Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Zen
I told you a few posts back that I am looking at this from a laymen's perspective. I agree that I do not know how these complex structures are designed. That is why I am asking the questions.
I do not believe I actually claimed that it was impossible for a building to fall straight down unless by controlled demolition. If so, then I concede that I was wrong (I do not really want to go back and look for something I do not believe I said anyway).
|
As long as you don't believe that now, I don't really care if you ever did.
Quote:
I DO believe that it is more likely than not that a building that is fully in tact on one end and obliterated on the other will NOT fall symmetrically to the ground.
|
You must ask yourself what this actually means. "More likely than not"? Are you saying that if we were to build similar buildings and slam airliners into them, and look at the effect on a smaller third building, that we would find after many of these experiments that on average the third building doesn't fall straight down? I mean you must realize that that's basically saying nothing. "More likely than not" means nothing unless you run repeated experiments. And even if we had the experimental data afterwards, you just because something happens 99 times out of a 100, doesn't mean that that 1 out of 100 actually won't happen. We've had one single experimental test run (the attacks) and we can't really go diving into statistical evidence because of it...
Quote:
As a matter of fact I do not know why you think that is such a leap of logic. Maybe if you were an expert in structural engineering and I was asking this question on TribalStructuralEngineers Wars.com, then I could fathom the fact that you seem to be pissed off by me asking simple questions that many ordinary people would find logical.
|
Why it's a leap of logic? You're comparing like 50 (if you've actually looked at 50 videos) of
different buildings collapsing under
different circumstances. When scientists make a theoretical claim, they make sure it's much more exact. So if you had 100 different WTCs (or at least very similar buildings) that collapsed next to other buildings like WTC7 and then looked at the results compared to 100 different controlled collapses of WTC7-like buildings, you might have something to work with. But at this point, you really have no legitimate claim that WTC7 came down "too cleanly" not to be controlled, because you actually have no other experiments to compare it to.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you haven't mentioned
any in this thread that point to evidence of controlled demolition. All yours just point to our lack of understanding and information about how the buildings fell. To find a controlled demolition you probably have some direct evidence of the occurence--not just fall back on "well I don't understand why it could have happened this way, so it didn't".
Anyway I think I've put enough time into this thread. Good luck on your quest, I guess.