WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[stignasty]

I did post a link on the other thread regarding a Phd structural engineer doing a speech in Ontario about 911. I forget who is name was but he was a full professor of structural engineering and did say the official version was rediculous because I met someone that saw the presentation and they told me about it.

He was a full prof from Queens or McMaster.

My cousin's best friend's brother said that he knows a lady who heard of a man talking who said he was a Phd in structural constructionism who said that whatever it was that I believed in was true. Everyone who believes differently is ridiculous. For real!

[ScottSA]

I did post a link on the other thread regarding a Phd structural engineer doing a speech in Ontario about 911. I forget who is name was but he was a full professor of structural engineering and did say the official version was rediculous because I met someone that saw the presentation and they told me about it.

He was a full prof from Queens or McMaster.

My cousin's best friend's brother said that he knows a lady who heard of a man talking who said he was a Phd in structural constructionism who said that whatever it was that I believed in was true. Everyone who believes differently is ridiculous. For real!

That's pretty much the totality of Polly's "evidence". That, and the notion that everyone else is wrong and everyone should see it.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA That's pretty much the totality of Polly's "evidence". That, and the notion that everyone else is wrong and everyone should see it.

Look for it in the other thread moron.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind A claim that you have not backed up with a single rational argument. OTOH - I have explained several times why those statements are correct when placed in the proper context.

We have an engineering student in the forum. Why don't we ask him what he thinks of your scientific statements. I'm not here to teach high school science. Anyone here that has studied it should see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Care to comment on Riverwinds science qc1765 ?

I have explained several times why those statements are correct when placed in the proper context.

All of your comments are flat out wrong. There is no way they can be taken as correct in any way. If qc1765 doesn't agree I will comment.

A University has no control over what a (tenured) professor researches.

Right. They just need the grant money. They can apply for that from Rockefeller (and others) - same guy that puts presidents in power and benefits from all the wars.

Bankers decide who gets the grant money from foundations. Thats why people that graduate with economics and business degrees have no idea how money is created or where it actually comes from.

[Riverwind]

I'm not here to teach high school science.

Of course not. You are here to spread the gospel of 'truthieism' to all that will listen and to insult those with the temerity to question the word of the Holy Prophets of Truthieism: Hoffman and Jones. You would not have anything to talk about if you actually tried to discuss science.

All of your comments are flat out wrong. There is no way they can be taken as correct in any way. If qc1765 doesn't agree I will comment.

Gawd you are a peice of work. You can't come up with your own counter arguments so you someone else to do it for you.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind Of course not. You are here to spread the gospel of 'truthieism' to all that will listen and to insult those with the temerity to question the word of the Holy Prophets of Truthieism: Hoffman and Jones.

Lets see if qc1765 believes that you are an engineer.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind Of course not. You are here to spread the gospel of 'truthieism' to all that will listen and to insult those with the temerity to question the word of the Holy Prophets of Truthieism: Hoffman and Jones.

Lets see if qc1765 believes that you are an engineer.

Why do you believe he/she is an engineering student?

[ScottSA]

Riverwind Of course not. You are here to spread the gospel of 'truthieism' to all that will listen and to insult those with the temerity to question the word of the Holy Prophets of Truthieism: Hoffman and Jones.

Lets see if qc1765 believes that you are an engineer.

Why do you believe he/she is an engineering student?

Now we're hinging the argument on what a student thinks?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind "Thermodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses"

Thermodynamics has everything to do with everything. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and if a scientific process is explained in such a way that it must violate these laws than that scientific explanation must be wrong.

I've already shown that your free body force answers to what happens with the table is wrong so that leaves two. But as I said, I'm not here to explain grade eight science.

For the last quote about flame and temerature I want you to stop posting your crap in 911 threads in return for an explanation asd to why its wrong.

As for your Stephen Jones / Jim Hoffman comment, show me where they are wrong.

[PolyNewbie]

Now we're hinging the argument on what a student thinks?

Anybody that can do grade eight science knows how silly Riverwinds scientific explanations are. qc1765 says he/she is an engineering student so I think qc1765 has the understanding necessary to see that Riverwinds scientific explantions prove that he is both a both a fool and a liar.

I would believe qc1765 until he/she makes a statement like "Thermodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses". I do give people the benefit of the doubt.

[gc1765]

We have an engineering student in the forum. Why don't we ask him what he thinks of your scientific statements. I'm not here to teach high school science. Anyone here that has studied it should see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Care to comment on Riverwinds science qc1765 ?

Actually, I'm a science student, not an engineering student. But I do know a lot about how science & engineering research is funded in Canada. I'm probably not the most qualified person to answer questions about engineering, but I do have a pretty good understanding of basic physics and I'll do my best to answer any questions.

A University has no control over what a (tenured) professor researches.

Right. They just need the grant money. They can apply for that from Rockefeller (and others) - same guy that puts presidents in power and benefits from all the wars.

Bankers decide who gets the grant money from foundations. Thats why people that graduate with economics and business degrees have no idea how money is created or where it actually comes from.

I don't think you have any idea how science and engineering research is funded. Bankers do not decide who gets grant money, nor does Rockefeller. Scientists and engineers decide between themselves who gets funding. There is no conspiracy in how funding is allotted, I can say with absolute certainty that this is how it is done.

[Riverwind]

I would believe qc1765 until he/she makes a statement like "Thermodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses". I do give people the benefit of the doubt.

Polly you crack me up. The civil engineering student in question is na85.

Here is one of his/her posts. This is what was said:

The second law of thermodynamics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *cough* *wheeze* oh man, that's a good one.

The second law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time, unless the system is in equilibrium.

What on god's green earth does this have to do with a plane hitting a building? Neither of those two objects are isolated systems (thermally or otherwise). Since there's a gaping hole in the building, heat and mass are free to flow across the system boundary. Poly, PLEASE tell me how a jet hitting a building is in some way NOT increasing the entropy of the system. Please. I would LOVE to hear it.

---

I've looked at some of the materials on Hoffman's site, and the manner in which he "debunks" the scientific articles and "exposes" the "lies" are laughable. His argument merely appeals to the layperson's general lack of knowledge of the exceedingly complicated science of structures and materials.

For some reason I suspect this person is more likely to side with my interpretation.....

Thermodynamics has everything to do with everything. The laws of thermodynamics are universal and if a scientific process is explained in such a way that it must violate these laws than that scientific explanation must be wrong.

Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter, however, that does not mean it should be used to analyze building collapses. Thermodynamics is an analysis tool provides a useful way to solve some problems in physics. However, it is only a really useful tool when you are analyzing isolated systems where there is no exchange of matter or energy with the environment. The WTC towers were not isolated systems and massive amounts of energy and matter were expelled out of the system into the surrounding environment. More importantly, it is impossible to quantify the amount of energy and matter that was expelled. This means that any thermodynamic analysis of the WTC will be inconclusive. IOW - using thermodynamics to explain the collapse is like using a hammer to remove a screw.

I've already shown that your free body force answers to what happens with the table is wrong so that leaves two.

Only in your dreams. You still cannot seem to understand that a tower cannot tip without a pivot point and that asymmetric damage can cause a straight down collapse in a structure. I recommend that you go back and review normal forces. It is clear that you do not understand what they are and how they behave.

As for your Stephen Jones / Jim Hoffman comment, show me where they are wrong.

Where do I begin? Hoffman's entire analysis using thermodynamics is a fiction. As Kimmy has pointed out the energy deficit is so large that nothing short of a nuclear bomb could have made up the difference. The premise that a building should have tipped over is also false. I have demonstrated that with my table example (it is not my fault you can't understand it). Joness science is a little better but he still makes the mistake of claiming he has proven something when he really only has a theory - e.g. he has no conclusive proof that molten steel was observed in the rubble.

[kuzadd]

Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse.

ok, so we are in agrement on that!

No. What I said was:

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed.

