WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

That is certainly possible. They still had access to thousands of tons worth though. They found clues that supported the official story. They found nothing that implied demolition.

What clues did they find other than that the steel had been twisted and deformed in the collapse and had been exposed to fire? Please explain what additional clues or observations were made with the Freshkills inspection that weren't already made at the collapse sites themselves.

They did no testing which would have shown the temperatures which were experienced. They did not do a reconstruction to determine a sequence of initiation events or failure modes, which if some of the steel had already been recycled they couldn't do. Imagine that, just two to three weeks after these unprecedented collapses some of the steel wasn't available to investigators!

 

[shaman_]

This is a pretty strong claim based on the actual testing NIST did for fireproofing removal by impact. You do know that all they did was fire 15 shotgun blasts at some SFRM coated steel in a plywood box right? There are serious questions about this testing.

I know. I have also read a few rebuttals to these questions. It’s certainly quite possible that the tests are flawed. Flawed testing can be indication of lack of competence as well as a conspiracy.

Photos like this make me think it was not an unreasonable assumption though.

Look at that ejection of debris. Keep in mind how big those buildings are.

Note: During the testing the gun mis-fired and produced an impact velocity of 31 m/sec. and the SFRM was not visibly damaged.

At 0.40 seconds into the impact of the North tower the average velocity of the debris cloud was computed to be 15.8 m/sec.

While it is a worthwhile point, on it’s own it does not invalidate the tests. Were the other results consistent?

The alleged bowed columns were on the opposite side of the building from the aircraft entrance point.

The collision dispersed plenty of jet fuel to the opposite side of the building. If enough sfrm was dislodged that would make sense.

You don't need to remove a lot of fireproofing from a column before the strength is compromised in a 1000C fire.

Combining the area of the alleged bowed columns on the south side of the building with the computed debris velocity and the results of this testing actually disproves the extremely tortured theory that dislodged fireproofing caused the trusses to sag and perimeter columns to be pulled inward by the sagging floors and the initiation of collapse of the building.

When you combine this with the fact that there is no video evidence of bowed perimeter columns for minutes prior to collapse it is naive to not think that there is story concoction going on.

No you are too quick to dismiss the theory based on one shot and a lack of video. I presented witness testimony as well. This was enough for you to believe that there was molten steel.

 

[shaman_]

NIST's stated duty was to provide a "building and fire safety investigation".

Destroying all the steel was at odds with the purpose of a "building and fire safety investigation".

What reason was there to destroy all the steel from wtc7 ?
It was a neat pile with no bodies to reclaim.
The only plausible reason to destroy the steel was to destroy something that needed to be destroyed.

What should they have done with the steel? Made a large pile of it for a tourist attraction?

From what I have read most of it was mixed in with the WTC1+2 debris anyway.

Remember that to those who were there on the day, the collapse was no mystery. Part of a skyscraper fell on the building and it burned away for seven hours.
It was expected to fall long before it did because the signs were there. It wasn’t a building in pristine condition that magically dropped for no reason, it was a building that firemen wouldn’t go near because it was leaning and they thought it would collapse..

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Collapse_Expectations

 

[shaman_]

air is invisible, you wouldn't see it, compressed or otherwise.

Yes thanks headspin.

What was seen coming out the windows was debris and dust. It could have been caused by air or debris pushing down elevator shafts, stairwells, ventilation systems ect.

There is testimony of firemen, in the stairs as the collapse started, describing a gale force wind pushing them.

edit - syringe analogy is not compatable with any notion of elevator-basement fireballs.

Explain.

 

[shaman_]

...and your explanation(s) for the alumino-iron microspheres would be?

I am unconvinced by Jones' claims. Partly because of his track record and partly because when I search the debunking sites they mention other possible sources for the spheres.

 

[shaman_]

How do you explain the freefall in WTC 7's collapse? Watch David Chandler's, the physics teacher who made NIST admit it for WTC 7, latest explanation here

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

My explanation is that part of the building was in freefall for a small time. :shrug:

Freefall does not automatically equal controlled demolition.

 

[shaman_]

eh? I was pointing to how your statement "One of the bottom floors completely gave way and gravity did the rest" negates common anti-truther arguments. This is in no way even similar to using information selectively.

But I was not suggesting that you just needed to destroy one floor to cause a freefall. I was saying that the collapse started at the bottom of the building.

You are happy to promote the idea that failure on a single floor causes complete catastrophic freefall collapse, but arguments abound here that it would take too long to rig "every floor", "someone would have seen", "miles of wiring" etc. these arguments are rendered bogus if you accept a single floor failure could cause catastrophic collapse. the only issue then is whether the single floor was destroyed by demolition devices or from assymetrical damage from fire.so how does a single column buckling cause a catastrophic symmetrical freefall collapse?

