simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

Deets credentials and career are impeccable and you completely misrepresent his speech

Deets believes that possible explanations for the collapse of WTC onclude "rays from outer space" and "mini nukes"

Live with it.

Presentation to San Diegans for 9/11 Truth. In San Diego, August 14, 2011. Suggests a method for including all serious hypothesis by independent 9/11 investigators. This includes a range from somewhat conventional controlled demolition, to directed energy and nuclear devices.

you put rays from outer space in quotes...yet he never once used the words rays from outer space so why are you lying and trying to make false qoutes

 

[eots]

The fact you have to resort to large bold red all caps and strawmen is a clear sign you have lost the debate

The fact that you wish to disclaim the theories espoused by the very people you employ to buttress your position is a clear sign you have lost the debate.

I have not claimed or disclaimed anything other than you misqoute and misrepresent and like to use strawmen

 

[Derideo_Te]

That beam is evidence of what happens when heat is applied under stress. For starters you can see blackening around the base which is evidence that it was in the vicinity of the fires. Secondly the shape shows evidence of softening, buckling and twisting by the heat and the stress. Finally there is no obvious evidence of damage from explosives.

The temperatures for "failure" did not need to be reached by the curtain wall structure. In fact none of the steel needed to reach "melting point" or anywhere close to it. It only needed to reach a temperature at which the structural integrity was compromised sufficiently for one of the floors to collapse. The steel that actually did reach that temperature would have been at the center of the collapse and subjected to full force of subsequent 1000' plunge with tens of thousands more tons landing on top of it. Finding it would have been a needle in a haystack.

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

One last time! All it took was for a one small section that was already overburdened by the impact damage to reach the temperature necessary to sag enough that it pulled loose the final floor support. That is all it took in a fire that lasted for about an hour before the collapse. Steel conducts heat very well. There were blazes going on in multiple locations. The heat would have been more or less uniform across the entire floor truss but the weight distribution was not. Somewhere on those floors was the wreckage of a 140 ton aircraft. None of the floors were designed to carry that wreckage while being exposed to relentless heating.

The kicker here is that both buildings collapsed in a similar manner after being exposed to virtually identical conditions. The construction was identical. The planes were both 767 models. There were massive fires and clearly visible damage to the outer curtain walls. We have evidence of the pentagon impact of the likely damage to the building cores.

On the other hand we have claims of "demolition" by "nanothermite explosives". These would have to have been placed on the exact floors that were hit by planes doing 400+ mph without immediately exploding on impact or during the subsequent hour long fires.

The conspiracy simply doesn't hold up given the ample evidence of the damage caused by the impacts.

 

[eots]

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

One last time! All it took was for a one small section that was already overburdened by the impact damage to reach the temperature necessary to sag enough that it pulled loose the final floor support. That is all it took in a fire that lasted for about an hour before the collapse. Steel conducts heat very well. There were blazes going on in multiple locations. The heat would have been more or less uniform across the entire floor truss but the weight distribution was not. Somewhere on those floors was the wreckage of a 140 ton aircraft. None of the floors were designed to carry that wreckage while being exposed to relentless heating.

The kicker here is that both buildings collapsed in a similar manner after being exposed to virtually identical conditions. The construction was identical. The planes were both 767 models. There were massive fires and clearly visible damage to the outer curtain walls. We have evidence of the pentagon impact of the likely damage to the building cores.

On the other hand we have claims of "demolition" by "nanothermite explosives". These would have to have been placed on the exact floors that were hit by planes doing 400+ mph without immediately exploding on impact or during the subsequent hour long fires.

The conspiracy simply doesn't hold up given the ample evidence of the damage caused by the impacts.

many types of explosives do not detonate from fire you can light C-4 on fire with no fear of detonation

 

[Derideo_Te]

One last time! All it took was for a one small section that was already overburdened by the impact damage to reach the temperature necessary to sag enough that it pulled loose the final floor support. That is all it took in a fire that lasted for about an hour before the collapse. Steel conducts heat very well. There were blazes going on in multiple locations. The heat would have been more or less uniform across the entire floor truss but the weight distribution was not. Somewhere on those floors was the wreckage of a 140 ton aircraft. None of the floors were designed to carry that wreckage while being exposed to relentless heating.

