Pericles ranted, "... Against which, of course, there is the fact that you didn't write anything in favour of it either."

In fact I believe it is likely that I have on the odd occasion stated my acceptance of both the official account of the official explanation of 9/11 and the necessity of the invasion of Afghanistan.

If I didn't write a lot in support of those views, it would simply be because I did not seriously consider, prior to late 2007, that they were controversial.

Obviously, the second paragraph should have been:

"In fact, I believe it is likely that I have, on the odd occasion, stated my acceptance of both the official explanation of 9/11 and the necessity for the invasion of Afghanistan."

Pericles is not addressing the issues.He is using obfuscation to side step the physics.The average acceleration of WTC Building 7 was 8.8 m/sec.This is determined by the formula ;acceleration = 2x distance divided by time squared.T = 6.5 sec, dist = 186 m .Now an average acceleration of 8.8m/sec is extremely fast.90% of absolute freefall.

WTC 7 fastest speed can be calculated by; velocity = sq root( 2 X acceleration X distance).Which is 57.2 m/sec. WTC 7 reached a maximum speed of 205 kph.These are my calculations to give it a new perspective.

A man jumping out of a plane with parachute closed, reaches a terminal verocity of 200 kph due to the resistance of air.How did WTC 7 exceed this speed when the lower structures were offering serious resistance to freefall velocity?

Go to it Pericles.Perhaps it was divine intervention,or likely, nano-thermite.

Thanks for all those calculations, Arjay.

>>These are my calculations to give it a new perspective<<

I'm sure they do, Arjay. To some people.

But I'd question your basic assumption that it is not possible for the felling floors to achieve this velocity. If the structure itself had been weakened - by fire, shall we say - then it is entirely possible that these speeds could be reached.

Let me allow a retired Fire Department Chief, Arthur Scheuerman, take up the story.

"The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than ‘free fall’ times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above."

I present this as evidence in the same manner that daggett claims that "if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened" when discussing Die Hard scenarios.

Have you taken this test, by the way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6161425.stm

It's very informative.

Fire Pericles is an organic process,it weakens a building non-uniformily.Fire moves to where the fuel is and NIST admits that the kilolitres of diesel fuel did not combust.There were a few scattered fires in WTC 7 and some minor damage due to debris hurled 200 m from the towers.Concrete steel reinforced steel buildings have never prior 911 or since collapsed due to fire.Buildings in the past have burnt for 16-24 hrs with much hotter fires with no collapses.

I stand by my maths since they are derivatives of yr 10 physics formulas pertaining to distance and velocity.From both these formulae we can determine both the average acceleration and the velocity of WTC 7.They are V squared = U squared + 2AS whereby A is acceleration ,S is distance and V is velocity.Also S = UT +1/2 AT squared.

To make it simple,ignore UT and U since they represent initial velocity which in this instance is zero.Go back to your high school algerbra,you can make any one of these imputs the subject and discover important things like acceleration and velocities pertaining to WTC 7,just as I have demonstarted.

On occasions, Pericles has shown himself to be capable of being courteous and complementing what I write as he did in a response (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10078&page=2) to a post of mine (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10078&page=1) in the forum discussion in response to "How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?" another article by Kellie Tranter.

So as I wrote there, why can't he contribute to this forum (and the forum "JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330#81981) in the same spirit?

Why continue to bloat forums with lengthy lectures to me about my (alleged) inadequacy, paranoia an delusional state of mind, instead of focusing on the issues at stake?

Of course no-one is asking Pericles to automatically agree with us, but it would help this debate move forward if the baggage of personal attacks could be left behind.

---

Pericles, are you sure that retired Fire Department Chief, Arthur Scheuerman isn't talking about the twin towers and not WTC 7 when you write:

"The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than ?free fall? times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above."

?

Where's the source? Where does it fit into the explanation of the collapses?

Whatever, it could only possibly hope to make sense if the the Twin Towers had been held together with sticky tape.

Pericles continued, "I present this as evidence in the same manner that daggett claims that 'if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened' when discussing Die Hard scenarios."

Pericles seems to be admitting his argument is nonsensical but then attempts to divert attention from that admission by claiming my arguments are similarly nonsensical.

No-one said "if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened".

What I have attempted to imply is that we have to reject hypotheses that are impossible and, of the hypotheses which are possible, choose the most likely.

(tobecontinued)