WTC: Let's do the math(s)

[Mick West]

And round and round it goes....
[...] and the projectile nature of large quantities of steel,

I just isolated that one point there as an example, because it's quite bizarre to me that you keep suggesting this is evidence of anything other than gravity driven collapse. You keep bringing it up, ever since you asked if that photo was consistent with progressive collapse.

Perhaps the reason that you keep going round and round is because you keep glossing over your own points. Maybe you need to actually focus on one for a while. Why don't you explain, with calculations if possible:

A) Why a gravity driven (Verinage style) collapse would not result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"
B) Why anything else (explosions, energy beams, whatever), would result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"

This should be quite tangible. One should be at least be able to get ballpark figures for velocity of the steel, and then see how well that fits an A or B scenario.

I really think this is a key point for you lee. It'd be willing to get into the maths if you are.

 

[lee h oswald]

I just isolated that one point there as an example, because it's quite bizarre to me that you keep suggesting this is evidence of anything other than gravity driven collapse. You keep bringing it up, ever since you asked if that photo was consistent with progressive collapse.

Perhaps the reason that you keep going round and round is because you keep glossing over your own points. Maybe you need to actually focus on one for a while. Why don't you explain, with calculations if possible:

A) Why a gravity driven (Verinage style) collapse would not result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"
B) Why anything else (explosions, energy beams, whatever), would result in "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"

This should be quite tangible. One should be at least be able to get ballpark figures for velocity of the steel, and then see how well that fits an A or B scenario.

I really think this is a key point for you lee. It'd be willing to get into the maths if you are.

Isolated, yes. It's 'bizarre' to you because you don't really know how buildings work or don't work. It's not your metier.

I think it's you that keeps going round and round - that's the point isn't it? Endless 'debate' with no prospect of you shifting one inch in your position.

On calculations - I did mine a few years ago, but only for one of the towers - not 7 - I've got a couple of design software laden computers which make most calculations for me, so it's not that hard to jiggle things a bit to get the values reasonably accurate, overlay images and render drawings off them etc. But it takes a while. Thing is - the results are in my other computer - not this old chugger sitting in the corner. And I'm not going to share them with you. What can you say? Nist should have done those calculations, but negligence or a desire to hide the obvious informed the decision not to even attempt to explain the collapses - like I said, that's a dereliction of duty and a falsehood - lies of silence.

However, I will accept your proposal to work on the actual figures, in real time on this board - and I'll publish my drawings and calculations cited above. We can do that when you've got the relevant information from Nist.

If you're serious you need to make an foia request for the input data into the computer simulation of Building 7, and when Nist provide it - off we go. That's a promise.

 

[Mick West]

Well hows about we just work on "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"?

You don't need any NIST figures for that, do you?

I probably won't be able to do much until next weekend, as I'll be travelling, but maybe you could make a start?, This type of thing:

​

 

[lee h oswald]

I haven't looked at the video or even its title. Like I said, I've done all that already. My offer is clear and it stands - seems fair enough.

I'm not sure why you moved this - it's about 7. I won't be replying to or reading this thread again, ok?

 

[Mick West]

I moved it because I want to talk about you claiming "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel" is evidence of anything other than a gravity driven collapse.

I want to focus on the math of that aspect, and demonstrate that it either is of it is not.

As the above video show, the math is quite simple. So why would you avoid this issue? If you can demonstrate that those girders could not have ended up where they did, or that they took impossible trajectories, they you'd have some proof.

So why do you refuse to address it? I know you are quite familiar with blast pressure from the Oklahoma City discussion. I know you understand at least basic mechanics mathematics.

So let's draw some diagrams. Prove that there is something suspicious. No NIST required.

 

[Oxymoron]

I moved it because I want to talk about you claiming "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel" is evidence of anything other than a gravity driven collapse.

I want to focus on the math of that aspect, and demonstrate that it either is of it is not.

As the above video show, the math is quite simple. So why would you avoid this issue? If you can demonstrate that those girders could not have ended up where they did, or that they took impossible trajectories, they you'd have some proof.

So why do you refuse to address it? I know you are quite familiar with blast pressure from the Oklahoma City discussion. I know you understand at least basic mechanics mathematics.

So let's draw some diagrams. Prove that there is something suspicious. No NIST required.

The above video appears to me to show the mathematical unlikelihood of such a mass ejection of steel beams over such large distances.

Personally, I think even if it were possible to prove that the buildings fell without the use of some type of explosives, that would still not diminish the likelihood that there was some inside involvement in facilitating or allowing the attacks but if you would like to get the ball rolling on the math, I would be happy to evaluate and comment and perhaps come up with some alternatives.

 

[Jazzy]

This type of thing:

As I've said before, the strongest argument is quite often the weakest.

 

[slenderbeam]

Well hows about we just work on "the projectile nature of large quantities of steel"?

You don't need any NIST figures for that, do you?

I probably won't be able to do much until next weekend, as I'll be travelling, but maybe you could make a start?, This type of thing:

Kinetics, velocity are a waste of time. No maths required on this, just common sense, maybe some geometry and an understanding of construction.

The video starts with a finding, ie: heavy beams some distance from the building.

We can see the core stood (precariously) for some time during the collapse. All it takes to explain the location of the beams orcolumns is that various tall columns segments leaned over, snapping their splice connections. Given the height of the building was what, 400m, it is entirely logical that tall segments rotated about their weakest point (construction splices) when they became unrestrained.

Given the footage of the tall core falling over, I would have thought this debunked any "ejection" scenario.

 

[Mick West]

I actually addressed this more in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/

Moved over Jeffrey's post there, closing this one.