Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

ergo said:
Assuming that's sarcasm, I would just ask as a final question to Noah:

Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
How big are the bombs? Explosives have to be set properly. For CD it takes days of preparation to pre-cut steel and place charges. Blowing up bombs on floors would knock out the windows and not do major structual damage depending on the size of the charge.
In 1993 a 1300 pound bomb did not topple the WTC towers; what size is your bomb?

On 911 two planes with impact kinetic energy equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT did not knock down the towers, but the jet fuel set fires that destroyed the buildings. The fires were equal in heat energy to OVER 1900 and 700 TONS of TNT (3000 to 8000 GJ energy from the office fires).

Can you do better with your delusions than 1900 TONS of TNT in heat energy supplied by the office fires alone? That leaves out the heat energy of the jet fuel at 315 TONS of TNT. I forgot you don't do physics, you do nonsense.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
Yep, you don't do physics.

How much weight is your moon size rubble pile you say can't crush the WTC towers?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Assuming that's sarcasm, I would just ask as a final question to Noah:

Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Could you put a number and placement on "just a few"? If not, what's the point of this line of question?

Are you going for a "gotcha"

BTW: the question about fires and damage really needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Could you put a number and placement on "just a few"? If not, what's the point of this line of question?

Are you going for a "gotcha"
BTW: the question about fires and damage really needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this is where he is going. If you say that placing explosives on a couple of floors which do exactly the same damage in terms of removal or weakening of structural supports as the planes did (and maybe get some fires going as well) cannot cause the structure to collapse, then the planes and fires could not have done so either.

Noah suggests that a demo would take tons of explosives, but no one would attempt a controlled demolition by damaging a couple of floors near the top, as the resulting chaos was not "controlled" by any means. As for the 1993 attempt, driving the truck to the 90th floor would have had a much greater chance of at least collapsing one tower. The basements didn't have long span joists, and the column sections there were garguantuan. Toppling one tower into the other would be all but impossible.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I have a feeling this is where he is going. If you say that placing explosives on a couple of floors which do exactly the same damage in terms of removal or weakening of structural supports as the planes did (and maybe get some fires going as well) cannot cause the structure to collapse, then the planes and fires could not have done so either.

Noah suggests that a demo would take tons of explosives, but no one would attempt a controlled demolition by damaging a couple of floors near the top, as the resulting chaos was not "controlled" by any means. As for the 1993 attempt, driving the truck to the 90th floor would have had a much greater chance of at least collapsing one tower. The basements didn't have long span joists, and the column sections there were garguantuan. Toppling one tower into the other would be all but impossible.
Click to expand...

You had better be careful because you're saying it should be technically possible to reenact on a scale model using a computer model to calculate where the explosives had to be placed. That would be heresy.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You had better be careful because you're saying it should be technically possible to reenact on a scale model using a computer model to calculate where the explosives had to be placed. That would be heresy.
Click to expand...
Where did he say that? Putting words in peoples mouths or just repeating the "voices"?
 
Clayton Moore said:
You had better be careful because you're saying it should be technically possible to reenact on a scale model using a computer model to calculate where the explosives had to be placed. That would be heresy.
Click to expand...

Many people here HAVE stated that it would be possible to MIMIC the effects of an aircraft impact and the following almost immediate, large area, multifloor office fires and have the structures then fail in very similar fashion as to what was seen on 9/11/01.

HOWEVER, and this is a very BIG point, while there is a very large amount of evidence that aircraft did hit the towers and that these impacts were followed very quickly by large area, multifloor office fires , AND there is 100 years of fire engineering data, AND a rather detailed analysis was done on the effects on the structures in question, AND it shows convincingly that these caused the collapses
WHEREAS
the multitude of other contentions have little or no evidence to support them and indeed you are a prime example of a person who believes that impact and fire did not do it simply because you want to believe somthing else did. You have personally argued that the explosives could be anything required to do the job because we cannot know what technology 'they' have. Its an invocation of magic, sometimes called an arguement from, or appeal to, ignorance.

Clayton, 'It cudda bin' is not evidence, 'you don't know what they have' is not evidence', and your personal political worldview is not evidence.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Many people here HAVE stated that it would be possible to MIMIC the effects of an aircraft impact and the following almost immediate, large area, multifloor office fires and have the structures then fail in very similar fashion as to what was seen on 9/11/01.

HOWEVER, and this is a very BIG point, while there is a very large amount of evidence that aircraft did hit the towers and that these impacts were followed very quickly by large area, multifloor office fires , AND there is 100 years of fire engineering data, AND a rather detailed analysis was done on the effects on the structures in question, AND it shows convincingly that these caused the collapses
WHEREAS
the multitude of other contentions have little or no evidence to support them and indeed you are a prime example of a person who believes that impact and fire did not do it simply because you want to believe somthing else did. You have personally argued that the explosives could be anything required to do the job because we cannot know what technology 'they' have. Its an invocation of magic, sometimes called an arguement from, or appeal to, ignorance.

