where did I claim that "calculating g of the twin towers" was impressive? and what does that statement even mean? "g" of the twin towers. they seem to have fell at virtual free fall, 9.82 m/s^2 or whatever they tell us, but I never felt the need to do a lab study on it. it's apparent. and Bldg 7 couldn't be more obvious. no calculating needed and in case you missed the NIST report by "engineers" they managed to come up with some other calcs, which is only further proof that enginnering isn't even a perfect science because the engineer can add in resistances, etc that may not actually be there
The fact that you even ask “what does that statement even mean” tells me that you don’t know. Guess you missed all of the other reports by engineers and physicists that completely disagree with them.
where did I claim that "calculating g of the twin towers" was impressive? and what does that statement even mean? "g" of the twin towers. they seem to have fell at virtual free fall, 9.82 m/s^2 or whatever they tell us, but I never felt the need to do a lab study on it. it's apparent. and Bldg 7 couldn't be more obvious. no calculating needed and in case you missed the NIST report by "engineers" they managed to come up with some other calcs, which is only further proof that enginnering isn't even a perfect science because the engineer can add in resistances, etc that may not actually be there
The fact that you even ask “what does that statement even mean” tells me that you don’t know. Guess you missed all of the other reports by engineers and physicists that completely disagree with them.