May I point out that the Donkey & Elephant are but two heads of the same monster, when AMERICA wakes up to the fact that the monster is two faced and both faces spew lies & fraud 24/7. then and only then can we see some progress some real change, change you can believe in, the change you want is NOT going to come from the Government, its going to come from the people.
So you can provide a link to a computer simulation of the north tower that you accept? Let's see it. psik
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html That was SO DIFFICULT! It took less than 10 seconds to locate. But Purdue admits they only simulated the top 20 stories so it is not a collapse simulation. I merely find it amusing that they contradict the NIST's south tower data by not having horizontal deflection but then they could not do that if they only simulated the top 20 stories. It is a really stupid simulation. But you did say "any computer simulation". psik
lets put it this way, computer simulations aside, Think about this please, an action that takes weeks of careful planning & preparation, achieves the result of total destruction of the building by CD. OK, now an action that involves chaotic damage & random fires, achieves the exact same result. go figure? what are the odds? and for all three structures WTC1, 2 & 7 somebody rolled snake eyes 1,000 times in a row.......
Surprise, surprise! Talk some more BS and don't come up with a collapse simulation yourself when you asked for ANY. psik
So where is yours? I told you what was wrong with it. They don't even agree with the NIST. A simulation with obvious defects can't explain anything. But in 5 years no other engineering school has pointed out the defects. Curious that. psik
Obvious defects according to whom? You don't believe theNIST,and you don't believe purdue So it doesn't matter to you.
did you actually read my post, its not construction, its about demolition. and yes CD takes weeks of careful engineering to plan and put into action the plan so as to do a successful CD.
So by that standard, if the owners of an old building that needs to be removed wanted to save some money, they could simply go with a plan that includes creating random damage & fires and the building will just "COLLAPSE" and that will be that(?) or?
Show how your comment makes any sense or is relevant to the discussion? Again, your claim, because you are unable to proved the math or list the laws of physics that you claim were broken, is based on personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.
it is alleged that fire & chaotic damage caused the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 and I say that this is so completely improbable that the evidence points to CD rather than "collapse" caused by the damage & fire. This isn't rocket science!
Note that WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed, and complete destruction is an indication of intent.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You have provided zero engineering data OR evidence to show that it WAS demolition. All you have right now is that it LOOKED like a CD. Nice try.
If you are going to assert that destruction was not complete where is YOUR documentation as to exactly how much of either WTC 1, 2 or 7 was left after the demolition of said building(s)?
I never said it wasn't complete did I? I have continually said that you have no proof whatsoever containing any physical evidence nor do you have any calculations showing CD. You have nothing. Your engineers have failed for almost 13 years.
so you totally deny the significance of total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 (?) is that what you are doing?
Significant to you because you think it means controlled demolition. You think that the only way for that kind of destruction to happen is via controlled demolition. That's the only way you vision it happening so your belief is biased. I have a background in construction, design, and project management. I understand structures and how they function. You don't. That's why I can understand how this can happen. Here's the kicker. You have been presented engineering data SHOWING that planes and fires could cause what had happened. On the other hand, where's your engineering evidence that CD could have done the same thing? You believe what you want based on your lack of structural engineering and your dislike of the government. Your belief in the CD garbage is purely faith based. Why is this true? Because when asked for hard evidence, you provide nothing. Only your canned "it's not probable" crap.