Clayton, 'It cudda bin' is not evidence, 'you don't know what they have' is not evidence', and your personal political worldview is not evidence.
Click to expand...

RDX is from the 40s or maybe before. So it was at least 50 years old tech in 2000. It was developed before the most basic 60's mainframe.

If there is anything you can believe in without seeing or touching it's advancements in technology.
 
Clayton Moore said:
RDX is from the 40s or maybe before. So it was at least 50 years old tech in 2000. It was developed before the most basic 60's mainframe.

If there is anything you can believe in without seeing or touching it's advancements in technology pixies and unicorns.
Click to expand...
Strikethrough, etc. are mine

Clayton, believing things without any evidence is silly, dontcha think?
 
Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Not in a million years.

Oops. Forgot the "why not" part.

WTC_seq_reuters.jpg


^^
That's why.
 
Last edited:
I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. 1) They are not sure what they are saying and need to respond in a way that doesn't betray this, and/or 2) when they do say something, they are not sure that they're right and want to make their answer vague enough that they can wriggle out of it if need be.

Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
 
ergo said:
Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...

Who has ever said they did? Do you need pictures of the fires as well?
 
ergo said:
I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. 1) They are not sure what they are saying and need to respond in a way that doesn't betray this, and/or 2) when they do say something, they are not sure that they're right and want to make their answer vague enough that they can wriggle out of it if need be.

Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...
Why can't you comprehend why the towers collapsed? You posted nonsense saying the mass of the moon can't make the towers collapse. Why do you post idiotic claims? You failed to read NIST, and other studies; would you understand engineering studies, or was the moon nonsense your peak? What is your goal? Does your failure to comprehend stem from your lack of knowledge in physics or your shoddy research? You keep asking moronic questions, can't you find your own answers? Is your lack of knowledge the reason for your adopting the lies of 911 truth?

ergo said:
... If the perimeter columns merely needed to be cut up so they can peel off in the manner we see, then incendiaries could do that job. But to sink the core would probably require explosives - maybe not typical of typical CD, but explosions that were indeed heard by witnesses.
Click to expand...
The OP was nonsense and evidence free. You failed to make a point.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
RDX is from the 40s or maybe before. So it was at least 50 years old tech in 2000. It was developed before the most basic 60's mainframe.

If there is anything you can believe in without seeing or touching it's advancements in technology.
Click to expand...

What's your point?

Nuclear bombs are from the 40s, too, still they are the chief weapon of deterrence.
Ships have been made mainly of steel for the last 100 years. Still, the most modern warships are made mainly of steel.

You are still invoking unknown stuff with unknown properties, merely assuming its existence and assuming it has just the properties you need for your wholly unknown (unsubstantiated and not even spelled-out) hypothesis. That is still invoking magic.
However, even IF the military had supersecret superexplosives, they still would go BANG very very loudly, or else they would not break the kind of massive steel structures that the WTC was. Or they would not be explosives.
 
Oystein said:
...However, even IF the military had supersecret superexplosives, they still would go BANG very very loudly, or else they would not break the kind of massive steel structures that the WTC was. Or they would not be explosives.
Click to expand...
I am still amused that truthers are so ignorant of how explosives work that they can claim "Hush-a-BoomTM"
:rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. 1) They are not sure what they are saying and need to respond in a way that doesn't betray this, and/or 2) when they do say something, they are not sure that they're right and want to make their answer vague enough that they can wriggle out of it if need be.

Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...

Would you like us to post in crayon using big block letters and words of not more than two syllables?
 
ergo said:
snip

Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...

He was answering your question asking could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?

Since the collapse started on the exact floors where the planes crashed AND the exact floors where the fires raged for an hour, NO, any explosives that had been previously put in those locations would no longer be operable.
 
ergo said:
Your images show the towers still standing after being hit by planes. Are you making the point that the plane impacts alone did not cause them to collapse?
Click to expand...

Try to hold both these thoughts in your head at the same time:

Plane impacts.
Fire.

NOT only plane impacts. NOT only fire. BOTH.

The impacts caused the sort of structural damage that a bomb might cause, while the fire was much more effective in causing a collapse because it compromised the strength of the structural elements. The designers of the building could plan for losing a certain number of structural supports, but not for unpredictable* weakening over a large area.



*In order to predict such a thing, the designers would have to know in advance exactly where the fire would be and how hot it would be in different areas, as well as how else the structure might have been compromised. This would be impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom