Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 48
23
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


prove what you said? Show me? I would like to see if you can back your claims.




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Exactly it was near perfect implosion, that can only be achieved with precision explosives. Not once but twice.

I do note that both PLB and wmd 2008 do not want to answer the following questions:

How long does it take a floor to totally demolish the floor below it?

The north tower had 92 intact floors.

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

Another thing I have seen is photos claiming warped cladding? I don't see any warped cladding in any pictures or videos, I have both a scrapbook of pictures and an archive of video. And I have never seen the cladding warped. Pre collapse even in the seconds before hand.

The problem with all these people is they are to scared to admit truth, physics and science. they have been made that way, dumbed down to a point of gullible. Its really sad, that everyone believes the OS.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Well if you bother to read the link Joey gave the data is there for you!! Also most demolitions are started at the base of the structure and not from the top down!

Would you also like to explain why the South Tower fell first although it was hit second its simple to understand if you know a little about structures and have some construction experience UNLIKE you!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Darkwing01 / MasterAndrew

With regards to the picture posted regarding rubble of pancaked floors see link below taken by someone who was ACTUALLY there read the discription for second picture down then look at the one below that nice close-up you can see steel decking and truss steel after you have taken that in please STFU about subjects YOU BOTH have NO understanding, education or experience in.

www.stevespak.com...

When the upper floors fall on a lower floor its the FLOOR CONNECTIONS that have to resist the load NOT the whole mass of the lower building, that's the weakest link and the problem with the tube in tube design.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Well if you bother to read the link Joey gave the data is there for you!! Also most demolitions are started at the base of the structure and not from the top down!

Would you also like to explain why the South Tower fell first although it was hit second its simple to understand if you know a little about structures and have some construction experience UNLIKE you!!!


I want you to answer the questions? Why would you tell me about someone else when I asked you.

I will answer your questions.

It was imploded first because the demo crew knew physics unlike you. To make the story official they had to pull the building with the more weight above the impact zone.

In addition, youre not talking about the explosion felt on the lower levels minutes before it came down and the obvious precision fall of the building. But you don't even answer my questions so why should I even bother with you.

The north tower had 92 intact floors. tell me how long it takes for one floor to demolish the one below it?

How long did it take for north tower to collapse?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 




I do note that both PLB and wmd 2008 do not want to answer the following questions:


They know the answers, and they know what the answers mean.

But we are not supposed to look at answers that don't support their theory.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


South tower it took roughly 25-30 seconds. North Tower it took about 30 seconds. These are about the total times, including the core collapses (AKA the "Spire").



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Tell me when you think we should start to time the collapse was it when we saw the floors above the impact fall OR had some floors started to fall internally before we saw that and when did it finish hard to tell due to the dust cloud.

What happened to the water analogy then Darkwing or did you realize you were talking bull-cookies also no comment regarding the photographs I see, the link was on the photo when first posted if you guys had bothered to look you would have found out it was actually debris from the towers and you can see a nice close-up of the steel decking and truss steel.

The reason the South Tower fell first was the far far greater load above the impact as for the so called explosions people were under great stress at the time and any loud noise may have been confused in the stress of the situation. Also the fact they would not be used to hearing large structural members failing and thought it was explosions.

So please tell everyone what kind of expertise you have to comment on this type of situation have you worked with a structural Steelworkers company, I have, are you on site on a regular basis,I am, as part of your job do you advise engineers or architects,I do,can you test components and fixings on site to see if they will meet required loadings,I can do you have 30+ years in the job indeed.are you even that old now playing jenga or stacking burgers is not construction experience.

So do you want to explain to everyone how the two 5/8" bolts at each end of the trusses were supposed to withstand the load of the falling floors say in the South Tower when the mass of the concrete alone would have been in excess of 20,000 tons alone, not counting steel work, staircases, lift equipment etc etc so can you please explain because ANOK didn't won't to!!!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


His question doesn't even make sense. A single floor complete demolishing the floor below it. Who cares how long that takes. Or do you think that this is what the official explanation says? What is going on in those heads.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


His question doesn't even make sense. A single floor complete demolishing the floor below it. Who cares how long that takes. Or do you think that this is what the official explanation says? What is going on in those heads.


Most likely an echo!



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




His question doesn't even make sense. A single floor complete demolishing the floor below it. Who cares how long that takes. Or do you think that this is what the official explanation says? What is going on in those heads.


Because we know how fast the building collapsed at: Accelerating at approximately 60% of freefall.

If all the momentum is taken out of the collapse with each successive impact there would be no average acceleration.

At 60% of freefall only at most 40% of the momentum can be converted to actually breaking joints and and crushing floors and ejecting beams. Add in losses, I am guessing no more than 10% efficiency and other frictions (like entanglement of the structure) and you end up with a best case scenario of only about 1% of the energy being available to do what you want it to do.

And I am being generous here.

I can't believe you now think the collapse time is COMPLETELY irrelevant. That's quite a step back.



These are about the total times, including the core collapses (AKA the "Spire").


Why don't you add the discovery of America into the total time as well, it is about as relevant.




The reason the South Tower fell first was the far far greater load


Your reasoning would lead you to conclude that if a brick had been taken out of the middle of the Giza pyramid at the same time IT would have collapsed before either tower because it had more weight above the impact point.

Please at least TRY to logical.



So please tell everyone what kind of expertise you have to comment on this type of situation have you worked with a structural Steelworkers company, I have, are you on site on a regular basis,I am, as part of your job do you advise engineers or architects,I do,can you test components and fixings on site to see if they will meet required loadings,I can do you have 30+ years in the job indeed.are you even that old now playing jenga or stacking burgers is not construction experience.


I don't care who you SAY you are or what you SAY you have done.

You could have Nobel prize in building collapse physics and it still would not make your positions sensible.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: bits



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Because we know how fast the building collapsed at: Accelerating at approximately 60% of freefall.

If all the momentum is taken out of the collapse with each successive impact there would be no average acceleration.

At 60% of freefall only at most 40% of the momentum can be converted to actually breaking joints and and crushing floors and ejecting beams. Add in losses, I am guessing no more than 10% efficiency and other frictions (like entanglement of the structure) and you end up with a best case scenario of only about 1% of the energy being available to do what you want it to do.

And I am being generous here.

I can't believe you now think the collapse time is COMPLETELY irrelevant. That's quite a step back.


You are making absolutely no sense. Who cares about your random guesses? What does a single floor completely demolishing the floor bellow it has to do with the tower collapses? Where does the official explanation state that this happened? And what does this even mean? Or did you people come to this nonsense because your read it on some conspiracy site or Youtube video?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Why lie about the times. Anyone can watch the videos.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




What does a single floor completely demolishing the floor bellow it has to do with the tower collapses?


Because if you read the official theory you know that it is not a progressive collapse theory. That theory has to be discarded because of the nature of the final rubble pile. It is a crush down theory requires the mass of the destroyed floors to be compacted and added to the mass of the falling floors.

If it isn't demolished it can't compact.
edit on 14-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


I don't know what you are saying here, can you clarify?



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The official theory on what caused the collapse to progress is Bazant crush-up crush-down theory, there are good reasons why pancaking progressive collapse theories don't work which I won't reiterate here (okay maybe I will: If the floors didn't give sufficient resistance to break up that should be stacked up as can be seen in all known progressive collapses, not scattered).

Bazant's process is different from known processes like verinage in that the upper portion acts as a coherent unit which gains momentum and mass as it falls, i.e. there is effectively no jolt as can be observed in verinage. For it to gain mass two things must happen: It must break apart the underlying structure, because that structure is not falling intact, and it must compress the material. The problem of compression is addressed by Heiwa in his reply to Bazant's latest paper on the matter.

Both the breaking apart and the compression imply that the lower floors were giving resistance, because you can't exert a force on something which is not exerting an equal and opposite force on you.

Now we know that the crush front was accelerating at about 60% of free-fall, that means that the lower portion could only have been giving resistance of 40% of the force of gravity. But the lower floors could support more than 200% of gravity, that doesn't mean the floor won't break but it DOES mean that the momentum would be taken out. So now the momentum is gone, and the floor is broken up, can you see that as each successive floor breaks the corresponding top floor breaks too (because at the very least it is weaker)?

So for the first impact you have however many floors above, for the next you have fewer, and the next you have fewer.

Can you see now why Verinage demolitions are started with a clean drop from roughly the MIDDLE of the structure?
edit on 15-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The official theory on what caused the collapse to progress is Bazant crush-up crush-down theory, there are good reasons why pancaking progressive collapse theories don't work which I won't reiterate here (okay maybe I will: If the floors didn't give sufficient resistance to break up that should be stacked up as can be seen in all known progressive collapses, not scattered).

Bazant's process is different from known processes like verinage in that the upper portion acts as a coherent unit which gains momentum and mass as it falls, i.e. there is effectively no jolt as can be observed in verinage. For it to gain mass two things must happen: It must break apart the underlying structure, because that structure is not falling intact, and it must compress the material. The problem of compression is addressed by Heiwa in his reply to Bazant's latest paper on the matter.


Bazants description of the collapse is not "the official explanation". His assumptions are unrealistic. He clearly points this out in his paper. He also explains why he makes those unrealistic assumptions: because they are in favor of arrest.


Both the breaking apart and the compression imply that the lower floors were giving resistance, because you can't exert a force on something which is not exerting an equal and opposite force on you.

Now we know that the crush front was accelerating at about 60% of free-fall, that means that the lower portion could only have been giving resistance of 40% of the force of gravity. But the lower floors could support more than 200% of gravity, that doesn't mean the floor won't break but it DOES mean that the momentum would be taken out. So now the momentum is gone, and the floor is broken up, can you see that as each successive floor breaks the corresponding top floor breaks too (because at the very least it is weaker)?

So for the first impact you have however many floors above, for the next you have fewer, and the next you have fewer.

Can you see now why Verinage demolitions are started with a clean drop from roughly the MIDDLE of the structure?
edit on 15-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


And the floors that are broken up disappear and lose all their mass. Yes, I have heard this fairytale many times before. What else is there for me to do than shrug?



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Hi Darkwing you said this




Can you see now why Verinage demolitions are started with a clean drop from roughly the MIDDLE of the structure?


Well thats NOT true some are started low down but there are videos from less than a third of the way down.

The thing about that type of dem is it has to work first time so they dont take a chance, also can you show me one of the Vernage type dems done on a building like the WTC buildings ie a tube in tube design?

Anyway back to real physics this is aimed at ANOK and MasterAndrew as well since NONE of you seem to understand the physics in this situation .

Do ANY of you seriously think that when a mass drops it DOESN'T generate a greater force than if it was gently placed on the lower floor BECAUSE that is what you are claiming.

Also ANOK if 15 floors fall on a lower floor ie North Tower HOW can that floor generate an equal and opposite force when the only thing holding the floor in position are the floor connections!!!

Now how about the link that Joey Canoli gave you all which you most likely ignored.

www.nmsr.org...

Here is an interesting video the little bag of rice experiment on the scales shown here



Information given on its static mass but look what happens when it drops.

Equal and Opposite NOT possible due to the floor connections!!!!! the weakest link.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Who said I was lying? Time the full collapse from top to bottom, with the cores.

I earier posted two videos of collapses. One inside the North tower when south collapsed, the other outside. Bot give times of about 25-30 seconds. North Tower collapse roughly the same time, including the core.

Initial collapse takes about 15 seconds for both. Core segments remain standing longer until they too collapse 15 seconds later. The only ones lying are those damn fool truther sites.


South Tower collapse. Timer starts at 3:34 in the video. Count the seconds on the video and then stop when the last crash is heard. What is your time? It ends about 4:00. So what is the time? 4:00 minutes minus 3:34 minutes, = 36 seconds. Remember, collapse starts at moment of sound and the first movement down.

Here is another:

The clip itself is 20 seconds.The collapse was still going on as he was running.
So it is a safe and CORRECT assumption that collapse tie is roughly 20-30 seconds.


North Tower:
Collapse starts at 0:03 ends at, well, the video ends at :39 seconds, but we see the core standing.


Another video. Total time collapse, 35 seconds. You can even see the core pieces falling over.

So who is lying? Me, or you? Videos speak for themselves.
edit on 7/15/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Now we know that the crush front was accelerating at about 60% of free-fall, that means that the lower portion could only have been giving resistance of 40% of the force of gravity. But the lower floors could support more than 200% of gravity


Think about what you're saying here for a second. At any story on the towers, or most any building, the columns can support more than 200% of the load...... this the STATIC load.

Understand?

But you also agree that verinage actually works. Now, assuming that the same safety factors apply, if you agree that verinage works by overcoming the "more than 200% of STATIC load" safety factor through a drop of only ONE story.......

Then it MUST follow that the same would apply to the twins......


that doesn't mean the floor won't break but it DOES mean that the momentum would be taken out. So now the momentum is gone


Do you accept the physics of verinage - that is, even in a building with a safety factor of greater than 200% of STATIC load, then a drop of one story is enough to build enough momentum to overcome that safety factor?


and the floor is broken up, can you see that as each successive floor breaks the corresponding top floor breaks too (because at the very least it is weaker)?


No. As the collapse pregresses, an intact lower floor will be struck by rubble, not an intact floor of the descending block.


So for the first impact you have however many floors above, for the next you have fewer, and the next you have fewer.


No. The lower part of the descending block is shielded somewhat by the already broken material that is ALSO descending onto the intact lower floors.





top topics
 
23
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join