Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
I disagree that momentum is higher than the instant before mass is added (meaning the addition of mass does not increase the momentum).

But it is when it hits a succesive floor, which is what NIST is saying.

They are making a flat out incorrect statement. Don't attempt to steer this towards arguing semantics because it is not.

Even if it were incorrect (which I disagree to) it isn't automatically deception. What is deceptive about it? The end result is all the same.

You didn't answer my question about what is the difference between acceleration provided by engine power in my analogy and acceleration provided by a net downwards gravitational force? Are you on a quest for truth or a quest to relentlessly defend the OS?

A big difference is that when you add mass to a falling object you add potential energy, which is transformed into kinetic energy. Adding mass to a falling object is like adding an engine to it.

reply to post by -PLB-

But it is when it hits a succesive floor, which is what NIST is saying.

We've clarified before what NIST is saying... Here's the quote again.

The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Even if it were incorrect (which I disagree to) it isn't automatically deception.

What would it be? Incompetence? I don't think that's any better.

What is deceptive about it? The end result is all the same.

I've also explained a few times the implications of them relying on deception to make their story sound more believable to the general public.

A big difference is that when you add mass to a falling object you add potential energy, which is transformed into kinetic energy.

When you add (stationary) mass to a moving object the momentum does not increase.

Adding mass to a falling object is like adding an engine to it.

Increasing the gravitational pull? It is also like adding a brake if that mass you are adding is from a stationary position. Gotta keep that momentum the same.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug

But it is when it hits a succesive floor, which is what NIST is saying.

We've clarified before what NIST is saying... Here's the quote again.

The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

So you are reading here that downward momentum on the successive floor was even larger due to the added mass of the successive floor itself? I agree, that does not make much sense. However, what I read here is that the downward momentum on each successive floor was even larger because of the mass that was added before it reached the successive floor (which would be the previous floor). And that seems like a perfectly correct statement.

If that is the issue, then I think this solves it. If you still think it is deceiving, so be it.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


BS!
The wtc was built with first third being heaviest, middle lighter, and last lightest.
Fist analogy: when I was young, I was a martial artist, and constantly conditioned my right hand knuckles by
smacking them against bricks ,blocks what have you every time I was out.
I could smack another's fist, they would always back down.
But that doesn't matter because Newtonian law says it doesn't matter. You hit a wall at 60 mph, or a wall hits you at
60 mph- same thing.
The lower floors were conditioned same as my fist was. Besides, hurt is subjective and a mixed metaphor not relevant at all.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Doesn't matter. What matters is that the attacks were asymmetrical, and the collapse was symmetrical.

Originally posted by randalljm
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

BS!
The wtc was built with first third being heaviest, middle lighter, and last lightest.
Fist analogy: when I was young, I was a martial artist, and constantly conditioned my right hand knuckles by
smacking them against bricks ,blocks what have you every time I was out.
I could smack another's fist, they would always back down.
But that doesn't matter because Newtonian law says it doesn't matter. You hit a wall at 60 mph, or a wall hits you at
60 mph- same thing.
The lower floors were conditioned same as my fist was. Besides, hurt is subjective and a mixed metaphor not relevant at all.

Lowers floors conditoned your a**


All the floors were suspended between the tubes ie the outer wall and the core wall they were all connected in the same way to the section of metal angle welded to the colums of the wall/core and bolted by 2no 5/8" bolts.

The wall colums were thicker at the base an thinner the higher you got! the floors didn't have to be the connections only supported the load from that floor.

Thats the problem the massive load fell hit the floor the connections couldn't resist that floor failed it can then only go one direction down you now have more load falling etc.

The floors helped with the stability of the walls look at construction pictures steelwork was never high above floor level during construction.

Originally posted by randalljm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Doesn't matter. What matters is that the attacks were asymmetrical, and the collapse was symmetrical.

I take it you work in the construction industry then?
I have for a long time !
Of course it matters care to show why it dosen't!

originally posted by: SkepticAndBeliever



Honestly just look it up on google because everything has been debunked time and time again (not just by government people, that claim is outrages) and I have already posted all of the sources and links on this thread time and time again. It's ok to ask questions but when you get the answer don't make # up then say "you don't know physics!" what a cop out.

just have to say something here about the "debunking". Even if the thread is dead and no one cares

It goes like this: First the dust puffs were noticed, and the rapid progression downward. Thermite was then not much known or heard about. Then pictures of glowing red metal flowing out of the tower appeared. Then reports of pools of molten metal were proliferated, and photos of pieces of melted steel. Then the microscopic iron spheres were found, and after that even active thermitic stuff. Sometimes years later.

And at that time, the only skeptical thing to do was to question the official story

And every time the "debunkers" came up with ever more funny explanations for those things. The rapid collapse sequence is regularly dismissed usually in one sentence: "...from then on there was nothing to stop it...", without any reasonable explanation, as if the building had a fatal structural flaw in it. Sometimes it was compared to this stick game, where you have to remove one stick to completely collapse the stick tower.

The best explanation for the flowing metal was aluminum, which somehow accumulated in one corner of the building to be heated up to more than 1000°C or so, make it glow red, and flow out. Puffs were caused by a piston-like effect. Some explosions were explained with liquid aluminum mixing with sprinkler water to explode away the staircases. The nanothermite is either discounted as non-existent, and/or is called paint. If that didn't convince even the proponents of these ideas, then they simply claim there is no chain of custody, and conveniently enough, no one thought of analyzing the dust a day after the collapse, so we don't have to worry about it. "Debunkers" often state those things like fact. Inner workings of the collapse are simply assumed as if they had a look inside the collapse in progress - the fires spread there and there, columns number so and so bowed this or that way, the fire proofing here and there was damaged, and so on.

When experiments for example by Jonathan Cole (google his youtube videos) showed that thermite can in fact cut horizontally, and that aluminum doesn't mix with carpet, and that it doesn't glow red until it's about 1000 °C, and that steel actually melted that day, the arguments shift to more irrelevant notions like "someone would have talked" and "impossible to fit a building without anyone noticing", effectively showing that that person has come to the conclusion himself that the use of thermite is not to be completely dismissed out of hand anymore. A dissonance between a more and more plausible idea and the inconvenient but necessary conclusion that people on state level had to be involved becomes apparent. And the acceptance of this idea would mean to turn around one's beliefs in many other things, as a whole world view comes into question. That is a lot of work and takes a lot of nerves, and most people have a very hard time doing it.

The most amazing thing to me though is that most "debunkers" would rather believe a government that is known to be lying all the time.

a reply to: diggsta

yes duhbunkers are a funny sort....


like the 'puffs' are "just pressurized air".....claims duhbunkers.....yet in order to pressurize you need containment....where does that occur?

specially when the 2005 NIST, knowing of the hermetically sealed nature of the towers concluded air is not traveling/being pushed ahead of the collapse wave.

The sources for the 'pressure pulses' that created the wide spread smoke and/or 'dust puffs' observed on multiple faces of WTC 2 is unknown" [NCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC p.412]

or how, at the moment that 'tipping top'moves, it is doing so in two directions at the same time......how is that possible when there are still 240 intact fireproofed vertical support RESISTING???

NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".

moving as a 'single unit'....moving as one as soon as it does start to move, which can only be attained by complete severance from below...ALL remaining 240 columns, disconnected at the same time to allow what we all see.

and NO supporting evidence the fires present did a damn thing to allow collapse to ensue.

a reply to: hgfbob

You DON'T need containment to pressurize air a few examples for you pretend to slap a candle flame stop short the flame will move or even go out, have you ever fired an airzooka that can send a blast of air across a room an aircraft wing works due to a PRESSURE difference created due to airflow speed and wing shape but more importantly the puffs as you call them dont behave the same way as squibs.

a reply to: wmd_2008

importantly the puffs as you call them

I didn't, the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did.....



uhm..and what part do you NOT understand.....

the 'puffs' are unexplainable within the parameters of the 2005 NIST scientific investigation....as I posted and YOU are distracting from.

originally posted by: hgfbob

moving as a 'single unit'....moving as one as soon as it does start to move, which can only be attained by complete severance from below...ALL remaining 240 columns, disconnected at the same time to allow what we all see.

and NO supporting evidence the fires present did a damn thing to allow collapse to ensue.

Not really as you should well know high rise building flex with just wind load, you have THOUSANDS of tons of concrete and steel above the impact point far GREATER than wind load, the steel could bend due to failure of steelwork putting increased load on other parts of the structure.

I mean WTC 2 was hit second lower down so greater load above impact point so fell first and people can't understand why the building ripped itself apart?

The simple FACT is no one fully knows or ever will the full extent of the damage caused by the aircraft impact and the fires and that is on both sides.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Not really as you should well know high rise building flex with just wind load

we do not see it "flexing"....we see it moving as one.....and is does so as soon as there is movement. two direction at the same time.

if it is "flexing" the entire building is absorbing it....and I'll be damned if you can see that action by walking by it.

THOUSANDS of tons of concrete and steel above the impact point far GREATER than wind load,

and MUCH lighter than the mass it is GOING THROUGH!

more steel weight between subbasement 6 and the 5th floor than in ALL the floors over the damage....that is how skyscrapers are built....they also taper to the top using lighter weight steel and a lighter gypsum mix for the floor.

the steel could bend due to failure of steelwork putting increased load on other parts of the structure.

coulda....woulda.....DID NOT!

do you know the purpose of lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing???

for every ONE direction of pull, there are multiple angles resisting that pull......the beauty of redundancy.

I mean WTC 2 was hit second lower down

and DIFFERENT asymmetrical damage than WTC1, the impact all but missed the core yet we see the SAME characteristics...don't we....from different damage at different heights with different loads above......SAME exact result.

no stopping and starting of the collapses through the observable mechanics of collapse, once initiated the collapses were non-stop, symmetrical, and complete.

and people can't understand why the building ripped itself apart?

nope.....2005 NIST...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

funny that not ONE duhbunker can point to the NIST report for the 'representation' of high temp WTC steel that failed from these FIRES PRESENT to give direction to a LATTER hypothesis crew it did, they would rather point to a 'DISCLAIMER' inserted AFTER the science telling NOT to pay attention to the found science???[shakes head]....they also point to duhbunking sites that ....'tell'...us all what the reports 'really' mean...huh.

oh yea...they also do point to a NEW cover-sheet listing the NIST volumes and a preface page that wasn't not in the original 2005 NIST reports....

they point to that paragraph that states the reports show how "fire and impacts fell these buildings on 9-11"....lol...what a LIE....there is NOTHING within the 10,000+ pages that scientifically shows that.

as I just posted above...but YOU are more than welcome to provide ANY data from that report that supports the bull you spew here.

The simple FACT is no one fully knows or ever will

oh this is 'plane' as day!

and just to let you in on a little secret.....PROVING fire did this as is PUSHED AS TRUTH...will automatically nullify all other claims....WOW!!!!



ENTER the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST technical briefing



so....after three years of STALLING......and NOT finding ANY representation of high temp steel....they go in the other direction...

and state a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon is responsible....that ONLY occurred on 9-11.

new science they refuse to validate, verify, PEER REVIEW through science.

read the transcript along with that video...the first quote I posted above is on page 34......wanna hear something else the illustrious Shyam Sunder says at that tech briefing and is located on page 16???...lol...this is priceless.

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

remember, this tech briefing was from in between the rough draft they released for two weeks and the final report that came out two months later in Nov. when they were still TRYING to hide the found 105 vertical feet of acceleration equal to gravity that occurred within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.


2005 NIST....

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

science TELLS us what MUST occur......a clear path is needed to attain zero resistance.

tell me how fire at one end of the building does all that work before 1.74 seconds of the collapse?

a reply to: hgfbob

Let me take you through this step by step.

Here are the floor plans showing core and possible impact areas.


NT Floor Plan

ST Floor Plan


N T hit mid elevation and mid elevation on the core steel.

S T hit off center and the core is in the other orientation so the columns are closer to the evelation the plane hit!

South Tower although hit second it fell first LARGER LOAD ABOVE IMPACT DAMAGE and it fell towards the direction it was damaged!!!!

The steel does not have to melt to lose strength this building was built so the core and wall acted together bulk of wind load taken by the walls the core the bulk of the static load of the building.

Theses floors were slightly over 200 ft x 200 ft now lets see if YOU have the INTEGRITY as a claimed US of A constructuion worker to answer this question HONESTLY.

If material fell from above what is it most likely to fall on

When you come back with an honest answer to that we can look at construction of that part of the structure and loadings and impact loads,that was something you seemed to want to avoid talking about!!!

I wonder if it was expected that building # 7 would be hit by a lot of debris from one plane going all the way through its tall target building?
That didn't completely happen and would have helped to conceal its obvious controlled demolition? Building 7 was 100 yards from the other buildings. Here is a pic that shows how some debris did get through barely missing building 7.

a reply to: wmd_2008

hey......Let me take you through this step by step.


2005 NIST already saw those plans mr duhbunker.....they were 200 volunteer scientists from around the Country from different agency.

and they DID NOT find ANY scientific reason for collapse on 9-11, x3, WITHIN the parameters they were given.....fire and impact damage...as I seem to have to post AGAIN!

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

LARGER LOAD ABOVE IMPACT DAMAGE

...so, the same that was there the day before......it's called REDUNDANCY!!!!

NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the
aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively.
The global analyses with structural impact damage
showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”

no dynamics until the support ALLOW it to occur....and no supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT was an agent to allow that process to occur.....the only reason we are here.


When you come back with an honest effort, we can discuss more.

a reply to: Voyager1

Here is a pic that shows how some debris did get through barely missing building 7

for one, that is not a pic, that is a drawn illustration.....someones IMPRESSION.

this is scientific FACT.

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

falling tower debris was NOT a factor in the collapse of WTC7......just spot fire at ONE end of the building.

reply to Hfgbob,

Well it might not be a pic but it was the best image I could find to show how far building #7 was from the others and that is what I was looking for.

My dad actually still believes the Media's version of 911. Even though you can hear charges going off before the buildings fall in most of the videos and building # 7 never being hit by anything. He doesn't fool with internet at all though so he's not too much of a conspiracy buff and he's probably better off. Reading conspiracy hasn't helped my life one damned bit.

a reply to: Voyager1

I could find to show how far building #7 was from the others and that is what I was looking for.

then I misinterpreted the intent....

Reading conspiracy hasn't helped my life one damned bit.

that is oh so true, once one realizes the lies pushed as truth, there is no looking at them the same way again......

and that same will hold true for ANY American shown the truth....there is no arguing with facts and science.....there is only to acknowledge they exist.

.....first is denial, then anger, then the acceptance to do something about it.

so basicaly
all the firemen and police that reported hearing/seeing explosions in the lobby in the towers are liars ??
how can you blatantly dismiss them?
yes building 7 explain it ?
and i bet you have never set foot on a building site to see how a building would come down and how to do it
elevator shafts make for easy access to the strongest point of a building
those cuban tall whites working for the nsa on orders from 60000 feet aboard mh370 did it right