WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

HUH?

As far as I am concerned to BELIEVE means to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. Therefore belief is stupid by definition. I usually try to avoid using the word in applying it to myself.

I either say I SUSPECT or I KNOW. Most people don't use the word SUSPECT very much. In fact plenty of people use BELIEVE and KNOW almost interchangeably. They say they know when actually the believe or believe when they really know.

On the 9/11 business I strongly suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a normal airliner to have produced the observed destruction and effects. But in order to know and prove it we must have the distribution of steel and concrete data. We also need to know the maximum load each level can support to know how much it would slow down the mass falling from above.

But after SEVEN YEARS how do experts say this is necessary information without having demanded it long before now?

psik

psik,

We certainly know the sizes, strengths, and the amount of steel in the cores on each floor of the towers. NIST finally released the data on the core columns last year.

There is sufficient information to do a fairly good estimate on the perimeter columns. Since their external configuration is constant and known, we can calculate wall thickness at each story based on the weight of the perimeter steel found in the contract data. The strength of the perimeter columns in different areas of the towers was published in Engineering News record articles in the 1960s.

The thickness and density of the concrete floor slabs in the core and outside the core is also known.

 

[scott3x]

Remembering what was said

This post is in response to John99's post 480 in this thread.

You seem to be saying that yes, the government and the media has lied concerning WTC 7, but there are more important subjects. I actually agreed with that assessment back in post 461; what's much more interesting is why they would demolish the building to begin with. However, especially after Headspin's post, I must admit that I'm surprised that you don't seem to be bothered with the possibility that there's been a vast coverup concerning what really happened to WTC 7.

just read the posts made on this, no need to go over it again.

If I responded to your posts in the same fashion, this discussion would have ended long ago; I can't for the life of me imagine you wading through -my- posts for answers to your questions. I'm not going to wade through your posts trying to decipher answers to questions I have regarding your views. If you can't be bothered to simply answer my questions, I will simply assume that even you aren't particularly interested in the views that you hold on these issues.

you didnt answer any of the points made anyway because you cant so it is just one strawman after another.

What points didn't I answer?

i am not going to repeat them, they remain here for posterity.

You'd think you'd be willing to repeat or atleast link to alleged unanswered points. Perhaps you were never truly interested in my response to these supposedly missed points and simply wanted them (or the idea of these supposedly missed points) saved, for posterity perhaps .

will you be asking me to prove that the sky is blue next? forget it.

Are you ever going to present evidence that Silverstein would have received a $500 million dollar profit regardless of whether or not WTC 7 collapsed? Or were you just being a tease?

and how would you like for me to do this? consult the magic 8 ball like you do.

Ah, I now consult a magic 8 ball do I? Please, embellish these myths that you have created around my person . What I had expected is that you would provide proof to the following statement you made back in post 453:
The insurance would get paid even if the buiding did not completely collapse (that is how insurance works) and to go even further an undamaged buiding can be sold or just collect the prodigious amounts of rents from it.

At first, I really thought you'd come up with something. shaman_ certainly doesn't tend to leave these types of things hanging. But right from the start, you showed resistance when it came to actually providing evidence for your claim. This resistance started in post 465:
is it really necessary for me to back up something that happens ever day in every developed country with an insurance system? albeit on a smaller scale.

To which I responded in post 467:
No, you don't have to back up any of your claims. This isn't a court of law, just an informal forum. I personally am interested in knowing if you can back up this one, however.

Seeing that I simply wasn't going to let this go, in post 469, you decided to resort to 2 debating tactics that can be seen on Skeptizani's debate flowchart, namely, to (a) stall direct answer and (b) insult my intelligence:
it isnt that i dont want to but i just thought this was common knowledge. however, i[t] does shed some light on the problems you are having with more complex issues.

Even then, I still (perhaps foolishly) wanted to give you the opportunity to show that you actually had -evidence- to support your claim, however, so in post 470 I go light on you:
Sigh. Ok, let's say it's common knowledge. -Now- will you back up this claim?

Apparently you'd now tried all your approaches to derail the direction of the discussion. Perhaps this is why you simply didn't respond to post 470. However, I'm a fairly tenacious person when it comes to points I find to be important, so I simply brought it up in another sub-thread, in post 479:
Are you ever going to present evidence that Silverstein would have received a $500 million dollar profit regardless of whether or not WTC 7 collapsed? Or were you just being a tease?

Perhaps you had forgotten that at one point you were claiming that this was 'how insurance works' and even your double negative (thus a positive) position that it wasn't that you didn't want to show me the ropes regarding "how insurance works". Anyway, you've now 'resolved' the whole thing by making 'how insurance works' something that could only be figured out by my supposed "magic 8 ball" Anyway, the next time you come up with x or y claim, I'll be much more dismissive if you begin to resist actually providing evidence for your claim.

 

[John99]

I think Shaman answered all your questions and asserions as well as many others throughout this thread.

You are either trolling or have some kind of medical condition, but that is ok because you will find that many people have obsessions and as long as it is just a hobby then who am i to say anything.

Personally i would rather stay out of ridiculous accusations, which should have been obvious. However, that is no reason to insult my intelligence.

 

[John99]

here it goes again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI&feature=PlayList&p=D52E8CE25BF742C2&index=0&playnext=1

 

[leopold]

Alright, humour me, what could have caused electrical explosions before the actual collapse of the building, other then explosives? And don't you think the timing was just a -little- too coincidental for comfort?

what experience do you have with electricity scott?
have you wired a 110 story building before?

and since it went unanswered before i again ask:
why didn't the "nanothermite" above the impact site explode?

 

[scott3x]

Understanding the physics of the WTC collapses

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 672 in this thread.

psi, let's assume for a moment that you do, in fact, have a good understanding of physics and that people who disagree with you don't. Even in this scenario, I fail to see how you can argue that we aren't engaged in a debate here. As with many debates, I believe that one side is right on more points than the other. But I believe that it can frequently take a long time for most people in the debate to agree on which side is the 'generally right' one. If people lack a knowledge of physics in the debate, simply saying that this is the case will probably not win many kudos.

There are lots of details to argue about on 9/11 if that is what people want to do.

What I want is to present enough evidence that more people are persuaded that the buildings did indeed collapse due to controlled demolitions.

Most people focus on the problem from the perspective of what did it, like controlled demolition, not on what couldn't do it.

True.

I have had a number of people get angry with me by demanding that I tell them what did it and I refuse to even go there. As soon as you go to the controlled demolition scenario you have to address the point of WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Indeed.

I don't have any more access to that than anyone else. It ends up coming back to taking somebody's word for some study they did.

I believe there's a lot more evidence for controlled demolition than one lonely study...

I am not interested in taking anybody's word.

I am also not interested in taking the word of one lone individual in something as important as this. But I would argue that there are many people who have provided a lot of evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.

But I KNOW a skyscraper must support its own weight. I don't need to trust anyone on that. Every level must be strong enough to support everything above, so why shouldn't we have how many tons of steel were on each level?

Perhaps they want to keep it secret. I've already covered this ground. I think, however, that instead of railing against not having a particular piece of data, we should do what we can with what we have.

This relates to the fire because it is not just a matter of temperature it is a matter of time to heat the steel. We KNOW very exactly the impact times and the collapse times for the towers. So the obvious question should be, "How much steel had to be heated to weaken sufficiently in that amount of time?" So we have 56 minutes for the south tower and 102 minutes for the north. If 15 lb. and 25 lb turkeys cook at the same temperature won't it take longer to cook the 25 lb. bird? So isn't the quantity of steel in the fire relevant along with nearby levels since the steel will conduct?

Yes, I do believe it is.

Then there is the matter of the top portion of each tower coming straight down and destroying almost everything below in less than 18 seconds. You can't do conservation of momentum calculations without the distribution of mass. Any experts should at least be wondering about that.

Gordon Ross wrote an article on the subject:

MOMENTUM TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE UPPER STOREYS OF WTC1

It's a bit beyond me, but perhaps you'll find it to be helpful...

So we have at least 3 reasons for wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete:

#1. To compute how much of the kinetic energy of the plane went into deflecting the building because the remaining energy did structural damage and we need to know that to figure out if the collapse could even start.

#2. To understand how much steel was on each level within the impact zone to get an idea if the fire could further weaken the steel in the available time.

#3. To do a conservation of momentum analysis for a top down gravitational collapse and determine the strength of each level to resist collapse.

Now an interesting thought experiment which should not be that difficult for building professionals to simulate would be to remove levels 89 to 94 inclusive from an accurate computer model of the north tower and run the result.

