Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

reply to post by evil incarnate


Excuse, evil incarnate, but what part of my post, up above, is a lie?

I answered your question RE 'molten concrete,' did I not?

It's there. Everyone can read it.

Of course, taking a selection of my post, 'quoting' it, then spinning that selection in an attempt at discredit doesn't work so well when the eintire thing is still there for all to read....so your response is puzzling.

Not sure if you, or anyone participating here, are actually seeking the "truth", or if it's just a game to argue semantics, and play around. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding motives, lately.

The very point of a discussion board is to bring facts, present evidence and (hopefully) contribute in such a way that greater knowledge is acquired.

A game of Internet "gotcha" is doing no one any good.

It detracts from the Internet experience, as well.

When presented with facts, sometimes a person will realize that what they thought was correct, wasn't. IF an actuel, incontrovertible fact (one...just ONE of those 'coinspiracies') were ever shown to be true, were proven, then that would be a watershed event. There would be converts, many many more.

It's like the 'Watergate' scandal. I hope this is an apt comparison...staunch Nixon supporters refused to believe he was that corrupt, right up to the last minute. Well, history shows us what happened.

Keep digging, guys. Look for your own version of "deepthroat".

Problem is, in my opinion, many in the 'TM' are looking in the wrong places.

I think there are machinations that occured, things yet to be unearthed. Petty bickering over the usual "suspects" that threads are formed about here, on ATS, leads nowhere.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


"LoRD",

Please take another look at this line of yours:

How is it logical that a building that was nowhere near wtc 1 or 2 imploded????

WTC 7 was north of Tower 1, with WTC 6 in-between. Debris from the collapsing North Tower impacted 6, and 7. This is irrefutable. Else, how did 7 suffer structural damage, and how did the fires start?

I am still looking into this, trying to examine from a purely logical stance. So far, I see nothing to suggest anything else but what has been reported for the last 8+ years.

As to "imploded"...it didn't, unless you wish to describe its collapse as 'imploding'.

Let me switch gears, for a moment. Logically speaking....the building was fatally damaged. Like most in the immediate vicinity. They all had to be destroyed.

There really was no logical reason for such a dramatic "intentional demolition" event, to attract such attention as it's getting today, was there?

Some people wish to claim that there was something to "hide" inside....but, certainly wouldn't an agency of the Government be able to secure the building, if they chose to, and destroy whatever they wanted to, whenever they wanted to, in any way they wished??? They would have had months in which to work, as Ground Zero was cleared of the debris.

This is why the 'conspiracy of planned CD' just makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Excuse, evil incarnate, but what part of my post, up above, is a lie?

Easy there, killer. Do not get so hostile with me as I have not been the least bit rude to you. I understand you have an ongoing fight with others but that is no reason to take it out on me. I am trying to have a serious conversation.

Which part was a lie? This part

I assume your question was about "molten concrete"? Sorry I missed it, bounced out of the tthread too fast, I guess, looking on the Web for other things to learn about at that time.

You assume it was about molten concrete? How could you assume anything? Either you read the question or you have no idea I mentioned molten concrete. It was not in my last post that you responded to. Perhaps you meant something completely different than "assume" and it was an honest mistake. If so, I am sure you will just admit that and look like an honest individual.

As it is, you appear to be trying deception. You could not assume anything. Either you read my question about concrete or you have no clue I mentioned it. Let me know if you are still puz puzzed.

I answered your question RE 'molten concrete,' did I not?

It's there. Everyone can read it.

Well, I know that you think you did but it was vague so I asked you for a simple yes or no. Why does this upset you? Why are you so combative? I am admitting that I guess I am just not smart enough to understand your answer. It seems like you are saying that it is impossible but again, I asked for clarification. Can you answer "yes" or "no" or should I not bother asking you anything any more?

I am not looking for a fight so if you just want to fight and run in circles, just say so.

Of course, taking a selection of my post, 'quoting' it, then spinning that selection in an attempt at discredit doesn't work so well when the eintire thing is still there for all to read....so your response is puzzling.

Are you not a natural born English speaker? This might explain why you used the word "assume" in such an incorrect fashion. I took one quote and then asked if my interpretation of it was correct or not. I did not spin anything because I was asking you if it was correct. Can you just answer yes or no?

Why do you have to fight with me? I just asked a question? Please explain the hostility.

Not sure if you, or anyone participating here, are actually seeking the "truth", or if it's just a game to argue semantics, and play around. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding motives, lately.

I am too. I have seen you caught lying about the penthouse so that certainly makes me question your motives. I asked a yes or no question and all I got was a vague and lengthy nonsense response. That makes me question your motives. I asked again to for you to just be clear about your answer and that has made you react in a rude and hostile manner. Motives certainly are questionable.

The very point of a discussion board is to bring facts, present evidence and (hopefully) contribute in such a way that greater knowledge is acquired.

The best way to get those facts if you do not have them is to inquire as to where they are. The whole point of asking a question is to learn something new. I was trying to learn from you and this is what I got in return. Can you explain your motive?

A game of Internet "gotcha" is doing no one any good.

It detracts from the Internet experience, as well.

How did I play "gotcha?" You seem to be using my post to vent feelings you have that are general and do not apply to any of my posts. I find this highly distracting and the opposite of productive. How do you think it adds to anything?

When presented with facts, sometimes a person will realize that what they thought was correct, wasn't. IF an actuel, incontrovertible fact (one...just ONE of those 'coinspiracies') were ever shown to be true, were proven, then that would be a watershed event. There would be converts, many many more.

So...where are your facts? Can you point out which post of yours brought me the facts I was seeking?

It's like the 'Watergate' scandal. I hope this is an apt comparison...staunch Nixon supporters refused to believe he was that corrupt, right up to the last minute. Well, history shows us what happened.

Wha??????

You spend a good 20 hours a day here, perhaps you need some rest. My grandfather used to go on and on about things no one was talking about and did not apply as well. He was senile though.

Keep digging, guys. Look for your own version of "deepthroat".

Ah, I see. You are using my post to vent about general feelings. I am not "guys." I am one person and all I did was ask you a simple question. Do not get hostile with me because you are angry at more than one person. I am not more than one person so please keep your venting in the appropriate venue. Thanks.

Problem is, in my opinion, many in the 'TM' are looking in the wrong places.

I think there are machinations that occured, things yet to be unearthed. Petty bickering over the usual "suspects" that threads are formed about here, on ATS, leads nowhere.

OK. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I just wanted one simple answer. I will ask one more time and hope you can be half as polite to me as I am trying to be to you.


Weedy, would you agree that evidence of molten concrete would suffice? It takes far more heat to melt concrete than steel so if we had evidence of molten concrete, would you agree that is serious in itself as well as making the case that there would be molten steel as any steel subjected to that kind of heat would have been melted?

Yes or No?

This is a simple yes or no question. If you want to elaborate and ramble, that is great. Add all you like. I am only interested in the yes or the no though so if you can just include that somewhere, I would really appreciate that.

If you cannot answer yes or no questions and are more interested in attacking me as "guys" and apparently the "TM movement" then I will just move on.

I thought I was nice and I thought my question was simple. I am not at all sure why you felt the need to attack me but I will not sit here an fight in rambling circles. If you can answer yes or no, then we are getting somewhere. If not, then I will move on. OK?


[edit on 3/8/10 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by evil incarnate


Woooof!!!!

Wow...just wow!!!

I spend 20 hours a day, on this site? Wow!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETA --- Maybe we should start a 'twelve-step' program for ATS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who are the "agents", now, eh? Should I be paranoid???

BTW, for the record, I was not being 'combative' towards you. The latter half of the post was more of a free-form thought process, directed towards ALL concerend, was not singling out any one individual...sorry if it seemed aimed at you...wasn't my intent.

It takes far more heat to melt concrete than steel...

If you say so.

I have never been schooled in such a topic, so I rely on what I can learn from the Internet....found this.

So, yes --- seems that a consensus is that concrete can 'melt', but not really --- it will depend greatly on the particular formula used to make the concrete in the first place.

The "ballpark" answer for concrete to "melt" appears to be 800-1200 degrees C.

About steel, I looked that up as well....

Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

education.jlab.org...

So, iron in its elemantal form needs to be at 1510 degrees C to melt, while concrete should melt before that, at about 1200 degrees, tops. Is this incorrect?

Yes or No?

Clear enough?

If you want to elaborate and ramble, that is great.

And, how should we categorize the majority of your post, above?


The only reason this interests me is because there is a lot of bad information out there, like 'urban legend' stuff. It's a shame when people read a 'conspiracy' viewpoint, then accept it as gospel, without doing any further fact-checks.

That's the extent of my interest in this....so, guess that makes me a 'truther', in a way....but the kind who tries to divorce the exaggerations from the discussion, with verifiable facts.



.

[edit on 8 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

I dont know much about this topic ... but I can tell you this much I have heard from many people that people who worked inside this building before this tradgedy happened certain people knew it was comming and did not go to work that day HMMMMM now how is that I ask????? sounds fishy to me

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The "ballpark" answer for concrete to "melt" appears to be 800-1200 degrees C.

Very little of your post deserves a response so before you accuse me of quote mining, I am just responding to what is relevant.

"Ballpark?" You looked up steel and offered a source but you are satisfied with a yahoo answers "ballpark guess?"

Can you please offer a more reliable number. I can admit that I could be wrong but I will not aquiesce to a ballpark guess. I imagine you would have the same standards, no?

About steel, I looked that up as well....

"As well?" You did not really look up concrete. This is the little hints of dishonesty that I see peppered in your posts. You assumed something you could only know by actually seeing what it is you had an assumption about. Now you look up steel and call it also looking up when you failed to actually look up concrete. Where is your source for that "ballpark guess?"

So, iron in its elemantal form needs to be at 1510 degrees C to melt, while concrete should melt before that, at about 1200 degrees, tops. Is this incorrect?



Clear enough?

No, not really. Since you offered no real number for the temperature to melt concrete I am not sure how you come to your conclusion. Wouldn't you demand more than a ballpark guess from me? I can start offering them all over the place. Will you base your opinions on my guesses as if they were documented facts as well?

And, how should we categorize the majority of your post, above?

I am really not concerned with how you characterize it. I would call it a response in kind. You can call it whatever you want. I am really only interested in the melted concrete that was found at ground zero.

Get it? All I am interested in is the melted concrete. That is it. Please try and stay focused. I know you are full of anger and like to lash out but I am not your personal punching bag. Again, I am not "guys" or a "movement." I am one person trying to discuss melted concrete with you. I am starting to wonder why though.

The only reason this interests me is because there is a lot of bad information out there, like 'urban legend' stuff. It's a shame when people read a 'conspiracy' viewpoint, then accept it as gospel, without doing any further fact-checks.

What do you then consider reading a "ballpark guess" on yahoo answers and then posting that as gospel without doing and further fact checks? Can you please explain the difference?

That's the extent of my interest in this....so, guess that makes me a 'truther', in a way....but the kind who tries to divorce the exaggerations from the discussion, with verifiable facts.

Facts are all I am interested in and one fact I would like to see it the melting point for concrete. A fact, not a ballpark guess. You do know the difference, right?

reply to post by evil incarnate


Slow down mate, breathe.....

"Ballpark?" You looked up steel and offered a source but you are satisfied with a yahoo answers "ballpark guess?"

"ballpark" was the word used in my source. NOT my word.

AND, the term "ballpark" was referring to the concrete. Do you see? Read again, please.


Re-iterating. ONE source I found on the Web said concrete melts in the "ballpark" range of 800-1200 degrees C. I take that to be a range, because concretehas different compositions, and different formulas, based on application.

Of course, melting point of iron, and the "steel" after carbon has been added, is much more definitive.

Clearer now?

If you have other sources for the melting point of concrete that show it to be higher than steel, by all means post it please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding, worth repeating.

What I said, in a much earlier post about this question, and it seems to have been lost in all of the smoke is ---- concrete has, a large component of its makeup, sand. Silica. Is this correct, and not in dispute?

Does anyone know what melts at a lower temperature? Sand (silica) or steel?



[edit on 8 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Slow down mate, breathe.....

Huh? I am quite calm. No need to worry.

"ballpark" was the word used in my source. NOT my word.

AND, the term "ballpark" was referring to the concrete. Do you see? Read again, please.

Again, huh? Perhaps you should try to re-read my post. I know that ballpark was referring to the concrete. That is exactly what I said. I also pointed out that you need to provide your source the same way you did when talking about steel. The reason I am questioning "ballpark" is because it is not a scientific measurement by any means. So I have to ask what your source is. I cannot help but think if you found a real source with a reliable measurement, it would have a real number and not a guess. Please go back and read my post again as it seems you got what I said completely backward and then blamed me for failing to read.

Everything you just attempted to correct me about was what I already actually said.

Ballpark referred to concrete and you got it from a source you failed to supply. I am asking for that source. I believe it is Yahoo Answers which is hardly reliable so if it was something better, please share.

The point was that it was a tad curious that you provided a source for the steel numbers but did not supply a source for your concrete numbers.

Understand this time?

Re-iterating. ONE source I found on the Web said concrete melts in the "ballpark" range of 800-1200 degrees C. I take that to be a range, because concretehas different compositions, and different formulas, based on application.

Yeah yeah yeah. WHAT

IS

YOUR

SOURCE?

Sorry if that seems rude. Not trying to be that way but I feel that asking three times must mean I need to ask more slowly.

Of course, melting point of iron, and the "steel" after carbon has been added, is much more definitive.

Right, because you actually got a source for that. Why are your standards not as rigid for the concrete.

Clearer now?

With all due respect, you did not clear anything up. All you did was demonstrate that you either did not read or did not understand my post and then avoided my question again. I am not interested in becoming one of your little games here, ww. I see how you interact with others.

I have never treated you with any disrespect. I have never been combative with you. I do not play games and dance around answers. If this is all you want to do, I told you to just let me know. You are still doing it though.

I never misunderstood anything you said. I actually cannot figure out how you even decided that I did from what I posted. I simply asked you to provide the source for your "ballpark" figure so that we could determine the validity of it.

WW, if a truther tried to answer you with an unsourced "ballpark" figure would you take that to be the truth?

It is a really simple question, please refrain from treating me like you do most others. What is your source for that concrete number? That is all I am asking. I am not asking you to clear anything up. I am not expressing puzzlement at your point. I am only asking what your source was. If you cannot simply provide me with a source, it is ok. Just admit it. Do not bother with more circular posts, please.

If you have other sources for the melting point of concrete that show it to be higher than steel, by all means post it please.

Other? Do you have any sources for the melting point of concrete at all to begin with? You need at least one first before you can have another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding, worth repeating.

What I said, in a much earlier post about this question, and it seems to have been lost in all of the smoke is ---- concrete has, a large component of its makeup, sand. Silica. Is this correct, and not in dispute?

Lost? Because I did not dispute this it is lost? It is kind of a basic fact. If you were looking for praise for getting simple information right, you are coming to the wrong person. If you were looking for a debate over details that are not related to the discussion, you also came to the wrong person.

Does anyone know what melts at a lower temperature? Sand (silica) or steel?

That is irrelevant because as pointed out already, concrete is a compound that contains silica but is not just sand.

Again WW. What is your source for the melting point of concrete. You provided a number that you stood by so I have to believe it came from a reliable source. You would not stand by something you just found on some internet blog would you? I know you are a better person than that. I would just like to know what the source was. You can quiz me all you like but I am simply asking this one question.

[edit on 3/8/10 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by evil incarnate


My 'source' for concrete was the Yahoo answer page. I searched and searched, most of what comes up concerrning concrete involves its freeezing point, and problems of pouring concrete in less-than-ideal conditions, such as cold weather.

You spend a lot of words dissecting my posts, with gusto, while alternately criticizing me for being too long-winded.

You, if I recall, made the claim that steel will melt before concrete.

I missed your source on that.


Have tried to find a better source than Yahoo, but no luck yet. Again, my point about the range of 800-1200 degrees, from 'Yahoo answers', is that every concrete formula is different, so there is no single answer for every instance.

Also, the context of the question asked on Yahoo seemed to have no agenda, re: 9/11, so I accept it as the most valid possible, that I could find.

Finally, in my searching I found other hearsay evidence, one from a posting on a blog about having seen concrete melt, and flow from a gasoline tanker truck fire. But again, that is hearsay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oooops, have to edit to add:

This concrete melting topic is fascinating to me, since I never thought about it before, and in getting wrapped up in it I may have forgotten the actual OP topic here.

Supposed to be about WTC 7.

Now, someone posted photos of some guns encased in what looks to be concrete that had melted, then cooled into a different sort of aggregate, encasing the guns. I believe the implication was that those would have been mostly related to the WTC 1 & 2 areas, since a lot more energy was involved there --- the energies expended as the buildings collapsed.

So, to be perfectly accurate, this is off-topic, since I don't think WTC 7 scenario would have accomplished this encasing, but I really don't know, so I think it's valid for discussion. The whole area was a jumbled mess.



[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Can anyone, including Weedwhacker answer the following.

The fire in the towers were hot enough to melt aluminum, so we have molten aluminum comming into contact with the following materials.

1. Jet Fuel from the planes.

2. Graphite Composites from the planes.

3. Oxygen Generators from the planes.

4. Magnesium from the planes.

5. Tungsten from the planes.

6. Concrete and steel from the buildings.

So what kind of reactions will there be? Maybe something like a thermite reaction?

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.


Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not

enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:


J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
www.implosionworld.com...

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. en.wikipedia.org...

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
www.history.com...

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.

Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

SO let me clarify since I put so much up here.

The floors of the towers fell straight down while the perimeter columns leaned out
These buildings could not collapse any other way due to the design of the building. It was not a solid block.
Controlled demolition of much smaller buildings take months.
The power down can not be verified by any reliable source.
The fireman was on the 78th floor, the lowest of the impact floors on fire.
A wingtip was the only part of the airliner which entered the 78th floor.
The 78th floor is a skylobby which wouldn't have much to burn
The fires above the 78th floor had heavier fires which followed the fuel/combustibles.
If there were only two small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, it only agrees with the NIST report. Cooling trusses contracted and pulled the columns in because the fires moved to other areas.
The NIST never said the impact collapsed the towers
The towers DID withstand the impact. It was a combination of fire, impact damage and lack of fireproofing over the steel in the impact levels which collapsed the towers.
UL does not certify steel. They certify assemblies which included fireproofing on the steel
Kevin Ryan worked as a water tester and did not have anything to do with the collapse investigation
Mr. Ryan was let go from UL because he was making false statements about the company
The steel assembly with 1/2 inch fireproofing was rated for only 45 minutes.
UL never tested steel assemblies without fireproofing
The towers only had asbestos up to the 38th floor of one building.
Asbestos does not need to be removed, only sealed with a spray on sealer.
The towers were at full occupancy at least since February of 2001. It was at 90% in 1998
The photos and videos of the bowed columns were due to light refraction
Ummm no
Light refracts differently in different angles. It would be impossible for light to bend in refraction in exactly the same way on every camera and video lens regardless of angle
The bow was only on one side of each building. Why didn't it refract around the whole building if it was a product of heat?
Videos show the violent pull in of the columns at the beginning of global collapse. It would be impossible for it to be refracted light
The NIST never said pancaking caused the global collapse
The NIST was talking about what they investigated which was the collapse initiation. The collapse did not start by pancaking
There is photographic evidence of pancaking on ground zero which happened after collapse initiation
Silverstein said he "pulled" building 7. Pull is demolition terminology for blowing up the building

"Pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up buildings.
Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special.
Silverstein say "they" made the decision and not Silverstein
They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out.
The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement
Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse
Building 7 only had a few small fires.

Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
Building 7 had no or little structural damage

The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building


Physics isn't faulty just your logic and application seem to be.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DrJay1975]

Originally posted by DrJay1975
The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"

So thats a normal demolition, in case you did not know things were not normal on 9/11.

The fireman was on the 78th floor, the lowest of the impact floors on fire. A wingtip was the only part of the airliner which entered the 78th floor. The 78th floor is a skylobby which wouldn't have much to burn
The fires above the 78th floor had heavier fires which followed the fuel/combustibles.

But what about the jet fuel fires that the official story keeps stating were on the lower floors? Jet fuel runs down not up.

They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out.
The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement
Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse Building 7 only had a few small fires.

How could they mean to pull to resuce operation when the firemen were evacuated bfefore the call to Silverstein was made according to Chief Nigro and supported by Chief Hayden?


[edit on 9-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by DrJay1975
"Pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up buildings.
Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special.

Ummmm... yeah, except for the fact that "pull" has been used in several explosive demolition contexts, some of them going back to pre-Sept. 2001.

"CDI planned the implosion to pull the building to the southeast and away from the intersection of SW 9th and Mulberry Streets."
www.ci.des-moines.ia.us...

"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.
www.seattlepi.com...

"Implosion is a process where a small amount of explosives is used to disrupt selected supports in a building. This allows gravity to pull the structure down in a controlled manner. CDI has used this implosion method thousands of times around the world during the past 52 years to remove unwanted structures. CDI's safety record is unparalleled."
www.ulm.edu...

Can you point out where "cables" are mentioned specifically in any of those articles about demolition? The Des Moines one does talk about approx. 250 lbs. of explosives and drilling over 500 holes, though.

Personally, I find the use of "implosion" to be quite sloppy from a scientific perspective, but I don't feel like quibbling over other people's use of certain words- apparently more people use the word "implosion" than actually understand pressure differentials.

I would agree that a submarine (or most other sealed vessels) would indeed and truly "implode" in extremely deep water though.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by rhunter]

Originally posted by DrJay1975
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

Below is the source for DrJay's cut & paste(s) wall of text above:

www.debunking911.com...

I wonder if I start a "blog" about international economics, they will make me the President of the Swiss National Bank. That would be a great job!

reply to post by DrJay1975


Clap clap clap clap!

Very nice plagiarism.

Does ATS not have rules about plagiarism?

This is getting sad.

reply to post by weedwhacker

The "ballpark" answer for concrete to "melt" appears to be 800-1200 degrees C.

Because Joe blow on Yahoo says so? I guess if you'll believe 3 steel reinforced buildings will collapse due to fire you'll believe anything from any one. Read this.

findarticles.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


OK lets play devils advocate here. Ok so lets presume that falling debris from the falling towers caused fires in the building. granted fires can weaken the structure of any building. here is the kicker as some people have tried to assume the twin towers were not i repeat not the first to fall from fire alone. BUT BUT BUT they WERE the first to fall into their own footprint ALA controlled demolition style. do some google searches on buildings that collapsed from fire alone. they are all over the place. NONE fell in perfect synchronicity. dude watch the video just watch it watch it in slo mo watch it sped up watch it in reverse. there is no way in hell that fire alone brought that building down. its too perfect. dont get wrapped up with all the rest of the garbage. i only need to prove one flaw in the official story. if they lied about 1 thing the whole web of lies needs to be re evaluated. do you realize how many variable need to be in play for 3 buildings to fall directly down without tipping over???? are you seriously telling me you cant picture the mechanical dynamics required to have a building fall straight down?? ANY resistance to the falling building from any direction would have slowed the decent from that side and caused the building to pull to the edge or side of least resistance. are you suggesting spot fires through freak luck started and melted support beans in all the key places at the same time?????????

do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?? to me the mathematical probability of that happening is far more unlikely than to imagine that greedy and power hungry men would by action or inaction bring down those buildings. lets have a look shall we. silverstein stood to gain hundreds of millions in insurance claims. hmmm men being corrupted by the lure of money?? sure you jest. im sure he has a heart of gold and im also sure he made his way to the top by helping old ladies cross the street and taking scouts camping on the weekends. wake up you dont become rich and powerful by being nice. the system isnt set up like that. you can debate it all you want till you blue in the face it doesnt change the facts. RUTHLESS PEOPLE GET AHEAD ON THE BACKS OF THE NAIVE AND KIND PEOPLE. They dont call wall street CUT THROAT because they hand out lollipops at kindergartens. I dont want to get into the psychology aspect of this as that is another thread entirely. suffice to say they " for the most part" are not nice people. these people have made money their god and will do its bidding in order to gain more money and in return more power.

back on topic the point is that you need to look at the whole scenario. there were a lot of people that made a lot of money from what happened that day. if one part of the story is bullSh!t nothing can be trusted. and until i see a demonstration showing how random fires can bring down a building like that in perfect symmetry you dont have a leg to stand on. i question the OS because the implications of them lying is phenomenal evidence that we are getting led to the slaughter. Why are you so vehemently toting the company policy so to speak. whats in it for you? Are we upsetting your fantasy world a little too much? is the truth so ugly to you that you need to defend your reality? its either that or your doing this for money. i sincerely hope its for money i swear i do. because every man has a price sh1t i do. but a deluded man that spreads propergander for free??? lol now thats just sad.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Do you know anything about physics? I have to ask because all of your responses so far have shown a severe lack of physics understanding. I have to ask what your formal training is.

My guess is with all TD´s replies indicates, is a 3 letter company trained him. Or the school of ignorance and spouting...

Back on topic.

Nice thread and besides your little letter fail (D to V) its a fantastic job you have done. Please do not lower your self to answer on replies from people who are derailing your thread, answer the ones who use common language and take its origins in your math instead mate..

Best regards

Loke.

the thing is that all these buildings were crumbling and collapsing at different sections or levels before their total demise,
they did not just fall in a pristine condition, the damage of which really cannot be estimated by just looking at them from the outside.