How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

[Edial]

Actually, it's frightening that you keep spewing this nonsense when it's been debunked many times over.

Not that evidence or logic is all that important to "truthers".



You are aware there was wreckage of an airliner and thousands of pounds of jet fuel in there, right?

But why are you getting personal with this?
The fires weren't long lasting. Most of jet fuel burned outside at the impact - you saw the explosion flames outside. The building itself was producing billows of black smoke - low oxygen.

There was a massive hole in the building from a catastrophic impact, combined with massive fire damage. I don't see how you can't comprehend that would significantly weaken the structural integrity of the building.

But it was not a massive hole. The closeup showed some beams knocked out and clearly no raging flames before the collapse.

Also, remember that poor redheaded woman who was waving her hand from that hole? That was all over TV at the time.

 

[Btodd]

It doesn't fit the conspiracy version either. Either you had demo charges that supposedly cut beams and flung them "hundreds of yards" or you had some kind of thermite melting thing going on that "left molten metal in the basement"

It makes zero sense to have both - pick one.

You're forgetting that they had to use seemingly contradictory, unnecessary steps in carrying out the plan - for one, it throws people off track by not making any sense. Plus, a plan works best when you use as many steps as possible, so there are many more chances for the plan to fail, or for people to catch on to one of the steps.

So you use thermite because explosions would be seen and heard by everyone around for miles, which spoils your plan to not get caught.

But you need the powerful force of explosives, so you go ahead and use them anyway. And the thermite.

You use two planes at the Twin Towers, because that provides the 'shock and awe' factor needed to rally us around going to war in Iraq, even though it would have been easier to frame Iraqis for the crime instead of using Saudis for some bizarre reason.

Then, after using planes at the Twin Towers, you use a missile at the Pentagon, and count on nobody noticing it being fired from a fighter jet that's flying right over rush-hour traffic stopped on the highway. Why switch to a missile, when you just carried out part of the plan by using planes? Because it makes no sense! They'll never see it coming!

Finally, after demolishing the Twin Towers with an unnecessary combination of demolitions charges plus tons and tons of thermite melting steel all over the place, you demolish WTC7 after pulling all life from the building and announcing that it's unstable and might collapse.

Sure, framing Saudis for an attack so you can justify it being Iraq's fault and using thermite unnecessarily combined with demolitions charges would bring the Twin Towers down MIGHT get us the war we wanted...but by the time we blow up an empty building that nobody knows about well after the Towers had collapsed...THAT WILL BE THE FINAL STRAW THE PUBLIC NEEDS. Let's just hope Silverstein (we want him in on the plot so we can help him make insurance money) doesn't blab it all over television that he was in charge of a demolitions crew headed up by the NY Fire Department when they suddenly decided to blow up the building, since they were in on the deaths of more than 300 of their fellow firefighters.

Whew!


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

But why are you getting personal with this?
The fires weren't long lasting. Most of jet fuel burned outside at the impact - you saw the explosion flames outside. The building itself was producing billows of black smoke - low oxygen.



But it was not a massive hole. The closeup showed some beams knocked out and clearly no raging flames before the collapse.

Also, remember that poor redheaded woman who was waving her hand from that hole? That was all over TV at the time.

View attachment 132980

You do realize that over 100 people jumped to their death because of the intense fires that were going to burn them to death, right? That didn't happen in some 5-minute span, either.


Btodd

 

[Edial]

You're forgetting that they had to use seemingly contradictory, unnecessary steps in carrying out the plan - for one, it throws people off track by not making any sense. Plus, a plan works best when you use as many steps as possible, so there are many more chances for the plan to fail, or for people to catch on to one of the steps.

So you use thermite because explosions would be seen and heard by everyone around for miles, which spoils your plan to not get caught.

But you need the powerful force of explosives, so you go ahead and use them anyway. And the thermite.

You use two planes at the Twin Towers, because that provides the 'shock and awe' factor needed to rally us around going to war in Iraq, even though it would have been easier to frame Iraqis for the crime instead of using Saudis for some bizarre reason.

Then, after using planes at the Twin Towers, you use a missile at the Pentagon, and count on nobody noticing it being fired from a fighter jet that's flying right over rush-hour traffic stopped on the highway. Why switch to a missile, when you just carried out part of the plan by using planes? Because it makes no sense! They'll never see it coming!

Finally, after demolishing the Twin Towers with an unnecessary combination of demolitions charges plus tons and tons of thermite melting steel all over the place, you demolish WTC7 after pulling all life from the building and announcing that it's unstable and might collapse.

Sure, framing Saudis for an attack so you can justify it being Iraq's fault and using thermite unnecessarily combined with demolitions charges would bring the Twin Towers down MIGHT get us the war we wanted...but by the time we blow up an empty building that nobody knows about well after the Towers had collapsed...THAT WILL BE THE FINAL STRAW THE PUBLIC NEEDS. Let's just hope Silverstein (we want him in on the plot so we can help him make insurance money) doesn't blab it all over television that he was in charge of a demolitions crew headed up by the NY Fire Department when they suddenly decided to blow up the building, since they were in on the deaths of more than 300 of their fellow firefighters.

Whew!


Btodd

ManfromUncle does have some flaws in his theory.
But so do you in this post.
Looks like some of the debunking is not necessarily based on facts, but on "how can you believe that some things are not how we were told it was" and ridicule?

 

[Edial]

You do realize that over 100 people jumped to their death because of the intense fires that were going to burn them to death, right? That didn't happen in some 5-minute span, either.


Btodd

I know and it was horrible. There were office fires. People were trapped.
One person was saying he was hiding under his desk and felt he would burn alive, but he was saved by someone else and taken downstairs.

I remember clearly as day that a redheaded (long hair) woman was standing at the point of impact and waving to grab the attention of the cameras.
There were no flames around her ...

The point of this post is to say that the flames were not that intense so to make a significant structural damage.
I am not saying there were no flames at all.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Dave Ellis]

But why are you getting personal with this?

Because he took a personal shot at me, so I returned one.

The fires weren't long lasting. Most of jet fuel burned outside at the impact - you saw the explosion flames outside. The building itself was producing billows of black smoke - low oxygen.

The fires weren't long lasting? Are you serious? It was a plane crash, fires from a regular plane crash in a field can burn for hours, not to mention a plane lodged in a building full of electronics and other things that burn.

But it was not a massive hole. The closeup showed some beams knocked out and clearly no raging flames before the collapse.

It wasn't a massive hole? It was a 767 for Christ's sake... they make a pretty big hole when they run into things.

And besides, by your own admission there was thick smoke pouring out of every window, how can you rationally justify your claim that the fires weren't still intensely burning inside the building? You couldn't see inside the building.

Also, remember that poor redheaded woman who was waving her hand from that hole? That was all over TV at the time.

View attachment 132980

What's your point?

 

[Btodd]

ManfromUncle does have some flaws in his theory.
But so do you in this post.
Looks like some of the debunking is not necessarily based on facts, but on "how can you believe that some things are not how we were told it was" and ridicule?

I am certainly ridiculing what his theory would entail, yes.

But this hardly makes my theory flawed, because I didn't present my theory (I can...for instance, there were no demolitions charges, no thermite...the Towers collapsed from the impact points downward because of the damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires - at the Pentagon, Flight 77 crashed there).

If someone wants to believe it happened some other way, then that 'other way' needs to at least be plausible, for starters. The conspiracy theory he tries to foster (without ever really spelling it out) would involve a plethora of unnecessary steps and convoluted explanations, despite not being backed by any evidence.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

I know and it was horrible. There were office fires. People were trapped.
One person was saying he was hiding under his desk and felt he would burn alive, but he was saved by someone else and taken downstairs.

I remember clearly as day that a redheaded (long hair) woman was standing at the point of impact and waving to grab the attention of the cameras.
There were no flames around her ...