I believe that thought experiment's already been done, but don't have a link at present...

Obviously such a model would have to have correct information on the quantity of steel and concrete on each level. I think everyone would have to agree that removing 5 levels is more damage than the plane and fire could possibly do. So they would be eliminated from the discussion. So if the simulated building was not even nearly destroyed in such a test then I think we could safely conclude that the plane could not do it. I would bet that 40 to 50 levels of the tower would remain standing. I am conservatively assuming the falling mass would take out double its own height because every 16 levels of the building must be stronger and heavier than the 16 levels above it.

My point is, this is the EASY physics. Old Newtonian junk.

I think your main problem is that most people aren't physicists. This is why people deride Steven Jones; they don't understand what he's saying, but they quickly latch on to the fact that he's a mormon, complete with mormon beliefs on Jesus and that's that. I believe I understand what you're saying, but I really think you should make your concerns known to someone who's a little more into these technical arguments, such as Jerry Russell or Steven Jones.

So why don't we even have suggestions about doing a simulation that simple? This may get into the subject of Wiz Kid psychology. Our schools put the smart kids together and force them to compete with each other. Sometimes they compete over stuff that is complicated but stupidly unimportant. You often end up with people more interested in constantly proving how smart they are than in solving real problems.

That is significant reason why I like Stargate Atlantis. Rodney McKay and Zelenka may be somewhat more real than a lot of people think. I was in what was called the TOP CLASS all 4 years in high school. I remember watching a classmate cry in class because he got a B in senior year. I almost started laughing, but I thought about the hundreds of hours of idiotic busywork he must have done to get straight A's in everything, until then. I got straigh D's in religion freshman year. I thought they were hilarious next to my straight A's in math.

But this 9/11 is getting so drawn out for such a simple problem that it is beyond ridiculous.

I really think you have to realize that what for you may be a 'simple problem' is -not- the case for people who haven't studied this issue enough. In post 681, Tony apparently is stating that he believes there is enough information. Perhaps there is some fatal flaw in his reasoning, but I can't see it and I think the fact that an alternative story believer can't see a flaw in his reasoning should get you to consider how simple this problem is to the layman.

I am starting to wonder if the distribution of steel in skyscrapers is supposed to be some kind of guild secret. I can't find that kind of info on any skyscraper.

Would this information be relevant in any other event then when a building collapses under suspicious circumstances? If not, perhaps this is the reason that this type of information isn't readily available for buildings.

If it weren't for 9/11 I would never give a damn about it. But the Empire State Building is 77 years old and was designed without electronic computers so I am NOT IMPRESSED. I cannot believe this should not have been solved in a year. Or at least determined that an airliner couldn't do it. BUT THAT ALONE LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG DOESN'T IT?

Debates among a lot of these kinds of people are often more about winning and proving they are smart than solving the problem. The problem now is that plenty of high school kids could understand the easy solution to this skyscraper problem. But then the question would become, "So why didn't you EXPERTS point this out already?"

So now I have two EXPERTS on two sites constantly saying it's irrelevant, but even if it is why can't a 3-year, $20,000,000, 10,000 page report mention such irrelevant information? What would it hurt? But that report can't even specify the total amount of concrete.

psik

Most people will never even read the 10,000 page report. I think I've read bits of it but I certainly haven't read the majority. I have heard that a lot of information in the report is, indeed, irrelevant. I personally am not in favour of adding more irrelevant information. You may wish to continue making the case that this information is -not- irrelevant and therefore -should- be investigated. I have done my best to see if there have been any investigations regarding the amount of concrete and steel in the WTC buildings. In the case of concrete, as I have mentioned in the past, I believe that Jerry Russell is the person who has done the most in depth analysis and I have included how he came to his conclusions in this forum. I think that your best approach towards finding out more concerning that question is to talk to him. If you so desire, I can give you his email via PM and you can attempt to figure more things out with his help.

 

[scott3x]

Show me the evidence

This post is in response to John99's post 673 in this thread.

It's a problem that I have impressions? Or that the issue hasn't been further investigated?

Only because, in this case anyway, they are wrong.

You can continue to claim that I'm wrong all you like, but until you actually show -evidence- to support this, it won't help your claim.

 

[scott3x]

To believe vs. to know

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 677 in this thread.

You seem to be implying that you can't believe in something you understand.

HUH?

As far as I am concerned to BELIEVE means to accept something as true without sufficient evidence.

That's not the way I or wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia defines it thusly:
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

The proposition may not be true. Then again, it may well be.

I either say I SUSPECT or I KNOW. Most people don't use the word SUSPECT very much. In fact plenty of people use BELIEVE and KNOW almost interchangeably.

Ok. Personally, I use terms like suspect when I have a 'hunch', believe when I'm reasonably sure and know for things that I feel I have proof for.

You are using the term know in the philosopher's sense of the term 'knowledge':
In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

On the 9/11 business I strongly suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a normal airliner to have produced the observed destruction and effects. But in order to know and prove it we must have the distribution of steel and concrete data.

Are you sure? I believe there's already enough data, but I certainly wouldn't mind more.

We also need to know the maximum load each level can support to know how much it would slow down the mass falling from above.

Sounds good...

But after SEVEN YEARS how do experts say this is necessary information without having demanded it long before now?

I guess you'd have to ask those experts...

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to John99's post 683 in this thread.

I am responding to your post based on the assumption that you are actually addressing me (you may want to be more clear in the future as to who you are addressing)

I think Shaman answered all your questions and assertions as well as many others throughout this thread.

He hasn't answered them all, but then he hasn't finished responding to my posts either. He has used your tactic at times, that is, said that he's responded to x or y point before and left it at that. I think that tactic is fine if you're not all that interested in defending a point, but I personally would simply say it that way- as in- "I think i answered x or y point but I'm not sure where and I don't find it important enough to go back and check for a response or respond once more." Or you can simply plead 'no contest' as I once did with shaman_ when I was rather tired, didn't feel that the point in question was particularly important and simply wanted to finish responding to a particular post.

You are either trolling or have some kind of medical condition, but that is ok because you will find that many people have obsessions and as long as it is just a hobby then who am i to say anything.

And you are drawn to this conclusion because?

Personally i would rather stay out of ridiculous accusations, which should have been obvious. However, that is no reason to insult my intelligence.

What ridiculous accusations? As to insulting your intelligence, if I have done so, I'm sorry. You've certainly done it enough to me and there is only so much I can tolerate before I retaliate in my fairly civil way, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to leopold99's post 685 in this thread.

Alright, humour me, what could have caused electrical explosions before the actual collapse of the building, other then explosives? And don't you think the timing was just a -little- too coincidental for comfort?

what experience do you have with electricity scott?

Precious little.

have you wired a 110 story building before?

Not in my wildest dreams . How about you?

and since it went unanswered before i again ask:
why didn't the "nanothermite" above the impact site explode?

Perhaps it went unanswered before because I don't know the answer. Headspin is better versed when it comes to issues regarding thermite.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Perhaps it went unanswered before because I don't know the answer. Headspin is better versed when it comes to issues regarding thermite.

Headspin knows as much about Thermite and Nano Thermite as a fish know about being a dog, and you should have done some research to educate your self on the subject, and answered the question.

Nano Thermight of Thermite is not a explosive, if it is exploded it is scattered and looses it's effectiveness.

Thermite cuts by heat, and to generate enough heat at a given point it need to be in a pile, or contained at that point, by a stabilizing matrix, or ceramic mold.

Another problem with Thermite or Nano Thermite it that it has a tendency to weld Steel and Iron together, it is used in a lot of situations to weld steel together, one example is rail road track.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6K90cR8Lg

Good Videos of Thermite Reaction.

http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html

The General Chemistry Demo Lab
The Thermite Reaction

 

[psikeyhackr]

psik,

We certainly know the sizes, strengths, and the amount of steel in the cores on each floor of the towers. NIST finally released the data on the core columns last year.

There is sufficient information to do a fairly good estimate on the perimeter columns. Since their external configuration is constant and known, we can calculate wall thickness at each story based on the weight of the perimeter steel found in the contract data. The strength of the perimeter columns in different areas of the towers was published in Engineering News record articles in the 1960s.

The thickness and density of the concrete floor slabs in the core and outside the core is also known.

So are you saying the top 16 stories of the north tower were capable of coming straight down and destroying the rest of the building, even if allowed a 60 foot free fall?

Because if not then why hasn't this been settled by now?

psik

 

[leopold]

Precious little.

so in essence you have no idea what a fire can do in regards to electrical equipment but yet you definitely know electrical equipment wasn't the cause of the explosions. interesting.

Not in my wildest dreams . How about you?

no, i haven't wired a 110 story building but i know for a fact fires WILL cause electrical equipment to explode.

ask any fireman if explosions aren't common in burning buildings and ask about the causes.
let's see, i can name 4 things off the top of my head that will explode in burning buildings and none of them are "bombs".

Perhaps it went unanswered before because I don't know the answer. Headspin is better versed when it comes to issues regarding thermite.

well headspin?

 

[psikeyhackr]

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

If that is all it is then what is the difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING?

Do you BELIEVE that you have 4 fingers and a thumb on your right hand or do you KNOW?
Assuming that you have a normal right hand.

Screw Aristotle!

Science & Sanity

The objective is to KNOW. If you admit that you cannot know then try to SUSPECT. If there is not sufficient reliable information to even form a suspicion then admit that you DO NOT KNOW.

Refuse to BELIEVE anything.

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So are you saying the top 16 stories of the north tower were capable of coming straight down and destroying the rest of the building, even if allowed a 60 foot free fall?

Because if not then why hasn't this been settled by now?

psik

I am not saying anything of the sort.

I am saying that the collapses should have never even initiated. I believe you have read the paper I wrote showing why. The information available allowed me to determine the factors of safety built into the columns of the towers and show that the remaining columns would have all had to reach 650 degrees C (1202 degrees F) for any collapse to be possible. This is extremely unlikely and there is no physical evidence for anything even approaching these steel temperatures in the little steel that was saved from the towers for NIST to examine.

In addition to this we have evidence that there was no dynamic load in the collapse of the North tower. This is ascertainable by breaking video of the collapse, such as the Sauret video, into separate frames and measuring the acceleration of the roof. We were able to measure the roof acceleration for the first 114 feet of it's fall, until smoke obcured the view. In order to overcome the factors of safety in the columns an amplified load would be needed. To get an amplified load there needs to be an impulse and deceleration. There is no deceleration in the entire 114 feet we measured of the collapse. Thus it could not have been a natural collapse as there is no mechanism to generate a natural overload. I have been working on a paper showing this entitled "The Missing Jolt" with two Canadian Professors. It should be published in the near future.

There is no reason to speculate about what would happen in a 60 foot freefall, because that wasn't what happened. It was also 12 stories of the North tower which comprised what we call the upper block as the collapse initiated at the 98th floor, which interestingly had almost no aircraft impact damage. There is a new letter on this on the Journal of 911 Studies, where you can also find my paper. This forum does not allow users to post links until they have 20 posts and this is only my third post here.

The towers and WTC 7 were clearly demolished and the only reason things haven't been settled by now is obviously political.

 

[John99]

I am not saying anything of the sort.

I am saying that the collapses should have never even initiated. I believe you have read the paper I wrote showing why. The information available allowed me to determine the factors of safety built into the columns of the towers and show that the remaining columns would have all had to reach 650 degrees C (1202 degrees F) for any collapse to be possible. This is extremely unlikely and there is no physical evidence for these steel temperatures in the little steel that was saved from the towers for NIST to examine.

I dont know where you are getting your information from because having worked in a municipal incineration plant i regularly saw temperature over 1200 degrees and up to 1700 degrees F. And that was from burning household trash. Often the trash started off dripping wet.

These were fires started with paper and a book of matchese but the way the incinerator is set up it holds the heat in. There are many factors that i dont think you are accounting for. In short your data is inaccurate.

Unless i am not reading your post correctly.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I dont know where you are getting your information from because having worked in a municipal incineration plant i regularly saw temperature over 1200 degrees and up to 1700 degrees F. And that was from burning household trash.

These were fires started with paper and a book of matchese but the way the incinerator is set up it holds the heat in. There are many factors that i dont think you are accounting for. In short your data is inaccurate.

You need to read the NIST report concerning what temperatures the steel they got from the towers had actually experienced. In it you will find that there is essentially NO physical evidence of high temperatures on the steel they tested. NIST did spheroidization tests on 170 pieces of steel from the towers and it turns out only three areas on those 170 pieces showed temperatures higher than 250 degrees C (482 degrees F) had been experienced and none of those three were above 600 degrees C. Steel doesn't even start to lose strength until above 350 degrees C (662 degrees F) and loses half of it at 600 degrees C (1112 degrees F). There is thus no evidence for temperatures in the steel which would sufficiently weaken it to remove it's factor of safety and allow a collapse to precipitate.

We are talking about steel temperatures here not air temperatures, which you are obviously referring to. It takes time to heat up large volumes of steel and since steel in skyscrapers is interconnected it transfers some of the heat to cooler areas on other floors not involved in the fires. Additionally, office fires are known to only last 20 minutes or so in a given area before the fuel is exhausted. There are reasons no steel framed high rise structure has ever collapsed due to fire. I think you should look at them.

The WTC office floors were also not designed like incinerators. An incinerator would not have columns of steel sticking out of it capable of wicking away heat from the steel structure.

What factors do you believe I am not accounting for? Please be specific.

 

[John99]

I am telling you that i have personally witnessed trash burning at over 1700 degrees and those towers were very much like an incinerator and a confined space.

Steel doesn't even start to lose strength until above 350 degrees C (662 degrees F).

That temp. could have easily been reached. To be perfectly clear, you are wrong.

 

[scott3x]

Defining reality

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 694 in this thread.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

If that is all it is then what is the difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING?

I answered that in my statement regarding knowledge:
In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

Do you BELIEVE that you have 4 fingers and a thumb on your right hand or do you KNOW?
Assuming that you have a normal right hand.

I'd usually say that one would know. Ofcourse, if one couldn't feel one's right hand (I believe some people can't feel) and one was blind as well, so one couldn't see it, it could simply be a belief not founded on actual evidence even if one did, in fact, have a normal right hand.

Screw Aristotle!

Science & Sanity

Plato was the one involved in the above argument, not Aristotle, but I suspect that you're dissing philosophy in general. I don't believe that's wise, as I believe they have a lot to offer humanity in terms of logical discussion. You seem to solely want to use the deductive approach. Here, I will indeed use Aristotle:
Deductive reasoning, sometimes called deductive logic, is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises) to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true.[1] An example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

You want to find out if the steel and concrete were enough to crush the building. If not, you hope to essentially do this:

* There was x amount of steel and concrete in the WTC buildings. (premise)
* That amount wasn't enough to produce total gravitational collapse near or at free fall speeds of the buildings. (premise)
* The WTC buildings did not collapse due to gravitational collapse. (conclusion)

I just read Tony Szamboti's The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers. Pretty good stuff. Tony, you may want to get a certain aspected corrected- your pay to the Journal was either submitted in May 2007, or it was written in February 2008. Both can't be true at once. Wondering if it was perhaps updated in February 2008?

For simplicity's sake, it may be that the collaborative work of Dr. Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti, ME, 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible could be more persuasive for many.

The objective is to KNOW. If you admit that you cannot know then try to SUSPECT. If there is not sufficient reliable information to even form a suspicion then admit that you DO NOT KNOW.

Refuse to BELIEVE anything.

I use believe to cover everything from 'suspect' to know, depending on context. I find a line from the animatrix to be a very good one. A technically oriented man is talking to a woman. The conversation is getting a bit metaphorical, though. Here it goes (it's the last line):
Man- How do [the robots] know that the real world isn't just another simulation? How do you?
Woman- Well I know I'm not dreaming now because I know what it's like being in a dream.
Man- So dreaming lets you know reality exists.
Woman- No, just that my mind exists. I don't know about the rest.

-'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." - a senior Bush adviser.

-"The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real" -my father

 

[psikeyhackr]

I am not saying anything of the sort.

I am saying that the collapses should have never even initiated. I believe you have read the paper I wrote showing why.

There is no reason to speculate about what would happen in a 60 foot freefall, because that wasn't what happened.

My point is what is EASY TO PROVE. The objective is to get most people to UNDERSTAND that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have destroyed the building. If you PROVE there is no way for the portion above the impact to have come straight down and destroyed what was below the impact zone, even under impossibly bad conditions, then obviously the official story cannot be true and the politics is irrelevant to solving the real engineering problem.

As long as most Americans can believe the official story then the politics is in control not the engineering. So I think you should deal with what is easy to demonstrate and prove to the average man. I am not talking about what did happen I am talking about showing people what could not possibly have happened. If the top could not destroy the bottom then something else must have.

psik