so how can anyone with any math ability argue with this?

Question

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Take a look at it .........re 9/11

sorry guys.Math doesnt lie and I watched and timed the vids myself.It all fits

Bad Sama.........I dont hate Bush.Heck I am not even American

Answer 1

Like with most of the crap conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, he sets up a straw man argument to knock it down. Just a couple of sentences in -

"It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds.1 Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?"

WTC 7 did not collapse in a progressive, pancaking, cascading fashion. WTC 7 had internal support structures near the base fail, in insides of the building sagged and gave out, and, eventually, the outer shell of the building fell inward. By time the top of the building started to "fall", all the inner support structures had already failed and were already fallen or falling. In a word, there was no resistance because everything below gave way first, and pulled the rest after it.

Did you read the whole thing? Did you read his final sentence, which says exactly what I just said, only with much more brevity?

"The other possibility is that the building fell in such a way that the falling floors encountered very little resistance until they reached the bottom. This possibility seems more likely, especially when the videos of the building are observed."

Essentially, he's saying "I went through this whole circle jerk for nothing, since the videos show that my entire premise of the 'pancaking collapse' does not apply."

I can disprove, mathematically and through video analysis that aliens from Alpha Centauri took down WTC 7 with a particle beam. The only bad thing about that is no one is claiming that's what happened.

How can anyone argue with that? Indeed, how can anyone argue with his ultimate conclusion?

"The other possibility is that the building fell in such a way that the falling floors encountered very little resistance until they reached the bottom. This possibility seems more likely, especially when the videos of the building are observed."

Answer 2

Due to all the smoke and debris the building did not collapse all the way to the ground like a pancake. The building has also sustained major damage, so unless your calculations include provisions for the mass 20 story hole on the one side, you cannot get an accurate count anyway. You have to also take into affect the atmosphere, wind currents, and other debris that was in the area. Based on perfect conditions you would be correct, but your formulas do not cover the exceptions to those rules. Sorry.....

Answer 3

I'm not giving any opinion about this 9/11 thing, but I think you'll find that you can argue with math. The math is completely correct, hoever when you do these things you are looking at isolated incidences and making a lot of assumptions. There could be some other variable that the problem leaves out that isn't factored in.

Answer 4

Two problems with this site:

1. The footnote to S Jones (the source of the alleged 6.5 second collapse) is enough to make any reasonable person not read any further.

2. Fuzzy math - read the results carefully - free fall is calculated to 6 seconds, then a scenario of no opposition to the building's fall is given as 8.3 seconds - with all of these esoteric and pedantic calculations, how do you explain an 38% error difference in two objects free falling the same distance?

Answer 5

Because, those who use this to prove their conspiracy theory only show part of the footage. It actually took about 15 seconds to fall. There you go, an argument that makes sense.

You are right in one case, the math does not lie. The only problem is they are not using the correct numbers.

Answer 6

9/11 conspiracies are nothing but outlets for the rabid bush haters to express their animosity.

One day I hope you look in the mirror and realize what a treasonous pig you are, maybe feel some shame for soiling the memory of all those innocent people.

Answer 7

Sorry. I was educated in American schools, so I don't have the math skilz.

Answer 8

I think it's absolutely brilliant. Totally incomprehensible mathematical gobbledegook proves that what I saw with my own eyes couldn't possibly have happened.