And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

so were 3,4,5, and 6.

they didn't completely collapse, were closer and were far more damaged

Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again:

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

Futhermore, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an electrical substation. The effect of this unsual construction will be discussed in NIST's report when they release it later this year.

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

what's your point, again?

or do you think if you just keep saying the same thing over and over, that will actually mean something?

If you ignore or distort what I, and others type, I will repost it in the hope that you will eventually read and understand what we're saying. I posted the NIST preliminary assessment of the collapse of WTC7, and you stated that they had made no assessment. Riverwind replied to your straw man that since other buildings didn't fall down, WTC7 shouldn't have either. Yet you chose to either make claims not supported by the comments or ignore them altogether. So to answer your question, I can repost this material as many times as it takes and if you eventually understand it, yes it will mean something.

actually stignasty it is you that have chosen to ignore and twist.

see below:

"The current NIST working collapse hypothesis " from your own post

a hypothesis is NOT an explanation, it is a POSSIBLE explanation, why you persist in portraying it as a final explanation is beyone me? Other then to promote bs?

Hypothesis: either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal

in other words it is NOT a foregone conclusion, as you are attempting to portray it as.

actually my response to windriver was there and reiterated. You missed it?

only possible if you've done that intentionally.

cause you don't like the reponse?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind Quantum mechanics is the theoretical underpinning for all matter

Thats another keeper. Now I have 5 Riverwind quotes regarding scientific fact that demonstrate 100 % incompetence by you. Quantum Mechanics doesn't work above the atomic level thats why they are working on "unified theory" to bridge the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics.

Riverwind For some reason I suspect this person is more likely to side with my interpretation.....

No. that conversation ended after I posted a link showing the Jones says the building collapses violated the second law of thermodynamics.

Riverwind Hoffman's entire analysis using thermodynamics is a fiction. As Kimmy has pointed out the energy deficit is so large that nothing short of a nuclear bomb could have made up the difference.

Nuclear devices for building demolition do exist. They were invented in the 50's as a cheaper way to demolish large buildings. There are US government documents online that describe them. Its not a far out hypothesis but many theories on how the building collapses will emerge until it is explained. That is the nature of science - you generate hypothesis until one can be proven. All we know for sure is that the official version is impossible.

Stephen Jones says he has the evidence to support thermate being used at this point in time. He discounts the idea of a nuke being used as unlikely and says an energy beam isn't possible.

There is a Phd engineer and several Phd physics people that talk about the same energy deficit. Hoffman has published in well respected scientific journals. I think Kimmy is probably wrong although he/she is careful not to state "facts" the way you do.

The energy deficit is definetly present and this means that the collapses violate the laws of thermodynamics. A law is not often relevant until it is broken. The fact that the laws of thermodynaics are broken for the official investigation is probably why the NIST report avoids investigating the actual collapses and just leaves people to assume that they did - ie government apologists and presstitutes will fill in the spaces and NIST won't be responsible for the lies and propoganda generated by morons who argue the official version without reading about it.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you. You are a blow hard that knows absolutely nothing about what he speaks.

[kuzadd]

riverwind

Post # 149

windriver:

"Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present."

I asked you to show me, but you haven't.

Don't worry, i've seen numerous pics of 3,4,5, and 6.

and when you went off to look for them, you realized that they were all far more severly damaged then the uberstrong # 7 building., ( of course, you ignored the article I posted with regards to the massive strengthening of # 7, done in 1989) so you can't post them, because it makes a big hole in your theory.

You initially were unaware wind causes lateral load, then somewhat concede it is possible.

Wind is the main lateral load concern of such tall structures, i am sure you can read up on that yourself.

The very fact that the wtc building were tested in a wind tunnel, is a sure indicator that wind was an issue always an issue, on towers so tall, of course that never crossed your mind.

You then make an interesting statement here

windriver:

WTC3: 22 stories, WTC4: 9 stories, WTC5: 9 stories, WTC6: 8 stories, WTC7: 47 stories.

The buildings were completely different. It is irrational to claim that they should have behaved the same when damaged.

interesting in that you are contradicting yourself and pointing out the shortcomings in the official conspiracy theory, one of many.

to which I respond, and am reiterating for a 3rd time here and now:

kuzadd:

"Yet, you are making that claim? wtc 1 and 2, were different buildings, from wtc 7, and yet they all behaved the same way when damaged. they globally collapsed. and wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, constructed differently, massively reinforced in the '80's , see link to article posted. and yet, collapsed in the same manner.

Now who is making irrational claims?"

You see, you are supporting the most irrational theory of all, 3 buildings, subjected to 3 different types of compromises,with varying lateral loads, would all respond in exactly the same manner. Global collapse.

Now that is irrational!!!!!

Different constructions, differing lateral loads from wind,which would effect the 3 buildings all differently, the planes hit two of the buildings in very divergent spots, wtc 7, no plane, some minor debris damage, and other variations, I am sure of, yet the response is all the same, global collapse???????

That's what get's to you isn't it???

You demonstrated yourself the implausability in the global collapse scenario/official conspiracy theory

Thanks buddy, it's been enjoyable!!!

[Riverwind]

No. that conversation ended after I posted a link showing the Jones says the building collapses violated the second law of thermodynamics.

No it didn't. The conversation ended when na85 got tired of your evasions and ignorance.

Stephen Jones says he has the evidence to support thermate being used at this point in time. He discounts the idea of a nuke being used as unlikely and says an energy beam isn't possible.

Again. He has a theory - not a proof. His theory is extremely improbable given the other evidence that is available especially since there are many other possible explanations for everything that he observed. In fact, it is theoretically possible for spontaneous thermite reactions to occur when large quantities of aluminium are mixed with rusted steel. Jones tried to conduct small scale lab experiments but they are not enough to prove it did not occur.

The energy deficit is definitely present and this means that the collapses violate the laws of thermodynamics.

There are no accurate measurements that could tell anyone how much energy and matter was ejected into the environment. For that reason it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to any conclusions based on thermodynamic analysis. Anyone who claims that they can does not know what they are talking about.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you. You are a blow hard that knows absolutely nothing about what he speaks.

Ah the sound of a Polly running away when he realizes he cannot put together a coherent argument.

Why don't you explain your magical force that can create a torque without a normal force from a pivot point?

[Riverwind]

You initially were unaware wind causes lateral load, then somewhat concede it is possible.

Wind is the main lateral load concern of such tall structures, i am sure you can read up on that yourself.

All the souces indicate that wind was not a significant factor that day. I did was agree that wind is a theoretical lateral load, however, you have zero evidence that the wind was large enough to have any effect on what happened that day.

Different constructions, differing lateral loads from wind,which would effect the 3 buildings all differently, the planes hit two of the buildings in very divergent spots, wtc 7, no plane, some minor debris damage, and other variations, I am sure of, yet the response is all the same, global collapse???????

WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same. WTC7 is a building with an unusual design that was much taller than any WTC towers that remained standing. No one should be surprised that it behaved differently than the smaller towers that did not collapse.

Others have posted links to pictures from WTC7 that clearly show that part of its face was ripped away from debris. You simply pretend that evidence does not exist. What is the point of posting if you are simply going to deny evidence that is shoved in your face?

[PolyNewbie]

In fact, it is theoretically possible for spontaneous thermite reactions to occur when large quantities of aluminium are mixed with rusted steel

No it isn't. You need very high temperatures to start the reaction - a burning magnesium strip is often employed, plus his evidence shows that sulfur was used as an accelerant. You also need concentrations in the form of ground up particles. Again another keeper.

You simply pretend that evidence does not exist.

No fires in that part of the building and it remained standing long after that damage and as you say, no wind.

Riverwind There are no accurate measurements that could tell anyone how much energy and matter was ejected into the environment. For that reason it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to any conclusions based on thermodynamic analysis.

Its easy to see that the amount of material ejected exceeded the amount of energy that would be available. If I stack pennies three feet high you can bet there is more than a dollar there without actually counting them.

Riverwind Why don't you explain your magical force that can create a torque without a normal force from a pivot point?

I need to investigate what you mean by pivot point in this discussion. I recall you saying you were an engineer and I keep asking you what discipline you are in so that I have a starting point to look up your silly theories. The way I understand it a baseball can be made to spin but has no pivot point as it spins through the air.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

[Riverwind]

No it isn't. You need very high temperatures to start the reaction - a burning magnesium strip is often employed, plus his evidence shows that sulfur was used as an accelerant. You also need concentrations in the form of ground up particles. Again another keeper.

Who knows what everyday explosive material may have been on the plane in or in building? NIST does not think spontaneous thermite reactions occurred either - that is speculation that some others have put forward. It still does not change the fact that Jones has an unproven theory that is extremely unlikely when you look at the other evidence.

Its easy to see that the amount of material ejected exceeded the amount of energy that would be available. If I stack pennies three feet high you can bet there is more than a dollar there without actually counting them.

Speculation and guesswork is not a proof. The fact that the so-called 'energy deficit' is so large that it would take tonnes of explosives demonstrates that the guesswork is wrong.

The way I understand it a baseball can be made to spin but has no pivot point as it spins through the air.

The pitcher's hand must apply a torque over a period time. The pitcher's hand acts as the pivot point in that example. The ball will spin slowly or not at all if the pitcher releases it too quickly. The WTC towers could not tip because there is nothing capable of applying a large enough torque for long enough. The towers may have started to tip but they hit the ground first.

[kuzadd]

You initially were unaware wind causes lateral load, then somewhat concede it is possible.

Wind is the main lateral load concern of such tall structures, i am sure you can read up on that yourself.

All the souces indicate that wind was not a significant factor that day. I did was agree that wind is a theoretical lateral load, however, you have zero evidence that the wind was large enough to have any effect on what happened that day.

Different constructions, differing lateral loads from wind,which would effect the 3 buildings all differently, the planes hit two of the buildings in very divergent spots, wtc 7, no plane, some minor debris damage, and other variations, I am sure of, yet the response is all the same, global collapse???????

WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same. WTC7 is a building with an unusual design that was much taller than any WTC towers that remained standing. No one should be surprised that it behaved differently than the smaller towers that did not collapse.

Others have posted links to pictures from WTC7 that clearly show that part of its face was ripped away from debris. You simply pretend that evidence does not exist. What is the point of posting if you are simply going to deny evidence that is shoved in your face?

windriver:

WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same.

bolding so you can't miss......

WTC 1 and 2 may have been almost identical buildings, BUT, the wind, lateral load, would have affected each individual building differently, in relation to their position, geographically and in relation to one another, and in realtion to the other buildings.

They were not hit in the same areas by the planes, in fact in very different areas, therfore, one would have to expect that they would NOT act exactly the same, by having the same collapse response.

from information I previously posted, specifically wrt wtc towers:

"Wind loads specified by codes are based on maps of design wind speed for different regions of the country. As wind speed increases, the wind pressure on the building increases proportionally to the square of the wind velocity. The pressure on the building also varies with the height and degree of shielding provided by other buildings and geographic features. Although not usually required by building codes, engineers frequently use wind tunnel studies to more accurately determine wind loads on tall buildings, where standard calculations may not be adequate. WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all had extensive wind tunnel studies performed as part of the design process. WTC 1 and WTC 2 were among the first structures that were designed using wind tunnel studies."

did you read that?

or the article wrt : the reinforcing of wtc 7, or the fact that you contradict yourself and the official story, hasn't sunk in yet???

FYI: I have seen the pics of damage to all the wtc buildings, why don't you provide that info that YOU claim proves wtc 7 was damaged more then 3,4,5, and 6??

[PolyNewbie]

As the buildings collapsed at what is admitted to be near freefall speed large parts of the buildings were ejected both outward and upward at high velocity. This is plainly obvious from the videos of the collapses of wtc1 & wtc2. Since nearly all of the potential energy was involved in the near free fall rate of the collapse an additional energy source had to be present to cause the mass of the building that was ejected to be ejected -as well as at such high velocity.