To say that a single floor failure caused a freefall collapse is not quite correct. You are ignoring what happened to WTC7 before the collapse. Part of a skyscraper fell on it. It burned away for seven hours. Columns/beams were weakened and damaged and affected by thermal expansion. What I am saying is that the collapse (which everyone on the scene could see was going to happen) beginning at the lower floors could conceivably lead to a section of the upper floors being in freefall for a short period of time. I was referring to what initiated the collapse, not the singular cause.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My explanation is that part of the building was in freefall for a small time.

It wasn't a short time if you think about the distance it traveled. During the 2.25 seconds the building was in freefall it traveled approximately 100 feet straight down or eight stories.

Freefall does not automatically equal controlled demolition.

I don't know any other way freefall of a building through its lower areas can occur.

Can you provide a clear explanation on how it could?

 

[John99]

Yes, I did have a typo and missed the "P" in gypsum. Thanks for pointing that out. It is fixed so nobody else misunderstands.

That is why i asked. You spelled it gysum twice and i thought it was something new.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To say that a single floor failure caused a freefall collapse is just wrong. You are ignoring what happened to WTC7 before the collapse. Part of a skyscraper fell on it. It burned away for seven hours. Columns/beams were weakened and damaged and affected by thermal expansion. What I am saying is that the collapse (which everyone on the scene could see was going to happen) beginning at the lower floors could conceivably lead to a section of the upper floors being in freefall for a short period of time. I was referring to what initiated the collapse, not the singular cause.

NIST admits that the debris damage did not play a part in the collapse initiation of WTC 7.

What was it that everyone on the scene saw that led them to believe that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

The freefall occurred over EIGHT floors. That isn't some insignificant amount.

 

[scott3x]

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 1

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

Even with next to no fireproofing, the building wouldn't have collapsed. Here's an excerpt from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey:
************************
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.
************************

If the areas without shielding were buckling and warping then logically all the columns would have done so if not shielded. You however will avoid logic because it is damaging to your faith.

I'm tired. I'll plead no contest to this one. I think it's rather irrelevant, considering the fact that the UL tests done for NIST made it clear that the steel wouldn't have collapsed.

Do you mean the test done on assemblies with fireproofing!?

With fireproofing, as well as with essentially no fireproofing as the excerpt provided above from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey makes clear. Regardless of the amount of fireproofing on them, they sagged a bit but they definitely didn't collapse- and this in conditions that were definitely harsher then the actual WTC fires could have gotten.

You are in a corner here with nowhere to go. You can try but you cannot avoid the evidence. Do not say again that it is clear that the fires wouldn’t have reached temperatures near 1000C.

Why wouldn't I say it? It's the truth. The fact that the steel -did- reach that temperature and even melted at that temperature points to only one thing as far as I know- thermate.

You have not mentioned the other fire tests presented to you either.

What fire tests are those?

Yes, I am. You're right, nothing to do with the Cardington fire tests. They have to do with the WTC towers (remember them?).

Poor response nanoscott. We are discussing particular issues of WTC. Jumping to different issues of 911 when things get tough is still changing the subject.

Personally, I think that fire tests done to simulate what happened on the WTC towers is much more on topic then fire tests done to see what happens to steel at temperatures that the WTC fires couldn't have reached, don't you?

I'll concede that the Cardington fire tests managed to get the metal up to 900C. Now will -you- concede that the tests conducted to see if the WTC should have collapsed due to fire made it clear that they shouldn't have?

What are you talking about? Which tests were those?

The 1970 and 2004 tests done by UL and mentioned in Kevin Ryan's article excerpt included above.

In one of the Cardington tests, there was a section which wasn’t shielded. It started softening and buckling!

Fine. The temperatures in the Cardington tests were way above what the WTC fires were at, but ok.

 

[scott3x]

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 2

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

You have made no mention of Kenny's tests either.

Probably because they were even more irrelevant then the Cardington fire tests...

Now you are really looking a bit sad. Just concede and stop trying to argue the point.

It has been painstakingly shown to you that normal fires can reach temperatures near 1000C.

When has this been 'paintakingly shown' to me?

In one of those fires the steel was unprotected and started buckling. You cannot possibly pretend again that you haven’t seen this information…

Ah, yes, because I have an encyclopaedic memory of what was said hundreds if not thousands of posts ago. Anyway, if the Cardington Fire tests showed that under extreme, nearly blast furnace like temperatures (1000 C was it?), steel starts buckling, I woudn't be surprised. The WTC fires never got that hot ofcourse. The -steel- did, however and even melted at that temperature. This is certainly unusual, but thermate lowers the melting point of steel to around 1000C.

NIST is the one who started with the paint samples. 9/11 research is the one who brings them up. I'm simply quoting 9/11 research, which brings them up.

.. and yet you make no attempt to even understand what you are bringing up, or why it doesn’t show the maximum temperature of the WTC fire.

If by "fire", you mean to include the thermate induced explosions as well, I wholeheartedly agree. The WTC office fires could never have produced the temperatures reached by the steel, as Kevin Ryan and many others have made clear.

How many of those core column fragements did they analyse? Or did they ship them all off before getting a chance?

It was an inconclusive test.

I didn't ask you if it was an inconclusive test. I asked you how many of the core column fragments they analysed. I also asked you if they shipped them all off before they got a chance to do a proper analysis. If you don't know the answer to these questions, feel free to admit it.

There is however other evidence which gives a much clearer indication to the temperatures of the fires.

Alright, let's see evidence that the fires alone got the steel to 1000C. This should be good.

You fail to understand this and keep bringing up the paint tests as if that is the only evidence of the temperatures. It’s not.

You know, NIST is the one who, in its 2004 interim report, failed to find much evidence of the steel going beyond 250C. Let's imagine, for a moment, that NIST was actually trying to cover up why the WTC towers fell. Let's imagine that they wanted to make it -look- like it was only due to the fires. Knowing that the fires couldn't have gotten much beyond 250C, certainly not beyond 600C, they only found evidence that this was the case. Perhaps this is why they didn't find much steel that had heated beyond 250C. I may be mistaken here, but I think it's something to consider.

 

[scott3x]

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 3

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6.

Jim Hoffman, in his article "Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
************************************************** *
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
************************************************** *
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

That was the statement that Mackey was rebutting! You can’t respond to it with the very comment he was responding to!

Sure I can. Mackey's 'debunking' is nothing of the sort. I see that you don't get the point. The point is that flashovers are instant. 120 and 600 seconds, aka 2 and 10 minutes, is way longer then a flashover would take. I can put my finger over the flame of a lighter for an instant and it really doesn't do much. You can torture a man if you put it for longer durations. I really don't want to know what would happen if it was held under someone's finger for 10 minutes. Buildings and the fires needed to 'hurt' them are on a different scale, but the same principle applies; duration can frequently mean quite a bit.

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?

It’s probably the government because clearly they are paying him to say these things.

Really? Could you please present me the evidence for this?

Hadn't dealt with this one before (the rest of my response to Mackey I just copied from this post).

So I will post the same answers to your [insult removed] post I did the first time.

It's fine that you copy the answers to my post that you wrote the first time. While I have essentially made flow charts for all the posts in this thread, I haven't really gotten far in doing so for the 9/11 conspiracies thread.

 

[scott3x]

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 4

This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past, as the following article makes clear:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

Only in the eyes of a gullible lazy conspiracy theorist.

Says the man who is frequently too lazy to even reference the evidence for his own claims.

Mackey’s document is pretty much the definitive debunking on all of Griffin’s claims and I think a few others are in there.

Personally, I've found that the best thing that Mackey does is, as Jim Hoffman so aptly put it:
"generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- , factual distortions, and logical fallacies."

So no... you can't just ignore the things [Mackey] says.

I don't ignore a fair amount of them. Neither have many others. I don't ignore what you have to say either. Mackey may be a step above you in terms of the wannabe alternate theory debunkers, but you're certainly in the running yourself. In point of fact, I think that while you may have not written any massive document criticizing Griffin's latest commentary, you seem to be more open to investigating certain aspects of 9/11 then he does.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************

Where was the good point in that?

I quoted the part I find to be most relevant, but on reflection, I find that it has many other good points as well.

 

[scott3x]

Backing up claims and explaining one's reasoning

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.

That's just the appetizer. Here's the main course concerning the arguments that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/

Yes, I know, I know, you've supposedly countered it somewhere. By all means, please point out these counters.

Scott those claims make up the vast majority of this thread and the previous one. To challenge me to link to the rebuttals is a [insult removed] game.

What's truly sad is that you won't (can't?) even link to a single post to your (imaginary?) rebuttals.

I still don't understand why you think that my tactics are immature and dishonest.

Yes you do.

And you know this because you:
(a) read minds?
(b) truly -do- have a magic 8 ball?

Perhaps, instead of insulting me, you should continue to try to explain to me why you feel this way.

Considering I have numerous times, that sentence is another example of you playing dumb.

shaman_, I won't deny that you have tried, in your way, to explain it to me. I'm simply saying that I still don't understand your reasoning. I'm not 'playing dumb', and despite your allusions to the contrary, I am not 'dumb' either. Anyway, if you find that trying to explain it to me isn't worth the trouble, fine.

 

[scott3x]

The official story's lethal paper

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.

Headspin may not have the time, but I have a bit. I found a particularly amusing link which was a link within the first link you mention in post 185, (wouldn't open, JREF can be real slow sometimes):

Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

Must be some pretty lethal 'paper' ...

So was that done by the thermite that burns, cuts or explodes? Was is nanothermite, superthermite, thermite, thermate, or just bombs?

I'd say it was done by some type of thermite, probably thermate, but perhaps Headspin could weigh in as well. The point is that paper is an unlikely candidate for having caused it, to put it mildly.

If steel was found that was twisted and softened and floors were seen bowing due to the heat then what role does thermite play?

As Tony Szamboti has made clear, the bowing was probably due to the thermite, not the fires. It looks like thermite played even more of a role than I'd previously known.

 

[scott3x]

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 1

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

A lot of things. He's certainly not the only person who felt that Larry Silverstein was essentially admitting that the building was pulled; I myself did for a time. In any case, I have never seen him mention the 'pull it' comment in any of his other articles, so I assume that he has now realized that it's not compelling evidence; I believe the quote is still suspicious, however. If he meant that the fire chief had told him that he was going to pull his firemen away, one would expect he'd atleast have said 'he decided to pull -them- out' or something to that effect. People are not its- buildings are. The fact that the firechief has apparently denied he ever said any such thing to Silverstein is also worthy of investigation, don't you think?

Can you show me some evidence of that claim?

Headspin is the one who mentioned this I believe. I did a little digging, however, and found evidence contrary to his claim. This is what I found:
******************
Here is an email from Chief Daniel Nigro, the fire commander in charge of building 7.



Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

He pulled his men back about three hours before the collapse because he as the ranking fireman was worried about collapse.
******************

A response to this email from Daniel Nigro (found here) sounds good:
******************
1. This shows that he is a fire official and he thought the building would collapse.
2. The building did in fact collapse.
3. Nothing in his training told him it would collapse, he ascertained that himself.

Now why don't we (OCTers) believe the (multiple) firemen and police that say there were bombs, that were trained to differentiate between bombs and falling bodies?

I smell a double standard here.

BTW, if I was a fireman, and 2 skyscrapers just collapsed in the same complex and I was standing next to a burning skyscraper, I would certainly clear it also. That's strictly from a liability issue. I am not saying this is necessarily what he did, I am just saying almost anyone would have made the same call.
******************

 

[scott3x]

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 2

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

I disagree in the case of Kevin Ryan. I'll cite wikipedia's entry on expert in defense of my contention:
********************
An "expert" (Audio (US) (help•info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.
********************

Note the 'can be' in the last sentence. It's not a necessity.

In the scientific community your expertise is measured by your qualifications and experience. Ryan is a chemist who has not worked with steel. He is not an authority on steel.

No, he's not a steelworker. Yes, he does know a great deal about steel and the WTC steel in particularly due partially or completely to his study of it since 9/11.

He is not an authority on steel.

I would argue that he is an authority on the WTC steel and the WTC steel assemblies in particular. He was a manager within the company that certified it and he not only had access to the people who would know most about those steel assemblies; he also asked them about it and got atleast one quite remarkable response, as Kevin Ryan writes in his article Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL:
*******************
UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. These statements included reference to UL having “certified the steel used in the World Trade Center” and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.

After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.[10]

“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.”
*******************

The whole issue is a deep embarassment, to put it mildly, for Underwriter Laboratories, who has vainly tried to disassociate itself from ever having tested the WTC steel as the above article makes clear.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Personally, I've found that the best thing that Mackey does is, as Jim Hoffman so aptly put it:
"generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- , factual distortions, and logical fallacies."

This is the problem. There are lots of complicated details in the events of 9/11. People can argue around in circles about this stuff FOREVER. Most people will get tired of it and turnoff. Consequently Mackey wins. That is why I try to focus on something simple enough for grade school kids to understand. Distribution of mass ion a skyscraper. The building could not stand without getting that right.

So why haven't official sources provided that in SEVEN YEARS?

How does top 15% by volume crush 81% without our being told the distribution of mass. Someone who claims to be a structural engineer on the Richard Dawkins forum just keeps claiming it is irrelevant but he won't explain what is incorrect about my FALL OF PHYSICS.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

He helped get me banned for a month.

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

This is the problem. There are lots of complicated details in the events of 9/11. People can argue around in circles about this stuff FOREVER. Most people will get tired of it and turnoff. Consequently Mackey wins. That is why I try to focus on something simple enough for grade school kids to understand. Distribution of mass ion a skyscraper. The building could not stand without getting that right.

So why haven't official sources provided that in SEVEN YEARS?

How does top 15% by volume crush 81% without our being told the distribution of mass. Someone who claims to be a structural engineer on the Richard Dawkins forum just keeps claiming it is irrelevant but he won't explain what is incorrect about my FALL OF PHYSICS.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

He helped get me banned for a month.

psik

Gravity, and the fact that only the single floor below the collapse point is meeting the energy of the top 15% of the building, and as that floor is collapsed it adds it's mass and energy to the collapse.