one question for truthers?

There were explosions heard. Multiple whitnesses heard explosions in all 3 buildings and it has even been captured on video. Video that was close enough to WTC 1 2 and 7 did capture explosions.



I think we can all agree that is an explosion. It is pretty faint on video. Depending on the recording equipment used, the distance, and other buildings being between the source and the recording instrument, and finally something smaller than an airplane exploding on the inside, rather than the outside, the audio that makes it on tape and finally through the compression for youtube, will be even moar muffled.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Really? That's the limit of your expertise? Google "howstuffworks"? You know there is a real world out there. Implosion is a word used for public consumption. All explosives react outwards. That may cause the building to fall in but the explosives are not pushing the building into its center.

No, it is a convenient web site that explain the basics. No one ever said the explosives push the building into its center. Why do you have such difficulty understand simple concepts hooper? This is typical of OSers if they can't offer a counter argument they pretend it doesn't exist.

You don't like that explanation of implosion demolition...

WHAT IS IMPLOSION?

Implosion is the direct opposite of explosion. Everyone has seen an explosion - a charge goes off and something solid is ripped into a lot of little pieces that fly all over the place, making everyone in the vicinity take cover. An implosion is the strategic placement of explosive charges that actually destroy the structural integrity of the building causing it to fall not out, but in upon itself (this is often referred to as falling into its own footprint). Imagine wooden blocks stacked on top of each other; pull out a few of the bottom blocks and the structure falls by gravity...
...To bring down a building in a controlled manner there must be a great deal of planning

www.essortment.com...

What is an “implosion”? How does it work?
Implosion is a safe and effective means of razing a structure via the use of explosives on pre-determined structural members. This demolition technique has been successfully utilized for the last half century.
There are several steps to performing an implosion:
1. Key structural supports are identified and exposed by removing interior, non-load bearing walls and piping. This process will take several weeks to complete.
2. Small diameter holes will be drilled at specific locations to act as explosive receptacles. Explosives are then placed inside the structural members, equipped with internal non-electric timing devices that will fire on queue. Once these ‘charges’ have been placed they will be covered to prevent fly of debris.
3. Final wiring will not take place until the morning of the implosion. Both towers will be imploded simultaneously and the implosion will cause the interior structure of each tower to rotate outward and away from the Commons food service facility. One tower will collapse to the east and the other to the west.

www.fpm.iastate.edu...

So hoop are you going to stop spreading known lies now? (against T&C)...

Originally posted by hooper

If you had a clue you'd realize there is no such thing as an implosion in demolition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, they would love to just set fire to buildings. You know how much it costs to handle demolition debris that has no secondary market value? Much cheaper to watch go up in smoke that to be paying to have it collected and hauled away. There's even a good market these days for demolition concrete, CMU and brick. Used as recycled flex base. And of course the metals. But of course the neighbors get a little nervous when you set fire to the building next door.

In the US in the early nineteenth century when a lot of Americans were moving west they would actually set fire to their cabins so they could collect the nails. Nails were very expensive before the advent of the wire nail and a very important commodity in construction.

What has ANY of that got to do with anything lol? You are not offering any counter argument. Where is your evidence that I'm wrong about implosion demolitions? I don't even see the point of you bothering to reply to me, you really think anyone is stupid enough to believe what you claim?

reply to post by ANOK

The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down. ”
—Stacy Loizeaux, NOVA, December 1996

Implosion just means removing the inner support structure of a building and then letting gravity do its thing. The explosives act exactly the same way regardless of which way the structure moves. They expand outward. Implosion just sounds like its safer because to the public they imagine that there is no outward movement of material and therefore a reduced level of danger. But the parts of the structured targeted with explosives are going to blow out, not in. That's why they are wrapped with layers of rubber matting and fencing, to minimize the amount of shrapnel that is going to be ejected from the blast.

Ex meaning outward. for example External , Exhale, Exhaust. .....etc.

Implosion pulls the structure equally inward upon it's own footprint without risk of damaging surrounding structures.

That is the only way in which the structure could have come down so evenly other than by "Controlled Demolition".

As in equal demolition of the structure's supports by opposing the forces of gravity pushing down upon it which are equally distributed as well.

If the collapse was solely due to fatigue, it wouldn't have come down as it did....

but instead would have toppled over at an angle. One side collapsing before the other due to being weakened on one side due to excessive heat.

But the fire would have to be very hot to do this....hotter than a fuel fire. or else our furnaces would have to be constructed of something other than steel.


