9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

A lot of good information OP. I have read most but not all, and due to # internet connection none of the videos, but i do have a question I hope one of you could answer for me. On another thread on ATS today, the "i used to be a deluded truther" the guy in the video mentions that he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theory because that building was on fire for hours and how would the explosives not have detonated.

So yes thats my question, Why did the fires not detonate or destroy the explosives?

reply to post by Varemia

Here, I will make the simple point that the upper floors of the tower were not a solid object in rotation. It all moved at once, but as soon as they impacted the floors below, all the parts encountered individual forces, causing a change.

A change in what? The parts encountering individual forces were connected to other parts encountering individual forces. Therefore it is useful to analyze net forces acting on a particular section. This would not be particularly inaccurate for its intended purposes compared with the results of a finite element analysis.

This change then led to gravity being the main driving force downward, not to the side.

Prior to whatever changed, what was the main driving force and its direction?

Only in the case of a strong upper concrete section might one expect to see it topple off

Why is that? Strength is relative, a strong concrete upper section would still encounter an at least equally strong lower section.


If gravity is the only downwards force acting on the upper section, the only way the angular momentum can be arrested is if one side of the tower starts to provide less resistance than the other side.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Would it be possible that the undamaged floors from the opposite side of the tower stopped the angular momentum and caused the tower to collapse downward? The undamaged side aught to have lateral strength, right? I think it was so that strong winds wouldn't cause damage to the towers. Now, vertically, there is no way the horizontal supports had any resistance. Horizontal supports are not meant to take sudden, extreme vertical weight, I think.

I admit that my terminology is terrible. I am not a physicist. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by TupacShakur


so excellent!
as a joke i will never listen to my teachers ever again!
now i'm 52 and i got to go back to kindergarten!
they been sellin me high priced oxy-acetytlene to cut my steel
when my pump up blowtorch and kerosene is what i could have been using!
oh dont forget the paper airplanes, it adds fiber to aid in removing the debris!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Varemia

Would it be possible that the undamaged floors from the opposite side of the tower stopped the angular momentum and caused the tower to collapse downward? The undamaged side aught to have lateral strength, right?

Not entirely sure I understand what you mean, but with the upper section tilting as much as it did on one of the towers, I don't see how it can both maintain a large average downwards acceleration and correct its tilt relatively quickly.

By the time the top section meets undamaged lower floors the center of gravity of the top section is towards the side tilting down. The side tilting down also makes first contact with undamaged floors, applying the crushing force of the top section in a concentrated fashion to one side of the first undamaged floor. Each floor impact (combined with any other resistance mechanisms) was supposedly only able to provide so little resistance that the top section could maintain a ~2/3rds free fall acceleration. If the top section can maintain a large average downwards acceleration by impacting squarely with lower floors there is no reason why it could not also maintain even a small angular acceleration (especially as it is concentrating more force to less structure).

reply to post by eyesdown


if it was a controlled demo then the answer is obvious!

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


That makes sense. I don't know why it stopped tilting... or what would make it stop. Even explosives don't really explain that.

reply to post by plube


i found this video to be very interesting!
the problem with his models is he forgot to put the airplanes into the equation!
which led me to come up with my signature which fully reveals my view.

Originally posted by bluewaterservant
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

so excellent!
as a joke i will never listen to my teachers ever again!
now i'm 52 and i got to go back to kindergarten!
they been sellin me high priced oxy-acetytlene to cut my steel
when my pump up blowtorch and kerosene is what i could have been using!
oh dont forget the paper airplanes, it adds fiber to aid in removing the debris!

edit on 14-9-2011 by bluewaterservant because: to add

That doesn't make any sense at all, though. The official story has never involved kerosene fuel cutting steel. It has involved kerosene fuel weakening steel to the point of collapse with the power of heat, but not cutting it. What kind of point are you trying to make?

reply to post by eyesdown

So yes thats my question, Why did the fires not detonate or destroy the explosives?

Fire isn't hot enough to detonate explosives, they need a fuse like magnesium or something that burns extremely hot. Plain old fire won't do it.

reply to post by Varemia


the only thing that would stop the rotation since the only acting force on the building is gravity would by the resistance the upper block impacting the lower block...this ressitance would then stop the angular momentum...but becuase the tilt is so great the upper block would then simply topple towards the path of least resistance.and would slide ungracefully off the edge of the lower block....but what happens is a complete lack of resistance from the lower block and here in lays the conundrum now isn't it.....WHY?

that is why all the red flags for the most part...WHY?

now Explosives taking out the lower block would explain it...but do we know that for sure...No we don't....but a lot of evidence and observation does lead us to these conclusions......WHY?

Because there really at this point is no other explaination....IS it what i believe....not to sure...but it does seem a logical explaination....the problem here is NIST and FEMEA and BAzant have tried...and failed with their explainations as the physics does not support observation.

reply to post by Varemia

That makes sense. I don't know why it stopped tilting... or what would make it stop. Even explosives don't really explain that.

If some sort of series of timed explosives was responsible for the suspiciously large acceleration of the top section (and hence suspiciously low structural resistance provided by the bottom section) then these would have been timed so that all the necessary members at each level were severed simultaneously (and after that the next level down etc). Under this scenario, if one side gets too far ahead of the other side it begins to meet resistance from structure which has not been severed yet, while the opposite side is still freely collapsing through severed structure.

I cannot conceive how the tilting would be arrested without the aid of controlled demolition.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


This is as silly an explanation as holograms...

So let's see, invisible, inaudible explosions, timed to increase in speed upto freefall, and installed in such a way as to adjust to tilt...

Yeah, that's def a plausible explanation...

reply to post by TupacShakur


Ok thanks for the explanation, then i guess that guys argument is pretty invalid. He based his entire faith in the OS on that alone.

Although, even though you say they can't detonate the explosions could fire not cause damage to the fuses ect?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

This is as silly an explanation as holograms...

No doubt you have a credible and reasonable explanation as to how the tilt of the top section was arrested. Seriously, I'm all ears.

So let's see, invisible,

Because you can really see the core of the structure during collapse.

inaudible explosions,

Because you'd really be able to hear them over/distinguish them from the sound of concrete floors impacting concrete floors several times per second.

timed to increase in speed upto freefall,

Because timing explosives in a controlled demolition is really difficult.

By the way, there's no such thing as free fall speed.

and installed in such a way as to adjust to tilt...

I assumed some basic level of physical understanding when I gave my description. You do not appear to meet that prerequisite and as such have not understood my description, as I did not make that claim.

Yeah, that's def a plausible explanation...

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Wait... But wouldn't it require a great deal of resistance in order to topple off? We're talking about how we think that the top should have encountered enough resistance to continue tilting off the tower. Now, we know that parts (much) of the upper portion were still fully intact, and we know that steel structures are not solid blocks. When the impact began on the side, wouldn't the steel have begun twisting around itself, thus arresting the angular momentum and driving downward, where the extreme weight would take it?

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


How the tilt was arrested?

That's a stupid ass "theory"... It wasn't "arrested". The potential for it to collase down was stronger than the potential for it to magically slide off. Once the steel was damaged enough to to a variety of elements the tilting LED to the collapse.

Unless you know of some horizontal force none of know about the tilting was simply the inital stage of the vertical collapse.

As far as seeing the core goes you, like seemingly EVERY truther don't seem to realise that the outer skin was LOAD BEARING. You can't bring down the walls, one floor at a time, by destroying ONLY the core.

You also note that the sound of explosions sounds like collapsing concrete... a kinda self defeating point, but one that doesn't actually bear out in fact... google the Lankmark Implosion and see if you have trouble hearing the explosions or if they're dramatically quieter than the buildings collapse...

The explosions would have been timed as well and would have should up as SPIKES at a regular intreval on the .wav of any video taken... guess what... they don't... they didn't happen...

As for free fall velocity, you're right, shouldn't have used the word speed... they doesn't affect the argument at all... this DID NOT look or behave like ANY known demo... and people saying that are being dishonest.

You can try and imagine a fanciful scenario where they, for some reason, did all of this elaborate timing nonsense, but it's just soooooo highly implausible...

However the French demo system has these attributes:

No explosives
Accelerating top down collapse
Building falls straight down
triggered by the destruction of a weakened floor in the building...

Which is more likely? This this which produced EXACTLY the same scenario... or a fanciful super complex accelerating top down floor by floor demo? With no visible or audible explosions?

IF you're so clever you know the answer.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


I never said there was anything wrong with it, I said it was for a specific audience. It's got "university audience" sort of written all over it. I never said there was anything wrong with the arguement, I agreed with it ... both can be wrong, but the audience it is intended for is not the average layman.

But it makes it hard to read, and hard to follow. In my opinion, I'd like to read a short version of the original point, a short version of the debunkle, and so forth, then followed by the arguement you are making.

Originally posted by Varemia

Here, I will make the simple point that the upper floors of the tower were not a solid object in rotation. It all moved at once, but as soon as they impacted the floors below, all the parts encountered individual forces, causing a change. This change then led to gravity being the main driving force downward, not to the side. Only in the case of a strong upper concrete section might one expect to see it topple off, and even then, as we know with the French demolition method, it might have ended up destroying itself before toppling over.

The upper floors are not damaged by fire, and there is no force extracting a sledgehammer force on their top. They ARE a solid object, that according to the assumption, is the cause of the lower floors to crumble.

When the first tower starts to fall, it acts exactly according to physics. The weakest point of the structure gives way, and the upper part moves as a solid entity (which it should), and rotates and starts to break off the rest of the tower. This is a solid object, that is put together of steel, and made to withstand enormous wind factors, which should make the steal bendable, and not breakable, and very stretch tolerant. So, it's a solid object ... that mysteriously starts to break into piece ... at the objectively perfect time. As this object rotates, the main weight is on one side of the building, the side it rotates towards ... this part should crumble and break, no object here. It is also argued, and the main arguement of the "conspiracy theorists of the 19 hijackers with boxcutters, and the control unit with mobile phone and labtop on the otherside of the planet", that because this object is solid and it's weight so great, and it's greatest weight at it's base, that it can only move straight down ... in case you didn''t understand that basic arguement..

The counter arguement to that, is as pointed out ... that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon otherwise. So, no matter wether this object, stayed a solid object, or was reduced to rubble. It should have stayed in the rotating motion ... anything else, defies physics. And the precursions of that is, that this rotating object no longer is the solid entity that can caused continuous cumbling of the towers.

It defies physics ...