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

[Edial]

I can get behind the possibility of it being a conspiracy, just not the mind(and physics) bending theories that try to make things 100 times harder or more complicated than they have to be. Not only is the controlled demo so unfeasible, it would have been much easier to have government agents hijack the planes and fly into the towers. They could conceal their identities, and there wouldn't be any eyewitnesses left even if someone on the plane figured it out.

That is why it is not a good idea to assume we know who did it, how and why.
But there is no problem questioning the official version of what was happening then.

 

[ManFromUncle]

You ignore anything that conflicts with your narrative and you are unable to answer. That's where all the copy & pasting comes in. It's a great way of pretending to know what you're talking about, by letting others do your talking.

The only way the upper mass should have 'slowed and stopped' is if the supporting structure was capable of handling such a massive dynamic force. It didn't stand a chance.

So, I will easily note that you have no answer for why the debris and debris cloud are WELL BELOW the point of collapse, which would necessitate that:

A. The building is NOT collapsing at virtual free-fall speed, or
B. The debris is falling FASTER than free-fall speed

Now, can you tell us where you got the claim that the steel had to be 'softened' all the way down the building? I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the erroneous assumptions you use in order to further your foregone conclusion, and how you arrived at them in the first place.


Btodd

You still ignore the question of how MOST of the steel, in 5 and 10 ton pieces, wound up two football fields away in cleanly cut straight pieces. No, workers didn't manage to disassemble 200,000 tons of structure in the pile, straighten it out, and haul it randomly all over the WTC complex in 12 days. That is where it landed.

CLICK TO ENLARGE



Moreover you can clearly see explosive force hurling these beams, clocked at 80mph (it's a simple calculation if you know the size of the building and have a video time frame, Rate=Distance/Time.)

The energy of a gravitational collapse cannot shoot steel like cannonballs, that is what gunpowder was invented for. The energy required to hurl these masses a measured distance can be calculated, and it is many orders of magnitude greater than the energy of a gravitational collapse. Simple physics.

Now I'll watch you ignore this since your remark "You ignore anything that conflicts with your narrative " applies to you better than anyone else.

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

 

[Vylo]

You still ignore the question of how MOST of the steel, in 5 and 10 ton pieces, wound up two football fields away in cleanly cut straight pieces.

Yeah that would be odd....in a controlled demolition

 

[Edial]

Yeah that would be odd....in a controlled demolition

Curious ... how do you think it wound up there?

 

[Btodd]

You still ignore the question of how MOST of the steel, in 5 and 10 ton pieces, wound up two football fields away in cleanly cut straight pieces. No, workers didn't manage to disassemble 200,000 tons of structure in the pile, straighten it out, and haul it randomly all over the WTC complex in 12 days. That is where it landed.

In the collapse, the perimeter columns peeled away from the building as they failed and were snapped into pieces by the force being exerted on the structure from above. Of course they're going to end up away from the footprint of the building, particularly when the building is that tall...and this is interesting to hear you bring up, since another of the favorite Truther arguments for a controlled demolition is that the Twin Towers collapsed into their own footprint. Which is it? It can't be both.

Let's put YOUR scenario to the test: It was an explosion of such magnitude that it immediately ejected beams at 80+ mph.

Now, if that were the case, an explosion of that magnitude would DWARF the sound of explosions in a normal controlled demolition, yet no such sound was heard.

Here's how loud standard demolitions charges are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

I challenge you to produce a video of the Twin Towers collapsing with sounds even THAT loud, when the force you're implying would have involved much more powerful charges, with much louder explosions. Show me the video.

On top of that, if a demolitions charge caused this collapse, it would have been heard JUST PRIOR TO COLLAPSE, and we would have seen material violently ejected JUST PRIOR TO COLLAPSE.

But that's not what happened...the ejections don't occur until the collapse has been initiated, and the columns are getting snapped from the force being exerted from above. Again, watch the video. Point out where the giant explosion occurs PRIOR TO COLLAPSE.

Now I'll watch you ignore this since your remark "You ignore anything that conflicts with your narrative " applies to you better than anyone else.

Ask me anything you want, I don't run away and start a new thread. I'm happy to put my explanation up against yours on any facet of 9/11. Yours will contradict themselves all over the place (as they're doing now) and get unnecessarily complex and convoluted in order to make them work.


Btodd

 

[He is Risen 72]

You still ignore the question of how MOST of the steel, in 5 and 10 ton pieces, wound up two football fields away in cleanly cut straight pieces. No, workers didn't manage to disassemble 200,000 tons of structure in the pile, straighten it out, and haul it randomly all over the WTC complex in 12 days. That is where it landed.

CLICK TO ENLARGE



Moreover you can clearly see explosive force hurling these beams, clocked at 80mph (it's a simple calculation if you know the size of the building and have a video time frame, Rate=Distance/Time.)

The energy of a gravitational collapse cannot shoot steel like cannonballs, that is what gunpowder was invented for. The energy required to hurl these masses a measured distance can be calculated, and it is many orders of magnitude greater than the energy of a gravitational collapse. Simple physics.

Now I'll watch you ignore this since your remark "You ignore anything that conflicts with your narrative " applies to you better than anyone else.

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

According to the picture you supplies, the perfectly cut steel beams are not two football fields away.

The picture is from September 23, 2001, 22 days after, not 12 days.

And anyway, the picture is from NOAA, you know the same government that did it, so why would you trust that as evidence.

 

[Edial]

...


Ask me anything you want, I don't run away and start a new thread. I'm happy to put my explanation up against yours on any facet of 9/11. Yours will contradict themselves all over the place (as they're doing now) and get unnecessarily complex and convoluted in order to make them work.


Btodd

I did not say that ... you stuck my name to someone else's post.

 

[Btodd]

I did not say that ... you stuck my name to someone else's post.

Whoops! Sorry about that, I have corrected it to read, 'ManFromUncle'.


Btodd

 

[ManFromUncle]

In the collapse, the perimeter columns peeled away from the building as they failed and were snapped into pieces by the force being exerted on the structure from above. Of course they're going to end up away from the footprint of the building, particularly when the building is that tall...and this is interesting to hear you bring up, since another of the favorite Truther arguments for a controlled demolition is that the Twin Towers collapsed into their own footprint. Which is it? It can't be both.

Perimeter columns don't just "peel away." You are still limited to the force of a gravitational collapse which doesn't hurl steel two football fields away. Click on the enlargement and you can see steel beam on top of WTC 7 (which supposedly brought it down,) as a hole in WTC 5 and at the Church St. side of it, and at the Church St. side of WTC 4, huge, massive pieces of perimeter wall and lots of it. Only explosive force does that, and that is what you see in video evidence, explosive force.

And then again you repeat your tired strawman that I said they collapsed into their own footprint. Only WTC7 did. Now you will link a quote saying "collapsed into its own footprint" which is not me talking. Your playbook is very transparent. The real question is why do you bother?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Let's put YOUR scenario to the test: It was an explosion of such magnitude that it immediately ejected beams at 80+ mph.

Now, if that were the case, an explosion of that magnitude would DWARF the sound of explosions in a normal controlled demolition, yet no such sound was heard.

Here's how loud standard demolitions charges are:


I challenge you to produce a video of the Twin Towers collapsing with sounds even THAT loud, when the force you're implying would have involved much more powerful charges, with much louder explosions. Show me the video.

Btodd

Alice in Wonderland logic. You see with your own eyes, and do not dispute that steel beam is ejected at 80MPH, which requires "an explosion of such magnitude," yet say if the explosions weren't loud enough it must not have happened.

There were hundreds of reports of explosions. Not one made it into the 9/11 Commission Report. Anyone in military demo knows that different explosives can be formulated for different levels of sound, and these would have been the most advanced formulations in the world.

Here is a clearly accelerating explosive sequence (ok now let's circle around, that's rivets popping or concrete hitting concrete, sure it makes that deep bass sound like the cannons you hear on the Fourth of July.)

[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

On top of that, if a demolitions charge caused this collapse, it would have been heard JUST PRIOR TO COLLAPSE, and we would have seen material violently ejected JUST PRIOR TO COLLAPSE.

But that's not what happened...the ejections don't occur until the collapse has been initiated, and the columns are getting snapped from the force being exerted from above. Again, watch the video. Point out where the giant explosion occurs PRIOR TO COLLAPSE.


Btodd

Do you ever read/watch a whole presentation before you start in trying to "refute" it? You can clearly see the demolitions squibs running about ten floors ahead of the demolition line in this and any close up video. Do we go back to the thermite now and how melted steel which glows orange is really aluminum with carpet and bleach mixed in? Or do we punt and go back to how "truthers" will only believe what they want to believe?"

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

 

[Btodd]

Perimeter columns don't just "peel away." You are still limited to the force of a gravitational collapse which doesn't hurl steel two football fields away. Click on the enlargement and you can see steel beam on top of WTC 7 (which supposedly brought it down,) as a hole in WTC 5 and at the Church St. side of it, and at the Church St. side of WTC 4, huge, massive pieces of perimeter wall and lots of it. Only explosive force does that, and that is what you see in video evidence, explosive force.

A gravitational collapse of a skyscraper, with a top portion of several floors collapsing on to the rest of the building, indeed produces lateral ejection of debris. If you don't understand the basic concept behind that, that's your problem...but your inability to understand it does not suddenly prove that a giant explosion quietly ejected material right before the collapse happened. I'm still waiting on you to point that part out in any videos.

Here's a slow-motion video of the South Tower collapsing. Please point out the precise moment when this massive explosion takes place, PRIOR TO COLLAPSE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLFmkGseZ-8

And then again you repeat your tired strawman that I said they collapsed into their own footprint.

Actually, THESE were my words. I accept your apology for mischaracterizing them.

Of course they're going to end up away from the footprint of the building, particularly when the building is that tall...and this is interesting to hear you bring up, since another of the favorite Truther arguments for a controlled demolition is that the Twin Towers collapsed into their own footprint. Which is it? It can't be both.

Alice in Wonderland logic. You see with your own eyes, and do not dispute that steel beam is ejected at 80MPH, which requires "an explosion of such magnitude," yet say if the explosions weren't loud enough it must not have happened.

I neither confirmed or denied the speed at which material was ejected...I simply used your argument that it was to point out that the sound such a force would create WAS NOT HEARD. And I'm asking you to point it out in any of the videos of the collapse. If the 80+ mph claim is anything like your claims about 'free fall speed', then it's just another thing that you keep repeating without offering any sort of proof. Again, your problem...not mine.

There were hundreds of reports of explosions. Not one made it into the 9/11 Commission Report. Anyone in military demo knows that different explosives can be formulated for different levels of sound, and these would have been the most advanced formulations in the world.

Reports of explosions does not mean 'demolitions charges'. If THOSE were what happened, then you would hear them for miles. Again, point them out. I gave you a video of a real demolition as a source of reference...let's see you point them out in a video of the collapses.

Here is a clearly accelerating explosive sequence (ok now let's circle around, that's rivets popping or concrete hitting concrete, sure it makes that deep bass sound like the cannons you hear on the Fourth of July.)

[youtube]uxB7R-z6E1I[/youtube]

You literally just pointed out the sound of a collapsing skyscraper and called it an 'explosive sequence'. Nothing of the sort happens in that video, so I'm baffled that you would think you just proved anything, other than you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you ever read/watch a whole presentation before you start in trying to "refute" it? You can clearly see the demolitions squibs running about ten floors ahead of the demolition line in this and any close up video. Do we go back to the thermite now and how melted steel which glows orange is really aluminum with carpet and bleach mixed in? Or do we punt and go back to how "truthers" will only believe what they want to believe?

While I'm waiting on you to point out the enormous explosion that preceded the collapse, I will go ahead and point out, once again...that you keep saying 'melted steel', when aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than steel, and the entire facade of the Twin Towers was made of aluminum, as well as the body of the planes.

What tests were run to confirm that the molten metal was actually molten steel? Point them out to me, or admit that you're opting for the least likely of two metals in order to further your foregone conclusion.

It's another claim you keep making, over and over, without presenting any hard evidence that it's true.

And I enjoy pointing out these things.


Btodd

 

[Vylo]

Curious ... how do you think it wound up there?

The velocity gained from the fall and/or being blown out as each floor slammed into another could easily toss those beams at a good speed.

Take a Jenga set and pull at the pieces, letting it topple and see how far some of them go. Now imagine that Jenga set is over 1,300 feet tall.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The reason that people believe in conspiracy theories is because it is too difficult for them to accept a chaotic world in which someone is not in control of everything.

Conspiracy theories are also easier to understand that the complexities of reality.

I suspect that at least in this case, there's an element of either mental illness or developmental disability involved. The OP as well as a handful of others have been harping on this issue for several years. Every thread is the same thing and the interactions are not exactly what you'd expect from a healthy person.

 

[ManFromUncle]

SNIP...

The picture is from September 23, 2001, 22 days after, not 12 days.

And anyway, the picture is from NOAA, you know the same government that did it, so why would you trust that as evidence.

Sept. 11 to Sept. 23rd is not 22 days. Do you know the date it happened?

Employing the absurd argument "the gubmint took the photo, why would you trust the gubmint?" There is no such thing as a perfect crime. Evidence is often overlooked. The bet is they can blow enough smoke around it to keep people from putting it together. They also knew that there would be rivers of molten steel in the basements left from the use of massive quantities of thermite, and had the argument all ready that that was from jet fuel (which is only kerosene) melting the steel. Enough Americans are so abysmally ignorant of basic science that they would believe it.

You could dump all the kerosene in the world on construction grade steel and it is never going to melt it, never mind bring it to 5,000F as aerial thermal imagery shows.

 

[ShouldaWouldaCoulda]

Somewhere in Heaven there is a dead horse mourning how their near dust skeleton continues to be beaten.

Meanwhile, garbage like this insults and terrorizes those who lost loved one's in the towers on 9/11 for all the hypothetical trash that is being regurgitated by inflammatory conspiracy theorist lunatics who, in the course of promoting this obscene propaganda, are not intelligent enough to recognize one key factor. Besides the inhumanity that is exercised in rolling shattered glass into the wounds of those who survived this attack.

No one will ever be prosecuted if this were an inside job because all the steel from the buildings is scrap! Ferried to China. NO ONE WILL EVER BE PROSECUTED!

But thanks to sadistic conspiracy lunatics who spit on the survivors and the families of the dead article after article dedicated to this trash, there shall be those who are persecuted!

I LOVE terrorists that find a new method of torturing Americans! /sarcasm.

 

[ManFromUncle]

The velocity gained from the fall and/or being blown out as each floor slammed into another could easily toss those beams at a good speed.

Take a Jenga set and pull at the pieces, letting it topple and see how far some of them go. Now imagine that Jenga set is over 1,300 feet tall.

More absurd analogies assuming a childlike mind. An incredibly strong steel frame designed to bear 5 times maximum live load and 200 MPH hurricane winds is not a Jenga set.

It requires demolition explosives to blow thousands of 5 and 10 ton pieces of perfectly straight and neatly cut steel beams out for two football fields, at 80MPH. Not only does a demolition explain this phenomena, that is exactly how a cutter and kicker charge demolition works, described in the post.

"I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me." Demolitions Expert Tom Sullivan

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-a...ence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]


Linear Shape Charges, "Cutter" Charges

[youtube]kFH6kQf6KBE[/youtube]

 

[Vylo]

More absurd analogies assuming a childlike mind. An incredibly strong steel frame designed to bear 5 times maximum live load and 200 MPH hurricane winds is not a Jenga set.

It requires demolition explosives to blow thousands of 5 and 10 ton pieces of perfectly straight and neatly cut steel beams out for two football fields, at 80MPH. Not only does a demolition explain this phenomena, that is exactly how a cutter and kicker charge demolition works, described in the post.

"I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me." Demolitions Expert Tom Sullivan

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-a...ence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]


Linear Shape Charges, "Cutter" Charges

[youtube]kFH6kQf6KBE[/youtube]

Its not really that absurd of an analogy. When something that tall collapses its sends debris quite far. half a building coming down at high speed will shoot out quite a bit of large debris quite far. I'm also not seeing it be a quarter of a mile like you claim, but considering the building was that tall it might be possible.

Also you shouldn't quote clueless engineers that even truther's debunk.

 

[Btodd]

Did we ever get an answer as to how the debris and debris cloud are falling FASTER than the collapse (if it is indeed a 'virtual free fall'), or some sort of proof that the molten metal was STEEL instead of ALUMINUM?

Or were those purposely skipped again? Isn't there a YouTube video that could be copied and pasted that addresses those problems? Or a petition?


Btodd

 

[Vylo]

Did we ever get an answer as to how the debris and debris cloud are falling FASTER than the collapse (if it is indeed a 'virtual free fall'), or some sort of proof that the molten metal was STEEL instead of ALUMINUM?

Or were those purposely skipped again? Isn't there a YouTube video that could be copied and pasted that addresses those problems? Or a petition?


Btodd

You probably never will, you will just get the 12th reposting of videos and maps that do nothing to prove his point.

Never mind that every structural engineering association has rejected controlled demolition theories, clearly the illuminati have bypassed physics!

 

[ManFromUncle]

Its not really that absurd of an analogy. When something that tall collapses its sends debris quite far. half a building coming down at high speed will shoot out quite a bit of large debris quite far. I'm also not seeing it be a quarter of a mile like you claim, but considering the building was that tall it might be possible.

Also you shouldn't quote clueless engineers that even truther's debunk.

Not "that" absurd, just a little absurd? Glad even you are holding that stinky baby away from your nose. And I guess when something collapses it blows out most of the windows in all the buildings for 400 feet around, too.


Windows blown out throughout WTC complex

Why was the testimony of hundreds of firefighters, first responders, and witnesses testifying to explosions before and during the destruction not included in the 9/11 Commission report? NOT ONE. Such as firefighter John Schroeder, who does not believe planes took down the buildings and that there was "something else going on?" Schroeder was with a squad of firefighters who made it to the 28th floor of the North Tower, and describes explosions rocking the building the entire time they were in it, especially from the inner areas around the stairwells. This squares perfectly with what you would do in a demolition: pre-weaken the strong points like the core beams around the mechanical floors, which are made to hold heavy machinery.

[youtube]DBb00PQR1zo[/youtube]

But all this is icing on the cake. The simple reason we know the official story is false is that no mass can fall at virtual free-fall acceleration through anything but thin air. The idea that "as it got heavier and heavier it went faster and faster" is fantasy physics, which directly contradicts the laws of Galieo.

 

[Vylo]

Oh look the same video and map garbage again. You don't think windows will be blow out by raining debris? Are you serious?

It didn't fall at free fall speeds, stop using that strawman.