Watch this video of the Minnesota Route 35 Bridge Collapse....the weak side in the foreground goes first pulling the other side down afterwards.

If the collapse was solely due to fatigue, it wouldn't have come down as it did....

but instead would have toppled over at an angle. One side collapsing before the other due to being weakened on one side due to excessive heat.

No you’re not getting it.

If floor 69 (example) is on fire it will weaken the floor structure for floor 70. Once the floor beams for 70 weaken beyond the weight of the contents they support, they fail. They are not going to fall outward.
They are not going to be ejected outside.
The center (approx) will fail and the sides will remain attached for a period.
Floor 69 will then have more than twice it’s normal load. It fails and tugs the exterior wall toward the center of the building.
Floor 68 will then have more than three times it’s normal load. It fails and tugs the exterior wall toward the center of the building.

Etc etc.

reply to post by samkent

You example suggests that the entire floor of each level gave out at the exact same rate (not each floor giving out at the same rate, but the entire floor of one single level giving out at the same). I would think that if a fire was raging enough to weaken a floor into giving out, that where the fire started would give out first creating a very un-uniform failure of the building, very unlike what was witnessed.

reply to post by hooper


Here's the problem hooper, for some reason you keep equating the term 'implosion' with explosives, that is not where the term comes from. It is called 'implosion' because it forces the building to fall inwards on top of itself as apposed to outwards, explosion, which would be normal. The actual explosives used explode, not implode lol, in a carefully arranged sequence in order to force an 'implosion' of the building.

The link you posted explains it lol.

The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." (because the building fall inwards, not outwards as would be normal)

There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. (as it normally would)

It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down. ” (against it's natural tendency to fall outwards)

—Stacy Loizeaux, NOVA, December 1996

They can not do that with uncontrolled fire.

Please understand that, and quit with the pathetic attempts to confuse everything.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by ANOK

They can not do that with uncontrolled fire.

Please understand that, and quit with the pathetic attempts to confuse everything.

No "they" couldn't. But that pre-supposes that there is, in fact, a "they" doing something. If the fire takes out the interior supports the result is the same, no? That's your whole point, the walls fell on top of the debris because the interior supports of the building were removed, right? But you are insisting, for some strange reason, that fire can't compromise the structure of a building, or in other words all structures are essentially immune from structural damage from fire.

Originally posted by hooper
If the fire takes out the interior supports the result is the same, no?

No it's not the same hooper. How many times does this need to be explained?

That's your whole point, the walls fell on top of the debris because the interior supports of the building were removed, right? But you are insisting, for some strange reason, that fire can't compromise the structure of a building, or in other words all structures are essentially immune from structural damage from fire.

For the walls to fall ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building takes perfect timing of the collapse sequence. That is what controlled demolition is all about.

How can fire know what supports to take out, and in what timing, in order to create the perfect set of events to allow the building to implode? Something has to take the resistance away ahead of the collapse, if resistance was being removed by the collapse itself the collapse would be arrested, or at least slowed and would not 'implode' (walls collapsing inwards as apposed to out). Any slight mistake and the collapse will fail to fall the way they planned.





If that is not the case then why don't they just set buildings on fire and control the fire until it collapses? Wouldn't that be much cheaper, and easier than all the trouble they go to?

This has been explained to you in great detail hooper, you are just playing ignorant in order continue with your argument.

reply to post by ANOK

How can fire know what supports to take out, and in what timing, in order to create the perfect set of events to allow the building to implode?

Wow! OK, the fire didn't know and didn't care. What you saw was the result of a fire on the inside of a building. What is so difficult here that you are having such trouble grasping the concept that the fire compromised the internal structure of the building because the fire was, as usual, on the inside of the building. As soon as the structure was compromised the building collapsed. You can call it an implosion until the cows come home but that doesn't make it so. Sorry, no one is buying this.

reply to post by hooper
I'm buying it! What I don't buy is you posting thousands of times, saying the same thing. You guy's used to concern me, but now I find you pathetically amusing. Keep posting, the more you open your month, the sillier you look. You picked the wrong team.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper

 

I'm buying it! What I don't buy is you posting thousands of times, saying the same thing. You guy's used to concern me, but now I find you pathetically amusing. Keep posting, the more you open your month, the sillier you look. You picked the wrong team.

Yes, I know how silly I look as the world starts to demand a new investigation and all the truther investigooglers lead the way with there implosion theories, and nanothermite and Pentagon missiles.

Oh wait! Thats not whats happening is it?