The pictures of the post collapse area show that most of the mass of the building lay outside its original footprint therefore most of the mass was ejected from the building during the collapse. This shows a clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics - bombs had to be present to eject that mass. One does not need to measure the mass of a mountain to know it weighs more than a mouse.

Its obvious why NIST didn't actually investigate the collapse and stopped investigating at the collapse initiation point.

I don't consider NIST a credible document. The people that created it are not experts in accident forensics, real experts in this field were restricted from viewing the evidence or participating in the investigation. A propogandist directed the investigation that consisted of the participation of engineers that happen to be involved in another highly suspicious "terrorist" attack - Oklahoma which the evidence points to bombs being placed inside the building as a matter of congressional record. The report on this was written by an armed forces bomb expert & colonel who testified the McVeigh truck bomb did not have the energy to sever the support beams - therefore bombs had to hjave been inside the building.

Kean was also involved in the Kennedy investigation. It seems that the same key indiciduals are used to investigate these terrorist attacks while qualified forensic people that normally invetigate these accidents are restricted from taking part. This means cover - up.

It doesn't matter how obvious the official version can be shown to be a lie, there will always be some people that force themselves to believe whatever nonsense the government come up with. They don't have to convince everyone. Even when gov is shown to have both lied and benefitted from the act it still is not enough to raise questions with some folks. George Bush is god, the moon is made of cheese and that really was bin Laden in those 911 confession videos.

[Riverwind]

the wind, lateral load, would have affected each individual building differently, in relation to their position, geographically and in relation to one another, and in realtion to the other buildings.

The wind load is a fiction you created that has no relevance to this discussion. Wind was not a significant factor on that day.

They were not hit in the same areas by the planes, in fact in very different areas, therfore, one would have to expect that they would NOT act exactly the same, by having the same collapse response.

They did not behave exactly the same. The tower that was hit later collapsed first. This occurred because the impact of the second plane was lower down and the mass of the building above the impact point was larger. Once again - you are create a fiction that supports your obessions rather than looking at the evdience.

[Riverwind]

Since nearly all of the potential energy was involved in the near free fall rate of the collapse an additional energy source had to be present to cause the mass of the building that was ejected to be ejected -as well as at such high velocity.

The energy required to eject a 200 tonne beam from a building that weighs 500,000 tonnes is insignificant. There is no way to quantify the amount of matter ejected or its speed. Hoffman's analysis is just a bunch of wild guesses made by someone looking to promote himself as some sort of cult hero.

The pictures of the post collapse area show that most of the mass of the building lay outside its original footprint therefore most of the mass was ejected from the building during the collapse.

Pure fiction. Nobody knows how much of the original mass was 'lying outside of its footprint'.

[ScottSA]

If I were Polly or Kuzzad, I'd be shamed into withdrawal. I think Riverwind ought to be renamed with the title "Hammer of the TrVthies". What a slaughter...

[kuzadd]

the wind, lateral load, would have affected each individual building differently, in relation to their position, geographically and in relation to one another, and in realtion to the other buildings.

The wind load is a fiction you created that has no relevance to this discussion. Wind was not a significant factor on that day.

They were not hit in the same areas by the planes, in fact in very different areas, therfore, one would have to expect that they would NOT act exactly the same, by having the same collapse response.

They did not behave exactly the same. The tower that was hit later collapsed first. This occurred because the impact of the second plane was lower down and the mass of the building above the impact point was larger. Once again - you are create a fiction that supports your obessions rather than looking at the evdience.

re: wind,lateral load: because you cannot accept the fact, which is your problem, wind is always an issue, on a building over 1,000 feet tall, on the ocean front.

Again you contradict yourself!!!

windriver:

post # 192

WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same.

again you say:

WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same.

in this post, you are claiming they did not act exactly the same, in your previous post, you are claiming they did and they should , because it would be strange if they didn't.

windriver quit before you dig your hole deeper.