Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 49
23
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


Initial collapse takes about 15 seconds for both.


Enough said.

in answer to why does it matter how long it took one floor to pulverize another floor.

The north tower had 92 intact floors.

How long did it take the tower to collapse?

18 floors of damaged floor. Collapsed 92 intact floors? In record time? Is that what your saying?

you guys must see how silly it is, to think the government didn't blow them up. Look at the way they trigger perfectly to think that all the steel in the impact zones melted at the same on each corner of the building, as you clearly see all four corners instantaneously fail. On both buildings! Lol c'mon.

What about building 7? that came down from fires?

What happened to the sprinkler systems?

I don't even know why I get so razzed up about this anyway, I think it is because I can't believe how the hell you let them get away with this. Progressive collapse? Thats not even the OS? and how long would it take to progressively collapse 92 floors? You know these buildings imploded right? I don't see 92 pancaked floors do you?

I could go on and on. 9/11 is a joke.




posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


South Tower



Nice close up see the concrete, see the decking it was on, do YOU!



Even if the concrete manage to fall undamaged 110 floors of 4.5" thick average would only be 41 ft thick thats UNDAMGED!

The collapse started because the LOAD above impact point was to great to support, so in the South Tower you had 31 floors dropping and the North Tower 15 floors can you work out the DYNAMIC load of the floors dropping CAN YOU! ANOK says he cant just because you dont UNDERSTAND LOADING in construction is not anyones fault.

When the 15 floors fell the floor they fell on was only held up by its connections to the walls thats all that supports the floor and THATS the problem .

Here a section showing 2 floors as you can see anything that makes the top floor fail then falls onto the next down the tube! thats the problem with the tube in tube design, its great for floorspace but it lead to the downfall of the towers!



A more traditional layout below some of the load is supported by the floor below as the load can transfer to the floor below through the intermediate column but again floor connections can be the weak point!!



So do you want to show everyone how to calculate the load of either 31 floors falling 3.7 mtrs or 15 floors falling that distance and just to give people like you the idea of how much the load can change when moving please watch this.



So what would the load have been like on the first floor impacted by the falling floors ???

So gives us your imput on building design and loads in that event, if YOU can understand them that is!



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


well your first two pictures shows about three floors of pancakes. Lower levels of an imploded building would look like that.

from your drawings and examples. That inner core looks mighty big and unaccounted for in your timings.

don't worry it's just because you don't know what a demolition job looks like.

and I am talking about the North tower which had 92 intact floors below the impact zone. 18 damaged floors from there on up.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


well your first two pictures shows about three floors of pancakes. Lower levels of an imploded building would look like that.

from your drawings and examples. That inner core looks mighty big and unaccounted for in your timings.

don't worry it's just because you don't know what a demolition job looks like.

and I am talking about the North tower which had 92 intact floors below the impact zone. 18 damaged floors from there on up.


Lets see you were there to count the floors in the rubble then!

Been on site of many imploded buildings then?

Do YOU actually know what imploded means ?

What holds the floor in place its connections!!! Care to prove other wise!!!!

So lets see your calculations of the loads YOU did watch the video ?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Not true, if the upper damaged parts of the buildings had actually failed, they would have slid off not came down through the entire core column assembly. the only way to shock all the core columns to release for freefall in its own footprint is by demolition


Sorry, but the type of construction used for those buildings has resulted in other such pancaking episodes, bringing down a whole building without demolition. It is a common, cheap way to construct a skyscraper that I would not ever feel safe in. The floors were heavy concrete pancakes supported all around the edges by fasteners to the steel columns. If just one floor was loosened and fell on top of the lower floor, it would put more stress on the fasteners of the lower floor than they were designed to hold, and that lower floor would come down, repeating the process, picking up speed, until the whole structure comes straight down, the steel columns left on the outside, and gradually coming apart and falling down (most likely pulled towards the center of the building), because there was nothing left to keep them upright.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sorgfelt
Sorry, but the type of construction used for those buildings has resulted in other such pancaking episodes, bringing down a whole building without demolition. It is a common, cheap way to construct a skyscraper that I would not ever feel safe in. The floors were heavy concrete pancakes supported all around the edges by fasteners to the steel columns. If just one floor was loosened and fell on top of the lower floor, it would put more stress on the fasteners of the lower floor than they were designed to hold, and that lower floor would come down, repeating the process, picking up speed, until the whole structure comes straight down, the steel columns left on the outside, and gradually coming apart and falling down (most likely pulled towards the center of the building), because there was nothing left to keep them upright.


Sorry but the twin towers do not show signs of pancake collapse, you have to pay attention to the details.

Verinage demolition has to have at least 50% of the mass to do the crushing, and they often weaken supports to help the collapse. It would not work if you tried dropping 15 floors on 95 floors.

The towers were not pancake collapses, even NIST rejected that method. IF it was a pancake collapse it could not have been so complete, as there is not enough energy available for a smaller mass to completely collapse and crush a larger mass. That is why pancake collapses always have visible intact floors stacked up like pancakes, resistance is a stronger force acting on the towers than gravity. The collapse speed should not have increased but slowed. But it did increase, which means there we zero resistance as if the top was falling more or less through air. Ke should have been lost, but it wasn't, and that goes against all known physics. The only explanation is there must have been another energy acting on the towers, that was not investigated for, and is being covered up by the government and their OS supporters.

In this gif you can see the top is collapsing by itself...



The top is top collapsing the bottom, it is collapsing itself as it hits the resistance of the lower block of floors. A few seconds later the bottom drops. If you look at the tilt of the top of WTC 2 you can see clearly that the bottom is collapsing independent of the top, other wise the top would have continued its angular momentum and fell off the side. It could only go straight down if the bottom section collapsed independent of the top. The top could not both be at an angle on a pivot, and cause a straight down collapse of something it was not sitting true on. Try hitting a nail at an angle and see if you can get it to go straight down.

That is why another energy, that was not investigated, must have been involved.

edit on 7/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





South Tower Nice close up see the concrete, see the decking it was on, do YOU!


Can we pleas stop using this image now?

It cannot possibly be from the base of the south tower unless the whole tower was lifted up and bodily deposited some 100 ft hence.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
It's not hard to find pics that show the actual rubble piles from the towers, so why do the OSers insist on showing that one pic that can not be determined where its from? This is just another typical OSer bluff, like the passenger pics at the pentagon that isn't what they claimed, or the pic of the light pole still in Lloyd's cab that GOD claimed exists.



cf.parrhesia.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





so why do the OSers insist on showing that one pic that can not be determined where its from?


It may be hard to tell exactly where its from, but we can know for sure where its not from: The base of the south tower.

Unless you believe in graviton displacement building moving beams now too.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I have a sneaking suspiscion that the area is shown again just 4 pictures lower on Mr. Spak's page:

www.stevespak.com...

In this picture if we look in the upper left where the "ramp" (NOT the main ramp in the center, the ramp on the left) comes into the "bathtub" you can see the white column leaning against the slurry wall. And you can see the two columns that are a level lower. So I believe that would place it just below WTC 4.

I'm not positive about this. It would be nice if I could find a larger version of this pic.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Good find on the pics.

But really it doesn't matter because we are really only arguing against the pancake collapse because that is what the OSers believe, we are only arguing a what IF scenario because the OSers have yet to even show a reasonable explanation for the collapse initiation. Really stacked up floors is only part of the problem, and OSers seem to think if they debunk one point then what we claim is wrong.

Sagging trusses is simply nonsense. Even IF there were floors stacked up, and it was a classic pancake collapse, there is still the question as to how the collapses started in the first place. They can prove that dynamic loading can over load floors, and cause them to collapse, but it doesn't prove that trusses can put a pulling force on columns when they are sagging from heat.

They have no way of bringing their hypotheses to a conclusion, because every time they give an answer it only creates more questions. Must be frustrating to be an OS supporter, when everything you post actually helps 'truthers' show how the OS actually answers nothing.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



They can prove that dynamic loading can over load floors, and cause them to collapse, but it doesn't prove that trusses can put a pulling force on columns when they are sagging from heat.

Actually, the question is if the trusses were sagging and still connected to the columns or the exterior panels how could they NOT apply a pulling force?



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sagging trusses are not nonsense. They were connected to the columns. The support of the columns was gone and they start to buckle or 'sag'. They did not have to melt to sag. They only needed gravity and the weight that could no longer be distributed properly.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Actually, the question is if the trusses were sagging and still connected to the columns or the exterior panels how could they NOT apply a pulling force?


When steel gets hot enough to sag it is because it has nowhere else to go. If it could pull in columns it wouldn't sag, it would just pull in columns.

When steel heats up it expands, it will try to expand in all directions, but it can't expand in the direction it is connected to columns, outwards, so it sags DOWN instead to the path of least resistance. Now if it can't push out columns, it is also not going to pull in columns. The trusses will simply keep sagging, or stop, how can it put any more force on the columns than it already did before it sagged? The steel is now soft and malleable, it will sag and stretch not pull in more massive columns than themselves. If you think this can happen then show me a precedent.

Even IF the sagging trusses hypothesis is true, it still doesn't explain how the collapse were complete and global ignoring known laws of physics, so you still have a problem with your claims.

How many times has this been explained, and ignored by you? Extremely simple physics that you keep insisting on ignoring the reality of.

How did the massive core columns telescope down through an increasing mass hooper?





wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Why are none of you answering this question I keep asking hooper?

edit on 7/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sagging trusses are not nonsense. They were connected to the columns. The support of the columns was gone and they start to buckle or 'sag'. They did not have to melt to sag. They only needed gravity and the weight that could no longer be distributed properly.


No one mentioned melting.

The floors did NOT support the columns, you have it backwards. The core needed no support from the floors.

Look at this esdad, and tell me the core needed the floors for support...



Even IF what you say is true you still have the problem of explaining why the collapse was complete and global ignoring known laws of physics?

edit on 7/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
When do we ever hear about how many connections there were between the floor slab trusses and the core?

