( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

None of the responses to Prof. Greenings paper I've seen here or elsewhere include any quantification or equations, nor do they find any specific flaws in Greenings derivations. They are verbal hand waving of the sort that would be graded D- on any freshman physics test.

If there is something better out there, and I *have* read what has been offered so far, please post it here.

So?

SO...the conspiracy side uses bad science, and this is just one example.

Science aside...how in the world were enough charges installed to pull off the largest controlled explosion in the history of the world with nobody noticing?

Even for smaller buildings this kind of thing takes weeks of full-time preparation, and breaking away walls and facades to carefully place charges right on supporting beams.

And the timing fuses used have to run all over any given floor, plus up and down from floor to floor to floor. This is usually not so difficult because they can just chop big holes in walls and floors and not worry about how it looks.

But setting 1000's of charges, running all the fuses, and then *replacing* all the walls and cosmetics so nobody notices...and somehow hiding this work while it is in progress in a building that is active 24/7?

And who were all these workers? Not a single one has had a guilt driven need to confess, or has decided to sell their story to cash in?

The logistics of the set-up alone doesn't pass the sniff test.

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

If the use of estimations invalidates any study on the fall rate and powdering of the towers, then no study is possible. Engineering uses estimates and approximations as a matter of course.

The way to object to such a study is not to simply say "oops, there's an estimate, game over", but rather to scrutinize the estimates, show where they are faulty *in a quantified way* and with explanation (not just pointing a finger and saying "wrong!" with no support) and then offering a *better* estimate, and plugging that estimate into the math and coming up with a new result. Nothing referenced above does this, and it belies a basic misunderstanding of how engineering is done.

The last objection, the only one that isn't simply pointing a finger and saying "hey, he used an estimate!", makes so little sense to me that I can't tell what the point is nor what the response should be.

I've yet to see equations from Steven Jones that offers a model as detailed or exacting as Greening.

To briefly review, both sides offer models based purely on conservation of momentum, and both agree that if that were the only issue the fall rate would be nearly free fall.

The conspiracy side then waves hands and says, without further analysis (still not shown here because it just ain't anywhere) that since energy is used to break each floor free that will slow the collapse significantly.

Greening, in a detailed way, shows his math and demonstrates that, in fact, allowing for energy used to break each floor and to powder the materials, the fall rate would *still* be nearly free fall.

I reject the conspiracy analysis because they've not done the work. They've not matched Greenings effort and created a second more complete model. They just assume the floors will be slowed. They don't show their work. Greening does, and his work shows the slowing is so small that the standard model (no demolition) results in nearly free fall rates.

Bob, can you honestly say you understand Greenings paper in detail?