The kicker here is that both buildings collapsed in a similar manner after being exposed to virtually identical conditions. The construction was identical. The planes were both 767 models. There were massive fires and clearly visible damage to the outer curtain walls. We have evidence of the pentagon impact of the likely damage to the building cores.

On the other hand we have claims of "demolition" by "nanothermite explosives". These would have to have been placed on the exact floors that were hit by planes doing 400+ mph without immediately exploding on impact or during the subsequent hour long fires.

The conspiracy simply doesn't hold up given the ample evidence of the damage caused by the impacts.

many types of explosives do not detonate from fire you can light C-4 on fire with no fear of detonation

So you have given up on the "thermite" theory? C-4 requires detonators and a power source to set them off. The onus is on you to prove that they were placed on exactly those floors and that they were able to withstand the impact of a 140 ton plan doing 400+ mph and the subsequent fires.

 

[eots]

many types of explosives do not detonate from fire you can light C-4 on fire with no fear of detonation

So you have given up on the "thermite" theory? C-4 requires detonators and a power source to set them off. The onus is on you to prove that they were placed on exactly those floors and that they were able to withstand the impact of a 140 ton plan doing 400+ mph and the subsequent fires.

I have not given up on any theories I never claimed to know what technologies where used to demo these buildings nothing close to the size of any of these buildings have ever been demoed before so it would be no surprise to me if non-conventional methods were used . the onus is on you to prove the wacky NIST theory that damage and fire alone could cause a collapse like the towers or that fire alone could bring down a building like wtc 7 and you have failed

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you have given up on the "thermite" theory? C-4 requires detonators and a power source to set them off. The onus is on you to prove that they were placed on exactly those floors and that they were able to withstand the impact of a 140 ton plan doing 400+ mph and the subsequent fires.

I have not given up on any theories I never claimed to know what technologies where used to demo these buildings nothing close to the size of any of these buildings have ever been demoed before so it would be no surprise to me if non-conventional methods were used . the onus is on you to prove the wacky NIST theory that damage and fire alone could cause a collapse like the towers or that fire alone could bring down a building like wtc 7 and you have failed

I have provided a perfectly plausible scenario for the collapse of the towers without requiring anything above and beyond what was already there to begin with. My knowledge of engineering, applied mathematics and strengths of materials means that I already understand all of the dynamics at play. As far as building 7 is concerned that had a different structure since it was essentially a "bridge" built over a substation which was burning for considerably longer than either of the 2 towers.

So far all of the conspiracy theories fall into the wacky" category in my opinion because they require far too many assumptions that have absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.

But what is patently obvious is that those who are locked into the conspiracy mindset are not interested in dealing with the facts as they stand and looking at plausible scenarios. Which is why I stated that this was the last time I would be posting on this topic. Have a nice day.

 

[eots]

I have not given up on any theories I never claimed to know what technologies where used to demo these buildings nothing close to the size of any of these buildings have ever been demoed before so it would be no surprise to me if non-conventional methods were used . the onus is on you to prove the wacky NIST theory that damage and fire alone could cause a collapse like the towers or that fire alone could bring down a building like wtc 7 and you have failed

I

have provided a perfectly plausible scenario for the collapse of the towers without requiring anything above and beyond what was already there to begin with. My knowledge of engineering, applied mathematics and strengths of materials means that I already understand all of the dynamics at play. As far

but all these engineers of vastly greater knowledge and experence than you find the theory implausible

as building 7 is concerned that had a different structure since it was essentially a "bridge" built over a substation which was burning for considerably longer than either of the 2 towers.

it had relatively small scattered office fires and your substation theory is in contradiction with the NIST column 79 theory

So far all of the conspiracy theories fall into the wacky" category in my opinion because they require far too many assumptions that have absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.

