Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Yes ofcourse a website agrees with you and that makes you smart. Silly, how dumb of me.

Why don't you answer the cut beams question? Or pools of molten? Or the themite found on the beams?

Maybe I posted it in another thread but I'l find it hold up.

Those question s were not address by you from the video you presented and the answers are someone else’s opinions, not even yours.

Originally posted by ANOK
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.

You are making the common mistake of considering the complete mass of the top, but failing to consider the complete mass of the bottom. This will make your calculations inaccurate, as it will ignore the resistance the mass of the bottom that would have to be overcome.

If you consider all the mass of the bottom, and account for equal opposite reactions and momentum conservation, it becomes obvious 15 floors can not cause 95 floors to be crushed completely before the 15 floors are all crushed themselves, thus making the complete collapse impossible.

We know floors were crushed during the collapse, the top floors could not stay intact while crushing the floors bellow them. Even IF two bottom floors were crushed for ONE top floor, there still would not be enough falling floors to completely crush the bottom floors.

Each level had to have the ability to hold the weigh above it, plus the safety factor. The core columns gradually tapered from bottom to top...

Here is the core columns data... wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

How did the core telescope itself against the increasing mass, path of most resistance?

Exactly and well said! The OP theory violates the laws of physics along with every other theory except controlled demolition. When one mass hits another they create resistance. Thus the building could not fall through its own mass at near free fall speed without controlled demolition clearing the path below.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

36% of the building left. BS much?

Keep it up. this is the type of disinformation that is spread that makes people not question the facts and science behind it. What agency do you work for?

You do realize that assuming I work for an agency just because I don't agree with you isn't helping the general idea of the logic fueling this conspiracy right? If you're not a troll, please feel tree to take a look at video I posed in my original post of the tower falling, and you can clearly see that at 10 seconds into the collapse it is still not near done.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Yes, I was going to ask...WTF? that video was posted by TheUniverse and it doesn't help your claims any. It's getting late for me here so good luck.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by ANOK
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.

You are making the common mistake of considering the complete mass of the top, but failing to consider the complete mass of the bottom. This will make your calculations inaccurate, as it will ignore the resistance the mass of the bottom that would have to be overcome.

If you consider all the mass of the bottom, and account for equal opposite reactions and momentum conservation, it becomes obvious 15 floors can not cause 95 floors to be crushed completely before the 15 floors are all crushed themselves, thus making the complete collapse impossible.

We know floors were crushed during the collapse, the top floors could not stay intact while crushing the floors bellow them. Even IF two bottom floors were crushed for ONE top floor, there still would not be enough falling floors to completely crush the bottom floors.

Each level had to have the ability to hold the weigh above it, plus the safety factor. The core columns gradually tapered from bottom to top...

Here is the core columns data... wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

How did the core telescope itself against the increasing mass, path of most resistance?

Exactly the OP theory violates the laws of physics along with every other theory except controlled demolition. When one mass hits another they create resistance. Thus the building could not fall through its own mass at near free fall without controlled demolition clearing the path below.

Like I said, quit saying what I say defies the laws the physics when I can go look up websites all day for credible experts on the subject that back up my claims, when nobody else has been able to do the same. I site sources and draw diagrams while you all spit theories of what must be 'law" what a joke.

Wow you just called me a troll. That's funny. Keep trolling for people that agree with you. Because me and many others don't. Can you just make sure you post a thread when the truth comes out titled "I thought I was smart, somebody kill me"

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Yes, I was going to ask...WTF? that video was posted by TheUniverse and it doesn't help your claims any. It's getting late for me here so good luck.

Ya I messed up, I think this is the one I was looking for,

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Wow you just called me a troll. That's funny. Keep trolling for people that agree with you. Because me and many others don't. Can you just make sure you post a thread when the truth comes out titled "I thought I smart, somebody kill me"

Like I said, I posted videos, pictures, diagrams, credible sources and you still got.....wait for it....NOTHING!

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Like I said, quit saying what I say defies the laws the physics when I can go look up websites all day for credible experts on the subject that back up my claims,

I would like to see who your experts are that are recognized and accepted in the scientific community?
Perhaps you could show us your credible source that proves your theory is so true. If it was proven true why on earth are you stating it as your theory? If science has proved your theory where is the science that proves this?

OP is either a troll, a plant or a person of low intelligence. Don't bother.

HEY TROLL/PLANT, YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THIS:

Show me one other instance in human history where a steel frame building collapsed like these 3 buildings, all at once, due to fire. Just 1 in all of human history, all you need to show me. Good luck with that.

I'LL BE WAITING.

Damn .. the past ten years researching 9/11 led me to believe the buildings came down through controlled demolition.

But now after I took a look at that MS Paint blueprint of yours, I have my doubts.

-Cough cough-

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Yeah that last video shows the same thermite flashes that you see on the day. Also shows the outside beams being cut by the cleanup crew too. And you can clearly seen the difference between a hand held cut beams compared to the blown out beams in the pic. so not a good video, ofcourse clean up would cut beams themselves and a news video shows them doing it. Complete difference.

Look like a agent video of disinformation. For sure

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Like I said, quit saying what I say defies the laws the physics when I can go look up websites all day for credible experts on the subject that back up my claims,

I would like to see who your experts are that are recognized and accepted in the scientific community?
Perhaps you could show us your credible source that proves your theory is so true. If it was proven true why on earth are you stating it as your theory? If science has proved your theory where is the science that proves this?

edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

I said they back up my claims not prove them, all science is the act of trying to find the best possible answer. And I posted the names of the experts and their credentials, if you want to know if they are respected within the scientific community, then why don't you go do some research yourself?

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Yeah that last video shows the same thermite flashes that you see on the day. Also shows the outside beams being cut by the cleanup crew too. And you can clearly seen the difference between a hand held cut beams compared to the blown out beams in the pic. so not a good video, ofcourse clean up would cut beams themselves and a news video shows them doing it. Complete difference.

Look like a agent video of disinformation. For sure

There are no agents this isn't the matrix Neo, just a completely sane people who don't believe debunked conspiracy theories.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

I said they back up my claims not prove them, all science is the act of trying to find the best possible answer. And I posted the names of the experts and their credentials,

You mean their opinions and your opinions correct?
Like I said you have no science to support your opinions.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Like I said, quit saying what I say defies the laws the physics when I can go look up websites all day for credible experts on the subject that back up my claims, when nobody else has been able to do the same. I site sources and draw diagrams while you all spit theories of what must be 'law" what a joke.

Dude here is an object lesson in simple physics for you; go open your door and stick your head out. Now close the door and then try and stick your head out again. Which one was easier? You see when your head (mass) hits the door (mass) there is resistance. The only way to avoid that is to get rid of the resistance. It is physically impossible for those buildings to fall through all the mass below them (closed door) into thier relative foot prints without clearing away the mass (opening the door) below them with demolition. If you can't or refuse to understand that then you are either a troll or mentally challenged.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Like I said, quit saying what I say defies the laws the physics when I can go look up websites all day for credible experts on the subject that back up my claims, when nobody else has been able to do the same. I site sources and draw diagrams while you all spit theories of what must be 'law" what a joke.

Dude here is an object lesson in simple physics for you; go open your door and stick your head out. Now close the door and then try and stick your head out again. Which one was easier? You see when your head (mass) hits the door (mass) there is resistance. The only way to avoid that is to get rid of the resistance. It is physically impossible for those buildings to fall through all the mass below them (closed door) into thier relative foot prints without clearing away the mass (opening the door) below them with demolition. If you can't or refuse to understand that then you are either a troll or mentally challenged.

edit on 18-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Nobody said there wasn't any resistance during the collapse though, I already proved the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed which meant there was obviously some resistance. Why do you keep pulling stuff out of nowhere?

www.historycommons.org...

just look at the first picture. a huge chuck of molten steel (i know its steel because it glows orange, unlike aluminum, which is silver when melted, i'm a welder btw) look at the rebar that is glowing orange (rebar is always steel). where did that come from when the fires from jet fuel don't burn hot enough, and neither does anything in the OS?

on the physics of it:

a smaller object of the same composition cannot destroy a larger object of the same composition. especially in this case, because the top part of the tower wouldn't have much momentum. the steel still had around 60-80% of its strength due to temperature depending where we're talking, and even if it had started to sag (slowly, no drop at all would be possible), the undamaged steel structure under it would have held the weight.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Nobody said there wasn't any resistance during the collapse though, I already proved the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed which meant there was obviously some resistance. Why do you keep pulling stuff out of nowhere?

Neither did I say they fell at free fall speed. They fell at near free fall like most demolitions. The more mass the more resistance. Your theory completely ignores the massive amount of metal and concrete that would need to be moved out of the way in order for them to fall that fast much less fall at all.

Momentum is mass times velocity, p = mv. The total momentum of a closed system cannot change. Although momentum conservation in non-closed systems is not 100% accurate because of resistance forces such as friction and air resistance, the law of conservation of momentum is still extremely good for providing accurate estimates of speed and for analyzing collisions, such as whether a building fell down or was brought down by controlled demolition. This is because the contact forces of collisions are very large compared to any resistance forces. If an object falls onto another object the falling object will have a certain momentum. The velocity of the object will be the acceleration due to gravity or free fall which is approximately 9.81 m/s2. The object will continue at the same velocity UNLESS ACTED ON BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE. At the point of collision where the two objects hit each other, there will be a transfer of momentum. With the WTC towers the collision involves a failure on one or more floors which causes the upper part of the building to hit the lower part. This is referred to as an inelastic or viscous collision because the two objects collide and stick together. The viscous behavior refers to the deformation the material undergoes during the collision. Energy is dissipated through molecular motion and heat generation by this deformation. So a considerable amount of momentum will be expended in breaking up the lower part of the building as well as the upper part. During the collision, the two objects exert equal and opposite forces on each other. The force of gravity pulling down the detached part of the building is equal to the force of the Earth pulling the detached building upward. However, due to safety factors the resisting force of the remaining building dwarfs the downward pushing gravitational force If there were no much stronger resisting force, no building would stay up because they are not counteracting the force of gravity. How could gravity pull the building down when there is a far stronger force resisting the gravitational force? The remaining part of the building is in the way. It is a much stronger force counteracting the weaker gravitational force. That is how buildings stay up so long. The remaining part of the building should at the very least slow the collapse considerably, not provide almost no resistance at all. Also, a huge portion of the building is pulverized into dust and ejected outwards somehow, detracting considerably from the falling mass.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


I figured up to a few things;

In the video, it looked as if maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the building is above the crash...
1. When the plane hit the tower, it sent a vibration through the building, weakening the lower floors, therefor they have less resistance. and as the pancake ensued and came down, it further weakened the structure of the building giving it less and less resistance as it came down.

2. The engineering design is to allow the building to be like a tube. This exterior framing is designed sufficiently strong to resist all lateral loads on the building, thereby allowing the interior of the building to be simply framed for gravity loads. Interior columns are comparatively few and located at the core. The distance between the exterior and the core frames is spanned with beams or trusses and intentionally left column-free. This maximizes the effectiveness of the perimeter tube by transferring some of the gravity loads within the structure to it and increases its ability to resist overturning due to lateral loads. My thoughts on this would be "If they're restricted to the core, than they'd be significantly easier to weaken, and blah blah" (I'll be honest here, I've no clue what I'm talking about on this point.)

3. When the planes hit the building(s), they hit with enough force, creating a vacuum effect!

4. Bob Dole

As far as the testing of the dust where the "demolition" occurred, maybe the test results were from the bombing attempt that happened wayyy back when.

For the above, anything I say is just thought. Not what I believe because that isn't important. I like to think freely and debate with people, even if I'm on the wrong side of the table