Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

explosions do not vaporize the evidence. there should be several hundred of blasting caps and a mile of wire

ugh, why do I even bother

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

even if that was aluminum, it is still indicative of temperatures hotter than the fires in the towers.

Pure aluminium melts at 660 C (1220 F) - alloys used in aircraft 2024 and 7075 melt at (500 C - 932 F) and
635 c (1175 F)

Explain how this is hotter than a normal fire

Even a normal vehicle fire in the engine compartment the aluminium radiator is melted

reply to post by thedman

He is referring to the temperatures it takes aluminum to get yellow hot not its melting point. In the videos showing molten steel the material was not grey or silver in color like molted lead or aluminum but yellow hot like molten iron or extremely hot molten aluminum or lead.

Physics are not in this conversation. The OP talks about whether or not CD was needed to bring down all the WTC towers that collapsed. I have tried to use simple analogy and you toss it aside. Now, here is a simple one and we can base it on the WTC.

take your hand, web your fingers and hold something that weighs 10 lbs. You can hold it. No Problem. Now, let me smash you pinky finger with a hammer. Now hold that same 10 lbs. You will give way. Not to KE....not to pain...but to gravity. Eventually the pull is too great and you have nothing left to do but retract. At that time, the weight you are holding falls. You never had to have a full collapse...just enough to topple. That is what happened.

Now, why wire a building when you could simply fault security and let a truck pass with an explosion 10x what happened in 93? Would that not be easier....and more efficient...and less people involved...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

even if that was aluminum, it is still indicative of temperatures hotter than the fires in the towers.

Pure aluminium melts at 660 C (1220 F) - alloys used in aircraft 2024 and 7075 melt at (500 C - 932 F) and
635 c (1175 F)

Explain how this is hotter than a normal fire

Even a normal vehicle fire in the engine compartment the aluminium radiator is melted

you're missing the point. the color of aluminum at its melting temperature is silver. the color a metal gives off with heat is dependent on its temperature. aluminum melts before it turns red or orange. my argument was: even if the metal dripping out was aluminum, the color it is giving off shows that it is around the temperature to melt steel. temperatures well above the burning temperature of jet fuel. so where did that come from? thermate is the most logical explanation. this also means it could just as well be steel dripping out as aluminum. from the color.

reply to post by esdad71

Why is it that when someone explains the impossibility for the towers to collapse in on themselves without demolitions there is someone who wants to smash fingers and hands with a hammer? I don't understand how this is relevant.

Try this scenario. Stack 10 concrete cinder blocks on top of one another. Take the top two and drop them from a designated height onto the ones below. When this fails to give your desired results go ahead and increase the height. When you get to a height that allows the two blocks to destroy the other eight that are stacked on the ground let me know.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
you are deluded. ever heard of physics. Look it up.

No offense but if you continue to think the weren't demolished. It just proves they could rely on how gullible people like you are.

Ever heard of gravity? Look it up.....I Swear some people believe every outrages theory they believe on the internet like a drone.

Drones like the ones over Pakistan & Yemen?
Seriously, the 2nd reply referencing bldg. 7 doesn't even register with you?
You've been a member about 6 days?
So, i have to wonder, are you at Langley?
Or any of the other "homeland security" complexes built since 2001 here on Sunstien's quest to "marginalize"/"discreet" the people who've been asking truly legitimate questions for years?
I appreciate the post, however, was up doing homework @ 6am MTN time with the news on that day.
I actually bought the "uffishil" - (borrowed from G. Ure) line, hook & sinker at the time. All classes @ NMSU were cancelled that day, so I spent around eight hours in front of the idiot box that day, cried my eyes dry (yes, I'm a man, but i have empathy/compassion), but then decided to put it down, and go do something I enjoy, and not look at anything till 9/12. Even in Nov. 2001 I took the asvab (again after 10 yrs) & scored a 99%tile(again) - I'm very glad I'm flatfooted, BTW) . Since the original emotional/programmed reaction, I've got to be a "questioner" - as are most intelligent people here on ATS, as well as those I deal with professionally/personally/etc. on a regular basis.
So, again, I really think this OP reeks of "Disinfo".
Prove me wrong if you care to or can, but I watched it all live, including the reports that BLDG 7 collapsed with it clearly in the background at the time, real time.
Again, is Langly paying you, or a private contractor to uphold the OS?

Are you @ Langley? Or any of the other "homeland security" complexes built since 2001 here on Sunstien's/Bush's/Cheney's quest to "marginalize"/"discredit" the people who've been asking truly legitimate questions for years?
I appreciate the post, however, was up doing homework @ 6am MTN time with the news on that day.
I actually bought the "uffishil" - (borrowed from G. Ure) line, hook & sinker at the time. All classes @ NMSU were cancelled that day, so I spent around eight hours in front of the idiot box that day, cried my eyes dry (yes, I'm a man, but i have empathy/compassion), but then decided to put it down, and go do something I enjoy, and not look at anything till 9/12. Even in Nov. 2001 I took the asvab (again after 10 yrs) & scored a 99%tile(again) - I'm very glad I'm flatfooted, BTW) . Since the original emotional/programmed reaction, I've got to be a "questioner" - as are most intelligent people here on ATS, as well as those I deal with professionally/personally/etc. on a regular basis.
So, again, I really think this OP reeks of "Disinfo".
Prove me wrong if you care to or can, but I watched it all live, including the reports that BLDG 7 collapsed with it clearly in the background at the time, real time.
Again, is Langly paying you, or a private contractor to uphold the OS?

reply to post by Devino


Good analogy.
2nd line.
Also, thermite seems entirely plausible, considering the heat residue so long after the "incident".
4th line.
(Tyring to comply w/ the T&C mods)

Originally posted by GenRadek
Planes had...... nothing.... to do with the collapses????

ANOK, are you serious, or just pulling our legs?

No they didn't. The planes did no damage to the building bellow the impacts points. The planes did not take away the resistance of undamaged structure. How could they?

Why should the floors below the impact floors have been compromised?

They would have to be to have been in order to give no resistance to the collapse, because as explained a billion times 15 floors can not cause 85 floors to pancake to the ground with no mass left in the footprint to have done all the crushing. The laws of motion, equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation would not allow a complete collapse.

What does that matter? The truss failures started at the impact area, and then as the top section began its descent, it caused each and every floor below it to fail.

And this is where you fail to take into account the laws of motion. Floors are not simply going to fail, they were designed to hold weight way beyond what fell on them.

ANOK, do you even know or understand the design of the WTC, and how its design may be the cause of why it collapsed the way it did? And why must you be so adamant that the planes were suppose to compromise ALL the steel in the building in order for it to fail?

So why don't you explain how the building design may have been the cause of why it collapsed that way? Please explain why the laws of motion were seemingly ignored, IF there was not something removing the resistance ahead of the collapse?

I am not adamant the planes were supposed to compromise anything. IF you want the planes to be the fault of the collapse then they MUST have been the reason the collapses didn't arrest due to resistance etc., otherwise what did? What did the planes do that caused the collapse to be complete, and symmetrical, and to have ignored the laws of motion?

The reason why it collapsed the way it did is because of how the floors (and here I am talking about the truss supported floor section) were connected to the exterior columns. The force of the top section collapsing down was more than enough to dislodge and snap off the floor truss/exterior column connections.

How can it be when the floors trusses were designed to hold the floors static weight, plus all the extra weight of furniture etc., plus the safety factor of at least x2?

Even IF the first impacted floors failed, THAT alone would start the slow down, as each floors is impacted the collapsed would slow due to Ke being converted to heat, sound, deformation etc.

You would need more than 100% of the falling mass, yet most of the mass was ejected out of the footprints making it unavailable to crush other floors.

Not to mention the core that got progressively smaller and lighter towards the top, which means the core collapsed down through an increasing path of most resistance.

In fact there is plenty of evidence of the entire floor truss seat being clean shaved off the exterior column on many samples.

So what? That doesn't prove they were clean shaved off by the method you claim. Perhaps that was where the extra energy was concentrated in order to cause the collapse.

Also, the force of the collapse pushed the exterior columns away like an arrow being split by another arrow. It snapped the connections and allowed for a more rapid collapse of the floors. And yes, once collapse started, the floors pancaked onto each other. Where the hell else were they going to go? Up?

There was no pancake collapse, why do you insist on claiming that? Have you ever read the NIST report?

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse

wtc.nist.gov...

Are you saying the plane impact did not do that much damage to the steel inside? are you saying over all the structure or the impacted area? Cause the damage areas looked pretty bad prior to collapse.

I doubt the plane had the energy to do any damage to the core after going through one set of steel columns.
Even IF it did that is still not going to take away the resistance the undamaged structure should have given to the collapse. The core could have been completely severed by the plane, but it would have tilted and fell like WTC 2 started to do until the bottom section fell away from it, it could not cause the resistance to have been removed bellow the impact point. If it did the towers would not have waited so long to collapse.

However, the building did incur some serious twisting and torquing after impact, and I'm pretty sure, that is not good for the structure itself either.

Again so what? The towers survived the impacts, there was nothing damaged bellow where the planes impacted.
The undamaged lower structure would have resisted the collapse.

reply to post by ANOK

The NIST report also says this:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

The NIST report also says this:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

What is your point?

You think that is a valid scientific explanation? Why did they not take into account the loss of Ke to heat, sound, deformation? How did they calculate the potential energy of the falling mass? We don't even know the distribution of steel and concrete do we? When calculating the Pe of the top did anyone consider the equal opposite reaction forces of the bottom mass of floors? Pe is not a fixed value, it is a potential, a possibility given a particular set of circumstances.

If you use the full Pe to make calculations, but the real world Pe is only half that due to resistance and other factors, your calculations are going to erroneously favour collapse.

911 was a ritual to start the path for the NWO. Papa Bush announced it exactly 11 years earlier. Stop chasing your tails on what happened and how.

Find out the reason for 911 if you want to really debate some things.

Its a fact that 911 was perpetrated solely by the bush administration to push his fathers agenda and mask the theft of trillions the pentagon crooks had lifted and were going to continue to steal until the American people finally see the light and put their foot down.

all those buildings on 911 were CD.....FACT

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK you try to simplify things to much to try and convince others , what is providing the resistance when the top section of floors fall on the lower section on both towers please explain what YOU think happens!

reply to post by Devino


You are talking about pure aluminium melted in an electric furnance, not mass of debris mixed in with plaster,
carpeting, and anything else that was in the building heated by burning debris ......

reply to post by thedman



no I think you miss understand

the molten metal poring from the building was red hot - a normal office fire (and that is what it was, the jet fuel burnt off in minutes) does not get hot enough to do that, although it may get hot enough to melt aluminum it is still not hot enough to turn it red hot...

So the question is how did it get that hot in there

and the answer is nano thermate - theres no other explanation

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

The NIST report also says this:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

that isn't possible to know. the floors affected by the plane didn't just vanish, leaving the upper floors suspended and falling. there was a lot of mass still there supporting it, which would greatly reduce the amount of kinetic energy released.

Originally posted by doubledutch
reply to post by thedman

 

no I think you miss understand

the molten metal poring from the building was red hot - a normal office fire (and that is what it was, the jet fuel burnt off in minutes) does not get hot enough to do that, although it may get hot enough to melt aluminum it is still not hot enough to turn it red hot...

So the question is how did it get that hot in there

and the answer is nano thermate - theres no other explanation

Exactly! thank you. the NASA satellite images showing hotspots further supports the eyewitness testimony about molten steel. finding large 1100-1300 degree F hotspots at surface temperature 21 days after is an incredible amount of energy. exact temperatures below cannot be had, but it was estimated to be two or three times hotter than what they were seeing.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by esdad71

 

Why is it that when someone explains the impossibility for the towers to collapse in on themselves without demolitions there is someone who wants to smash fingers and hands with a hammer? I don't understand how this is relevant.

Try this scenario. Stack 10 concrete cinder blocks on top of one another. Take the top two and drop them from a designated height onto the ones below. When this fails to give your desired results go ahead and increase the height. When you get to a height that allows the two blocks to destroy the other eight that are stacked on the ground let me know.

That might work if the entire floor is made on concrete, but it is not. tell you what, You take those same concrete blocks, and in between them, you support them with anything...paper towel rolls or rebar. Now, take away 25% of the support and what happens. They do not fall straight down and when the support cannot hold it buckles. It will fal until it cannot anymore. Just like the WTC that had multiple floors and columns still standing after the collapse. Do you see the difference.

ANOK, now it is Pe and Ke? which one is it? both or only one when it fits your theory...