An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . ., page 30
Pages: <<  27    28    29    30  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times


reply posted on 21-3-2011 @ 05:20 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is that the "implosion" term as applied in destroying buildings is not accurate in terms of what implosion means in physics. So if we are trying to get people to understand why it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to destroy the towers then it is contradictory to not get the physics terminology correct.

What happened to WTC 1 and 2 were not "implosions" even by the word's inaccurate usage by the demolition industry.


We were using demolition terms, not physics terms in this context mate.

The term is used to describe a building falling in on itself, as opposed to falling outwards as it would naturally do. It defines the difference between that type of demolition, as apposed to demolishing to one side.

An imploded building doesn't explode either, so the former term IS a more accurate term to describe what happens and it IS used in the industry the way I am using it.

You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Implosion demolition is ONE specific way to demolish a building.

edit on 3/21/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 07:33 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When does a normal building "implosion" hurl tons of steel 600 feet away from the structure? Was what happened to WTC 1 and 2 an "implosion" even if it was a demolition?


Obviously I was referring to WTC 7, which was an implosion demolition.

The two towers were not implosion demolitions, too tall and thin for that. They could not be demolished in any conventional way without causing damage to surrounding buildings. They would have had to be dismantled piece by piece.

WTC 7 was also tall for an implosion demolition, but its footprint was large enough for it to work.

Implosion demolitions are not normal demolitions, they are a specialized form of demolition that...

...requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

They are the most difficult to perform and are unique to each building. This is why WTC7 is questioned, because you can not perform an implosion demolition from fire and asymmetrical damage, it's simply impossible.
It only takes ONE lie to put the whole OS in question, and WTC 7 is one HUGE lie.

The only argument against implosion demolition is to deny the evidence that the building landed mostly in its own footprint, as evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building.



If the collapse was natural, and even if it landed mostly in its own footprint, as in a classic 'progressive/pancake collapse, the outer walls would still not be on top of the collapsed building. As I said there is only ONE way that is possible. Ironically the way the OSers claim the towers collapsed does require there to be floors in the buildings footprint, which there wasn't.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.


science.howstuffworks.com...


Edit; looking back in this thread, this is not the first time I explained this, I hope you understand this time?

edit on 4/4/2011 by ANOK because: TheOSisAlie

Pages: <<  27    28    29    30  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 12 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 15 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 16 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags