An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is that the "implosion" term as applied in destroying buildings is not accurate in terms of what implosion means in physics. So if we are trying to get people to understand why it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to destroy the towers then it is contradictory to not get the physics terminology correct.

What happened to WTC 1 and 2 were not "implosions" even by the word's inaccurate usage by the demolition industry.

We were using demolition terms, not physics terms in this context mate.

The term is used to describe a building falling in on itself, as opposed to falling outwards as it would naturally do. It defines the difference between that type of demolition, as apposed to demolishing to one side.

An imploded building doesn't explode either, so the former term IS a more accurate term to describe what happens and it IS used in the industry the way I am using it.

You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Implosion demolition is ONE specific way to demolish a building.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is that the "implosion" term as applied in destroying buildings is not accurate in terms of what implosion means in physics.

In the case of WTC7 the two terms may actually mean the same thing.

How else do you make a building accelerate at the rate of gravity, for any length of time, as if not even drag from air resistance existed?

For at least the period of time that WTC7 experienced a pure gravitational free-fall, it was falling at the same rate that it would through a complete vacuum. That's not even an exaggeration. Think of what kind of technology that implies. It would be the opposite of explosive force, but an imploding force instead, and wouldn't even sound anything like an explosion because all of the air would have to be sucked out of the area.


We're always getting on "debunkers'" cases for not understanding what free-fall implies. Well to me it implies something about what destroyed it that most "truthers" don't get, either. It's impossible to fall at the rate of gravity in a vacuum, except in a vacuum, for any length of time.

Originally posted by ANOK
We were using demolition terms, not physics terms in this context mate.

The term is used to describe a building falling in on itself, as opposed to falling outwards as it would naturally do. It defines the difference between that type of demolition, as apposed to demolishing to one side.

An imploded building doesn't explode either, so the former term IS a more accurate term to describe what happens and it IS used in the industry the way I am using it.

Implosion demolition is ONE specific way to demolish a building.

Yeah, and NINE YEARS of talking about demolitions hasn't gotten a grade school physics problem resolved.

This problem involves aerodynamics in questioning whether or not that model airliner could do 550 mph near sea level. It involves the conservation of momentum in the impact. It involves the potential energy of the falling upper portions of the building. The business of dead loads and live loads get dragged into it and the physics people want to drag in calculus equations.

It is amazing that such a simple problem gets made so complicated and using inaccurate jargon from from specialties does not help. When does a normal building "implosion" hurl tons of steel 600 feet away from the structure? Was what happened to WTC 1 and 2 an "implosion" even if it was a demolition?

psik

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is that the "implosion" term as applied in destroying buildings is not accurate in terms of what implosion means in physics.

In the case of WTC7 the two terms may actually mean the same thing.

How else do you make a building accelerate at the rate of gravity, for any length of time, as if not even drag from air resistance existed?

WTC 7 was so obviously a NORMAL demolition it is not even interesting to talk about.

WTCs 1 & 2 are the BIZARRE PHENOMENON.

psik

Larry: .. and I said "you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" and they made that decision to pull.



Where were you on Sept. 11th?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
WTC 7 was so obviously a NORMAL demolition it is not even interesting to talk about.

There is no such thing as "normal" demolition of a skyscraper. All of them are unique and it's really not often that they are demolished.

Think about it. It was bigger than any building ever commercially demolished, yet it obviously didn't make use of conventional explosives used in commercial demolitions. And it accelerated as if not even air were in its way, when it should have been filled with air at least.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When does a normal building "implosion" hurl tons of steel 600 feet away from the structure? Was what happened to WTC 1 and 2 an "implosion" even if it was a demolition?

Obviously I was referring to WTC 7, which was an implosion demolition.

The two towers were not implosion demolitions, too tall and thin for that. They could not be demolished in any conventional way without causing damage to surrounding buildings. They would have had to be dismantled piece by piece.

WTC 7 was also tall for an implosion demolition, but its footprint was large enough for it to work.

Implosion demolitions are not normal demolitions, they are a specialized form of demolition that...

...requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

They are the most difficult to perform and are unique to each building. This is why WTC7 is questioned, because you can not perform an implosion demolition from fire and asymmetrical damage, it's simply impossible.
It only takes ONE lie to put the whole OS in question, and WTC 7 is one HUGE lie.

The only argument against implosion demolition is to deny the evidence that the building landed mostly in its own footprint, as evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building.



If the collapse was natural, and even if it landed mostly in its own footprint, as in a classic 'progressive/pancake collapse, the outer walls would still not be on top of the collapsed building. As I said there is only ONE way that is possible. Ironically the way the OSers claim the towers collapsed does require there to be floors in the buildings footprint, which there wasn't.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...


Edit; looking back in this thread, this is not the first time I explained this, I hope you understand this time?