The point of this post is to say that the flames were not that intense so to make a significant structural damage.
I am not saying there were no flames at all.

Thanks,
Ed

Severe structural damage had already occurred at impact. The fires further weakened the steel in the impact zones until they could no longer support the mass above them...and that's exactly where the collapse sequence initiated...DIRECTLY at the impact zones.

That's why the South Tower was the 2nd one to be hit, and the 1st one to collapse...because its point of impact was lower, and it had much more mass pressing down on the point of impact.

What's the alternative? Why did the 2nd Tower to be hit collapse FIRST?


Btodd

 

[Edial]

...
The fires weren't long lasting? Are you serious? It was a plane crash, fires from a regular plane crash in a field can burn for hours, not to mention a plane lodged in a building full of electronics and other things that burn.

... (jumbled your post for context )

And besides, by your own admission there was thick smoke pouring out of every window, how can you rationally justify your claim that the fires weren't still intensely burning inside the building? You couldn't see inside the building.

Black smoke means low oxygen - burning and smoldering.

White smoke means fire is burning forcefully.

Most of the time we had billows of black smoke.

...
It wasn't a massive hole? It was a 767 for Christ's sake... they make a pretty big hole when they run into things.

Take a closer look at the picture I posted.
The hole was made by the body of the plane.
The wings just knocked out few beams.
The hole compared to the size of the building wasn't that great at all.

It did look huge from the outside due to wingspan, true ... but the wings did not really do much damage.

...
What's your point?

The point of a redheaded girl standing in the very gash of impact and waving for help was - there was no raging inferno around her. We could not even see the flames.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Just found it now ... click on the picture and note the girl standing in the gash.
It was much clearer and closer on TV on that day.
Poor woman.

 

[High Fidelity]

Just found it now ... click on the picture and note the girl standing in the gash.
It was much clearer and closer on TV on that day.
Poor woman.
View attachment 132982

Awful

With regards to debris falling at different rates though as discussed earlier, what about the heavier objects hitting smaller objects and propelling them faster?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Black smoke means low oxygen - burning and smoldering.

White smoke means fire is burning forcefully.

Most of the time we had billows of black smoke.

I'm sure there were a lot of things smouldering, a plane just hit the building.

Have you ever seen a house fire? It can be a raging inferno, and there's black smoke pouring out of everywhere that the fire isn't as intense. It's not like we'd expect to see a raging inferno at the core, and a complete lack of smaller, less intense / smouldering fires surrounding the more intense area. We would expect to see smaller fires and smouldering areas all over the place, but that doesn't mean an intense fire is not present.

Take a closer look at the picture I posted.
The hole was made by the body of the plane.
The wings just knocked out few beams.
The hole compared to the size of the building wasn't that great at all.

It did look huge from the outside due to wingspan, true ... but the wings did not really do much damage.

You're still ignoring the fact the fuselage went rocketing deep into the building taking out multiple floors along the way. That by any definition is a massive hole.

The point of a redheaded girl standing in the very gash of impact and waving for help was - there was no raging inferno around her. We could not even see the flames.

Thanks,
Ed

Ok, so there's a specific point where someone was standing that didn't happen to be on fire. I still fail to see your point.

 

[Edial]

Awful

With regards to debris falling at different rates though as discussed earlier, what about the heavier objects hitting smaller objects and propelling them faster?

Makes a lot of sense.
We saw that the solid top of the building began to collapse.

The floors below, as they were going through stress (whether explosion or pressure) were indeed hitting the solid top and bouncing, propelling off it.

 

[High Fidelity]

Makes a lot of sense.
We saw that the solid top of the building began to collapse.

The floors below, as they were going through stress (whether explosion or pressure) were indeed hitting the solid top and bouncing, propelling off it.

I don't know the physics behind it either, but I'd imagine some things being compressed until they either break or force free would be travelling at some speed as well... especially with millions of tons bearing down on it.

 

[Edial]

I don't know the physics behind it either, but I'd imagine some things being compressed until they either break or force free would be travelling at some speed as well... especially with millions of tons bearing down on it.

Basically the solid top falling down adds speed to the debris bouncing off it.
If the top would be stationary, the bounce off speed of debris would be the same or even less, depending on direction.

Good common sense should carry you through.
... everyday physics is really overrated.

 

[High Fidelity]

Basically the solid top falling down adds speed to the debris bouncing off it.
If the top would be stationary, the bounce off speed of debris would be the same or even less, depending on direction.

Good common sense should carry you through.
... everyday physics is really overrated.

 

[ManFromUncle]

I don't know the physics behind it either, but I'd imagine some things being compressed until they either break or force free would be travelling at some speed as well... especially with millions of tons bearing down on it.

When a falling mass meets resistance energy is absorbed, not created. In this case you would have had a few floors meeting 80 intact floors. The only way for that mass to accelerate toward the ground at anything resembling free fall acceleration is for resistance to be zero. The official story says a few fires made the entire structure soft like clay, that the steel didn't need to melt to offer no resistance. But if it got soft like clay we would see mostly twisted, heat-deformed steel piled mostly in the base. Instead we see most of the steel far outside the bases of the towers, in straight, cleanly cut beams as far as Church St., two football fields away. This curious behavior of a structure should have caused them to preserve all the steel and test for explosives. Instead they cart 99.5% of the steel away after a few unqualified FBI agents look at it, not world class scientists, and send it to be melted in China. They refused to test for explosives although people were asking them to.

When steel bounces off another piece of steel it doesn't shoot out at 80mph, for as far as two football fields, that much is just common sense. Common sense says at this point it might be time to look for another explanation besides pure gravity. Then we find that they did not test for explosives, and they destroyed 99.5% of the steel evidence. Common sense should tell you something at that point too.


9/11 story problem: Which 15 story block will hit the ground first?

Answer:

On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.




CLICK TO ENLARGE



[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The official story says a few fires made the entire structure soft like clay, that the steel didn't need to melt to offer no resistance.

No it doesn't. But truthers like the people from AE911 don't understand structures, so I'm not surprised they got this wrong over and over.

You don't need anything like "the entire structure" to be compromised - only a portion of it.

 

[Paul01]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf

 

[Vylo]

When a falling mass meets resistance energy is absorbed, not created. In this case you would have had a few floors meeting 80 intact floors. The only way for that mass to accelerate toward the ground at anything resembling free fall acceleration is for resistance to be zero. The official story says a few fires made the entire structure soft like clay, that the steel didn't need to melt to offer no resistance. But if it got soft like clay we would see mostly twisted, heat-deformed steel piled mostly in the base. Instead we see most of the steel far outside the bases of the towers, in straight, cleanly cut beams as far as Church St., two football fields away. This curious behavior of a structure should have caused them to preserve all the steel and test for explosives. Instead they cart 99.5% of the steel away after a few unqualified FBI agents look at it, not world class scientists, and send it to be melted in China. They refused to test for explosives although people were asking them to.

When steel bounces off another piece of steel it doesn't shoot out at 80mph, for as far as two football fields, that much is just common sense. Common sense says at this point it might be time to look for another explanation besides pure gravity. Then we find that they did not test for explosives, and they destroyed 99.5% of the steel evidence. Common sense should tell you something at that point too.


9/11 story problem: Which 15 story block will hit the ground first?

Answer:

On 9/11 they both hit the ground at virtually the same time!

-If the 15 story section is falling at free fall speed ...

-All of its gravitational potential energy is converted to Kinetic Energy (movement)

-It is not available to do the work of "crushing" the building below!

-It would have to slow down in order to do any other work, i.e., "crushing 80,000 tons of structural steel below.


[/IMG][/URL][/SIZE]

That example makes no sense and can you please stop posting the same video over and over again like you are some kind of bot. Those blocks would weight different amounts in practice and the one would fall faster.