But what is patently obvious is that those who are locked into the conspiracy mindset are not interested in dealing with the facts as they stand and looking at plausible scenarios. Which is why I stated that this was the last time I would be posting on this topic. Have a nice day

the fact is buildings of this type do not collapse from office fires and the NIST theory failed to find any definitive explanation for the cause

"Its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[KissMy]

What was the distance the building fell? Remember the rubble pile was 50 feet high & the collapse started at the 78th floor impact area.

The time it took to collapse did not end when the building disappeared behind other 500 foot tall buildings.

Debris fell to the ground much much faster than the building did.

The fact that you retards can't comprehend physical facts makes any discussion with you a complete waste of time.

Ya.. thats right us retards that can not understand "physical facts"...lol


Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.

Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

They should burn that guy's degrees as he doesn't deserve them.

Pyroclastic clouds?



You mean volcanoes were involved?! Holy crap!

Massive structural members being hurled HORIZONTALLY?! I have asked for evidence of this HORIZONTAL trajectory and nobody has been able to provide it. I wonder why...

This is what you thought you saw.

This is what really happened according to truthers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I

but all these engineers of vastly greater knowledge and experence than you find the theory implausible



it had relatively small scattered office fires and your substation theory is in contradiction with the NIST column 79 theory




the fact is buildings of this type do not collapse from office fires and the NIST theory failed to find any definitive explanation for the cause

"Its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

The photographic images do not show "relatively small scattered office fires". If you deny the evidence of your own eyes then obviously you will deny the facts too and believe whatever whackjob wants to sell books and make lots of money pandering to the gullible.

 

[Stashman]

Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.

1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?

2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.

3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?

4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?

5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?

If you want to taken seriously as a debunker first you must answer these basic questions with proof or some kind of evidence to back up your claims.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.

1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?

2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.

3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?

4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?

5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?

If you want to taken seriously as a debunker first you must answer these basic questions with proof or some kind of evidence to back up your claims.

1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS New York....

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane...they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...
Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.

1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?

2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.

3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?

4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?

5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?

If you want to taken seriously as a debunker first you must answer these basic questions with proof or some kind of evidence to back up your claims.

1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS New York....

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane...they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...
Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?

1. The aluminum from the plane would have become molten since it melts at relatively low temperatures. It was probably shipped directly to a recycling center if the did find any.

2. You are correct that the planes created the fatal damage. The buildings would have had to be condemned if they had remained upright because of the structural damage to the core could not have been repaired. Building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers and then the fire weakened the bridge structure over the burning substation.

5. The phone calls from the planes went to voice mail.

 

[eots]

ya.. Thats right us retards that can not understand "physical facts"...lol


dwain deets, ms physics, ms eng – former director, aerospace projects, nasa dryden flight research center. before this appointment, he served as director, research engineering division at dryden. recipient of the nasa exceptional service award and the presidential meritorious rank award in the senior executive service (1988). Selected presenter of the wright brothers lectureship in aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the american institute of aeronautics and astronautics (aiaa) (1986). Included in "who's who in science and engineering" 1993 - 2000. former chairman of the aerospace control and guidance systems committee of the society of automotive engineers. Former member, aiaa committee on society and aerospace technology. 37 year nasa career.

Statement in support of architects and engineers petition:
"the many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the world trade center]." world trade center building 7 demolished on 9/11? | ae911truth

they should burn that guy's degrees as he doesn't deserve them.

Pyroclastic clouds?



You mean volcanoes were involved?! Holy crap!

Massive structural members being hurled horizontally?! I have asked for evidence of this horizontal trajectory and nobody has been able to provide it. I wonder why...

this is what you thought you saw.

this is what really happened according to truthers.

your inane pictures only hi-lite the weakness of your argument

 

[eots]

SFC Ollie

1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__4P00BsPBI]9/11 : Ground Zero Molten metal...evidence and testimony. - YouTube[/ame]

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

There you go contradicting NIST again..wtc7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it it had damage to the facade from falling debris and according to NIST collapsed due to the failure of a single column due to fire

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS New York....

scrap should not of gone overseas until the NIST began its investigation and report and stop with your crazy story about much of it going to the liberty already...they used 1 column

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane..

