Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by MasterAndrew


That is not the point, it proves that the concept of progressive collapse is possible. Do you think that the model of psikeyhackr is anything like the WTC?

reply to post by Darkwing01




In answer to

a) We dont have an accurate time for the collapse the speed would depend on resistance!

b) The picture was posted to counter ANOK's claim that the collapse should have halted further up the towers
according to his version of the laws of motion.

c) You said

There is no significant pile of stuff at the bottom of the WTC.


Really

reply to post by Darkwing01


Care to back those assertions up with any physics? Or are they going to remain baseless assertions like usual?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MasterAndrew

 

That is not the point, it proves that the concept of progressive collapse is possible. Do you think that the model of psikeyhackr is anything like the WTC?

Dude, you're dreaming. It was demolished. If you can't see that then you need to see more demolitions. There is no way in any dimension that planes demolish buildings with perfect implosion. the near exact implosions in record speed in fact means that all four corners and the core melted at the exact same point to achieve that. Again some kind of magic, not to happen once but twice. In record speed. open your eyes.

for you to believe otherwise is what they relied on which is people to be gullible for force fed BS.

reply to post by MasterAndrew


I think most thuthers disagree with the idea that it was a perfect implosion and claim that almost all the mass ejected. In fact, that is required for them to dismiss the official explanation. You are the first one on this board (I can remember) that claims the collapses were perfect implosions. And no, the cores did not melt, a significant part of the cores didn't even collapse with the rest, but collapsed some seconds later.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MasterAndrew

 

I think most thuthers disagree with the idea that it was a perfect implosion and claim that almost all the mass ejected. In fact, that is required for them to dismiss the official explanation. You are the first one on this board (I can remember) that claims the collapses were perfect implosions. And no, the cores did not melt, a significant part of the cores didn't even collapse with the rest, but collapsed some seconds later.

LMFAO I did say near exact implosions. And in a demolition sense they couldn't have been any more perfect. What's your point?

Some seconds later? Can you show me proof that 92 floors of core collapsed seconds after?

Please I would like to see?

Originally posted by ANOK

Sorry you can't get your head around this. Physics can be confusing I understand.

Actually, it's not confusing at all to any rational, intelligent person that's willing to learn. I guess this means that truthers will never learn.

To the few that are interested in learning something, you may start here for a physics based explanation of why the towers were a gravity driven collapse only:

www.nmsr.org...

There's a whole series of articles for everyone to learn and absorb.

For those that refuse to learn and wish to detract from it, I would love to see a rebuttal to the real world application of physics, with numbers, calcs, etc.

Incredulity will not cut it. But we know that's all you have........

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
LMFAO I did say near exact implosions.

LMFAO ROFLROFL YOU ALSO SAID PERECT!!11!!! LOLOLO!!!11!

(Just illustrating how moronic you you sound)

And in a demolition sense they couldn't have been any more perfect. What's your point?

What does that even mean.

Some seconds later? Can you show me proof that 92 floors of core collapsed seconds after?

Please I would like to see?

No I am keeping it a secret from you. I like you just the way you are.

reply to post by -PLB-


moronic really? I am really disappointed you could not prove to me that the core collapsed seconds later as you claim. does this mean you admit you were wrong? and you haven't answered any of my logical questions. Which I shall repeat for you. Or maybe you just can't answer. North tower had 92 intact floors.

how long did a floor take to totally demolish and pulverize the next floor including the core?

How many seconds do you think it took the north tower to collapse?

Come on genius you should be able to do better than that.

reply to post by MasterAndrew


No I am not telling you. Those are some of the best kept secrets among the group of people who know that Google search exists.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Sorry you can't get your head around this. Physics can be confusing I understand.

Actually, it's not confusing at all to any rational, intelligent person that's willing to learn. I guess this means that truthers will never learn.

To the few that are interested in learning something, you may start here for a physics based explanation of why the towers were a gravity driven collapse only:

www.nmsr.org...

There's a whole series of articles for everyone to learn and absorb.

For those that refuse to learn and wish to detract from it, I would love to see a rebuttal to the real world application of physics, with numbers, calcs, etc.

Incredulity will not cut it. But we know that's all you have........

I appreciate you supplying a link to someone else's opinion, but how about you explain to me how, using the laws of motion, 15 floors could crush 95 floors without slowing down from loss of Ke to other energy that was needed to crush the floors, and telescope the core through an increasing mass?

I do not wish to debate someone else's work through a proxy (you), I would rather debate what you have to say.
That way I can tell if you truly understand the physics, or you're just repeating what someone else has claimed.

That article starts with a very unrealistic diagram of the towers and that is was all air nonsense, and it was all the jet fuel. It said once perimeter walls snapped it couldn't hold the weight, an assumption. All of that was debunked long ago mate.

Thank you.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Actually, it's not confusing at all to any rational, intelligent person that's willing to learn. I guess this means that truthers will never learn. To the few that are interested in learning something, you may start here for a physics based explanation of why the towers were a gravity driven collapse only: www.nmsr.org... There's a whole series of articles for everyone to learn and absorb. For those that refuse to learn and wish to detract from it, I would love to see a rebuttal to the real world application of physics, with numbers, calcs, etc. Incredulity will not cut it. But we know that's all you have........

It doesn't matter what happened to the first floor. No truther I know has ever suggested that the fact that the FIRST floor gave way indicates demolition.

It is the fact that the tenth, the twentieth and the thirtieth floors gave way that is the problem:

You are asking for the top portion to accelerate through a denser medium.

You ignore the damage done to the opposite, the fact that the top would get broken up if the bottom does at at least the same rate, because it was weaker.

You ignore the fact that you cannot destroy the lower portion so that the structure becomes unconnected and capable of falling, compress the disconnected material so that it becomes part of the destroying driver AND accelerate the destroying driver when the driver is passing through the same material it is constructed of.


____________________________

Take a column of water.
Take out 1/10 of the the water
Color it with food dye
Drop that 1/10 onto from a height of 1/100 the total column height

The same principles of dynamic loading applies, and yet the dyed water does not accelerate to the bottom of the column unless you used lead dye. Why do you think that is?

In your own words: Why is the "dynamic loading" argument correct for the first floor impact, but wrong for the fiftieth?

reply to post by -PLB-


maybe because you can't answer these questions without being ripped apart by science and physics.

I will ask you again?

how long does it take a floor above to totally demolish and pulverize the floor below it?

The north tower had 92 intact floors.

How long do you think it took the north tower to collapse then?

please enlighten me, the lack of response to my questions is saying something otherwise.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Nice post Joey cant wait to see ANOK, psikeyhackr etc etc come back with, the problem with the internet is that individuals with NO repeat NO pratical experience of a subject can be armchair experts,with some of them the most technical question they have to ask during the day is DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT!, but if they repeat a few things from a web site they are experts.

I spend lots of time on site part of my job is advising on and testing fixings on structures sometimes to destruction to keep engineers happy with their designs.

It would be intresting to see how many of these truther experts we have commenting on 9/11 threads have

a) any background in construction
b) any experience on site
c) or have any real idea on what they are commenting at all.

THEY tend to exaggerate a lot, 2 examples below.

"The concrete ALL turned to dust" one of my favourites they seem to just ignore ALL the other building products used in the towers that would have caused dust!! There are many but if you get carried away on the conspiracy hype like they do they tend to forget about sheetrock,joint filler, finishing coat plaster the sprayed on fire protection for the steelwork.

"They fell FASTER than freefall" another classic even when you see debris falling faster than the main tower on the videos THEY post.

We also get the claim that what appeared to be molten steel from the corner of one of the towers was proof of foul play well lets see.

This is picture of a plane that overshot a runway and went on fire look at the fuselage of the plane.Many examples of this type of incident on google images if they bother to look.



An extract from the site re the above picture

The Boeing 707 erupted in flames just off the runway with a fire so intense it is melting the fuselage

The important word underlined. Yes the heat from the fire was intense enough to melt the ALUMINIUM fuselage what were the towers clad with thats right ALUMINIUM.

The real problem with 9/11 is that it had never happened before no tube in tube design had ever been hit by large passenger planes so its ripe for conspiracy.

That leads to joe public jumping to conclusions of what they think should or what they think would have happened, like all conspiracies!

I have put they think in bold because that is due to lack of experience.

I will give you another prime example of lack of experience that ocurrs on a regular basis on here in another thread. The Apollo Moon hoax threads the NO stars in the Moon pictures.

Now any amatuer phoptographer would know that the Moon is lit by reflecting sunlight so guess what to take a picture of the Moon you use similar exposure setings as a sunny day on Earth. This can be checked by taking a picture yourself of the Moon using the settings and you wont see stars. Expose for the Moon no stars, expose for the stars an the Moon is an over exposed blob of light. Then a quick check on Astrophotography sites would show pictures with exposure details to confirm this.

Now if you dont undestand this process you would think something is wrong with the Moon pics because they dont show what YOU THINK should be shown.

I think ANOK should delve a bit more into Newtons 3rd law when its not a simple nice closed system that he is thinking about!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You don't have to be an armchair expert, even a normal person can see that a building of 110 floors disappears in record time defying the laws of physics not once but twice on the same day.

Let's see if you can answer these questions?

How long does it take for one floor to totally demolish and pulverize the one under neath it?

The north tower had 92 intact floors before it was imploded in record time, looking exactly like every high rise demoliton.

So are you saying that every future demolition of tube frame high rises, that all they have to do is blow one floor?

So does that mean your saying 9/11 paved the way for new demolition techniques? And that all the explosives used in the past was not needed because all they need to do is blow one floor?

I'm sorry but planes don't bring down buildings.

But I would like to you to answer these questions, genius.

The image you linked looks like what shanksville didnt. Lol.

OS is fraud.

Originally posted by ANOK

I appreciate you supplying a link to someone else's opinion, but how about you explain to me how, using the laws of motion, 15 floors could crush 95 floors without slowing down from loss of Ke to other energy

It did slow down with each collision. The fact that the collapse was slower than freefall proves it. It's just that when we compare the overall event duration, what really happens is lost.

To get an idea of where the slow down occurs you must think of each impact separately:

1- as the falling mass descends and accelerates between floors, it gains ke or momentum. to make the math easy, we will say that falling mass has an energy potential of 100 of whatever arbitrary units we choose at the time of impact.
2- at impact with an intact floor, it loses some momentum to do work, but only a fraction of it. We'll say that it loses 10 units of energy doing the work, so that at the end it now has 90 units.
3-now the falling mass has increased its mass from the floor it just destroyed. if mass increases, its energy potential increases. so it is now 91 units of our arbitrary energy.
4- it now falls another ~12 to the next floor, being accelerated by gravity and picks up more energy available to do work. It now has 110 units available to do work.
5- the falling mass hits the next floor (which is identical) and again loses 10 units of energy to doing work.
6- wash, rinse, repeat.

that was needed to crush the floors

It's a mere truther assertion that the floors were destroyed into rubble by the impacts of the descending mass. There is zero evidence of this, nor is there any reason to believe this happened.

If the falling mass falls on the floors with a potential energy of 100 of our fictional units used above, but it only takes 10 units of that energy to break all the floors loose from their mounts, then the floors will only see 10 units delivered into them. The weakest link in the chain will determine this.

What truthers ignore is that the descending mass will also break up upon impact with the ground. Truthers typically have a problrm getting head around this concept. They see rubble on the ground, and leap to the laughable conclusion that this must havehappened 500 feet up in the air.

and telescope the core through an increasing mass?

Pure stupid assertion. Doesn't even warrant an answer. The best reaction to this baseless piece of fluff would be to laugh and point fingers at the fool that makes it......

I do not wish to debate someone else's work

Don't you really mean that you don't wish to humiliate yourself by debating someone else's work?

That way I can tell if you truly understand the physics, or you're just repeating what someone else has claimed.

It's clear to everyone that it is YOU that has zero understanding of physics.

Again, you are nothing but pure debunker gold.

Smart people, like Charlie Veitch, will eventually begin to realize that the typical truther has zero rebuttal to what Dave Thomas has to say. Eventually, they will begin to realize that the typical truther will hide as you have here - side step the writings that I linked to when it challenges their religious belioefs about 9/11.

Your previous signature line is perhaps the best descriptor of what you are here for. Please enlighten us again. Didn't it say something like you don't really believe what you write here? That indicates a pure desire to do nothing but troll. No surprise.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I don't know you well enough to get an idea of just what level of education you're at.

Go read the article in that link that sounds like it answers your questions.

Then come back here for clarification.

Originally posted by Darkwing01


The same principles of dynamic loading applies, and yet the dyed water does not accelerate to the bottom of the column unless you used lead dye. Why do you think that is?

I missed this at first.

Very simple to explain.

It's NOT the same dynamics loading problem. Not even close:

1- water is not compressible
2-there is zero air space in the water column that allows the falling water time and space to accelerate between impacts.


Nevremind reading the articles linked to. You will not understand a word

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You don't have to be an armchair expert, even a normal person can see that a building of 110 floors disappears in record time defying the laws of physics not once but twice on the same day.

Can you see that there were a few unusual occurences that made two cpllapses a contingent possibility?

I'm sorry but planes don't bring down buildings.

I know of two other examples of planes hitting buildings. In one case the plane was travelling at a fifth the speed and was much smaller and the building stayed up. In the other it fell down. So your statement is de facto wrong.

reply to post by wmd_2008

There is no significant pile of stuff at the bottom of the WTC. Really

There is a huge problem with that photo apart from the fact that the link printed on it is now dead.

I seem to recall when that link wasn't, and that photo was not on the page. It could be from literally anywhere at the site and there are no annotations to accompany it.

In fact you can see the retaining wall to the left of the picture, which argues against it being what you think it is.

You can see the problem here:

www.nytimes.com...

and


the little map from here:

books.google.com... =Y_ocTuauBMjVrQfc5eCzDA&sa=X&

and even better here:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Most likely what you are looking at on the basis of the above is the remains of WTC3, 2 or 6 after they were demolished, but it could be from literally anywhere and there is no corroborating evidence for the pile of floors under either tower.

In fact, wasn't it the LACK of such evidence that led NIST to reject the pancake theory?