Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

atavisms said:
actually, that these events occurred is not in question.
The goal is how to best explain what we know happened and explosive demolition (knowing how many and of what kind is irrelevant for this purpose) is the ONLY logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Building only fall down when CDed?
 
atavisms said:
actually, that these events occurred is not in question.
The goal is how to best explain what we know happened and explosive demolition (knowing how many and of what kind is irrelevant for this purpose) is the ONLY logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
So you make a claim of fact, not supported by evidence of any kind and declare the very lack of evidence to be irrelevant?
 
Not sure who "merged" this thread, but here's the OP. So the last few pages here are completely off topic.

ergo said:
Talking about the towers here. My post in this thread got me thinking about the towers' cores and the argument that explosive demolition will be easily recognizable by its sound. Bedunkers typically refer to videos of controlled demolitions with the signature loud bang-bang-bang sounds of the detonations (although videos exist of CDs where the loud bangs are barely distinguishable from other kinds of noises, e.g.: the Stardust in Las Vegas).

So we know what controlled demolition using detonation charges sounds like in emptied out buildings where the charges are laid throughout the building, including the perimeter structures. Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out - indeed, is full of furniture, and sadly, still has people in it? I don't think we can know that because it hasn't occurred before.

Putting detonation charges on only the core columns, at intervals, would mitigate the sound. Perhaps not many charges would be needed to bring down the core. We certainly have read and heard testimony about the huge explosions that occurred in the basement levels, and have seen and heard the evidence of the blown-out lobbies, which cannot be explained by a fuel fireball traveling half a kilometre down through a staggered elevator system, as Jeff King easily points out. As well as testimony from inside-the-tower witnesses of explosions occurring on levels below them.

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...

If you want to discuss the Bazant crush down-crush up silliness, there are plenty of other threads for that, including one very recently.
 
Last edited:
Sixteen people survived inside the collapse of the World Trade Center,

ergo said:
Not sure who "merged" this thread, but here's the OP. So the last few pages here are completely off topic.



If you want to discuss the Bazant crush down-crush up silliness, there are plenty of other threads for that, including one very recently.
Click to expand...
Buzzelli, who was on the 22d floor does not describe ANY explosions
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
Then, as he reached the 22nd floor, the building shook, stairs started to heave. It sounded to Buzzelli like heavy objects were being dropped right above his head. The sound got louder, closer. He dove into a corner. “I felt the walls next to me crack and buckle on top of me,” he says. Suddenly, he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him.
Click to expand...
 
A W Smith said:
Buzzelli, who was on the 22d floor does not describe ANY explosions
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
Click to expand...

I really don't want to link to Kevin Cosgrove's sound clip of his 9-1-1 call.

Kevin_Cosgrove_new.jpg
 
Last edited:
tntruther said:
Truthers actually put their own reputation and safety at risk for the betterment of society when they stand up to the government's official conspiracy theory of 911.
I'm a truther, but I'm not trying to exploit anyone. I just want to get to the truth about how those 3 buildings fell. And my major motivating factor is the tragic fate of the victims. So please, don't hate truthers for simply digging in to the science for the sake of justice.
Click to expand...

There is something you should realize here; Whatever science truthers go "digging" into, you need to discover how much of the science has been dug up and sifted through all the years after 9/11.
When forum posters show you the numbers, investigative sources, facts, physics and experienced explanations, they are presenting you with solid evidence that explain all the events which occurred on 9/11.
 
A W Smith said:
Buzzelli, who was on the 22d floor does not describe ANY explosions
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Then, as he reached the 22nd floor, the building shook, stairs started to heave. It sounded to Buzzelli like heavy objects were being dropped right above his head. The sound got louder, closer. He dove into a corner. “I felt the walls next to me crack and buckle on top of me,” he says. Suddenly, he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


[TM] Bolded Part.... Uh huh! Uh huh! [/TM]
 
MIKILLINI said:
The most ignorant assumption truthers always make: They believe nobody in JREF does research and that there are no experts/professionals here.
Ignorance gets you nowhere atavisms.
Click to expand...

What's there to know?

The world saw two huge skyscrapers become completely demolished in about a 1/4 of minute. That's about 7 tower floors a second.

When the Towers collapsed they fell nearly ¼ of a mile to earth, and reached a speed of 120 miles per hour.
Click to expand...

http://www.wtc911.us/wtc_911_facts.html

An avalanche can get up to 80 mph in about 5 seconds.


The ignorant assumption is that less than 1/3 of a modern steel framed building could fall through a pristine and undamaged over 2/3 of itself rather than take a path of least resistance AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What's there to know?

The world saw two huge skyscrapers become completely demolished in about a 1/4 of minute. That's about 7 tower floors a second.



http://www.wtc911.us/wtc_911_facts.html

An avalanche can get up to 80 mph in about 5 seconds.


The ignorant assumption is that less than 1/3 of a modern steel framed building could fall through a pristine and undamaged over 2/3 of itself rather than take a path of least resistance AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.
Click to expand...

The "path of least resistance" is an electrical term, not a structural engineering term. Go learn some physics before you come back spamming the same ignorant nonsense over and over again.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What's there to know?


The ignorant assumption is that less than 1/3 of a modern steel framed building could fall through a pristine and undamaged over 2/3 of itself rather than take a path of least resistance AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.
Click to expand...

The ignorant assumption is thinking that something that is falling will jump out of the way of something below it because it will take a "path of least resistance"

Free hint to the eternally clueless.....it will take far more energy for a falling mass to move in a horizontal direction rather than to continue in the vertical direction. Furthermore there has to be a source for that energy.

Only in troofer fantasies will the opposite happen.
 
tntruther said:
This is a very sensitive issue. When you talk about someone dyeing we naturally try to be very respectful of the deceased and their families.
Conversely the science of structural integrity tends to be a fairly dispassionate subject.
It's hard to mix the two.
To say that the fire was hot enough to make someone jump but not hot enough to melt steel tend to make the messenger seem insensitive, but, none the less, the science is obvious.
When truthers use this example, it is really our attempt to overstate the obvious.
The reality is, even if the fires had reached 2800F, the melting point of steel. causing the upper part of the building to collapse on to the lower part, there would still not be enough mass or energy for it to crush the lower, much stronger part of the building in to a fine dust at near free-fall acceleration.
My heart goes out to all the victims of 911 and their families. And my heart goes out to America, who's liberties have been under attack from within since 911. :faint:
Click to expand...

The problem with explaining an explosive collapse is that you never actually see the explosives. I know. haha.

So rather than conjecture of how it was done WITH explosives our objective should be how it could not completely collapse as it did without explosives.
 
thedopefishlives said:
The "path of least resistance" is an electrical term, not a structural engineering term. Go learn some physics before you come back spamming the same ignorant nonsense over and over again.
Click to expand...


Really?

The path of least resistance describes the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path.

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system. For example, water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance as it is pulled downward by gravity. Atmospheric disturbances (storms) flow on the path of least resistance by flowing toward zones of low barometric pressure, where lower air density offers less impedance to the storm system than higher pressure zones.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance
 
Clayton Moore said:
The problem with explaining an explosive collapse is that you never actually see the explosives. I know. haha.

So rather than conjecture of how it was done WITH explosives our objective should be how it could not completely collapse as it did without explosives.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that you have 0 evidence to support any of your claims, yet you still come back rehashing them. Like it's been stated, it would actually demonstrate explosives if the top "toppled" over.
 
plague311 said:
No, the problem is that you have 0 evidence to support any of your claims, yet you still come back rehashing them. Like it's been stated, it would actually demonstrate explosives if the top "toppled" over.
Click to expand...

Yeppers. Like the successful planned controlled demolitions always do?
 
Animal said:
"This article does not cite any references or sources."
Typical for a troofer source :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He'll come back with, "That's because it's common sense." Which works fine if you are in electrical or hydraulic engineering, but for people working with solid objects, it's not as simple as, "The magic path of least resistance should carry the debris away from the building."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom