Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

The greatest amount of weight would automatically and naturally shift to the point of the structure that offers the least resistance, ie where it is already most damaged by the impacts.

You're talking about the plane impacts, and therefore initiation?

Or the floors during collapse propagation?

This is the problem, because neither of the towers favored a path of less resistance into the already-damaged areas, but took the maximum possible amount of resistance,

And I don't think you're understanding damage.

The reason for this is: it looks like you're only taking the plane's impacts into consideration. What about the fire damage? How are you fitting that into your beliefs? What if the fire damage, when added into the impact damage, results in a roughly even pattern damage?

Then there will be no "area" with more overall damage than anywhere else, and so the path is down. And not to the side.

by apparently taking on the entire remaining structure equally at once in a purely vertical direction that stayed seated within the perimeter of the footprints.

During the collapse propagation, there will be a layer, or area, or whatever you want to call it, of debris and rubble. There is no way to move that rubble to one side, unless the undamaged floors can stop it.

And then whatever intact portion of the upper block remains will continue straight down, as I stated, cuz it would take more energy to move it off the rubble, than to go straight down.

The only exception was WTC2's brief lean

And your observation actually proves the NIST report to be accurate. They did a detailed analysis that showed that the impact damage in 2 was the main cause of the collapse. And this agrees with your understanding, since the impact was off center.

and then the rotation of the upper block was interrupted

I've never seen the rotation to be interrupted. I see the rotation continuing during the descent.

So I consider your statement to be rubbish.



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down.

LOL where did you pull that from?

No it isn't. Not if there is RESISTANCE, why do you keep ignoring that?

PROOF that you are making this up:

www.break.com...

According to you the path that requires less energy extraction from KE is not straight down if there is resistance.

Notice how the girl had resistance from the trampoline? Notice how the girl went straight down? I can't help but noticed that an object A with X newtons force impacted with object B that could support 1/2 X newtons of force and the result was object A destroying object B.

According you to that girl, since there was resistance, should have fallen to the side because air presented less resistance than a trampoline. Why is it that the girl did not fall to the side and she fell through the trampoline? I'll answer that for you!

For that girl the path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down.

When are you going to stop making things up ANOK??

[edit on 30-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by ANOK

If down has resistance due to it's own structural self then how can that be the path of least resistance?

You've got me confused with iamcpc. I'm not making that argument.

kinetic energy...The energy an object has due to it's motion. How do you extract energy from it's motion,

By converting it into another use, of course

Resistance would retard the motion of the object, retarding it's ke.

Not quite. It's pe will not be converted into all ke, since some of that pe will be used breaking structure. What is left is ke.

If the building collapses from fire there is nowhere for the walls to go but outward

But the building was collapsing down below. Therfore there was no reason for the upper walls as seen in the videos to go anywhere, since there's nothing acting upon it.

the walls to be forced to fall inside the buildings footprint, which is exactly what WTC 7 did,

7 can be seen tilting near the end of the collapse. Since those walls didn't break up yet, they were dragged on top of the pile.

Look at any natural pancake collapse and will not see the outer walls/facade on top of the piles of floors like we do with WTC 7

Why compare it to a pancake collapse? Was 7 a pancake collapse?

How can the outer walls fall inwards on top of the debris pile if the resistance was not removed from inside the building first?

I told you already. It collapsed from below. The upper walls did't break up. The building tilted slightly. The wall was the last to hit the gound, and was pulled down on top.

You are confused not me.

Really? You're confusing yourself by comparing it to a pancake collapse, and compounding the problem by not factoring in the tilt. It's painfully obvious that you are the confused one here.

how is it not exactly like a conventional 'implosion' demolition?

Too quiet, and zero flying debris from the explosives.

You'll prove me correct with your replies to this

Yep.

To put it simply, you have zero understanding of 7's collapse.

You compare it to a pancake collapse, and expect the same result, when it clearly was not.

You do not understand engineering, nor do you have a rebuttal to Bazant's paper.

Originally posted by ANOK
If down has resistance due to it's own structural self then how can that be the path of least resistance?

like this:

www.break.com...

Unless that resistance is removed fast enough to make it the path of least resistance?

If the force required to cause something to fall away from the resistance is 293857 newtons and the force required to crush down through the resistanc is 20 newtons then down is the path of least resistance.

A collapsing building does not automatically remove the resistance from itself.

The twin towers collapsed slower than free fall speed indicating that they did not remove the resistance from themselves.

Originally posted by iamcpc

According you to that girl, since there was resistance, should have fallen to the side because air presented less resistance than a trampoline.

Here's something for truthers to ponder.

Climb up a ladder with a bowling ball. Then drop it on your glass living room table.

According to them, the ball should miss (or bounce, or do some unnamed thing) the table and fall to the side, since there is more resistance breaking the glass then moving to the side.

This also perfectly explains the misapplication of science that they are employing.

Whether or not the bowling ball falls through the glass table does not depend on some misapplication of physics by employing a path of least resistance argument, but on proper use of physics and engineering by determining whether or not the bowling ball will break the glass.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


But these examples of how it it physically possible for the path of least resistance to be through a support structure which offers resistance and how it is physically possible to have resistance and contiue going down only apply to the twin towers where the top portion of the towers crushed the lower portion of the towers.

reply to post by iamcpc


What it shows is truther misapplication/misunderstanding of science, physics, and engineering.

They are claiming that the path of least resistance to be an absolute, to the exclusion and/or overriding of others. We have demonstrated that it is NOT the only law at work here.

There can be zero rational rebuttal to neither the trampoline video, nor my bowling ball/glass table example, and still claim that taking the path of higher resistance to be impossible without the use of explosives.

The only rational thing to do is admit that they are wrong, and that their arguments are, at best, naive.......

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Do you take the sidewalk or climb through the bushes...

Yet another misunderstanding/misapplication of physics.

If gravity is supplying the input, then the direction will be down.

To change the direction of the problem to horizontal only displays your ignorance and misunderstanding of the forces at work and the problem that must be solved.

To put this into perspective, it would be appropriate to compare a body moving horizontally, being constantly accelerated at g, with no ability to steer (since gravity cannot be steered) , being aimed at the bushes (analogous to the floors).

What force will move the body away from hitting the bushes and onto the sidewalk, since there is no steering ability?

reply to post by pteridine


What would YOU like me to call the explosive substance found at the scene of 9/11 in the four dust samples that explodes when heated to 420 C, has FeS and FeO layers and creates iron sphericles when ignited??

There seems to be different descriptions for what thermite is, BUT, so we can have a normal conversation... what do YOU call the explosive substance found at the WTC? (pictured below)

SAMPLES COLLECTED HERE:


PICTURE OF SAMPLE:


FeO and FeS (note: no aluminum or "wiki thermite")


IRON SPHERICLES: BYPRODUCT OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL (LAB SETTING)


What do you call THIS SUBSTANCE???

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

What would YOU like me to call the explosive substance found at the scene of 9/11 in the four dust samples that explodes when heated to 420 C, has FeS and FeO layers and creates iron sphericles when ignited??

It's not an explosive. Explosives explode. That stuff released a large amount of heat energy like thermite does but didn't explode.

www.merriam-webster.com...


Explode/exploded/exploding:

to undergo a rapid chemical or nuclear reaction with the production of noise, heat, and violent expansion of gases

en.wikipedia.org...

An explosive material, also called an explosive, is a substance that contains a great amount of stored energy that can produce an explosion, a sudden expansion of the material after initiation, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure.

en.wikipedia.org...
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.




The stuff that released a lot of heat did not have a sudden expansion of the material after initation. It was not explosive.

To answer your question about what it was:

I have no idea. More testing and investigation should be done.


[edit on 30-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Thermo Klein
I have a pretty fair knowledge of science - if you mix FeS and FeO the S (sulfur) is used for gaining heat, the O (oxygen) is used for oxygenating the fire, and the iron is the fuel."

Response posted by pteridine
Yes, your idea of what thermite is and the rest of the world's idea of what thermite is do vary quite a bit. I truly enjoyed your detailed description of the chemistry and plan to use it as an example. I'll call the scientific Jones' article version of thermite "the FeS+FeO compound"; since no evidence of the wiki version of thermite was found let's leave that part out of the conversation since it's entirely irrelevant.

I provided the quick version of a reaction thinking you would understand what I meant - but since you think the rest of the world thinks my idea of a reaction is wrong, then you should know why I said it.

A reaction involves various components: heat, fuel, oxygen. This is common sense if you've ever tried to start a fire - an example would be, logs, fire, and fanning the air. The logs are the fuel, the fire is the heat, the fanning is the oxygen.

The same is true for basic black gun powder; you need heat, fuel, and oxygen. The heat is sulfur, the fuel is charcoal, and the oxygen is potassium nitrate.

The heat, fuel, oxygen formula is standard... it's not MY idea against the rest of the world, you just haven't had hands on experience in the matter.

When you heat the explosive substance found in the world trade center dust (FeS + FeO), as I said before, the Sulfur is the heat, the iron is the fuel and explosivity, and the Oxygen is the oxygen. It takes about 420 C to get the reaction started, once the reaction begins it jumps to around 1600 C (if I recall correctly).

The evidence of a fire is ash, the evidence of gun powder deoends on the mixture but could be molten sulfur or ash, the evidence of the FeS+FeO mixture is iron sphericles.


[edit on 30-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

What would YOU like me to call the explosive substance found at the scene of 9/11 in the four dust samples that explodes when heated to 420 C, has FeS and FeO layers and creates iron sphericles when ignited??

Remnants of paint?

Quite brilliantly explained here: forums.randi.org...

.. but oh noes, that is the terrible JREF

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

What would YOU like me to call the explosive substance found at the scene of 9/11 in the four dust samples that explodes when heated to 420 C, has FeS and FeO layers and creates iron sphericles when ignited??

Remnants of paint?

Quite brilliantly explained here: forums.randi.org...

.. but oh noes, that is the terrible JREF

Do you have a link to that study that is in English instead of French?

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

What would YOU like me to call the explosive substance found at the scene of 9/11 in the four dust samples that explodes when heated to 420 C, has FeS and FeO layers and creates iron sphericles when ignited??

Remnants of paint?

Quite brilliantly explained here: forums.randi.org...

.. but oh noes, that is the terrible JREF

Do you have a link to that study that is in English instead of French?

I'm not aware of any translations as of yet. All I can remember is that the French author is also a 9/11 truther, yet one who doesn't support the various thermite theories.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Do you dispute that:

1-They hold up the floors too. And therefore part of the gravity loads?
If so, then explain how the outer ends of the floors are supported.

Yes, the outer ends of the floors do not have to be supported. Imagine a table top that doesn't have it's legs on the edges but somewhere in from the edges, it doesn't need to be supported at the very edges. Some buildings use the edges of the floors to support the facade only, not the other way around. Not sure if WTC 7 was like that but it doesn't matter if it was...

Because you miss the point again, even if the facade that was damaged was part of the 'gravity load', it still would not stop the inner columns from holding up the building, and at worst a localized collapse is all that would happen, there is NOTHING that would cause other parts of the building to fall with it at the same time and pace symmetrically, conveniently placing it's outer walls on top of the debris pile..

2-The floors also serve to brace both the core AND exterior columns. If so, then explain what braced them.

Are you talking about WTC 7 or the towers? Better check your info, WTC7 didn't have a core structure, it was a conventional building with columns throughout.

3- Removing a floor results in a reduction by 9x, IIRC, of the load carying capacity of the columns.
If so, then provide an engineering study that proves this wrong.

Again WHAT FLOORS WERE REMOVED? You are talking nonsense. How does damage to one side of a building and sporadic fires cause a whole floor to be removed? And how does removing a floor reduce the load capacity of a column, where did you get 9 times from, and what does IIRC mean?

And quit telling me to run away, what is wrong with you? You sound like a 10 year old. Run away from you, don't flatter yourself, if your posts are not answered it's because I have better things to do than address every failure of yours to debunk anything I've said. You guys are so full of yourselves and act like you somehow have an edge on the discussion, delusional just like your trust in the OS.

[edit on 6/30/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by iamcpc

PROOF that you are making this up: www.break.com... According to you the path that requires less energy extraction from KE is not straight down if there is resistance. Notice how the girl had resistance from the trampoline? Notice how the girl went straight down? I can't help but noticed that an object A with X newtons force impacted with object B that could support 1/2 X newtons of force and the result was object A destroying object B. According you to that girl, since there was resistance, should have fallen to the side because air presented less resistance than a trampoline. Why is it that the girl did not fall to the side and she fell through the trampoline? I'll answer that for you! For that girl the path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down. When are you going to stop making things up ANOK??

What you should be realizing and how scary it is for me that you haven't is the true facts.

The girl injured the trampoline so why didn't the whole trampoline collapse? It has a big gash in it but it is still standing. I bet you could set that trampoline on fire and the steel legs would still be there.

Originally posted by iamcpc
side and she fell through the trampoline? I'll answer that for you!
For that girl the path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down.

When are you going to stop making things up ANOK??

If you really believe that proves you're right then you are insane.

Air is not always the path of least resistance if the object falling can overcome the resistance it meets. Obviously the trampoline was not strong enough to hold the girls weight, so the RESISTANCE was REMOVED.

A building is DESIGNED to hold itself up, there was no outside force, your girl, jumping on the building, no floors were removed, and no floors could have dropped as one piece from damage to one side and sporadic fires. A better analogy would to take out one of the legs of your trampoline, set it on fire and see if it collapses symmetrically into it's own footprint.

Now stop telling me I'm making things up and go learn something, I don't think you realize how much you are proving you fail to understand basic physics...I think you need a new professor.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


You may have mixed things up a bit. FeO and FeS are phases found in the steel and have nothing to do with thermite.

Note that Jones' samples, which he claims are highly engineered super thermites, fail to burn completely when ignited. The conclusion is that they are paint chips. Jones must have figured this out by now but seems to want to milk his celebrity for all he can.

Originally posted by ANOK
.

Air is not always the path of least resistance if the object falling can overcome the resistance it meets.

So finally we agree! We finally agree that, when an object is falling with x newtons of force and it encounters something that has 1/5th X newtons of resistance that the path of least resistance involves overcoming the resistance that it meets!



Kind of like when the top 30 floors of the WTC tower (object A) fell with
1,068,200,000 newtons of force and it hit the lower portion of the towers (object B) which offered 71,123 newtons of resistance (assuming that the floor could hold 6 times it's weight)

15 thousand time the amount of force needed to overcome the resistance!

Air is not always the path of least resistance if the object falling can overcome the resistance it meets.

Finally we can agree that the twin towers collapsed through the path of least resistance and you can stop spewing the made up statement that they collapsed through the path of greatest resistance!

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
What you should be realizing and how scary it is for me that you haven't is the true facts.

The girl injured the trampoline so why didn't the whole trampoline collapse? It has a big gash in it but it is still standing. I bet you could set that trampoline on fire and the steel legs would still be there.

I'm not talking about fire, i'm talking about the path of least resistance.


It's a very simple thing. Object A (pick an object any object) falls with X newtons of force. It impacts with Obect B (pick an object any object) that can support 1/1500th X newtons of force then the path of least resistance will be through object B.

In this case object A was the girl and object B was the fabric of the trampoline.

If a trampoline fell, onto that same trampoline with 15thousand time the force that the trampoline would support then it both trampolines would be crushed into a pile of debri.

In the collapse of the twin towers Object A (the top portion of the building) fell with X netwons of force on top Object B (the lower portion of the building) that can support 1/15000th X.

The path of least resistance is straight down.