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

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


You are aware of the strict moderation rules here aren't you? In my opinion the premise of your last post has nearly crossed that line, but its not up to me, the MODs decide what is suitable or not, and they do a fine job of it.

Personally I think that this statement from the rules should be applied to all debates, whether they are in the 9/11 section or not;

Beginning at the time of this announcement, if your post contains a personality attack against anyone, no matter if your target is an ATS member or not, within the 9/11 Forum, it will be removed and replaced with this graphic:

If you feel compelled to discredit […] simply stating they're a member of a "sect," a popular debunking site, or any other simplistic "guilt by association" statement will result in a "9/11 Madness" warning.

A fine standard, something I wish other forums would put in place to avoid the complete loss of courteousness that is becoming ever more apparent when debating 9/11 online.

Because the OP acted like a condescending subject matter expert, got schooled and was exposed as not being nearly as in command of the facts as he likes to claim and my drawing attention to that does not make me a belittler.

sorry if i offended you, that was not my intention. I am curious as to where I 'got schooled'? If you mean the one mistake that was pointed out to me on JREF, I would hardly call that 'getting schooled'. That conversation on JREF is going to be continued, so we'll see what happens in the near future.

And I think that you misunderstand the basis of this thread. I am not being condescending at all, I was trying to put it in Laymens terms (hence the title) specifically so people without any knowledge of physics could understand some of the concepts involved in the collapse. I did not once claim that my take on this issue was defectless or unequalled, and have been completely open to any criticism.

Actually, the only person smug and seemingly very at ease with their "superiority" over the rest of the fiefdom is the OP. I merely pointed out the irony.

In my opinion I have been open to all criticism that has been put forward against what I have been saying. No-one here noticed anything wrong with my diagram, it happened that the people at JREF did, and I accepted that as soon at is was pointed out. Again, if I’m so smug, please give some quotes, or your claim is baseless.

If you enter the debate with a condescending attitude and then get schooled, don't then turn around and claim you've been some how mistreated.

condescending? did you read the posts on JREF? I specifically stated that I would not engage in any Ad Hominem exchanges, and made a distinct effort not to. The only people engaging in personal attacks was them, quite odd, if my version of physics was sooooo bad why did they just not address the issues I was raising and show me to be wrong that way? They pointed out the one error, and the rest of the thread was just engaging people’s emotions, rather than the facts of the issue.

I find it interesting that the debate has moved on from the OP's original assertion and now we are arguing semantics and fine minutia.

I stick completely by my original assertion, why would I not? No-one seems to have negated my points as of yet, if I have missed something please quote it. I stopped talking about the toppling motion when it became apparent that no-one was disagreeing with what I was saying about that, so I didn't want to keep harking on about it. The recent points about the dust and others aspects are valid also, and I would certainly not describe as minutiae. Again, please show where my original assertion has been shown to be wrong, or you words are nothing more than hot air.

In fact, those who do understand engineering think he doesn't know what he's talking about

You mean the people at JREF? The reason that they thought I didn't know what I was talking about was mainly due to my spelling, and them being overly pedantic about the use of the term 'moment' or 'momentum', which is a purely subjective opinion anyway, and does not retract from the scientific points I was making. If they had given any scientific reasons as to dismiss my claims, I would have accepted their criticism and replied, which is exactly what I did to when that one error was pointed out.

and doesn't seem to understand his own math!

If you had actually read my posts you will see that not once have I used any maths, so that claim is completely baseless. I have drawn diagrams to represent forces, but have continually stated that putting numbers in would be too approximate to justify.

Of course this is while exhibiting some real elitist thinking that portrays the rest of us as stupid and not having the educational background to understand what he's talking about.

Hey, man, calm down, I was just trying to make some easy to understand points. If you have a problem with the accuracy of anything I have said please bring it up with me, with a quote, stating what you have a problem with, and stop making generalizations.

