredulity,not based in fact

And you DO understand 'pile driver' is an analogy,NOT what actually happened,right?

 

So what did actually happen? at least in your interpretation(?)

 

each floor progressively became heavier with the collapse.

 

Who says it didn't slow down? You?

 

The video record of the "collapse" The upper mass accelerates on the way down.