.

no one swore any such thing..they attempted to get all surveillance videos released but the only one they would release was completely non-conclusive

they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...

total bullshit...you just made that up...


Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?

helicopters don't fly at high altitude ollie

 

[eots]

Why is it that so called experts who refute the inside job scenario ignore over 1500 engineers and architects that say it is impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way the NIST report says it did? As pointed out in earlier post these guys are the very tops in their field.

1. How can you explain the molten metal witnessed by many over a month later at ground zero?

2 Why did 3 skyscrapers fall due to fire on 9/11, when not 1 skyscraper had done so in the history of mankind? Hasn't happened since either.

3. Why was the bulk of evidence from the towers shipped as scrap to China and India almost immediately following the tragedy?

4. Why has the FBI not released video from numerous locations near the Pentagon that would show a plane hitting the building?

5. How can passengers on planes used on 9/11 make a call to love ones while 30,000 feet in the air when that technology did not exist in 2001?

If you want to taken seriously as a debunker first you must answer these basic questions with proof or some kind of evidence to back up your claims.

1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS New York....

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane...they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...
Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?

1. The aluminum from the plane would have become molten since it melts at relatively low temperatures. It was probably shipped directly to a recycling center if the did find any.

2. You are correct that the planes created the fatal damage. The buildings would have had to be condemned if they had remained upright because of the structural damage to the core could not have been repaired. Building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers and then the fire weakened the bridge structure over the burning substation.

5. The phone calls from the planes went to voice mail.

stop with your substation bullshit..you are in contradiction with the NIST report

 

[eots]

The photographic images do not show "relatively small scattered office fires". If you deny the evidence of your own eyes then obviously you will deny the facts too and believe whatever whackjob wants to sell books and make lots of money pandering to the gullible.

the photos show exactly that

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVHuAexB83w]WTC 7 fire before collapse (FOIA NIST).mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Stashman]

In regards to molten metal, I am adding a link to a PDF document from Dr. Stephen Jones which contain both photographic and video evidence. Unlike debunkers, I will always provide evidence to back up my claims. Read'em and weep!

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. What was the molten metal? Where is it now, who removed it and where did they take it to. No previously molten metal showed up at fresh kills that could have been described as such.......

2. Because they were slammed into by a fully loaded plane at full speed...and one had a 110 floor building fall on it...

3. Scrap had to go somewhere, Much of it became the USS New York....

4. FBI has released other videos, which truthers swore would show the plane...they were all at the wrong angles for it. Others they are not free to release as they don't own them...
Others, who knows, why are the Kennedy files still classified? Same reason....

5. You sure about that? I could do it from a helicopter in 1991.... Why not a plane in 2001?

1. The aluminum from the plane would have become molten since it melts at relatively low temperatures. It was probably shipped directly to a recycling center if the did find any.

2. You are correct that the planes created the fatal damage. The buildings would have had to be condemned if they had remained upright because of the structural damage to the core could not have been repaired. Building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers and then the fire weakened the bridge structure over the burning substation.

5. The phone calls from the planes went to voice mail.

stop with your substation bullshit..you are in contradiction with the NIST report

The FACTS about WTC 7 are not in dispute.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 510 pm.[2] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 533 pm.

Image showing "bridge style" construction over the substation.

NIST Explanation for the collapse.

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[9] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008, draft report which included a period for public comments.[36] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[9]

The fire that burned out of control caused the floors to expand and and push a key girder out of alignment. The loss of support resulted in a buckling and that was the trigger that brought down the entire building.

That scenario is entirely consistent with the plausible one that I have provided for the towers themselves.

Perhaps you might try enrolling in a basic applied mathematics course at your local community college.