It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A CD thought experiment
page: 1share:
A simple question to which I've never received a satisfactory answer...
Put your conspiracist/originalist mindset to one side and consider this.
Assume the Port Authority decided, publicly, to bring the WTC towers down in a controlled manner. Would it be possible to initiate a global collapse, like the one witnessed on 9/11, by simultaneously blowing out all of the core columns between floors 75 and 80, and only between floors 75-80?
Put your conspiracist/originalist mindset to one side and consider this.
Assume the Port Authority decided, publicly, to bring the WTC towers down in a controlled manner. Would it be possible to initiate a global collapse, like the one witnessed on 9/11, by simultaneously blowing out all of the core columns between floors 75 and 80, and only between floors 75-80?
Originally posted by coughymachine
Would it be possible to initiate a global collapse, like the one witnessed on 9/11, by simultaneously blowing out all of the core columns between floors 75 and 80, and only between floors 75-80?
I was thinking about that earlier.
What if there were only explosives on the key core columns on key floors.
Knock out all the supports on several floors and let the weight of the building do the rest. A limited controlled demolition that led to complete failure of the entire building. Aided by explosives mixed into the cement on every floor of the building which were set off by pressure?
Reference:
Get Smart! Epispde 52
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Can explosives be set off by pressure changes?
I've speculated about Semtex being used.
[edit on 25-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]
Forget explosives mixed into the cement, etc. I just want to know if it would be possible to initiate a global collapse by simply blowing the core
columns out between floors 75 and 80 and doing it simultaneously.
The temptation here is to think of this in the context of 9/11 and I don't want that. I want people to consider this proposition in the context of a publicly announced CD where time and care has been taken to rig only the floors in question and the building evacuated beforehand to avoid casualties.
The temptation here is to think of this in the context of 9/11 and I don't want that. I want people to consider this proposition in the context of a publicly announced CD where time and care has been taken to rig only the floors in question and the building evacuated beforehand to avoid casualties.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Forget explosives mixed into the cement, etc. I just want to know if it would be possible to initiate a global collapse by simply blowing the core columns out between floors 75 and 80 and doing it simultaneously.
The temptation here is to think of this in the context of 9/11 and I don't want that. I want people to consider this proposition in the context of a publicly announced CD where time and care has been taken to rig only the floors in question and the building evacuated beforehand to avoid casualties.
Thats what I was thinking about, I posted in another thread
Here's what I posted:
People that say there could not have been bombs in the buildings say they believe so because the bombs would have gone off when the plane impacted the building
What about these two points
1. What if the charges were put only in strategic places, were they would do they dirty work, and not just throughout the entire building
2. In case the planes did not hit where they were intended to hit, and some of the pre planted explosives were indeed hit, the entire public was told that the Hijackers said they had bombs on the planes. So if the planes happen to hit the explosives that are already there then it is explained by the fact that the "terrorists" had bombs on the planes already
Seems like we're on teh same point here
Originally posted by coughymachine
Forget explosives mixed into the cement, etc. I just want to know if it would be possible to initiate a global collapse by simply blowing the core columns out between floors 75 and 80 and doing it simultaneously...
IMO no it would not be possible. To bring a building down to it's foundations you would have to take out the supports all the way through the building in a sequence. You're talking about just 5 floors out of 110.
The collapse would not have continued straight down bellow floor 80. You would have massive resistance from undamaged columns and floors. It would topple just like we see the South Tower doing. The South Tower above floor 80 began to topple and twist, until the floors bellow were taken out one by one, causing the top to stop it's momentum that should have continued. You can't stop momentum without some other energy acting on it. There was no other energy to do that (fire wouldn't, the impact wouldn't, gravity wouldn't). So there had to be some kind of explosives/thermate/nuke, whatever. What it was doesn't matter at this point, but we can tell what it wasn't, and it wasn't gravity (the only force acting on the towers at the time of collapse according to the official story).
This is basic high school physics. But it seems you're not even taught basic science any more, so I'm not surprised why so many don't get this...
New Survey Shows Americans Know Very Little About Science
My view on it is this:
If you believe, as originalists do, that the impact and resulting fires caused local damage/weakening of the core columns and that this resulted in a straight-down global collapse, then you have to accept that a CD taking out only those core columns between floors 75 and 80 would have led to the same outcome.
So, all arguments about the time and manpower needed to rig a 100 storey building are falacious. One only needs to rig 5 floors - in fact, 2 floors, numbers 75 and 80, since the columns in between will fall away once those two floors are blown.
I know this is very simplistic and I'm no expert, but it seems logical to me.
If you believe, as originalists do, that the impact and resulting fires caused local damage/weakening of the core columns and that this resulted in a straight-down global collapse, then you have to accept that a CD taking out only those core columns between floors 75 and 80 would have led to the same outcome.
So, all arguments about the time and manpower needed to rig a 100 storey building are falacious. One only needs to rig 5 floors - in fact, 2 floors, numbers 75 and 80, since the columns in between will fall away once those two floors are blown.
I know this is very simplistic and I'm no expert, but it seems logical to me.
This is from an article by Christopher Bollyn, he is writing about an interview with a survivor ot WTC2.
... if the 81st floor was a normal office floor of Fuji Bank, why doesn't the NIST report simply say so?
Silence was all I ever received from NIST.
Then, suddenly, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9/11.
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
www.planetquo.com...
This may be a common thing, does anyone know?
... if the 81st floor was a normal office floor of Fuji Bank, why doesn't the NIST report simply say so?
Silence was all I ever received from NIST.
Then, suddenly, out of the blue, a former bank employee came forward, a person who had visited the 81st floor on a weekly basis. His information explains more than he probably thought and provides us with a major clue about what really happened on 9/11.
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
www.planetquo.com...
This may be a common thing, does anyone know?
as a network engineer i can tell you that yeah, building a drop floor is pretty common. at my current employer all of our floors are hollow allowing
for the running of network cables. whats under our drop floor as well? you guessed it, massive UPS battery backups.
like this:
especially in banking, the name of the game is preemptive strike. 100% not uncommon.
like this:
especially in banking, the name of the game is preemptive strike. 100% not uncommon.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Would it be possible to initiate a global collapse, like the one witnessed on 9/11, by simultaneously blowing out all of the core columns between floors 75 and 80, and only between floors 75-80?
No.
Source: physics, EVERY CD COMPANY including CDI (why would they not save of explosives if this were possible?), logical thought, etc.
Originally posted by Pootie
No.
Source: physics, EVERY CD COMPANY including CDI (why would they not save of explosives if this were possible?), logical thought, etc.
This is my view.
If it's a demonstrably accurate one, the originalist's argument that the towers collapsed unaided would appear to be false. What is the difference, in terms of the collapse mechanism for example, between an aircraft causing local (say five floors) damage to some core columns, with other columns subsequently weakened by fires, and a CD that takes out the core columns on the same five floors?
Originally posted by bokinsmowl
whats under our drop floor as well? you guessed it, massive UPS battery backups.
Those aren't batteries you FOOL!!! RUUUUNNNNNNNNNN!!!
Obviously your building is rigged to explode and you don't even care.
It's people like you that make it impossible to get a good conspiracy going.
It's hard to speculate how a CD company would go about dropping a building the size of the Twin Towers. It's never been done.
If indeed the government did drop the towers, they obviously figured out a brand new way to demolish a building that's never been used before and did it balls on perfectly the first try. (That's a sincere observation, by the way. Don't read too much sarcasm into it...)
You wouldn't need to sever the columns on five floors. All you would need to do would be to sever the columns on ONE floor. The entire problem with
the CD theory is that the simplest way to drop the Towers would be to blow the columns on one of the lower floors. Why take a chance on not having
the building fall by putting your explosives on one of the upper floors. This is why I believe that the CD theory is a load of crap.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
You wouldn't need to sever the columns on five floors. All you would need to do would be to sever the columns on ONE floor. The entire problem with the CD theory is that the simplest way to drop the Towers would be to blow the columns on one of the lower floors. Why take a chance on not having the building fall by putting your explosives on one of the upper floors. This is why I believe that the CD theory is a load of crap.
Putting an apparently more likely methodology to one side, is it your view that a blast at floor 75, which was designed to take out the central columns, would lead to a global collapse like the one witnessed on 9/11?
Originally posted by JIMC5499
You wouldn't need to sever the columns on five floors. All you would need to do would be to sever the columns on ONE floor. The entire problem with the CD theory is that the simplest way to drop the Towers would be to blow the columns on one of the lower floors. Why take a chance on not having the building fall by putting your explosives on one of the upper floors. This is why I believe that the CD theory is a load of crap.
Does cutting a chunk out of a tree 25% of the way down cause the rest of the tree to collapse or does the top part fall off?
[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]
Originally posted by Pootie
Does cutting a chunk out of a tree 25% of the way down cause the rest of the tree to collapse or does the top part fall off?
Exactly. If they had just taken out the lower floors the top would have toppled over, just like the South Tower started to do...
With such a tall building it is logical that taking it down from the top, instead of the bottom, would be safer. There would be too much risk of it toppling over using normal CD methods. Just my opinion...
Originally posted by JIMC5499
You wouldn't need to sever the columns on five floors. All you would need to do would be to sever the columns on ONE floor. The entire problem with the CD theory is that the simplest way to drop the Towers would be to blow the columns on one of the lower floors. Why take a chance on not having the building fall by putting your explosives on one of the upper floors. This is why I believe that the CD theory is a load of crap.
So shouldn't the same apply to the damage done by the planes & fires then?
If you doubt that taking out floors with explosives high up in the building could do the job, then shouldn't you doubt that plane impacts & fires caused a global collapse also?
Just an honest question. Am I reading you wrong JIMC5499?
2PacSade-
The thing people seem to forget here is the WTC twin towers were of a unique design, heavily relying on the outer 'skeletal' structure for support,
not the steel framework. It's not that the core colums, between 75 and 80, were compramised that in and of its self brought down the building(s) but
that combined with the devistation to the skeletal structure. Once that was damaged, the weakend core colums only added to the stress being applied
and resulted in a complete collapse.
I believe if someone had the right info on how the skeletal structure worked it could be brought down considering the op's 'guidelines'. It would take calculations reguarding core colum stress limits, ammount of skeletal structure damage and the weight of multiple floor collapses but I think it could be done.
I believe if someone had the right info on how the skeletal structure worked it could be brought down considering the op's 'guidelines'. It would take calculations reguarding core colum stress limits, ammount of skeletal structure damage and the weight of multiple floor collapses but I think it could be done.
Originally posted by HomeBrew
The thing people seem to forget here is the WTC twin towers were of a unique design, heavily relying on the outer 'skeletal' structure for support, not the steel framework.
You is wrong. The central core carried the majority of the vertical load, the outer steel mesh carried the lateral loads. You only have to look at the design and common sense should tell you this. You should go look it up...
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by HomeBrew
The thing people seem to forget here is the WTC twin towers were of a unique design, heavily relying on the outer 'skeletal' structure for support, not the steel framework.
You is wrong. The central core carried the majority of the vertical load, the outer steel mesh carried the lateral loads. You only have to look at the design and common sense should tell you this. You should go look it up...
Exactly-
That's why many perimeter columns could be breached, all at once, and the buildings didn't fall from it.
If what you say is true then why didn't they collapse upon impact?
Just a thought. . .
2PacSade-
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by HomeBrew
The thing people seem to forget here is the WTC twin towers were of a unique design, heavily relying on the outer 'skeletal' structure for support, not the steel framework.
You is wrong. The central core carried the majority of the vertical load, the outer steel mesh carried the lateral loads. You only have to look at the design and common sense should tell you this. You should go look it up...
I'm only reiterating what has been demonstrated by, if I'm not mistaken, the origonal designer(s) of the structure. In a perfect, wind and vibration free, world you are probablly right. But considering everything besides a perfectly vertical load(and even some of that) relied on the skeletal structure for integrity, its easy to see how and when this(skeletal structure) was critically damaged, the core colums which were not designed in form or function to 'carry the load' totally, and critically damaged themselv's, could lead to a full collapse.
Common sence is not enough here, you might not understand though..
[edit on 25-4-2007 by HomeBrew]
new topics
-
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People: 7 minutes ago -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media: 2 hours ago -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area: 4 hours ago -
God's Righteousness is Greater than Our Wrath
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News: 13 hours ago, 10 flags -
Cats Used as Live Bait to Train Ferocious Pitbulls in Illegal NYC Dogfighting
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 17 hours ago, 8 flags -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
Electrical tricks for saving money
Education and Media: 12 hours ago, 4 flags -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 4 flags -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies: 16 hours ago, 2 flags -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area: 4 hours ago, 2 flags -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media: 2 hours ago, 1 flags -
God's Righteousness is Greater than Our Wrath
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 8 hours ago, 0 flags -
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People: 7 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area • 8 • : mysterioustranger -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 280 • : FlyersFan -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media • 48 • : oldhead1967 -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues • 55 • : Consvoli -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 11 • : Threadbarer -
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People • 1 • : mysterioustranger -
Electrical tricks for saving money
Education and Media • 6 • : lordcomac -
Scientists Say Even Insects May Be Sentient
Science & Technology • 57 • : FlyersFan -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events • 16 • : Freeborn -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections • 139 • : xuenchen