Comment: No matter what the gov't chosen experts (and others) will say

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

No matter what the gov't chosen experts (and others) will say

No matter what the gov't chosen experts (and others) will say against the thesis, 9/11's twins collapse has an overwhelmingly stinky smell of controlled demolition to me.

While I've seen legions of times the controlled demolition argument made, and laughed at, I've never found anything or anyone definitely disproving it. I'm still looking for who will convince me that it wasn't one. PHYSICALLY speaking (even disregarding the opportunity, the cost, etc).

I've studied a bit of solid mechanics and the maths around it, as part of generic mechanical engineering (before turning myself to maths + comp. sci.) and I know these structures are calculated with safety factors varying anywhere between 2 and 10, no matter what. 2 to 10 times as much as the maximum usage load must be supported. 2 to 10 times as much stress in torsion, flexion, you name it. Same for temperatures and stress duration before loss of strength or other phys. properties.

They compute everything as if the usage was 2 to 10 times as much as expected.

These "planes" should have left nothing but holes up there, IMO. And mutilated buildings standing still.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius