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

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
My version of physics? I am stating the law of conservation of momentum, one of physics most fundamental laws of motion.

ZeuZZ, the law of momentum conservation does not apply here because pretty much all the objects were subjected to the force of gravity. If God forbid you slip and fall of your balcony, how does your motion relate to the conservation of momentum?

I seriously doubt anyone outside either tower heard any snapping and breaking. They would have to hear the breaking of bolts, steel collars and/or welding being snapped. They would never hear steel beams being broken because those beams do not break.

Cutter charges would barely, if at all, be externally audible, considering the amount of drywall plies put in, in order to substitue for concrete fire proofing. In other words, the intact buildings before dropping were heavily sound proofed.

It would take a major explosion at the base during cutting, for anyone, on the outside, to hear anything resembling an explosion using cutter charges much higher up. The flash of cutter charges may be visible at the center with a clear view to the center, but not without a clear view to the center core units. The view, which might be visual, is white puffs of smoke as the charges are denotated and cutting completed.

There will be a delay after all charges are rapidly detonated, and then the building will normally start dropping in the direction the experts planned the building to land.

I have studied the north tower. What I finally noticed was the north tower shifts slightly on one side, then the other, before heavily dropping down on the rest of the building. That only happens with cutter charges symmetrically set and denotated in rapid succession. The purpose is to create an immediate heavier than normal impact to start momentum of weight, mass, and velocity. Cut, cut, cut, KABOOM.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Because if supports are not symmetrically removed, buildings will topple, not drop straight down into their own footprints, not even during a natural diaster, such as an earthquake. That is what it means.

reply to post by buddhasystem


If you have never heard of the quantum (second) law of thermodynamics, now would be a good time to do some self- or formal study on that law.

reply to post by OrionStars

Because if supports are not symmetrically removed, buildings will topple, not drop straight down into their own footprints

Please provide your source for this fact.

not even during a natural diaster, such as an earthquake.

Please provide your source for this fact.

If you have never heard of the quantum (second) law of thermodynamics, now would be a good time to do some self- or formal study on that law.

Please explain it to us, in your words, so that we might learn from you. Oh, and how this applies to your theory(s).

Also, in another thread, you mentioned that you have been forensically studying the WTC collapses for 6+ years. What's your educational background in structural engineering? Has your work been submitted for peer review? If so, which publications? What access have you been allowed to the materials you have been studying? Which materials form the disaster have you studied? Were you part of the investigation team that was sent to asses the structural performance of the towers?

About "cutter charges" and "thermite": what's your educational background in chemistry? Have you worked as a professional in the demolitions industry? What buildings have you helped rig, provide explosives for or helped develop the demo plan for? Do you know what thermite looks like or what it's used for outside of conspiracy theories? What are "cutter charges"? How do you know what they sound like? What are they made up of? How do you wire and rig such devices? What experience do you have using "cutter charges"?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Visual aids to support what I stated:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

Visual aids to support what I stated:

www.youtube.com...

Point in fact: some guy, in some village, most likely in a place we haven't heard of, can't get away with being an idiot without someone else video taping it and you sharing it with me.

But the WTC being a controlled demolition and you not able to provide one single scrap of evidence is plausible. In fact, it's required for your theory to work.

Anyone find any blasting caps at the WTC site? Anyone find any "det cord"? Anyone find any explosives tags? Anyone find any thermite residue on the structure?

Not one person out of the thousands involved in the clean up operation? Not in the 10 months it took to clear away the major debris? They are still finding bone fragments six years later but not one shred of evidence to support a CD?

Thanks for the funny video clip. However, that doesn't address anything I asked you. Lets forget the other questions; lets just take your forensic credentials for now. So, can you answer my questions around your qualifications to make forensic assertions?


[edit on 7-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by OrionStars


Hate to butt in once again. Well actually I don't. But they did a GREAT amount of design on the towers to try to make sure they did exactly that. Once again a pre-9/11 documentary I saw. Collapse in on their footprints rather than, you know, smash a good part of NYC if they were to fall.
You have no proof for your allegations and it shows more and more.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Did you view any of the rest of the videos? That one was both for levity and to substantiate that without symmetrically dropping, there will be a pancake effect - no doubt about it.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Who produced and footed the bill for what you call a documentary, which you elusively referred to?

The twins towers were not designed to fall into their own footprints, unless a human being imploded them to fall into their own footprints. Nature dictates that one.

reply to post by OrionStars


Ever hear of engineering?
Or the things they use called computer simulations? Of which is used to attempt to anticipate stuff for the purposes of engineering?
Or mathmatics even?
Its pretty neat what they can and do, well, do.
Not to forget it's rather silly to assume that since you don't know how it could be done that others don't, simple physics my friend.

And yes I remembered all the crap from a show I saw late night on the discovery channels years ago, for the simple fact I am psychic and knew you'd ask. Rrrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhhttttttttt


[edit on 7-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


So in your opinion, the laws of nature are dictated by computer simulations?

If that is the case, too many people are spending too much time in virtual reality. When at least some of us were growing into adulthood, we had no computers. We actually had to deal with nature as nature works, not computers as humans choose to program them. That way we developed a sound concept of what nature will do and will not do when reacting on physical matter.

reply to post by OrionStars


Sure breath more into my statement then is already there.
Are you an engineer? Do you know what they can or can't do?
Go ahead and dodge now. You have my permission this time.

reply to post by bsbray11


I assumed near free fall speed because the OP said the buildings falling at a near free fall.

Really you could assume any number for acceleration, even at a very low rate, the energy involved is mind boggling and more than enough to turn concrete to dust.

btw, I'd like to interject here and say that I am by no means a skeptic.

peace

reply to post by buddhasystem


Au contraire:

moriond.in2p3.fr...

Gravitational Waves from Core Collapse

Change of Collapse Dynamics in Relativistic Gravity

The laws involved in the above do not alter simply because it is a building, instead of a supernova core collapse. If you choose to read the article, please do take special note of the word relativistic used throughout that article.

Originally posted by avingard
I assumed near free fall speed because the OP said the buildings falling at a near free fall.

You didn't assume "near" free-fall, you assumed a = 32 ft/s. That's free-falling. You are completely ignoring moments of inertia acting against the falling mass.

Really you could assume any number for acceleration, even at a very low rate, the energy involved is mind boggling and more than enough to turn concrete to dust.

No it isn't. NIST said in a recent release it would take 6 floors worth of dynamic loading to fail a single floor. Only a single floor would start this "pancake collapse," right? Then the floor below it would only experience the dynamic loading of ONE floor and would not even fail.

"Additionally, analysis of a floor collapsing onto a floor below, which was unlikely given the required event of all floor connections failing nearly at the same time, was not found to result in failure of the impacted floor." (NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pg. 325, 1st paragraph)

The twin towers were designed so that if an entire side of floors failed, the center core supports and other three sides would still be attached and reaching to the sky. That means the floors on one side could peel away from the core, if enough of the mass of one side of floors were severly compromised. Which on 9/11, not one of the floors, on any side, was actually compromised to the point of even one floor peeling on side of impact. Peeling would result in pancake on one side.

If enough of the cores were leaning toward the point of impact, topple toward the impact would have occurred. That never happened.

reply to post by OrionStars


How praytell?
ALL of the significant supports of the floors were along the EDGES of the floors (outside edge [otherwords the skin] and inside [otherwords the core]). Which is of course how they designed it so there would be no annoying supports to block the office space.
Which is why I look with incredulity when you say such a collapse could not have happen without demolition charges. Considering the fact BY IMPLICATION your saying those buildings are supposed to be FAR STRONGER than they can be by any reasonable stretch of mind.

Goto wikipedia.
Look up the WTC design and actually know something about what your talking about. Or do you, as I suspect, just enjoy this?





**edited to fix my mistakes**

[edit on 8-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Considering the fact BY IMPLICATION your saying those buildings are supposed to be FAR STRONGER than they can be by any reasonable stretch of mind.

Are you a structural engineer? Who cares if you think they couldn't have been that strong? Or a Wikipedia article for that matter, which I could go edit right now if I felt the childish impulse to.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Because if supports are not symmetrically removed, buildings will topple, not drop straight down into their own footprints -OrionStars

Please provide your source for this fact.

THIS SEEMS ACADEMIC GUY, Just what is that Zeus or anyone else has a reason to respond to you anymore is anyones guess, I know I sure wouldn't . You're real articulate at saying things like "where is your proof" and "all truthers theory's are always flawed" " you read this or all of that"

YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE YOU KNOW ANYTHING OTHER THEN TO ENGAGE IN THIS INCESSANT RITUAL OF YOUR USUAL VERBAL GYMNASTICS BEHIND THE GUISE OF INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY.

JEEZ MAN GOOGLE IT YOURSELF, I DID.

not even during a natural diaster, such as an earthquake. -OrionStars

Please provide your source for this fact.

So you think he is pulling this out of the air? If you think he is lying then why bother telling him to get you the proof! Either YOU KNOW HE IS WRONG BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OR YOU DON'T!

IF YOU DO THEN JUST CORRECT HIS MISTAKE WITH WHAT YOU HINT THAT YOU KNOW.

CALLING HIS BLUFF AS IF YOU GOT SOMETHING ON HIM IS MAKING YOU LOOK LIKE A NAYSAYER JUST BECAUSE YOU HATE TRUTHERS.

If you have never heard of the quantum (second) law of thermodynamics, now would be a good time to do some self- or formal study on that law. -OrionStars

Please explain it to us, in your words, so that we might learn from you. Oh, and how this applies to your theory(s).

Jeeeeezis Man you remind me of Jrefs Gravy the more you post the more I get the idea you just like playing devils advocate getting the whole issue off to where you are ending up explaining yourself as to why you said this or that ABOUT the the author of the post but NEVER about the problems you have believing ANYTHING they say.

What's your educational background in structural engineering? Has your work been submitted for peer review? If so, which publications? What access have you been allowed to the materials you have been studying? Which materials form the disaster have you studied?

About "cutter charges" and "thermite": what's your educational background in chemistry? Have you worked as a professional in the demolitions industry? What buildings have you helped rig, provide explosives for or helped develop the demo plan for? Do you know what thermite looks like or what it's used for outside of conspiracy theories?

Why don't you just ask him for his resume or suggest he provide you police background check or perhaps a few letters from his mother notarized of course. Look slightlyabove,, I suggest you just say you don't believe a word he is saying in the meantime Ill suggest to you that while you talk as if you know what you're talking about, I have seen every post you make challenging every single solitary assertion which only gets them more of the same when they provide it.

The thread gets nowhere and never will because don't want proof, you want PERFECT PROOF. Like any other perfectionist, you find fault in everything you see here and find no shortage of excuses for it.

You site all these highly technical areas of knowledge in Chemistry and Demolitions because a CD is so very exact so very well thought out taking many many months to "rig" yet you forget that whole idea of it being so meticulously planned out requirements by highly trained proffessionals is now proven untrue, that one can arrive at very similar results of a CD using just JP-5 or 7 burning for a few hours and IPSO FACTO! We have a new technique in Controlled demolitions. No planning no highly trained people nothing like that.

So this either takes one route or the other. I would say this new way to do it must work on all buildings because wt7 fell allegedly by fire alone. So whats it gonna be?

If it looks like a duck!

You have convinced me,, you are merely an antagonist, unskilled and unaware of it. A perpetual critic for criticisms sake never offering anything substantive of your own and always riding on the coattails of those other skeptics you agree with,,

speaking as if that is what YOU'D have said,,,

If you only could.

- Con


[edit on 9-1-2008 by Conspiriology]