The OP - IMO - seeks to position himself as fully understanding the topic at hand, and with a depth of understanding that he must "dumb-down" for the rest of us when, in fact, he doesn't really understand what he's talking about. If your going to submit yourself as a subject matter expert, you better know what the heck your talking about. He doesn't.

I've had enough of your subjective opinion, I think its about time you backed up these assertions with hard facts and quotes so I can see what exactly you have a problem with. Your posts seemed quite level headed and accurate up to now, but you appear to have lost your previous civility. Maybe you should leave this thread and join the debunkers at JREF, since you seem to regard them so highly.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

reply to post by ZeuZZ

Your posts seemed quite level headed and accurate up to now, but you appear to have lost your previous civility. Maybe you should leave this thread and join the debunkers at JREF, since you seem to regard them so highly.

....and you do too. If you didn't you would not have taken your argument there. I am also pretty confident if they did side with you, you would be more than glad to tell me.

I am not going to spend a huge amount of time responding to your demands that I prove I am wrong: see the Jref posting, linked in this thread, for it's entirety. It doesn't take someone claiming to be a physicist to understand what happened there.

What I very clearly offered was my opinion. My opinion was, and is exactly what I said. It's also a fair assessment of what has transpired here and what others have said about you, in my opinion.

Let me offer you some advice as well; if you don't like my subjective style of writing, you should choose a different manner in which to respond. If you think I have been too personal in my posts, why repeat the same mistake you think you have highlighted?

Bottom line: is my impression (rejecting the descriptors I used) of what has happened accurate? Did you use a patently condescending tone? I think so. Did you attempt to "school" the rest of us on the correct (according to you) nature of the problem you brought up? Again, I certainly think so. I'll skip to the chase: you already know the point I am trying to make.

I do think I reacted a little strongly, but not for the reasons you might think. I don't regret my reaction because I think I broke the rules (I didn't), or because you think I was too harsh, or because you don't like my relation of events. Why I regret is contributing to the focus changing from your assertions, to me.

As far as my previous posts: you may be referring to the last time you and I crossed paths? If you remember, I completely ceded your point, admitted didn't have the knowledge to speak on a even keel with you and told you I would have to rely on the works of others, and that I would get back to you (and I did). That was an honest answer.

My previous post was, IMO, not a hit piece but a recounting of events in this very thread. The only thing I used was your actions and the actions of others and relayed what has happened, IMO.

As before, this is my opinion and nothing more. If you can't handle the observations, then stay out of the fray.

I have to wonder what anyone who thinks Zeuzz got "schooled", or had his hypothesis "crushed", is really doing here.

If you think this to be the case, you obviously have not taken the time to read his OP or the work he's put into this thread. Therefore, you are the one not understanding, not Zeuzz. I also doubt you read the JREF thread, more likely just cherry picking the negatives so you could finally point at Zeuzz as if he was wrong!

SlightlyAbovePar won't spend a "huge" amount of time addressing Zeuzz's points. Yet, he can take the time to post off topic and useless generalisations about "truthers", and other pure conjecture.

It makes me sick that people can put the time, effort and energy into this kind of negative behaviour on ATS. This is school-like behaviour, snickering "ha-ha!" at someone when they get the answer right but spell it slightly wrong.

I'm sure Zeuzz would be as pleased, or more, than I if any one of you could come up for a solid hypothesis for the arrest of the rotational movement as spoken of early in this thread, instead of the "nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah" drivel. Personal attacks on him are unfounded and show extremely low morals.

People may have to wait a very long time or never know at all. However, if someone finally catches the ones who planted the demolitions in at least two buildings of three, that would be the people to ask about timing. Controlled demoltions experts are so fine tuned with time of drop and placement of demolitions, they can normally tell people how long it takes from top to bottom before they hit the detonator(s).

reply to post by adjay

I have to wonder what anyone who thinks Zeuzz got "schooled", or had his hypothesis "crushed", is really doing here.

And I wonder what anyone who thinks he wasn't is doing defending him? I wonder how can a person like this be objective enough to see the forest and the trees.

If you think this to be the case, you obviously have not taken the time to read his OP or the work he's put into this thread.

Actually, I have. Because we don't agree, doesn't mean I haven't done due diligence. My question is, has he? As the person putting the subject matter forward, as the source of the data, it is entirely fair for others to peer review his work. They have. It's obvious a lot of thought, time and effort went into his theory. There is no doubt about that. He is also an extremely intelligent individual. I am sure an all around great guy (no snottiness intended). It's the studied belief of many he's also wrong.

Therefore, you are the one not understanding, not Zeuzz. I also doubt you read the JREF thread, more likely just cherry picking the negatives so you could finally point at Zeuzz as if he was wrong!

No, I understand very well, thank you. Actually, I did read the Jref thread, in it's entirety. You attempting to re-frame the conversation is something I understand very clearly as well.. No, I don't spend my time looking to prove another member wrong, much less Zeuzz. If he is going to put his ideas forward, they (the ideas) are open to critique.

You don't like my critique, that's great! No issues there. However, I'm not sure what shouting me down, when you think I have done the exact same thing is going to accomplish? Basically, your criticizing me for criticizing him, all the while calling my character into question while accusing me of doing the same to Zeuzz!

SlightlyAbovePar won't spend a "huge" amount of time addressing Zeuzz's points. Yet, he can take the time to post off topic and useless generalisations about "truthers", and other pure conjecture.

...because others already have. Do you want me to simply cut and paste what everyone has no doubt already read? Beyond that, if they haven't shouldn't they at least click the link already provided, so they can?

Pointing out the opinion that the OP is wrong is not off topic. I haven't posted any generalizations. Quite the contrary, I think I have been very specific. Also, any conjecture has been stated as such, very clearly.

It makes me sick that people can put the time, effort and energy into this kind of negative behaviour on ATS. This is school-like behaviour, snickering "ha-ha!" at someone when they get the answer right but spell it slightly wrong.

I don't see it that way and I certainly don't think the OP is a babe in the woods. After all, it is he who started the discussion...is it not? It is the OP, IMO, who has made the very specific, very detailed view of the problem being discussed as critically important. Therefore, the critical critique calling those very details into question are, even if you don't like it, entirely proper. If you ask for a discussion in a free exchange of ideas setting....don't complain when you get feedback you don't care for.

Personal attacks on him are unfounded and show extremely low morals.

As well as personal attacks on people you think have been making personal attacks. Certainly, my critique has been sharp. As is his towards others. I think my tone was completely inline with the tone that has been displayed by the OP to others (and me personally) in this very thread.

You don't like what I have to say, that's great. I can take the heat. I still think my relation of events in past posts in this thread are quite accurate, even if you don't like the delivery.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Flawed and hardly conclusive.

reply to post by OrionStars


I'd be happy with one person coming forward admitting they, or someone they had first hand knowledge of, were involved in planting, handling, preparing, detonating, transporting, packing, unpacking, ordering, taking receipt of, sending to someone else, covering up, lieing about or telling a story about any of the explosives some people claim were used.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Well to stur the pot a little more. Who's to say you could believe a person who said that even if they had the credentials to make it possible?
Our reality is a ambigious one me friend.

Though I think the no planer is a bunch of hooie meself.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Your point is well taken.

Some "Average Joe or Joette" coming forward with no supportive evidence......I would dismiss them out of hand, I admit that. Just like someone claiming something on 9-11 is "so" because they say so.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ


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

1. No way of knowing that. There could have been significant shifting and 'sagging' inside the buildings. There could have been movement on the outside too, there were no cameras close enough to detect minute movements. Assuming this, the structural integrity of the building would have looked like an exponential function if graphed. With each passing moment, the building would have become greatly weaker. The jump from near collapse to collapse could have happened so fast that it would have appeared to be sudden.

2. As explained above, a near sudden collapse is possible. If the bottom section had suddenly collapsed onto the remaining bottom section, it would have began to tilt as soon as it made contact, but the amount it was able to tilt would depend on how long it took for the floor under it to fail. If the floor below it feel nearly instantly (which is possible, all that wait plus momentum plus the structural damage from the crash and fire) then the top would have had very little tilt. The videos of the collapse show just that.
You're right, object will fall along the path of least resistance, but since gravity is acting on the building, as soon as the straight down path becomes equally or less resistant than toppling sideways, the building will cease tilting and begin falling straight down.

3. That's true, but you have to take into account the tremendous energy that comes from that much mass falling at ANY speed. It is entirely possible that the lower floors offered nearly no resistance to that much energy, thus producing, as you said, a NEAR free fall speed.

4. I don't know enough about the construction and architecture of those vertical columns to explain this away.

5. Put sand on a table and then drop a decent sized book on them. A big dust cloud will rush out. If you accept number's 1 and 2 of my explanation, then this is entirely possible and plausible.

6. Gravitational energy? No, the force of impact of that building is the constant acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s^2) X 500000 tons. After some conversion that equals 4,451,809,530.9047 newtons, about 4.5 BILLION newtons.

7. Hold a pea between your thumb and index finger near the tips and squeeze. The pee will go flying. The same scenario caused the horizontal emissions.

8. I can't say what these people did or didn't hear, but my guess is that they heard steel supports and general structural pieces bending, grinding, snapping, and being violently ripped. That would produce a horrendous sound.

9.Steel is a good conductor of heat, concrete is a good insulator, a pocket of molten steel could probably exist, but the math to prove it is beyond my means.


A=F/M
F = M X A

Those are the keys.

peace

[edit on 6-1-2008 by avingard]

reply to post by avingard

4. I don't know enough about the construction and architecture of those vertical columns to explain this away.

Based off a PRE-9/11 documentary I watched PRE-9/11, the buildings where designed to have the major supports for the building to be part of the so called "skin" of the buildings. And I would like to add they designed the damn things to implode for the simple fact that they knew if something happend to those buildings (take your pick of disasters including what actually happend) you wouldn't have blocks and blocks of NYC crushed beneath the buildings, driving the death toll to purely horrendously titanic porportions.
Do you even want to imagine the death toll if say one of those buildings when down like a felled tree? I sure as heck don't.

Originally posted by avingard
6. Gravitational energy? No, the force of impact of that building is the constant acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s^2) X 500000 tons. After some conversion that equals 4,451,809,530.9047 newtons, about 4.5 BILLION newtons.

Just an interjection.

Why are you assuming the acceleration of gravity? Do you realize that by doing this you assume the building fell at free-fall?

And why do you assume the ENTIRE MASS of the whole building above the first floor to fall, as the first floor to fall? Is not the first floor to fall, only going to have the mass of 1 floor falling? What are you thinking?

reply to post by bsbray11

And why do you assume the ENTIRE MASS of the whole building above the first floor to fall, as the first floor to fall? Is not the first floor to fall, only going to have the mass of 1 floor falling? What are you thinking?

Ok. I'll be the first to say it. HUH?

If people only set demolitions to cut the first floor, it could end up looking like this:

www.youtube.com...

Or this:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ok. I'll be the first to say it. HUH?

Hopefully you'll be the only one to say it, unless nobody understands how the towers were built anymore.


There is a core structure. It consists of a bunch of massive box columns that are interconnected by large beams and it's all bolded and solidly welded up.

There is a perimeter structure. It consists of a mesh of columns installed in groups of 3 connected vertically by bolts and horizontally by spandrel plates.

In between are the "floors," ie office floors that are not within the core area. Supported by steel trusses that stretch across independently from the core to the perimeter.


Now, if the theory is that a floor broke lose and caused a chain reaction, then that is ONE FLOOR, not the entire mass of the core, perimeter, and all of the totally independent floors above. To say the entire mass fell onto the next floor is to say that all the columns and everything else just became totally disconnected and piled themselves entirely onto an office floor without transferring any of the gravity loads down. That is not realistic. If you do not understand this then maybe you should reconsider even trying to argue about this with someone.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Reread what I quoted from your question. Its about as clear as mud.
As for the rest. Yea. Right. Don't know your physics very well do ya?

Originally posted by avingard


1. No way of knowing that. There could have been significant shifting and 'sagging' inside the buildings. There could have been movement on the outside too, there were no cameras close enough to detect minute movements. Assuming this, the structural integrity of the building would have looked like an exponential function if graphed. With each passing moment, the building would have become greatly weaker. The jump from near collapse to collapse could have happened so fast that it would have appeared to be sudden.

2. As explained above, a near sudden collapse is possible. If the bottom section had suddenly collapsed onto the remaining bottom section, it would have began to tilt as soon as it made contact, but the amount it was able to tilt would depend on how long it took for the floor under it to fail. If the floor below it feel nearly instantly (which is possible, all that wait plus momentum plus the structural damage from the crash and fire) then the top would have had very little tilt. The videos of the collapse show just that.
You're right, object will fall along the path of least resistance, but since gravity is acting on the building, as soon as the straight down path becomes equally or less resistant than toppling sideways, the building will cease tilting and begin falling straight down.

Both collapse onsets indicate sudden global collapse, true. Meaning all structural supports gave way at once in the impact zones. Core most importantly, because this was certainly the area that must have failed completely to initiate collapse. However you also say that the tops had very little tilt and "the videos of the collapses show just that." But the south tower collapses with severe torque before it disintegrates.

3. That's true, but you have to take into account the tremendous energy that comes from that much mass falling at ANY speed. It is entirely possible that the lower floors offered nearly no resistance to that much energy, thus producing, as you said, a NEAR free fall speed.

I don't see how this is entirely possible, particularly in light of the vast amounts of ejecta (less mass falling straight down), the disintegration of the upper masses (again, dispersion), and the nature of the core structures. The video evidence shows that you cannot presuppose that the upper building masses acted in their entirety upon the building below; far from it.

Indeed, the lower down the collapse, the more improbable this scenario becomes, as the upper structure has been spewed and disintegrated and indeed is in freefall, and the lower, intact structure is increasingly resistant, because the core members become thicker--5-6 in. thick box columns in section big as a dining table.

4. I don't know enough about the construction and architecture of those vertical columns to explain this away.

Do investigate the core structures more deeply; they are very important to understand.

5. Put sand on a table and then drop a decent sized book on them. A big dust cloud will rush out. If you accept number's 1 and 2 of my explanation, then this is entirely possible and plausible.

You are assuming the infamous dust was already present in the towers, not a product of their destruction. False premise in the extreme.

6. Gravitational energy? No, the force of impact of that building is the constant acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s^2) X 500000 tons. After some conversion that equals 4,451,809,530.9047 newtons, about 4.5 BILLION newtons.

Again, you are assuming the entirety of the building is acting on the building, an impossibility. Yes it is a big number, but as noted above, much of the upper towers were ejected and also were in independent freefall, not acting as a coherent mass, so the figure is meaningless.

7. Hold a pea between your thumb and index finger near the tips and squeeze. The pee will go flying. The same scenario caused the horizontal emissions.

Here you are implicitly agreeing with my observation that a good portion of the building masses were ejected beyond the structures and so could not act to destroy the intact buildings beneath them. But this squeezing (compression/friction) should not cause these building members to spew grey smoke/dust trails as they fall. What caused that?

8. I can't say what these people did or didn't hear, but my guess is that they heard steel supports and general structural pieces bending, grinding, snapping, and being violently ripped. That would produce a horrendous sound.

This is a subject unto itself. Suffice it to say there is a wealth of reports from EMS, NYPD, FDNY, and eyewitnesses to explosions in the towers before the onset of collapse. Yes it is controversial, but nonetheless well-documented. This is a topic-derailer, so let's leave it at that.

9.Steel is a good conductor of heat, concrete is a good insulator, a pocket of molten steel could probably exist, but the math to prove it is beyond my means.

Structural steel is actually a lousy conductor of heat. With its great tensile strength, that is one of its great merits as a building material. You need closed, foundry conditions to melt it.

[edit for quote herding]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by bsbray11
In between are the "floors," ie office floors that are not within the core area. Supported by steel trusses that stretch across independently from the core to the perimeter.

Now, if the theory is that a floor broke lose and caused a chain reaction, then that is ONE FLOOR, not the entire mass of the core, perimeter, and all of the totally independent floors above.

This is the key point that no-one ever seems to get. When they say the tower dropped, for example one floor, they model it as if there is nothing in between each floor and the only thing providing resistance is the floors themselves. However in between every floor are continually running core and perimeter columns which should be providing resistance every single millimetre of the collapse, not just at the floors.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Reread what I quoted from your question. Its about as clear as mud.
As for the rest. Yea. Right. Don't know your physics very well do ya?

That description by bsbray11 makes perfect sense to me.

Originally posted by avingard
1. No way of knowing that. There could have been significant shifting and 'sagging' inside the buildings. There could have been movement on the outside too, there were no cameras close enough to detect minute movements.

sagging inside the building is a possibility, but we don’t know that as we cant see inside the building, lets stick to the things we do know. You say that there could have been movement on the outside, there certainly should have been movement on the outside, but there isn't, they start very rapidly and straight downwards. And the movement should have been more than "minute", the whole top section should have started gradually as the steel slowly buckled.

Assuming this, the structural integrity of the building would have looked like an exponential function if graphed. With each passing moment, the building would have become greatly weaker.

Correct, to a certain extent when the elastic limit of the steel is reached (past the Hookes law region) it is roughly exponential, but that implies that at the very beginning it definitely should be gradual, the speed only increases significantly with time.

The jump from near collapse to collapse could have happened so fast that it would have appeared to be sudden.

That would be true; if we disregard everything we know about steel. If you heat up the centre of a horizontal fixed steel girder, which has a force applied to one side of it, when it gets to a certain threshold value it will start to bend, slowly. And the key word is that it really does start slowly, it will sag and bend down, increasing its speed with time, but the initial movement is gradual and slow. It definitely does not just suddenly spontaneously break like you are implying, we know steel does not behave anything like that.

2. If the floor below it feel nearly instantly (which is possible, all that wait plus momentum plus the structural damage from the crash and fire) then the top would have had very little tilt.

The initial force from momentum is very small, in fact it is nearly negligible because the speed at this point is so tiny. "fell nearly instantly", I presume you mean at freefall speed? How on earth could it do that?

You realise that to fall at freefall speed there would be required no resistance to the motion at all from the structure below, and since the structure below, and above, the impact zone was largely undamaged there definitely should have been some resistive force to cause the tilt to continue.

3. That's true, but you have to take into account the tremendous energy that comes from that much mass falling at ANY speed. It is entirely possible that the lower floors offered nearly no resistance to that much energy, thus producing, as you said, a NEAR free fall speed.

That’s true, but you have to take into account the tremendous energy that the building below the falling section was meticulously engineered to hold up, far in excess of the weight of the top section. Structures are usually over engineered to hold up well over five times their own weight for stability.

4. I don't know enough about the construction and architecture of those vertical columns to explain this away.

That makes two of us

5. Put sand on a table and then drop a decent sized book on them. A big dust cloud will rush out. If you accept number's 1 and 2 of my explanation, then this is entirely possible and plausible.

Theres no way that all those clouds could have been created at that early stage of the collapse. There’s not enough energy input to create that amount of dust that early because the only energy available to the official account is the gravitational energy. It actually takes quite a considerable amount of energy to create that amount of dust.

Early in the collapse, say the first three seconds, the very fastest anything would have been moving (acceleration = 9.81) is 29.4 m/s, and i should point out thats with no resistance (somehow ). That means it has fallen just 44 metres, making it very hard to explain how this huge cloud of dust which engulfs the building is actually produced at this early stage. The actual speeds involved should not be enough to significantly break concrete, or fireproofing, at all; yet the building completely disappears into this cloud.

6. Gravitational energy? No, the force of impact of that building is the constant acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s^2) X 500000 tons. After some conversion that equals 4,451,809,530.9047 newtons, about 4.5 BILLION newtons.

You cant just put the word billions in capitals to make it seem bigger, you really have to put it in context. Lets assume that the buildings are designed to hold up 5x their weight, it could say that the buildings were designed to hold up 22,259,047,654.5235 newtons, about 22 BILLION newtons. So even assuming about 20% of the normal resistance this still creates a big problem for the forces involved.

8. I can't say what these people did or didn't hear, but my guess is that they heard steel supports and general structural pieces bending, grinding, snapping, and being violently ripped.

I agree with that.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

The center cores of the twin towers were the primary gravity load bearers to stabilize during sway under high winds. They prevented the highest part of the buildings from swaying too far in any direction, and causing the building to potentially topple. It is why they were each one continuous joined unit from the bedrock to the roof, and attached to the inside of the horizontal beams of each floor.

The core units were not between each floor. They were attached to the horizontal beams separating each floor. Which means the core side of the trusses were attacked with bolts to the core side. Which further means they would shear off or compromise from high thermal energy, before they would pull over the core supports or compromise the core unit in any way. Unless sufficient number, of the side of impact core supports were fully compromised, to allow the center of gravity to begin shifting to the impact side. That means toppling not coming straight down into footprints of buildings.

As we viewed on TV, videos, or personally watched, the above described toppling did not happen. The way the buildings came down was the first clear indication, to me, the Bush administration was lying, regarding the false cause of twin tower collapse. The "official" reports defy the laws of physics. I do not care if the discussion is the twin towers or the Empire State Building.

I have placed links to various types of controlled demolitions. Some depict controlled demolitions pulling buildings into their own footprints. Some depict controlled demolitions deliberately, or maybe not so deliberately in some videos, toppling and pancake effect.

Perhaps if people study a variety of those videos, it will start to become clearer as to what it takes to pull in buildings on top of themselves, or pull to pancake effect. In pancake effect, entire floors or parts of floors will be readily identifiable after the smoke and debris clears. They will be seen falling in that fashion as they are pulled down to the ground.

Buildings do not fall in 10 seconds or less, or even 16 seconds or less, unless controlled demolitions are used. The laws of physics are once again why that does not happen.

If people are so gung ho on believing jet fuel, plastic, and or wood can possibly create enough thermal energy to compromise even 2" diameter steel bolts, this an easy experiment. Compare a propane and a kerosene heater. Place them in garage in 32 degree or lower room temperature. Test both. Note which one gives off heat faster and completely heats the room. That will settle the question of how much thermal energy jet fuel fires have even when causing the burning of plastic and wood. Plastic and wood do not give off that much thermal energy heat either.

Please note the difference in the colors of flames of both propane and kerosene (K-1). K-1 is considered the purest of the grades of kerosene.

The quantum law of thermodynamics is why jet fuel does not build thermal energy to compromise any steel, including the steel bolts, much less rapidly building to compromise steel bolts at least 2" in diameter.

If one or two trusses were compromised, the weight would have shifted to the rest of the floor on the side of impact. That is the way the twin towers were designed, in order to accomodate the impact and any weight of a Boeing 707 impacting, and even partially penetrating either twin tower.

To say a Boeing 767 could completely penetrate two steel walls and the center core, is certainly beyond anything the laws of physcis would dictate.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless sufficient number, of the side of impact core supports were fully compromised, to allow the center of gravity to begin shifting to the impact side.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

The "official" reports defy the laws of physics.

In which part? From my previous experience of reading your posts, your knowledge of the laws of physics is severely lacking, so I take your claim with a huge grain of salt.

The quantum law of thermodynamics is why jet fuel does not build thermal energy

Please explain to me that "quantum law of thermodynamics". What is it? I've never heard of such law. Care to send a link?