What about between the trusses and the perimeter columns? Were there two or three connections on each spandrel? There were 19 spandrels across each side of the building. That would mean at least 152 connections on the outer perimeter.

Didn't there have to be a first floor to fall due to fire? How could all of those connections give at the same time?

If most don't break at the same time wouldn't that cause the floor to tilt? If it tilted wouldn't that cause the hole in the middle to squeeze the core and create a lot of friction?

This perfect pancaking seems ridiculously improbable.

So how many connections were there?

psik



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When do we ever hear about how many connections there were between the floor slab trusses and the core?

What about between the trusses and the perimeter columns? Were there two or three connections on each spandrel? There were 19 spandrels across each side of the building. That would mean at least 152 connections on the outer perimeter.

Didn't there have to be a first floor to fall due to fire? How could all of those connections give at the same time?

If most don't break at the same time wouldn't that cause the floor to tilt? If it tilted wouldn't that cause the hole in the middle to squeeze the core and create a lot of friction?

This perfect pancaking seems ridiculously improbable.

So how many connections were there?

psik


You know you really should look at that big report that the NIST put together, lots of info in there.

And who ever said anything about "perfect" pancaking? When was the word "perfect" introduced into the conversation?



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When do we ever hear about how many connections there were between the floor slab trusses and the core?

What about between the trusses and the perimeter columns? Were there two or three connections on each spandrel? There were 19 spandrels across each side of the building. That would mean at least 152 connections on the outer perimeter.

Didn't there have to be a first floor to fall due to fire? How could all of those connections give at the same time?

If most don't break at the same time wouldn't that cause the floor to tilt? If it tilted wouldn't that cause the hole in the middle to squeeze the core and create a lot of friction?

This perfect pancaking seems ridiculously improbable.

So how many connections were there?

psik


You know you really should look at that big report that the NIST put together, lots of info in there.

And who ever said anything about "perfect" pancaking? When was the word "perfect" introduced into the conversation?


I don't give a damn what words you like and don't like. If the floor assembly fell while remaining EXACTLY horizontal then how did it happen? If people want to CLAIM that then say how many connections had to break simultaneously? That is why stuff like the NCSTAR1 report is a snow job. Lots of unimportant information to wade and sort through.

If an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could destroy a building 2000 times its mass in less than two hours they should be able to explain it in detail in fewer than 500 pages. Yesterday was the 42nd anniversary of the Moon landing and the NIST can't specify the total amount of concrete in buildings designed before 1969.


psik



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I don't give a damn what words you like and don't like. If the floor assembly fell while remaining EXACTLY horizontal then how did it happen? If people want to CLAIM that then say how many connections had to break simultaneously? That is why stuff like the NCSTAR1 report is a snow job. Lots of unimportant information to wade and sort through.

So, in other words you want a custom made report, just for you, that includes only the information that you perceive to be important. Gotcha. I'm sure they'll be issuing one of those pretty soon. Did you send your specifications to the NIST?

If an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could destroy a building 2000 times its mass in less than two hours they should be able to explain it in detail in fewer than 500 pages. Yesterday was the 42nd anniversary of the Moon landing and the NIST can't specify the total amount of concrete in buildings designed before 1969.

Uh, actually I think the part of the report wherein they explain the process is just about a little over 1000 pages, not including refrence materials. A lot of the report deals with things like evacuation and future improvements. But you could only know that if you actually read the report.
As for your total amount of concrete in the buildings you've already said that the information is only relevant so you could explain it to morons. Remember? You've drawn your conclusions already so the information is obviously not required to make an evaluation.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I don't give a damn what words you like and don't like. If the floor assembly fell while remaining EXACTLY horizontal then how did it happen? If people want to CLAIM that then say how many connections had to break simultaneously? That is why stuff like the NCSTAR1 report is a snow job. Lots of unimportant information to wade and sort through.

So, in other words you want a custom made report, just for you, that includes only the information that you perceive to be important. Gotcha. I'm sure they'll be issuing one of those pretty soon. Did you send your specifications to the NIST?

If an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could destroy a building 2000 times its mass in less than two hours they should be able to explain it in detail in fewer than 500 pages. Yesterday was the 42nd anniversary of the Moon landing and the NIST can't specify the total amount of concrete in buildings designed before 1969.

Uh, actually I think the part of the report wherein they explain the process is just about a little over 1000 pages, not including refrence materials. A lot of the report deals with things like evacuation and future improvements. But you could only know that if you actually read the report.
As for your total amount of concrete in the buildings you've already said that the information is only relevant so you could explain it to morons. Remember? You've drawn your conclusions already so the information is obviously not required to make an evaluation.


For a 10,000 page report it is so easy to claim what ain't there is. Noone can pont at a particular spot and say, "See it ain't there." That can't prove it ain't somewhere else.

So where is the total amount of concrete specified. They did it for the steel in 3 places, 200,000 tons. Why can't you just tell us where that is. It should fit in a single sentence.

Did specifying the total amount of concrete take 1,000 pages?

They never explain the collapse they just CLAIM it is inevitable. Just like you, constantly CLAIMING THINGS.

psik





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join