Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by ANOK

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?

My answer is, so what? Its already been shown how a progressive collapse is possible and its already been shown many times. Just because it flies in the face of your version of how physics works, doesnt make it wrong.

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.

No they did not. Again, you are forgetting that once the mass of the floors coming down as one unit impacted the floor below it, it overcame the resistance of that ONE floor. Also reducing the resistance is the fact that the exterior columns were being pushed out, also severing the truss connections. Just because your warped and simplified version of the laws of motion give you a simple picture, it is not that simple. And yes, the design of the WTC is what helped in the way it collapsed.

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.

Ah yes, please, show me in the specs where a single floor section was meant to take the weight and impact of 30+ floors falling as one. Are you failing to take into account dynamic loads vs static loads? I guess you havent gotten to that chapter yet in your physics book. I'm looking forward to this.

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?

Its been explained adnaseum. Just because YOU ignore it every time doesnt mean I have to constantly retype it so you can just ignore it again.

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.

Ah yes, again, show me the specs which say each floor was suppose to be able to take the dynamic load of 30+ floors (and an airplane) impacting it at the same time, and having the exterior columns get pushed away severing the truss connection seats. Also, are you suggesting that the KE would have been drained more by the heat, sound, deformation, enough to slow down the collapse? I'd like to see some calculations on that since as far as I know about these types of instances, those parts take up the least amount of the energy. Hence why its called an inelastic collision, since the total KE is not being conserved, but it is still enough to cause destruction. Also you forget that each floor destroyed is adding to the mass and energy.

Also, what mass was ejected out the footprints? Oh you mean the tons of drywall, sheetrock, and office stuff that got crushed in the collapse? I didnt see any floors ejecting. I didnt see any floor trusses ejecting. I didnt see any concrete slabs being ejected. Wow ANOK, you dont even know what happened! Oh yes, and what was that large thing that was left standing after the initial collapse? .......... Something called "The Spire"...... What was that? Oh yeah. THE CORE! Its been 10 years ANOK, and you still cant get the facts or events straight. And you are going to lecture us on laws of physics?

I
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.

Ah yes, because those secret govt stealth ninjas managed to plant explosives on the floor truss seats without a soul noticing. Yeah...... right.

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...

Talk about a reading comprehension FAIL. This from the guy who bludgeons others about the laws of physics, and yet cant even read an article right.

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Do you understand what that means ANOK? It means, that the floors pancaking was not the INITIATOR of the collapse. NIST showed that the failure of inwardly bowing perimeter columns initiated collapse. Not the floors falling onto each other first. You dont even know what the theory is! Tell you what ANOK, make sure you learn to comprehend what you read first. Because apparently, you cant even read and figure out whats in front of you. NIST found that columns bending inward is what started the collapse. Not floors progressively pancaking onto each other. Shall I repeat it again? However, once the collapse started (remember ANOK, initiator or to initiate, means the starter, to start something, the main cause, or the thing that started the event) the floors began their decent, and they pancaked onto each other. Oh yeah, here is what else NIST found:
"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."

I do enjoy your cherry picking skills though!

Originally posted by ANOK

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.

edit on 6/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Again with the nit picking. I wish you were this picky with Dr. Jones, or any of the Truther heroes.

Here you go again with the equal and opposite reaction forces. And again, you need to be reminded that when the mass of the upper floor section began its decent, it was behaving as one unit with dynamic force of 10-30 floors impact a single floor which was static. It was not going to give much resistance. Let's see. Which will yield first: 30 floors moving as one or the single floor below it that is static. The single floor unit was not designed to take the impact of 30 floors dropping as one. And what happens once that floor is destroyed? It is now added to the collapsing mass. So now the floor below is being hit with the mass of 30 floors + 1. And so on. You also forgot the fact that when the tower was collapsing, the exterior columns were getting pushed out, thereby also severing the connections and allowing for an unimpeded collapse of the interior floors. The exterior columns fell away after the floors went down.

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords

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?

Ugh! yes!!! Thankyou! I swear people want to ignore 7 and wrap their whole argument around CIRCUMSTANTIAL possibilities and avoid the DOCUMENTED fallacies associated with the O.S. and you point out all the blunders and slip ups made by the people in charge of the :people who are in charge of the investigation,and its ignored,ignored,ignored. If our government failed at protecting us and failed to investigate EVERYTHING controversial about 9/11 eventhough thousands died, and WILL NOT reveiw it...well you can excuse all the excuses made fore the official story because really,its hard to sweep something like this up and since there's so many of you sheep eating up O.S. grass,contention with regards to the o.s. being acceptable doesn't matter. DOES NOT MATTER. that's what I'm hearing. If you back up th o.s. your a fool or you expect everyone else is. Not happenning here. Way too many capable people here with a desire to discover the truth for a couple seeming shills to flip the momentum of popular thought on this thread. sorry boys,find another topic to troll on...

Originally posted by GenRadek

Again with the nit picking. I wish you were this picky with Dr. Jones, or any of the Truther heroes.

Here you go again with the equal and opposite reaction forces.

And again, you need to be reminded that when the mass of the upper floor section began its decent, it was behaving as one unit with dynamic force of 10-30 floors impact a single floor which was static. It was not going to give much resistance. Let's see. Which will yield first: 30 floors moving as one or the single floor below it that is static. The single floor unit was not designed to take the impact of 30 floors dropping as one. And what happens once that floor is destroyed? It is now added to the collapsing mass. So now the floor below is being hit with the mass of 30 floors + 1. And so on. You also forgot the fact that when the tower was collapsing, the exterior columns were getting pushed out, thereby also severing the connections and allowing for an unimpeded collapse of the interior floors. The exterior columns fell away after the floors went down.

That still wont explain the freefall speed, but hey, you already have your mind set to believe any lie so, as someone said somewhere, I have a bridge to scotland too, you interested?

reply to post by Juanxlink


If it's freefall, then why is the debris moving faster than the building?

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

If it's freefall, then why is the debris moving faster than the building?

Question you should be asking is: Why is there so much debri flying out of the footprint-building if there were no explosives involved? But as said, you minds are already set...

reply to post by Juanxlink


That is not that hard to figure out, the top section and the debris fell within the perimeter columns, pushing them out. A more interesting question is, why would there be so much debris falling outside the footprint if there were explosives. Wouldn't the explosives not just weaken the structure? Or do you think the debris was blown out by the blast of explosives? If so, how much explosives do you think it would require to blow all that metal outwards? And do you think this is a reasonable hypothesis?

Must assume you havent seen any building collapse... BTW buildings don get pulverized in a natural collapse, meaning one that involves no explosives...Just sayin...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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!

The resistance is from undamaged structure, you don't understand that? I have already explained what happens!

Once again for you...

Equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation! Newtons 3rd law of motion.

When objects collide the forces on each object is EQUAL and opposite [1]. Momentum conservation is also an equal and opposite reaction [2]. The force of the impact is equal on both objects, this is why the object with the most mass receives the least damage (think of a truck hitting a car). This is fact regardless of how fast the objects are moving, a bug hitting a windshield for example, both the bug and windshield experience exactly the same force, the bug loses because it has less mass and its momentum is transferred to the windshields momentum, splat! Momentum of both objects will want to be maintained equally, both objects will want to continue their momentum (even if it is zero as in a fixed object), the object with the most mass will maintain more momentum slowing down the other object, but the equal momentum of both objects is maintained as it is transferred between the objects.

Now taking those facts into account you have 15 floors falling on 85 floors. The floors were of more or less equal mass, but you have the mass if 15 floors falling on a mass of 85 floors. We know for a fact that floors were being crushed during the collapse, so it would be impossible for the falling floors to stay intact whiled destroying the impacted floors. The dropping floors would also be destroyed, even if it took two static floors to destroy one falling floor there would still not be enough dropping floors to destroy all the static floors.

It's simple if you understand the physics mate.

1.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

2.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

reply to post by Juanxlink


Are you responding to my post? If so, you forgot to answer any of my questions. If not, never mind.

reply to post by Griffo


umm I don't know maybe all the energy from the core charges? The "debrie" if I am assuming correctly is powdery yes? concrete cement being exploded with powerful force typically pushes out and faster than free fall becauses its veing acted on by external force...I almost feel like saying "DUHHH" or "No Doiii!?" lol I can't believe I remember that expression lol.

reply to post by -PLB-


You dont want answers matey, if I had them, Id most likely be in the know, so not here posting you see...
All you want is some more bashing and create a stir here, but hey, we are all right and dandy, go check some natural collapses, by EQs and the likes, you may even end up understanding how buildings really come down by themselves.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
It's public knowledge building 7 was demolished. Larry and Rudy both claimed to have given the ok to demolish it and even the responders on the ground knew it was being "pulled" or that it was to be demolished. There is video of that.

Just concentrate on the fact that the twin towers came down exactly the same, by controlled demolition.

Omg is somebody referencing the Larry Silverstein quote again? How many times do I have to go in circles with the same points?

Because nobody would say "go ahead and pull it" to indicate getting everybody out of the building because there had been such a huge loss of life. It's not even a poor choice of words. Whomever he was speaking to would have had to ask, "what? what do you mean?" How would the person that Silverstein was talking to know that when Silverstein said "pull it", that meant to get the firefighters out of the building? That doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true.

reply to post by Juanxlink


Exactly. Lets remember that those towers looked like massive fireworks of dust, and I mean MASSIVE. You think about how much concrete was used on the towers and you think of what overkill rigged explosives would do to that concrete and if you can't come to the answer you need to solve this question than its only because you refuse to accept the facts sitting their smiling right in front of you.

reply to post by Juanxlink


I actually have a whole list of questions I want truthers to answer, but I always get responses like these when I ask them, or just complete silence. One advantage of not taking any position is that you do not need to defend it. You can just keep shouting "inside job" without ever needing to use your brain.

reply to post by zerimar65


True to a tee. Silversteins corrupt to the core,you think he cares about a couple thousand people? He made BILLIONS that day-BILLIONS-. He told them to pull it and they pulled it. I doubt the identity of the "they" in this equations matters but whoever it was set this up nice and clean. I'm blown away by people who can't even accept how skillfull this drop was... the took THREE buildings and all but drove them straight down into their footprint. sure it got a little messy but the came down on themselves and this does not happen unless you got a way to all at once take the feet so to speak completely out from under the tower. Thats exactly what they did. Let me be clear here for the thick of head. Those buildings came down without a fight and no airplane that high nor a fire as a result of the plane accounts fir everything. If the story released doesn't account for everything then you got yourself a pickle,and we do people. We got us one big ol pickle because there's a lot that went unexamined and peer reveiws of the panels investigation didn't go over well as is so publicly known. The towers and the people lost that day died at the hands of greedy secretive fat cats and the sloppy coordination and tid bits overlooked by the culprits are all we have left to work off and yet we still have a great deal of information that's helpful in peeking through the veil of secrecy

reply to post by -PLB-


OFCOURSE! Using physics to see the rate of freefall vs the rate of speed the towers fell at is childsplay right? to determine that the towers fell too fast to have collapsed is not using my brain at all? How about people speculating that those out there disagreeing with the O.S. are the ones not using there brains...especially when your so sloppy with how inaccurate your points are about the valid issues brought up so many times its a courtesy to you to remind you that they've been made and are yet still unanswered. Not using their brains....pshh your just dricing blind aren't you friend? if your going that route drive silently too will ya?

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

All you need is the weight of ONE floor to come crashing down on the other to cause a progressive collapse.

So when this weight of the above floors gets expelled outward and away from the collapsing building what then causes the accumulation of energy that then cause the collapse to progress?

I don't know where all of this weight comes from. The building was already holding up those floors. There was no additional weight. Let's say in the first building that was hit, if the structural support failed in the floors that were compromised, the floors above would have fallen maybe 30 feet? How would that produce a crash at a rate of motion that would make the rest of the tower that was still intact collapse? It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense it's probably not true.

reply to post by -PLB-


Now that I have a moment to size you up,your sig does all my work for me. You should remember what fly under your sig,that's a great piece of advice.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


You are not making very much sense. Is there any question you like me to answer? I would be happy to do so.