The science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms

Seeing as most people are not physicists, and do not understand laws of motion or their relevance, i thought it would be good put in simple terms why the collapse of the towers is physically impossible.

I have posted these points on the BBC blog, and they actually published them, so i think we're beggining to get through to people at the BBC. Emily Buchanan of BBC world affairs actually hosted the press release of loose change final cut in the UK, so it seems they are beggining to pay some attention, even if they are not covering it on TV yet.

Steven Jones has said this before, but i dont think people understood what he was getting at;

One of the towers that starts to collapse starts to topple sideways (before it is engulfed in dust). If this part of the building was experienceing any resistance from the building below it should have kept on pivoting about its centre of gravity, so the side which is above the building is being pushed up, whereas the side overhanging the building is pushing down. This should create a rotational force (torque) slowing the building down, and pushing the top section outside of the building. That is a very basic law, called the conservation of momentum.

However the top section did not topple sideways. You can see it start to topple sideways, and then miraculously, it starts to ignore some very basic laws of physics and starts to straighten up and fall straight down through the building. Not only that but the section of the building below it, that should have been providing resistance and causing it to topple over, seems to completely vanish from the rubble afterwards.

Even if the top section did crush the building below (which is impossible anyway, each floor was designed to hold up at least five times that amount of weight) the chances that it would fall straight down is truly miraculous. That would mean that all forces on it were in equilibrium for the entire collapse. That is near impossible. The only way that would happen is if there was no resistance, and the resultant force on the falling building was exclusively due to gravity.

(EDIT: I just whipped up this picture in paint to illustrate what i mean. As you can see i am a brilliant artist )




It should still be standing, and the top bit should have fallen sideways. Basic physics.


Also David Griffin makes some fine points;

1. Sudden Onset: steel when heated does not suddenly buckle or break, it melts and sags. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

2. Straight Down: they didn't topple towards the damage, they took the path of most resistance, symetrically down.

3. Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed because when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.

4. Total Collapse: acording to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing.

5.. Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of pyroclasic style dust clouds.

6. Pulverization of Concrete: The only energy available should have been the gravitational energy. This is no where near the amount of energy needed to turn all the concrete into tiny particles of dust.

7. Horizontal Ejections: But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

8. Sounds Produced by Explosions: there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

9. Molten Steel: Shown in various video tesimony, and reported by several reliable witnesses

Debunking any of that is very hard, becasue they are all incontrivertible facts.

And i didn't even metntion WT7, that has to be C'D'

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]


Mod Edit to correct spelling in Title Heading

[edit on 12/12/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

wow. i have no idea what any of that means/meant, but its very interesting nonetheless.

so what exactly kept it from continuing on its sideways topple?

It was 6+ years ago, move on and get a life. What good does it do to keep harping on your version of physics. I see major flaws in your assumptions and therefore claim they are all invalid. Who's claim is better, mine or yours since that's all there is. The facts are long gone and buried (as rubble) and unless you had strain sensors and g meters on the damn buildings there are no facts anyway - only conjectures.

Oh, you want to prove something - build a toothpick structure and have it hold a weight. Now take 1/5th that weight and move it a foot above your structure and let it go and tell me the outcome. If it breaks I will claim controlled detonation - ha. Real physics based on real facts and data = cool, fake physics based on conjectures = stupid wannabees looking for attention....


Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by agent violet
i have no idea what any of that means/meant, but its very interesting nonetheless.

I tried to keep it simple, i guess physics is just beyond some people never mind, i'll admit its a pretty boring subject, especially how they teach it at school nowadyas.

Originally posted by agent violet
so what exactly kept it from continuing on its sideways topple?

It basically means that the only way that that section would continue to fall directly down is if the building below was providing no resistance at all. And i really do mean none whatsoever. Even a slight amount of resistance should have caused this top section to keep pivoting and land outside the building. Infact even if the floors that were on fire completely vanished, and the top section fell five floors and landed on the bottom section, it still should have slowed it down, and caused it to topple sideways. That should mean that part below the falling section should still be standing there, but it is clearly not.

Nothing should have made it continue straight down, unless the building below was providing no resistance. The only way that the building below could not provide resistance is if the struture was taken out in some way, by bombs, thermite, cutter charges, or whatever theory you buy into. But the fact still remains that the building did not topple towards the damage, it spontaneusly dives straight down through itself, a first in history, that miraculously happened three times in one day. That alone is proof in itself without even doing any calculations.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

UofCinLA, there is no need to insult other members by name calling such as "stupid wannabees".

The op was simply stating his opinion.

edit to add:
zeuzz(sp?) thanks for re-explaining. i now understand what you meant.
and your right physics is beyond some people, but luckily not me. xo

[edit on 12/11/2007 by agent violet]

Originally posted by UofCinLA
It was 6+ years ago, move on and get a life. What good does it do to keep harping on your version of physics.

My version of physics? I am stating the law of conservation of momentum, one of physics most fundamental laws of motion. You might want to check the difference between a law of physics and a theory, a law is something that can never be broken, under any cirucmstances, that is the very definition of a law of physics. Laws did not gain that title for no reason. Maybe you have a problem with that, but denying laws of physics is like denying you were born.

And just becase it was six years ago does not make it any less important. The effects of 911 are still with us now, the patriot act, terrorist laws, the taking of civil liberties, would not have happened without 911. It has been used to justify two illegal wars where over half a million people have been killed. Maybe you dont care about that, but i most certainly do, i am only human. Maybe you are not.

Why on earth are you reading the 9/11 section of this webiste if you think that it doesn't matter anyway? by my definition that makes you a hippocrite, you obviously seem to be quite interested for someone who says they do not care at all.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
I see major flaws in your assumptions and therefore claim they are all invalid. Who's claim is better, mine or yours since that's all there is. The facts are long gone and buried (as rubble) and unless you had strain sensors and g meters on the damn buildings there are no facts anyway - only conjectures.

No, the difference is that i have stated what the claims are, you have made on offhand claim with no supporting evidence. What are these assumptions that i have made? i would be quite surprised, i did not spend three years gettin a PHd in physics for nothing. If you can actually state what these 'assumptions' are, i will be happy to address them.

I do not usually reply to any Ad Hominem and unsubstanciated posts like that one, I dont even know why i am wasting this much time replying. please bring up some real issues, or i will have to draw the conclusion you have no real issues to debate.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Great points Zeuzz. Thanks for posting.

Maybe these will also be of interest to you:

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

How the Towers were Demolished

The credits for these articles go to Gordon Ross, who I would like to remotely and (because I believe he does not vist this site) secretly thank for his work.

He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

It seems 9/11 also brought about a world first - the denial of laws of physics which have never been broken in the history of man. That they are admissable and relied upon in court precedings, taught in universities, and can explain every physical aspect of this world in which they apply speaks volumes over the uneducated masses that claim they don't, or refer to "different versions".

Any chance of a link to the BBC blog you speak of?

Originally posted by adjay
Momentum Transfer in WTC1

How the Towers were Demolished

thanx for the links, those papers are brilliant, i had not actually seen the hard maths behind it yet, but it seems I have some reading to do. I'm glad that Mr Jones has some more people to back him up now, and looking at patriotsquestion911.com, there are plenty about. I found this paper by Gordon which debunks some of the debunkers, which is particularly amuzing, it made me laugh as it is so clear he is correct in everything he is saying, and he makes his opposition look like fools. gordonssite.tripod.com...

Originally posted by adjay
Any chance of a link to the BBC blog you speak of?

certainly; www.bbc.co.uk...
and www.bbc.co.uk...

there are actually over five blogs on the BBC by some of thier top editors that are discussing it, and have been ever since BBC amazingly predicted WT7's collapse. I am quite impressed with them for keeping them open, you certainly would not get that on FOX or CNN.

I think that the sheer volume of comments they have published shows they are considering the possibility, plus they have read all of them, because the editors have to approve the comments personally. There are some very fine comments on there that are no doubt making them question the official account themselves, in particular i can reccomened any posts by Merle, Ynda, Gregor or Greg (thats me).

The sheer lack of any rebuttals to the points raised on there is enough to make any sane person question what really happened. I'm guessing they're starting to wake up behind the scenes but finding their hands tied by (i) the higher-ups and (ii) military secrecy and security clauses that do not allow for the truth of the matter to be baldly revealed. It is only a matter of time now.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

here is that UK press release on youtube, hosted by Emily Buchanan of BBC world affairs. Its a start, but i very much doubt anyone at the BBC is going to have the balls to air it quite yet.

Gordon Ross was there too and gave a small talk.

This is the official press launch for Loose Change Final Cut. The film is the third and final version of the most downloaded and watched movie in Internet history. The movie explores the events of September 11th, 2001 challenging the official story as put forward by the Bush administration and the mainstream media.

It was hosted by Emily Buchanan of BBC World Affairs and features both the director of the film, Dylan Avery, and the UK distributor Tim Sparke, of Mercury Media. It also features guest speaker Gordon Ross, a mechanical engineer who features in the new version of the film.

The Press Launch video was filmed, edited and produced by myself and planetfrog.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Top stiuff Zeuzz, my thanks for posting these.

It's great to see Gordon Ross in the flesh, I wonder where the people are now that accused him of being Dr. Steven Jones, or said he did not exist! These comments just underline how much blind faith is being put to work, without people knowing.

Well I have some stuff to read and watch now, again my thanks. I did not know the BBC blogs had editorial submission control, I am impressed about this and also majorly rehashing my thoughts and opinions on that legendary earlier reporting of WTC7 and the subsequent Conspiracy Files piece.

For the BBC to show Loose Change, would be monumental, considering the amount of misinformation in the UK at the moment regarding 9/11.

Even though the BBC is paying some attention to this now, they still have not shown anything on TV about this, which is what really annoys me. At the end of the day they get their money from the a govenment tax, and a lot of thier bosses no doubt have govenment ties and will do their best to stop any of this being aired.

The BBC's 'conspiracy files' program made me so angry i still have not forgiven them, it is going to take a lot to do that. That was yellow belly journalism at its extreme.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I feel like its all too late, and theres no way we the people are going to just be rid of this administration. 2008 is shaping up to be a bat# crazy year.

how do we make this real to people? Are there really that few of people that are informed?

I just always come back to the same question.

Are the north american people going to wait untill its too late?

And what do we do about it really? write your local rep? protest? sign petitions?

violent up.heaval?

Originally posted by UofCinLA
It was 6+ years ago, move on and get a life.

Yeah just like we did with JFK, Watergate, Iran Contra, BCCI, Enron, Iraq's WMD's, torture, the wholesale slaughter of native americans, Allen Dulles/Prescott Bush, Operation Paperclip, Mena AK, just let them get away with it so they can empower the next generation of ruling elites to do the same things all over again.
That's some really great advice, and I'll be sure to take it into consideration when Big Brother and the Thought Police are dragging you out to the paddy wagon.

1. Sudden Onset: steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break, it melts and sags. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

We are only dealing with a portion of the steel, not the entire structure. The weakest point would have been the bolts used to bolt the structure together (yes, bolts were used - which is contrary to what the original designers wanted to do). Bolts leading to the internal support columns would have been the farthest away from adequate heat dissipation (which might have been present along the exterior mesh). These bolts, made of lower quality steel than the beams, themselves, would have been heated, and eventually begin to 'sag' - imperceptibly to the human eye. The amount of force being exerted on them by the structure would have made for a sudden 'snapping' of the bolts once they could no longer support the structure. The bolts would have been sheared, completely - possibly even fragmented due to the sudden release.

2. Straight Down: they didn't topple towards the damage, they took the path of most resistance, symetrically down.

Well, if the internal support is what gave... and you have an exterior mesh network that is independent of the center column.... this would force the structure to fall inwards, upon itself, and 'rip' its support mesh and support columns down with it as it falls - spare the section directly above the internal collapse, which would fall as a complete, intact unit until it impacted the ground.

3. Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed because when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.

It was free-fall speed? How can you tell how fast each floor is falling, where its mass ends, and where it begins? Remember, the mass is growing as the floor moves downwards. While this has no relevance to the force of gravity - it does have something to do with where the mass comes to a rest.... which determines when it came to a rest.

Also, if sections of floors decide to collapse out of sequence with the above floors, this has an effect on what resistance is encountered. This is likely in the more terminal phases of the collapse.

4. Total Collapse: acording to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing.

That would be true if the core columns were contiguous. They were not. They were bolted to the floor they were supporting.... so it collapsed in sections, occasionally being snapped by the somewhat turbulent forces it was experiencing during the collapse.

5.. Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of pyroclasic style dust clouds.

This is also a common feature of drywall and spray-on fireproofing.

6. Pulverization of Concrete: The only energy available shuld have been the gravitational energy. This is no where near the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.

At such scales, it becomes difficult for one's mind to comprehend the types of forces involved. For instance, if one floor fell flat upon another floor, it would hit with over ten times as much force as its own weight. Add into that the vibrations that would be resonating through the structure due to snapping steel and smashing floors.... you've essentially got one seriously over-sized "ultrasonic toothbrush" that will "remove plaque (concrete and anything else in contact with it)" like nothing else.

A lot of the dust you saw was drywall and spray-on fireproofing. Some was concrete, but the majority was your standard drywall (sheetrock) and spray-on fireproofing.

7. Horizontal Ejections: But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

Unless you count the force of snapping steel. Most of the ejections were steel supports and glass. The glass can be explained by the blasts of air caused not only by the collapse, but the environment control system in the towers (AC and heating - lots of air at different densities than the outside air and in a large column... pressure).

8. Demolition Rings: Common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run symetrically and rapidly around a building. This feature was clearly manifested by the collapses of the towers

.... That's physics? Please show me where this manifested itself.

9. Sounds Produced by Explosions: there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

Have you ever heard what it sounds like when five or more one and three-quarter inch bolts snap under the weight of several hundred tons? Have you ever heard what it sounds like when a steel I-beam the width of your own body snaps under similar pressure?

I assure you - it will sound like a bomb, and it wills care the bejesus out of you.

10. Molten Steel: Shown in various video tesimony, and reported by several reliable witnesses.

Somehow... saying "from reliable witnesses" seems to discredit the whole thing, from the beginning.

Either way - bombs don't melt steel. Fire does, heat of compression does, and some special ordinances shoot a supersonic stream of molten copper, which can punch through an inch of steel armor plating.... but otherwise - a bomb is simply there to generate a percussive force.

I hope that clears everything up. I am about out of post length, here.

On the face of it, Aim64C, that looks like a pretty extensive responce. Ashame then that everything you have just said is, at best, utterly misleading, and at worst, bare faced lies.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The amount of force being exerted on them by the structure would have made for a sudden 'snapping' of the bolts once they could no longer support the structure. The bolts would have been sheared, completely - possibly even fragmented due to the sudden release.

Okay. lets for a minute take your (quite incorrect) claim that the bolts were not affaected by the heat until late (why would they be?), and expand on it. Lets say that every single bolt that was near the fire (about five floors) completely Vanished. That still does not explain why the one hundred completely undamaged floors beneath provided no resistance to the falling structure, as is clearly evident from the lack of rotational motion of the top section as it plunges through the rest of the building.

Well, if the internal support is what gave... and you have an exterior mesh network that is independent of the center column.... this would force the structure to fall inwards, upon itself, and 'rip' its support mesh and support columns down with it as it falls - spare the section directly above the internal collapse, which would fall as a complete, intact unit until it impacted the ground.

If the internal support gave? How on earth do you explain 47 solid steel columns suddenly 'giving'? espcially the parts that were undmaged below the impact.

It was free-fall speed? How can you tell how fast each floor is falling, where its mass ends, and where it begins? Remember, the mass is growing as the floor moves downwards.

Precisely. So when it started to collapse where is it getting its momentum from? it started from stationary, and momentum is Mass x Velocity, it has not yet fallen any distance, and still has the building below it supporting it, so the acceloration should start small. I do not claim that the building fell to the floor at freefall speed (as other incorrectly do, it was more like 14-18 seconds), only that it started its collapse at freefall speed, which is impossible, as the undamaged building below should have stopped it from even starting. Even if it did not completely stop it from starting, it sghould have substancially slowed it. It clearly did not. You can not have any force from momentum without initial velocity. (P = M x V). If V = 0, P = 0. Do the maths.
[ P = momentum ]

That would be true if the core columns were contiguous. They were not. They were bolted to the floor they were supporting.... so it collapsed in sections, occasionally being snapped by the somewhat turbulent forces it was experiencing during the collapse.

'it collapsed in sections' ??? it certainly looks like a continous, constant speed collapse to me.

This is also a common feature of drywall and spray-on fireproofing.

You certainly cant claim that the dust cloud off fireproofing is pyroclastic like i clearly stated. ie, gets its velocity from heat energy. Dust from fireproofing disperses due to diffusion.

For instance, if one floor fell flat upon another floor, it would hit with over ten times as much force as its own weight. Add into that the vibrations that would be resonating through the structure due to snapping steel and smashing floors.... you've essentially got one seriously over-sized "ultrasonic toothbrush"

I dont even need to respond to that truly ridiculous, completely unscientific, statement.

A lot of the dust you saw was drywall and spray-on fireproofing. Some was concrete, but the majority was your standard drywall (sheetrock) and spray-on fireproofing.

What happened to all the concrete in the building then? there is hardly any large pieces of concrete in the resulting tiny pile of rubble.

...(cont)




[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

(cont)

A lot of the dust you saw was drywall and spray-on fireproofing. Some was concrete, but the majority was your standard drywall (sheetrock) and spray-on fireproofing.

So what? You would still need sufficient energy to break the ‘drywall and spray-on fireproofing’ so you point is irrelevant.

One of the most basic laws of physics is Einstein’s law of conservation of energy, where you can not create energy, and you can not destroy it. You can not have it both ways. The only energy input on the collapse (according to your version) is the gravitational potential energy of the falling section. If you say that this energy was sufficient to crush the entire structure below (which it absolutely was not anyway), where is the energy coming from to break the building into tiny parts of dust?

If the energy was used to create all that dust, the building should still be standing, if the energy was used to take out all the structural support of the building below, there should be no dust. Both of those statements are clearly false.

7. Horizontal Ejections: But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

Unless you count the force of snapping steel. Most of the ejections were steel supports and glass.

You miss the point, there were not just a few small things moving sideways from elastic strain energy of the steel bending (as you would expect), there were huge steel girders catapulted across the street embedding themselves into the surrounding buildings hundreds of feet away. You can not claim that can be caused by a gravity only collapse. Again this requires more energy than would be given by gravity alone, and you have already used up by creating all your dust, and the collapse in your earlier points.

And Please dont try to use energy from your "ultrasonic toothbrush"

8. Demolition Rings: Common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run symetrically and rapidly around a building.

.... That's physics? Please show me where this manifested itself.

Certainly. This video is probably the best angle to see the symmetrical ring running at freefall speed down the building.

9. Sounds Produced by Explosions: there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

Have you ever heard what it sounds like when five or more one and three-quarter inch bolts snap under the weight of several hundred tons?
I assure you - it will sound like a bomb, and it wills care the bejesus out of you.

Out of all your points, that is the most valid.

However it is quite hard to explain 9/11 hero William Rodriguez’s testimony of bombs and numerous people recieving injuries in the basement.

10. Molten Steel: Shown in various video tesimony, and reported by several reliable witnesses.

Somehow... saying "from reliable witnesses" seems to discredit the whole thing, from the beginning.

The two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004). How are they not reliable?

If you want direct video evidence, here are a few;

uk.youtube.com...
uk.youtube.com...
Nasa thermal imaging; uk.youtube.com...
uk.youtube.com...

cont..

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I hope that clears everything up. I am about out of post length, here.

Clears what up? i just showed every single point you made to be absolutely, completely, utterly false.

hope that clears that up.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

So this guys theory is that the weakest parts of the building (the bolts) were heated and caused the upper floors the pulverize the rest of the building. This begs the question:

How become the weakest part of the building (the bolts) didn't give first on the rest of the undamaged building? Sure that would have left 47 steel collumns standing, but we need to pay attention to that right? That's just a minor detail really...

ZeuZZ you're right. I did a thread on the South Tower tilt a while ago. Notice the lack of de-bunkers. They cannot de-bunk this because they have nothing to refer to on the subject and can't think for themselves.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've gone round in circles with some de-bunkers on this asking them to explain how it happened without another energy source acting on the lower undamaged structure, all of them failed the test...

The ONLY way the top could have acted as it did was if the pivot point of the tilt failed, and started falling faster than the top was tilting, and continued to fail/fall until it reached the ground while ignoring all resistance from undamaged columns.

AFAIK this is enough to convince me there had to be some other energy acting on the columns, be that thermate or whatever. As well as the fact that it is ignored in the official reports because they can't explain it themselves within the framework of their 'official story', and we all know the official reports (NIST, Fema etc) were written to fit the official story.

If the de-bunkers can't explain this one then all their other arguments are mute and not needed.

Awesome thread Zeuzz..

I knew it from day one that the fall of these buildings was 'assisted'. The starting point for me is of course building 7, it scares me that ANYONE could watch that building fall and conclude it was caused by anything other than a CD.

As far as the people who gobble up the official story goes, they will all get what they deserve in due time and then face the grim realization that it wasn't what they thought after all.. but then it will be too late.

I wish it didn't have to be that way but as time goes by I think it's inevitable. People who have the mindset and spirituality of cattle will all be slaughtered as such.

Unfortunately, as far as 911 goes, because of all the 'security' surrounding the aftermath getting the proof to where it needs to be will be extremely difficult, if at all possible.

But what is also unfortunate for the 'debunkers' is they will never be able to provide proof that there WASN'T a controlled demolition, especially with building 7.

Interesting conundrum.. it will all play out though and don't forget, there is a payday someday.. that's one thing we don't have to argue about.