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

Let's get into this genericBob.

So you are saying that the total destruction of WTC1, 2, and 7 was more probable with the use of explosives versus total destruction of WTC1, 2, and 7 due to impact and fire damage?

I would like you to explain your thinking on this and WHY you think it's more probable.

- - - Updated - - -

Perfect explanation!

As I said in the post above, explain WHY you think it's more probable.

 

Can you supply a precedent where 208' x 208' x 1300' tube in tube structures were hit by jets resulting in fires that remained standing?

Practice what you preach.

 

I never said anything was more probable Mr Genericbob is the one making the claim of probability and refusing to back it up

 

Given that the forces that caused the "collapse" event could not possibly have been totally uniform, therefore in reaction to non-uniform stress, the towers would have had localized failures that are of a non-uniform nature, that is the plane of destruction would tip, and the moment that it tipped, the center of gravity would shift and after that, the action would be biased toward one side of the building resulting in an overflow of rubble in one area and spilling mass quantities of it over the side and down to street level, therefore stopping the action.
and exactly WHY should this scenario be considered any less probable than "total collapse" ?

 

Just to clear things up, what is your definition of "total destruction"? Total pulverization (turned to dust), very little free-standing structure left, the entire structural assembly was "disconnected" at every bolted/welded connection?

 

What photograph, or document can you reference that alleges
the buildings were not completely destroyed ( or 99% ) what?
where is it?

 

Could not possible have been uniform in what way genericBob?

In the timing of when each impact from each individual descending structural element impacted a structural element below? In the distribution of the 208' x 208' upper section impacting a certain area of the lower 208' x 208' section?

How many "localized failures" do you think happened when the upper section impacted the lower section? How many of those in a second?

Do you understand that when an individual structural element is removed/weakened/fails, the portion of the load that element helped support propagates/redistributes to other surrounding elements? As you then over-stress those surrounding elements, in turn failing them, the above , unchanging load continues to propagate/redistribute further out to the remaining elements until the is no more structure at that plane to support the load above. How fast do you think that load redistribution would take within that plane genericBob?

And what would happen if the "pivot point" of this SLOW tipping failed below this object? The upper section of WTC2 did tip. Do you know how many degrees? Was the amount of tip and momentum that the tip created, when the "pivot point" failed, enough to spill everything to the side and leave no debris to descend and destroy the lower section?

Do you understand what you are doing here? You are applying probability to something that ALREADY happened to try and prove it DIDN'T happen. What statistics are you using to come up with this probability?

 

You didn't answer my question to clarify YOUR definition of what is meant by "complete destruction". Here it is again. I cannot answer your question until you do because I don't know which definition you cling to.

 

Go up and read my post again. The part of my post you quoted was in direct response to genericBob's quote, which is in the post also. I quoted you separately in the second part.

 

To attempt to clarify ..... the fact that the destruction
of the towers & 7 already happened is NOT proof that
it could happen in the way that the official explanation
would have it, did the "collapse" happen with or without
help from explosives?

also on the subject of complete & total destruction,
I have done considerable research into this and the
photographs of ground zero to not include bits of
( that is bits still standing.... )
either tower or 7 that constitute any more than 1%
of the total mass of the structures. therefore the
term complete destruction can be legitimately applied.

 

I'll agree with that definition for total destruction.

 

Stairwell from the south tower

 

and this is supposed to account for > 1% of the mass of the tower?

 

They changed the links.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101036

psik

 

Just so you don't miss these questions.

 

The NIST says 20-25 degrees. Frank Greening says 25 degrees in 5 seconds.

But no official source specifies the center of mass or the center of rotation so talking about a pivot point is somewhat nonsensical.

But an unofficial source says the center of rotation was on the 89th floor. But that does not make much sense if the impact and fire caused the tilt since that was on the 81st floor.

So where is the explanation of what was observed to happen? Official sources don't seem too good.

psik

 

No it's NOT nonsensical because as soon as the pivot point fails, gravity takes over.

 

Making BS generalizations about a pivot point you can't locate just means you are operating on assumptions and not doing science.

So show us your evidence for the location of the pivot point.

This is not an official source but they have not done it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

psik

 

Doesn't matter where the 'pivot point' was,it happened,we saw it.

 

No it cannot be legitemately applied.

Total means total as in nothing left at all which did not happen.

 

Location doesn't matter. There was a physical pivot point somewhere because the upper section tilted.

Just curious. Can you give a generic description of how/why the tilt occurred?

 

The explosives that were supposed to detonate uniformly didn't and the upper section had to be blown up to compensate.

 

Ass backwards physics is not physics at all.

Determining the center of rotation and center of mass is necessary to figure out what forces had to be applied to produce that motion. It is assuming that you know that is nonsense.

psik

 

Are you even reading/comprehending what is presently being discussed at this point?

genericBob is implying that impact damage and fire-weakened structural elements should NOT have generated the type of collapse/destruction that was seen and that the only explanation for the type of collapse/destruction that was seen could only be caused by controlled demolition. He seems to think that if it was NOT a controlled demolition, then the upper section should have tipped and the resultant debris should have spilled over the side.

I am trying to explain to him that it WAS possible for impact damage and fire-weakened structural elements to produce the type of collapse and destruction that was viewed. Hence, I'm trying to explain to him that what caused the tilt was caused by a physical internal structural resistance at a pivot point (location does not matter). Once that physical pivot point resistance failed, gravity took over and pulled the upper section down.

For you to say that a pivot point is not important is ridiculous. It PROVES there was some internal structural resistance somewhere that weakened due to stress. If it was explosives, the upper section would have dropped straight down with NO tilt. Explosives equal zero resistance right?

 

Forces? Let's see what you've got shall we?

It was either an increased gravitational load on one side of the pivot point due to failed structural components BELOW the upper section that caused the tilt or it was an horizontal, EXTERNAL force applied to the upper section that caused it to tilt.

Want to debate which is was? Or due you have another explanation as to what caused the tilt?