How to Collapse Without Explosives

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Varemia

 

You look like some sort of private school Washington political aspirant, are you? 'cause it would be nice to know who NOT to vote for in the future.

You've not contributed anything to the thread here. My picture was an allusion to a member who was annoying me some time ago. Literally my face photo-shopped on Reagan's body.

Back to the thread at hand, making claims about the different aspects that were present and then claiming that anyone who disagrees is basically stupid or evil is wrong. We're here to discuss intelligently, not make pointless claims and accusations (or suggestions that hint at accusation. It's the 'stir up the mob' mentality). All of the factors used to support a conspiracy (which has yet to be fully defined in a coherent manner) have not been sufficiently connected to any particular thing to make any sense. I've heard explosives, thermite, implosion, no-plane, laser, hologram, etc. I mean, where is the cohesion?

The only suggestion that is even somewhat reasonable and fairly widespread is that the day could use some extra investigating, but there isn't even a ton of motivation for that except among people who think they know more about everything than tens of thousands of engineers and scientists. We've got Jones, who published in a private journal and got peer reviewed by conspiracy-heads, and the only people who supported his conclusions worked off of the data in his paper, not off scientific replication of his results. The people who did try to replicate them and found that there was no-where near the same result, have been completely ignored and even shunned by conspiracy-theorists. Apparently if someone doesn't agree, it is protocol to say that they are one with the government and trying to spread dis-info. It's a nice diversion if you are trying to keep people ignorant.

Then you have people that think that the lateral supports on the floors would be able to hold up and stop the weight of rubble from the tower above that collapsed downward. This magic belief in horizontal performing as vertical columns is a mistake many people seem to make. Then you have explosions. Oh JEEZ the explosions. First, a man in the basement of the towers apparently could see the plane from down there, and when the burning jet fuel blew out the elevator down the shaft that ran the length of the tower, it (sarcastically) means a bomb was set in the base of the tower... even though the tower began collapsing from the top.

99% of the witnesses used by Truthers seem to say they heard explosions AS the tower was collapsing. You have the roof exploding onto them. You have ejections AS serious amounts of debris are crashing through the tower during the collapse. I mean, nothing the Truthers assert makes sense if you think about everything in context! I firmly believe that many here are either lacking in intelligence, or are looking for the imaginary frog, seeing every little thing as validation for its existence, but refusing to see the true reason for all the things they are looking at.

I know this won't get through to anyone. Heck, the only people that will likely read through my entire banter will see things the way I do already. I keep trying though. I refuse to give into the peer pressure of believing everything a Truther says.

Originally posted by FDNY343
1-How would he know that the "explosion" was before the first impact if he was in the basement?

He said he could hear and feel an explosion from below, then immediately after, he heard a fainter explosion from above. Just like I can hear noises when they come from above or below in my building.

That explosion in the basement caused extensive damage to the machine shop, parking garage, and lobby. I documented this pretty well in the other thread.

Originally posted by FDNY343
2- An explosion capable of cutting core columns in the WTC would have cause Willie and others in the basement to suffer from baratrauma injuries.

I documented this fact as well. Construction worker Phillip Morelli testified that people got killed in the basement, people got severely injured in the basement from the continued explosions.

Originally posted by FDNY343
3-The collapse still begins at the top, not at the bottom.

That never matters in controlled demolitions. As you being one who hasn't researched controlled demolitions, you haven't seen videos of demolitions starting at the top, or the middle:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/379570d95fd1.jpg[/atsimg]



There's too many signs of controlled demolition: flashes, synchronous/timed booms, debris ejections. And there's too few signs of fire-induced collapse.

Free fall time for any freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers, in nothihng but air, just over 10 seconds.

Actual timed destruction events - about 13 seconds, give or take a second.

See Three Laws of Motion, by Sir Isaac Newton.

Case closed. It's self evident.

They could not have "collapse" in a progressive squashing, not possible, certainly not within a three second timespan - what did all the breakage occur faster than the speed of sound? Absurd.

Originally posted by Varemia
We're here to discuss intelligently, not make pointless claims and accusations (or suggestions that hint at accusation. It's the 'stir up the mob' mentality). All of the factors used to support a conspiracy (which has yet to be fully defined in a coherent manner) have not been sufficiently connected to any particular thing to make any sense. I've heard explosives, thermite, implosion, no-plane, laser, hologram, etc. I mean, where is the cohesion?

Interesting tact. But you know that's not what's being put forth here, that mismash of discredited things, along with a piece of truth. How disingenuous. Imagine having it as a job or a mission to do this discrediting work, on the deaths of 1000's and then over a million in their name, for the sake of "justice" and security..

reply to post by NewAgeMan

what did all the breakage occur faster than the speed of sound? Absurd.

Well how fast do things break? How long does it take for a bolt to shear? Seconds or milliseconds?

The irony is that the reason you most often hear a sound when something breaks is because the shearing pieces are breaking the sound barrier.

Accidentally hit reply twice. Touchpads -.-

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Varemia
We're here to discuss intelligently, not make pointless claims and accusations (or suggestions that hint at accusation. It's the 'stir up the mob' mentality). All of the factors used to support a conspiracy (which has yet to be fully defined in a coherent manner) have not been sufficiently connected to any particular thing to make any sense. I've heard explosives, thermite, implosion, no-plane, laser, hologram, etc. I mean, where is the cohesion?

Interesting tact. But you know that's not what's being put forth here, that mismash of discredited things, along with a piece of truth. How disingenuous. Imagine having it as a job or a mission to do this discrediting work, on the deaths of 1000's and then over a million in their name, for the sake of "justice" and security..

There you go again. You act as if your knowledge is infallible when I am saying I can't see the conspiracy to demolish with explosives. It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. Maybe that's too complicated to understand? I'm saying IT IS NOT LOGICAL to me to believe in explosives in the towers. Your attempts to make people think I am paid to argue against Truthers is not acceptable nor respectable. It makes you a bad and MALICIOUS person. Foul play, sir. I do not take lightly to being accused of these things, and it takes the argument nowhere. Yes, I know you didn't say it directly, but you made a direct 'this leads to this' assumption line with your statement. It contributed NOTHING to what you are trying to say and it works to keep people ignorant, believing things because they are guilted into it, not because they genuinely researched and found the result logical. EMOTION IS NOT LOGIC.

reply to post by Varemia


Re: logic and reason - what did you think about this statement..?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Free fall time for any freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers, in nothihng but air, just over 10 seconds.

Actual timed destruction events - about 13 seconds, give or take a second.

See Three Laws of Motion, by Sir Isaac Newton.

Case closed. It's self evident.

They could not have "collapse" in a progressive squashing, not possible, certainly not within a three second timespan - what did all the breakage occur faster than the speed of sound? Absurd.

And for that matter, this video, particularly in light of the above statement.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You honestly believe that the material was squished downward? I see that there are other issues we may need to deal with here. The towers were not made of silly putty.

reply to post by Varemia


"200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
43,600 windows in the twin towers—over 600,000 square feet of glass
239 elevators in the World Trade Center complex
71 escalators in the complex
2,000 parking spaces in the complex’s 5 underground parking levels
70 feet of foundation excavated so that the Twin Towers rested on solid bedrock "

www.nysm.nysed.gov...





This buildings were mammoth . Your right not made of silly putty .


Something wicked brought down these 3+ monsters down in one day .. Or maybe it was just a series of chain of events. That is hard to believe for these beasts



What do we need here ? A generous donter to build a building maybe 50 stories. To match the specs of he WTC tower and we light up a couple of fires and cause som major damage top part of the building .

We will probably have to ligh up alot of fires though.

Then when he fires don't bring down he building. We shoot missle after missile after miissle lool .




Now a pan cake theory should be able to easily reproduce if that was the case and it was not demolotion. But i suspect a steel frame biuilding will put up a fight and no go down like a chump like wtc 7 and he concreate buildings in the op. Right?

reply to post by seedofchucky


You don't even need to build anything to prove it's not possible.

Just take some light construction steel and jet fuel and light a fire under it. See if it sags after an hour.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seedofchucky

 

You don't even need to build anything to prove it's not possible.

Just take some light construction steel and jet fuel and light a fire under it. See if it sags after an hour.

Already done, and in less than 4 minutes IIRC.

Nat Geo did it. They even put a load on the steel.

Guess what happened?

The biggest problem I'm finding in attempting to find evidence that structures can collapse and usually collapse quickly, is that there have been very few skyscraper collapses in the past. A small sample makes it very difficult to come up with a dictation on what should and should not happen predictably. You can't take it as evidence that 9/11 was impossible though, since airliners have equally NEVER hit skyscrapers before. The Empire State Building does not count because it was a concrete building hit by a much smaller plane.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

You honestly believe that the material was squished downward? I see that there are other issues we may need to deal with here. The towers were not made of silly putty.

What do you propose obliterated 95 floors of the north tower to within three seconds of absolute free fall, the "foot of God"?

Absent the use of explosives removing the structure beneath the descending debris wave, precisely as seen in the video, that's about what the official story adds up to, and on that note NIST did not address the actual occurance of destruction itself, saying only that once the threshold of collapse was reached at the impact area, what ensued thereafter was automatic and inevitable, when in truth, such a destruction is hardly self evident, with the only exception being the assumption as to the initial cause being as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts and fires at the impact areas.

But how on earth can the actual destruction as seen in the videos and timed with a stopwatch, have occured by any sort of crushing action ie: Bezant's "crush up, crush down" hypothesis, as per the OP, which might work for a concrete structure where the pull the middle out of the building and allow gravity and the laws of motion to do the work.

No one can convince me we're looking at a "collapse" there or that all the breakage occured all along the entire remaining length of structure in a few seconds (difference between something ie: rest of the buidling, and nothing at all, except air alone in the case of free).

That's absurd, and a blatent violation of the las of motion, absent the use of explosives.

This is rational, reasonable, logical and subject to analysis - the video.

It's self evident. The buildings were demolished with explosives, the plane impacts and fires the Occam's Razor slight of hand fake cause, nothing more.

9/11 was a heinous black op psy-op which was authorized and presided over by the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and others, and in part masterminded as an evil genious visionary, by none other than Philip D. Zelikow, future Chairman of the 9/11 Comission.

Future history will get this thing straight, can't not, since it's self evident to any grade 10 physics student, armed with nothing but a stopwatch and a few basic equations.

reply to post by FDNY343


They also made these statements...

"As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes."

"Once the structural support of the upper floors is removed, a few falling floors can bring down an entire building."

This was before they were proven wrong, and NIST changed their mind on the 'pancake collapse' hypothesis.

Nat Geo has no credibility, and I don't need them to do tests for me. It's no more relevant than the Unpopular Mechanics tabloid hit piece.

Originally posted by Varemia
The biggest problem I'm finding in attempting to find evidence that structures can collapse and usually collapse quickly, is that there have been very few skyscraper collapses in the past. A small sample makes it very difficult to come up with a dictation on what should and should not happen predictably. You can't take it as evidence that 9/11 was impossible though, since airliners have equally NEVER hit skyscrapers before. The Empire State Building does not count because it was a concrete building hit by a much smaller plane.

This is such a weak claim.

We know the strength of materials, we know physics. We know Newtons laws of motion, and what happens when objects collide. We know, and so does NIST, that the plane impacts had very little to do with the final collapses. We know an hours worth of fire is not enough to transfer heat to thousands of tons of steel to make it fail from its own weight.

If you don't know this stuff then on what grounds can you claim the OS is correct? None, you work on nothing but faith.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
The biggest problem I'm finding in attempting to find evidence that structures can collapse and usually collapse quickly, is that there have been very few skyscraper collapses in the past. A small sample makes it very difficult to come up with a dictation on what should and should not happen predictably. You can't take it as evidence that 9/11 was impossible though, since airliners have equally NEVER hit skyscrapers before. The Empire State Building does not count because it was a concrete building hit by a much smaller plane.

This is such a weak claim.

We know the strength of materials, we know physics. We know Newtons laws of motion, and what happens when objects collide. We know, and so does NIST, that the plane impacts had very little to do with the final collapses. We know an hours worth of fire is not enough to transfer heat to thousands of tons of steel to make it fail from its own weight.

If you don't know this stuff then on what grounds can you claim the OS is correct? None, you work on nothing but faith.

I take it then that you are claiming to be an expert on this matter? I'm certainly not. I'm just a layman trying to make sense of it, and it's true, the official story doesn't make complete sense, but that's because I cannot visualize exactly what was happening inside a hundred story collapsing building. No one can visualize that. The only thing being done here is assertions that there must have been explosives because those could have caused a collapse. It's true, explosives can and do bring down buildings, but don't forget that a friggen plane hit the towers! I guess that was just an oooh ahhh example. They could have easily said that terrorists had managed to plant explosives and the event probably would have been similarly devastating. Honestly, I'm not an expert and I highly doubt you are, so we need to stop acting like we're certain.

My stance is that I think it is more likely that the official story is correct, since I can't find direct flaws with my layman's knowledge on the matter. Your stance is that you think it was explosives and from that theory you draw the idea that "if explosives, then government conspiracy." These arguments seem to be less about facts and more about who sounds the prettiest and most popular, in all honesty. It's all about bashing the other person and saying they're idiots for coming to their own conclusions. We should be working together, not fighting like bickering children. Now is there any way that we can begin sharing evidence amongst ourselves like investigators and come to an all around consensus? If we can't, then either someone is willfully pushing ignorance, or is religious about their stance.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seedofchucky

 

You don't even need to build anything to prove it's not possible.

Just take some light construction steel and jet fuel and light a fire under it. See if it sags after an hour.

Already done, and in less than 4 minutes IIRC.

Nat Geo did it. They even put a load on the steel.

Guess what happened?

What good are tests that are basically IDIOTIC?

Nat Geo could compute the temperatures ahead of time and the thickness of steel to use. They could even have conducted the tests ahead of time to be sure it did what they wanted.

The THICKNESS OF STEEL in the columns on the 81st LEVEL of the south tower was determined by how much weight that steel had to support which was another 29 stories.

So when do we ever hear how thick that steel was or how many tons of steel were on that LEVEL?

Then there is the matter of the airflow in the Nat Geo demonstration. They created a FIRE STORM. The exhaust air could flow straight up and fresh air could flow in from 360 degrees. Those are not the conditions of the WTC fires. Exhaust flow was blocked by the floors above and the input was limited by the holes created by the plane and explosions.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I think it was less to replicate the WTC fires and more to disprove the myth that jet fuel can't weaken steel. If it's possible under any conditions, then it is possible.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

You honestly believe that the material was squished downward? I see that there are other issues we may need to deal with here. The towers were not made of silly putty.

What do you propose obliterated 95 floors of the north tower to within three seconds of absolute free fall, the "foot of God"?

Absent the use of explosives removing the structure beneath the descending debris wave, precisely as seen in the video, that's about what the official story adds up to, and on that note NIST did not address the actual occurance of destruction itself, saying only that once the threshold of collapse was reached at the impact area, what ensued thereafter was automatic and inevitable, when in truth, such a destruction is hardly self evident, with the only exception being the assumption as to the initial cause being as a direct and sole result of the plane impacts and fires at the impact areas.

But how on earth can the actual destruction as seen in the videos and timed with a stopwatch, have occured by any sort of crushing action ie: Bezant's "crush up, crush down" hypothesis, as per the OP, which might work for a concrete structure where the pull the middle out of the building and allow gravity and the laws of motion to do the work.

No one can convince me we're looking at a "collapse" there or that all the breakage occured all along the entire remaining length of structure in a few seconds (difference between something ie: rest of the buidling, and nothing at all, except air alone in the case of free).

That's absurd, and a blatent violation of the las of motion, absent the use of explosives.

This is rational, reasonable, logical and subject to analysis - the video.

It's self evident. The buildings were demolished with explosives, the plane impacts and fires the Occam's Razor slight of hand fake cause, nothing more.

9/11 was a heinous black op psy-op which was authorized and presided over by the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and others, and in part masterminded as an evil genious visionary, by none other than Philip D. Zelikow, future Chairman of the 9/11 Comission.

Future history will get this thing straight, can't not, since it's self evident to any grade 10 physics student, armed with nothing but a stopwatch and a few basic equations.

edit on 11-2-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit

So, when do you plan on putting together a paper proving Bazant et al. wrong and submitting it to the journal he published his paper in?

Next week?
Next month?

Ever?

I look forward to reading your discussion on his paper. Just remember to list any assumptions, and show your math.