I specifically asked for an explanation of how explosives would/could be used to launch perimeter column trees 500 feet. I would like to know how this launch could be accomplished with explosives without destroying the column tree
Column tree? That's a new one on me.
then you know little or nothing about the construction of the towers or what was ejected during the collapse, yet are quite willing to pontificate on the subject.
Like I said there was an energy source over and above Arabs, planes, and jet fuel induced fires in play that day
Which I have asked you to back up with some, any explanation, and so far you choose only to require that I take your word for it.
You're assuming that they were explosives of the garden verity kind. I wish I knew what they used as do many other people, but we will probably never know
That is often refered to as invoking magic to explain something. I don't subscribe to such voodoo.
due to the fact that they relied on a computer model to tell the public that testing for explosives was unnecessary.
A complete and utter misrepresentation of a report you have obviously never read for yourself.
In reading through the many posts of yours both on the new board and using my memory of the old, you seem to have an authoritative attitude in regard to all things 9-11,
Born of the fact that I have educated nmyself on the issue from both sides.
yet most all of it is/are a play on words, hence my partly cloudy/sunny comment, It's also why you use the quote feature and pass it off as communication.
I use the quote feature to ensure that what I say is referenced to what i am speaking of. I often find myself unclear what you are referencing, or to whom you are directing a post to.
I do not play with words. I ask for details to back contentions made. So far you are unwilling to do so, instead you make declaritive statements such as "there was an energy source over and above Arabs, planes, and jet fuel induced fires in play " and expect that is all there is to it. You say you are just asking questions but are steadfast in refusing to answer questions asked of you.
WHAT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Are those rightly answered questions or wrongly answered questions, or just the ones that stay on point.
Are they "right" only if they point to a predetermined poltical POV that you have? It sure appears so. Me, I go with the verifiable , technical details and am not concerned with ideologies.
Now I can ask you that if: Your collapse theory is correct then how where the core box columns severed in tandem with the perimeter columns to produce a near free fall collapse? You see these Towers were strong as hell for one argument and equally weak for another, which ever suits the seller.
This question illustrates that you either did not read my post concerning this or did not comprehend it.
The column failures were explained there. It was explained that the falling material impacted the floor pans/ floor space/ and not the lower portions of the columns. It was explained that the trusses that support the floors and the truss seats that transfer the floor load to the vertical columns were designed to transfer loads that a FLOOR could be expected to exert, not the combined load of 10+ floors and the column sections between them.
It was explained that for columns to withstand common buckling they must be braced and in the WTC towers that bracing occured via the trusses to brace core to perimeter and vice versa.
Surely you don't believe that mere butt plates and welds were all the core columns were comprised of, yet that's the main selling points of all of those who think one floor collapsed into the lower, and then the next and so forth. That's too ridiculous to comment on.
Oh do go one since this sentence makes little sense.
They never would have survived the energy that they were exposed to during a few Hurricane force wind storms, nor-Easters, and other wind events. Most all way beyond the energy of a plane by several x's over. Maybe you've seen what straight line winds can do on structures at ground level let alone 100-125 mph winds at 1,200 feet. If those Towers were as weak as some would have common people believe then they would have blown apart years prior to 9-11.
A completely different force, the resistence to which would be directly a function of how the core was braced with the perimeter via the trusses. No bracing between column systems and you do not even need a wind to fail the columns. They will fail on their own, a concept that I know you cannot envision due to your complete lack of any technical training in physics or engineering. I don't fault you for that, I fault you for believeing you can render an educated opinion.
Trying to sell the collapse as a pancake gravitational event that somehow had it's energy released throughout the entire structure all at once is an absolutely insane pitch.
Who states that? If that were the case then all levels would have failed at the same time. I saw a progressive collapse, not an instantaneous one.
This is where you say " OH BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THAT, IT TOOK SEVERAL SECONDS FOR THOSE BUILDING TO COMPLETELY COLLAPSE "
Apparently you saw something different.
As for "near free fall" I seem to recall that I asked how far from a free fall time it 'should' be. I don't recall an answer. I pointed out(IIRC) that the time to collapse was between 10 % ( at the quickest) and 45-50% longer than a free fall. This illustrates that the average collapse accelleration is between 0.8g and 0.2g (if one actually does the math). Far from free fall accelleration.
I can only say BULLSHIT!
Indeed so far that's the sum total of your arguemnet.
Every necessary support column severed at the same time causing a free release of energy, none of which was arrested at any point during the collapse is impossible without an outside source over and above those I mentioned previously, yet that's exactly what is seen in video and photos abound.
Once again you must be thinking of a different collapse. If all columns on each floor were severed at the same time then yes indeed the collapse would be at afree fall. That is the only way to acheive free fall. However if all columns were severted at the same time then all floors would be moving at the same time as well, and this is quite obviously not the condition seen. in fact even to the most scientifically challenged it is obvious that the collapse occured significantly slower than free fall because much of the material ejected reaches ground level before the collapse zone does.
The Winter Garden was severely damaged during the collapse of Tower 1. Large intact sections of the outer skin of one was found on and near the Winter Garden. How is this possible if the building just happened to collapse from fire. The fire weakened the steel until the structure could no longer bear the weight and it simple collapsed, never mind the expulsion of material floor by floor/every third floor, that's all in your head, it's not what you're really seeing
I asked you how explosives could possibly explain this ejection. You answered by invoking magic yet expect me bvelieve that it could not be accomplished by the collapse mechanism itself.
Gee Wally what do you expect when several tons of steel and concrete contained within a 1,300 tall building weighing in at several million tons decides to collapse
Tell me why debris does not get ejected like this during true explosive CD's.
Were a few magic explosives placed somehow on the perimeter sections in order to specifically eject them hundreds of feet? In true explosive CD's the explosives used first cut the column , then a second one 'kicks' the two sections apart only as much as is neccessary. Your senario somehow has the planners requiring the columns to travel hundreds of feet.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!