Max asks:
Anyway, the point is that if the towers were doomed once they got moving, then there is not much need for demolition assistance during collapse progression. So I'm just trying to get a sense if you believe the towers were doomed once they got moving.
The logical flow of the arguments you mentioned go something like this:
Given collapse initiation,
1) It can be shown mathematically that total collapse is a fair possibility.
2) A broad range of input yields total collapse.
3) The towers were an integrated system, and when the system is compromised, complex load paths emerge that can bring about failure.
All good arguments. I have no problem with any of them. But my argument on the subject is just as good, and far superior when we move beyond mere theoretical possibility as ask ourselves what actually happened. It is summerized as follows:
Given collapse initiation, is gravity driven, unassisted collapse continuation consistent with that which was observed?
If you apply arguments 1, 2 and 3 as stated above to the question at hand, my question serves as a reality check to all theoretical arguments and is so essential to the process of trying to find the truth as to what actually happened that even the folks presenting arguments 1, 2 and 3 cannot fairly deny that it is a natural and just follow-up to any theoretical argument.
Without this follow-up their theoretical arguments will remain just that....theory.
It is undebunkable.
Generally stated:
a) Mathematically and logically, X is theortically possible and, some may argue, probable.
b) Is X consistent with that which we observe?
"a" lies only within the realm of thought. "b" is it's application.
Even scientific fields as mathematically complicated as the General Theory of Relativity or Relativistic Quantum Mechanics cannot ignore "b". No science can ignore "b".
"a" without "b", though it seems impressive, produces useless results.
The following curioso may help illustrate what I am talking about.
Curioso number 7: Forceful ejections witnessed from the northwest corner of WTC 1.
Please observe the following ejection patterns recorded along this corner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeaW4ybejs&feature=related
These ejections do exist. They are rather forceful.
From the point of view of gravity driven collapse, the options available to explain them are very limited: Trapped air is compressed within enclosed pockets near the corner of the building and violently forced out the windows with the velocities witnessed.
If perimeter sections and core columns are leading the wave of destruction, we won´t have these compressed, enclosed pockets.
This FORCES people explaining the observed phenomena in terms of gravity driven collapse into claiming that condensed, intact flooring acting as a piston is responsible for these ejections.
If you recall, curioso number 4 uses the following BBC video clip of the same corner and the southwest corner to state that similar ejections recorded along the southwest corner lead these ejections by 10 to 20 floors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-jYSy1SxsI
Heavy objects falling through floors, leading the collapse front is inherently inconsistent with "pancaking" or "piston theory".
The southwest corner destruction front leading the northwest corner front by 10 to 20 stories means that the very floors that are needed to act like a piston in these corners and along the west facade, forcing down on compressed, enclosed pockets of air are shredded. The "piston" is not a solid, intact object. It doesn´t exist.
Corner pistons?
Were the towers doomed once they got moving? Perhaps and perhaps not.
Is gravity driven collapse continuation consistent with that which was observed? With all the features of the collapses which I am pointing out? No.
Notice how many people never follow up on their theories with this second question.
Einstein did. Dirak did. Planck did. Maxwell did. And their work was of a much more theoretical nature. But many folks studying the collapses don´t feel the need.
