i cannot give you a good technical explanation of how hiroshima was destroyed
i have more questions about how that happened than you have answers
therefore, hiroshima spontaneously combusted
the second and third questions are answerable only by the perpetrators
all else is fancy
many times over, speculation has been asked for
then condemned as speculative by those who ask for it
to the last question
the original crime, the supreme crime from which all others followed, the overthrow of the executive,
was responded to with thrown eggs and shoes
the truths of that crime were thoroughly exposed, yet vince bugliosi lives
because good americans like yourself accept anything authority gives

There is nothing here that states your viewpoint is protected. I want everyone to be welcome here, but that doesn't mean a free ride for things you say. If you need a critical-free zone to be able to speculate, then you have come to the wrong website.

Certainly the questions in the OP don't rebut the logical possibility that the towers were somehow brought down by explosives, or whatever.

That said, your analogy doesn't seem to work as you want it to work. I'm not aware of anyone (although somewhere there must be someone) who contests the conclusion -- supported by many lines of evidence -- that Hiroshima was attacked with a nuclear bomb. That is, in fact, "the official story." If you wanted to argue that Hiroshima was not attacked with a nuclear bomb, it would behoove you to offer an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense, preferably more.

The fact that you can't offer a good technical explanation of the Hiroshima bomb is off point. If no one could offer a good technical explanation, then we would have a real problem.

In the case of 9/11, a lot of us see a consensus account of how the towers collapsed that, frankly, makes sense -- challenged by a lot of people who argue, unpersuasively to us, that it doesn't make sense, and whose alternatives seem to make less sense.

switched to me taking the side of no nuke over hiroshima in analogy
conflated the answer to the last question with switched version of answer to first question
that is no argument at all

The reason it doesn't add up is you're making assumptions based on false premises.

"View profile
If the Twin Towers were blown the explosives had to survive aircraft collisions and the raging inferno that lasted for hours before the charges were set off. How would the demolitions survive a raging fire for hours? "
There was no raging infernos in the towers that lasted for hours!

"If the explosives themselves didn't burn off what about the wiring, blasting caps and receivers used to control the blast? "
There was no need for wires to set off any incendiaries or explosives. They could easily be triggered by cell phones or radio waves or other methods.

"If your goal is to horrify people into accepting a trumped-up war all you need is one moment captured on video replayed over and over and over again. A crater works just as well as waiting for hours. Why would they even wait hours before setting off the demolitions? "
Mere assumptions based on opinion.

"A secret cabal worth its weight would have started disappearing people years ago. If the government is willing to kill 3,000 of its own to get its way why have all these silly CTers been allowed to "get too close to the truth"? "
Which silly CTers are you referring to?

The Truther argument in a nutshell.

Since truthers rarely correct each other, we can reasonably make assumptions that what truthers commonly claim represents most truthers.

So here is your opportunity: give a plausible explanation on how 9-11 went down. You don’t have to prove it. It just has to be plausible, and consistent with the facts. So far I’ve never seen that done.

Since any explosive that is capable of taking down the towers would create an extremely loud sound audible for many miles, explosive are automatically eliminated as a possibility. No explosive are audible during the collapse, let alone any explosive capable of taking down the towers.

Both towers collapsed from the location where the fires were naturally the most intense from the aircraft collision. So any device would have been destroyed, regardless if there were extended wires or not.

Why would the conspirators chose to strike the buildings at the locations that were most likely to ruin their demolition? How was their targeting so perfect, such that they struck both towers at the precise location were they would create the most intense fires at the locations of the buildings’ demolition devices? A common assertion of the truthers is that the hijackers couldn’t have hit the side of a very large building, but truthers have no problem with this perfect targeting.

There are countless more problems with truther claims.

waste of time.
however...

"Since any explosive that is capable of taking down the towers would create an extremely loud sound audible for many miles, explosive are automatically eliminated as a possibility."
FALSE!

And we're the anti-truth side, wildbill?

The problem is not that we will not accept controlled demolition, but that we insist on evidence that is not faked and on explanations that are not slanted. Bring us that and we'll start talking. Keep bringing the same old same old and you will continue to get nowhere.

please explain?
with evidence!
you can say anything is faked?
poisoned well?
anything would be inadequate to you!
You're the one with that "steuben glass versus a sledge hammer analogy bs!
you make assertions based on nothing!

the reason I keep bring up the same old same is because it still applies!
There were plenty of witnesses that said they heard explosions! They were in the buildings that day, you were not! The video speaks for itself! Deny it all you want. Prove it's fake!

What I don't accept, is that it is evidence of demolition. Plenty of things that can explode like that. There's a power substation across the street from the towers. (con edision substation was the lower levels of WTC7)

The plane impacts dramatically cut off somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 acres of office space from power, shorting them out, etc. Transformers go big when they go. Plenty of videos of them going up from simple things like trees across power lines in a storm.

was in stereo.

When this was pointed out, the video disappeared and was re-released with a completely mono soundtrack, explosion included. The sound of the explosion has been added to this film.

At any rate, the "explosion" happens minutes after the collapse of the second tower. WTC 7 would not collapse for another 7 hours. So what this "explosion" would have had to do with the collapse of 7 has yet to be explained by anyone positing it. But, OOOOOH, BIG SCARY EXPLOSION!

Even if I take the video at face value, there are PLENTY of things that collapsed, shorted, burned, pressurized with heat, etc, on that day to explain a bang like that without some nefarious plot to blow up buildings in play.

And one bang isn't bringing down any buildings unless you placed it on one of the critical columns in WTC7, but of course multiple problems with that:

1. The building would probably come down immediately.
2. The collapse would precisely resemble what it would from a progressive collapse induced by fire, in the manner NIST specified, and the whole 'something weird about WTC7' claim is predicated upon horseshit about 'unexpected free fall' and other things about the collapse that would still happen in either a single-column demolition on the critical column, or a progressive collapse induced by fire.

So either way, their claim falls on it's face. Big bangs here or there or no.

Edit: I mean, think of large vehicle high pressure tires. Like on a semi. Ever hear one of those pop? In the blocks around the WTC complex, there were plenty of scorched to the frame vehicles in the streets, stopped where they were when people got out of them. To say nothing of gas tanks, etc.

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2011, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The first video appears fake. Regardless, like in many fires there were sounds that were loud from close range. There are many items that can potentially sound explosive in fires. When the planes hit, some of the elevators slammed to the basement which sounded loud from close range. The jumpers made a loud sound when they hit the ground. There are no explosives heard during any of the buildings’ collapses.

The second video has nothing to do with anything. Place a 25lb weight on your foot: what do you feel? - probably not much. Now drop the same weight from ceiling height. Now what do you feel? OK, don’t do it. You’d regret it. The force on your foot when the weight is dropped is many times the force when the weight is placed.

Those buildings weren’t designed to withstand any force that is many times the normal force of the floors above. That would make them very expensive to build, and it would leave less room for the occupants. Once the collapse started, there was no way the building underneath could stop it.

you have no evidence it's fake! You think it appears fake because it doesn't agree with your belief about what happened therefore it must be faked!
Are they not suddenly surprised by hearing something?
anti-truthers are so predictable!

In any controlled demolition ALL videos with sound during the collapse will record many very loud explosions from any distance. All collapsed videos I've seen have no explosions audible.

There is no context to that video you posted. But it didn't appear to have been taped during any building collapse. It could have been a local explosion associated with the fires, or more likely a fake. I've seen that same video before. If there had been a controlled demolition you should be able to find numerous videos with very loud explosions.

you make too many assumptions!
"In any controlled demolition ALL videos with sound during the collapse will record many very loud explosions from any distance."
Bulllllll shit!
First off, if it was a CD meant to look like fire and planes caused the collapses then I'd think the perps would use the least audible incendiaries/and explosives possible. Also, there were many witnesses that say they heard explosions!
You ridiculously say "...will record many very loud explosions from any distance."
Really? Any distance?
No limit?
That's a completely ridiculous statement!

will be close enough to the hear the demolition explosions.

Here is an example of a controlled demolition:

Your opinions don't amount to evidence!

"Any explosion that is capable of severing the columns creates a tremendous shock."
That's opinion but like I said. The idea was to hide the explosives so less audible means would be needed! They could place smaller less audible charges in places where the sounds would be muffled by the building's structure. Also some say thermit was used which would have been very inaudible! So your arguments fall short. Sorry!

The burden of proof is on you to prove, or at least give good evidence, that there was a controlled demolition.

You're making excuses for your weak evidence and shifting the burden of proof to the non-truthers to prove you wrong. You have no real evidence for your controlled demolition.

you got that part right at least!

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

We've thoroughly debunked your alleged evidence. You've completely ignored many of the problems we've shown with your conspiracy theory. Ignoring the many problems with your theory doesn't make them go away.

Unlike you (and most "truthers" ), we've acknowledged what you claim to be evidence of your 9-11 theories. And you refuse to correct yourself when your evidence is shown to be lacking.

William Seger did some great detective work, and he had determined the exact location and approximate time of the video with the explosive sound. You didn't acknowledge, let alone counter, his evidence.

You've got the burden of proof. You need to find answers to the problems with your CT, or you should just accept the fact that you are wrong.

the Dunning-Kruger is strong with the anti-truthers!
"Unlike you (and most "truthers" ), we've acknowledged what you claim to be evidence of your 9-11 theories. And you refuse to correct yourself when your evidence is shown to be lacking.

William Seger did some great detective work, and he had determined the exact location and approximate time of the video with the explosive sound. You didn't acknowledge, let alone counter, his evidence. "

He has only his opinion and you call that evidence! We all have opinions. But let's say he's right. Let's say that explosive sound was around early in the morning. That does not in any way mean those buildings weren't brought down with CD. It could be that that that explosion was meant to bring the building down close to the same time as the others but for some reason it didn't collapse right away as it was supposed to.

Even though you have no evidence that explosive came from Building 7?

Even though you have no evidence that the explosive sound was even present on the original video?

Oh, you want evidence from me that it was stereo first and then mono audio later? I HEARD IT.

One of the benefits of doing this for as long as I have is that sometimes I'm there when things happen, like the use of this video for 9/11 Truth starting. I've heard both videos, wildbill. I heard it when the explosion was stereo, and I heard it later when the forgers changed it to mono. There's my evidence, wildbill. Me. My ears. The video is faked.

All videos are subject to be edited by others. We gathered no evidence, you or I. We, you and I depended on others to tell us what happened and I know I've been lied to or the ones telling me what happened were mislead. How everything was done I do not know but I know we've been handed a load of bullshit! Any and all of the videos we see are subject to others to edit as they wish and you would never know some had been edited. We have been debating this for years now here in the dungeon.. You have been doing this for a very long time haven't you. It seems to be like your calling or something. You've made websites to try to debunk the non believers even.
You have convinced no one that I have seen but yet you and others are always here. Always one or the other, is here to defend the official story and discredit any dissent. Yet it doesn't work. I am more convinced than ever those towers were brought down by more than just airplanes. I doubt it will ever be proven now. The evidence is long gone, witnesses dead. No one will ever prove 911 was an inside job now. But here we are in "Creative Speculation" and so I will continue to speculate about the ways it could have been done.

This is a fact. I accept that you may not believe me, but this is not even in the realm of hearsay evidence. I experienced this, wildbill.

No one here is saying you can't continue to speculate about the ways it could have been done. You are welcome to do so. And I will continue to give what I see as helpful criticism. And there will always be people on both sides of this issue here because we all do care a great deal about the truth and what happened on 9/11.

"fake" explosion was mono and which stereo? Where did you hear them? How did you hear them?

I heard them on the Internet right when they came out, whenever that was.

nope!
maybe one was copied from the other and someone edited a copy of the original and reposted it?

The people who faked the video screwed up, and when debunkers pointed it out, they fixed their mistake.

They can't fix the mistake of choosing a video that came from a few minutes after the collapse of the North Tower, though.

so what is happening in the video?

I speculate that CIA-trained monkeys with backpacks containing mini-nukes infiltrated the WTC and blew them up.
The planes were high-tech holograms that are sooo secret, you or I will never learn of the technology, which was given to us by the aliens that have our planet under quarantine.
Prove me wrong!

I don't get it. If that's your attitude, in what sense do you even have an opinion about any aspect of 9/11?

there's been no real investigation!

That's a convenient all-purpose fallback when the David Chandler junk isn't going over very well.

bill, you can believe whatever you want, but I'm not required to pretend that it makes any sense.

But that's the first time I've heard anyone make that claim. I'm not really sure what part of William Seger's evidence you consider opinion. I don't think you know either, since you probably ignored his evidence.

The collapse is pretty chaotic. Entire multi-floor sections of the exterior of the building break away at points. None of the rubble appears glowing cherry red from cutting, and at no time do we see the arc-welder like brightness of thermite burning in open view. A pretty amazing lack of fuckups for people who supposedly forgot to fake the flight data recorder properly at the pentagon.

Doubly interesting since the core structure of the south tower remained standing for several seconds (from about the impact point of the plane down) after the main collapse... If thermite took any of that out, you could see it. It burns so bright it'll give you sunburn.

someone who doesn't want the full story of 911. Is against a real investigation. Opposes the Truth movement that does want an investigation and the truth about what and how the events that day happened.

They most certainly have NOT been ignored.

Judging by the angle of the sun, that first video was shot at around 10:30 in the morning, whereas WTC 7 did not collapse until 5:21 PM. Furthermore, the explosion sound is possibly fake: When the video was first posted on YouTube, someone on JREF claims he noticed that the audio of the firemen talking was mono (or rather, both stereo tracks were identical because a single mic had been used), while the sound of the explosion was in stereo (two tracks slightly different and impossible with a single mic). He reports that when he posted a comment saying that, the video was taken down within 15 minutes, and that a new version was uploaded later in which the sound was all mono. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that a sound at 10:30 AM could not have been explosives taking down WTC7 at 5:21 PM.

I'm also quite sure you have read the numerous rebuttals to the whole "people heard explosions" line of argument: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion; not all explosions are caused by explosives; what was going on in those buildings was quite capable of producing both explosive sounds that weren't explosions and explosions that weren't explosives;and anything like the amount of explosives required to bring down any one of those buildings would have produced a sound that would certainly have been recorded on every video shot in Manhattan, not just heard by a few people in or near the buildings.

You have completely ignored those rebuttals and now you throw up the same failed arguments while accusing, "you will not acknowledge that because it shows you're wrong." Really?

The second video is just embarrassingly idiotic. To the extent that it makes any sense at all to compare the collapse of the towers to a collision between a school bus and a VW (which is ludicrous in the first place), this idiotic analogy has got it exactly backwards which is the schoolbus. The upper 15 stories of WTC1 fell onto one floor below and destroyed it, then 15 stores plus the 1 floor of debris fell on the one floor below that, and so on. (And incidentally, when I posted a comment on YouTube pointing that out, it was deleted within 10 minutes and I was banned from posting again. "Truth movement," my ass.)

They'll be discussed again! So?

"judging by the angle of the sun...?"
Bullshit! There is dust everywhere and buildings all around blocking the sun. You can't be sure what time it is and of course your opinion is biased!

and we don't care what fools at JREF say! There opinions are no more expert than the witnesses that say they heard explosions.

When the camera turns to look eastward down Murray Street at the approaching fireman, the sun is almost directly behind him, and the angle of his shadow relative to the street (and thus the time) can be estimated: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338001&postcount=1241

"I'm also quite sure you have read the numerous rebuttals to the whole "people heard explosions" line of argument: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion; "

So fucking what! Maybe they were explosions from explosives or maybe something else but the point was that anti-truthers say there would be sounds of explosives going off if it was CD and there are witnesses that say they heard explosive sounds! Saying they may not have been explosives is just speculation with out an investigation! But witnesses heard what they thought were explosions! That's a fact!

You are the one on the hook to prove your highly implausible claims, and what I posted demonstrates why "people heard explosions" is NOT evidence of a controlled demolition, because there is no need for such an absurdly implausible explanation for those sounds. As you yourself demonstrate in the other subthread, most of the reports of "explosions" don't even correspond to the actual collapses at all, which pretty much takes "controlled demolition" completely off the list of possible explanations for those noises.

And obviously you have no explanation for why there is nothing in any of the videos that sounds remotely like a controlled demolition, whereas I have a very simple and obvious explanation.

That's "so fucking what."

I am not on the hook for shit sdude! You can pretend that explosives are a "absurdly implausible explanation" for explosive sounds but good luck with that!

Loved your answer.

I have already explained why!
You missed it I guess. Gee I wonder how that happened.
The reason you don't hear them is maybe because they weren't meant to be heard! They didn't want them heard because then we'd know for sure it was CD but some people heard them any way!

"The reason you don't hear them is maybe because they weren't meant to be heard! They didn't want them heard because then we'd know for sure it was CD but some people heard them any way!"

Magical silent explosions that also don't register on a seismograph is an excellent theory!
That's the kind of critical thinking that will bust this case wide open...any day now...just wait...it's gonna happen...you'll see...it's only been 10 years....hold on....any second...

If your point is that it's logically possible that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition without explosives, I agree. It's even logically possible that they were brought down with a combination of explosives and non-explosives. But it's also logically possible that they fell down without CD at all. You seem to be quite certain that that didn't happen, but I can't tell why.

(As far as I can tell, how quiet thermite is would depend on how it was used.)

... because it's quite clear from the lack of huge explosion sounds and seismic spikes that the Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions, so by "truther logic" they must have been unconventional demolitions, of a type never seen before or since. The major problem with that hypothesis is that one of the pro-demolition arguments was that the only way the Towers could have suddenly fallen straight down as they did would be if all the columns on one level were destroyed virtually simultaneously. That would be quite a trick to get the thermite to melt through all those columns at the same instant. In fact, it's absurdly implausible.

What else you got?

you've failed!
There is no such thing as truther logic!
It's quite clear to you because that's what you want to see!

You say, "That's exactly why the thermite nonsense was invented in the first place...

... because it's quite clear from the lack of huge explosion sounds and seismic spikes that the Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions, so by "truther logic" they must have been unconventional demolitions, of a type never seen before or since."

Well, that could be true but it could also be true that if thermit was used then maybe it was in order to use less audible means to take the support structures in the towers out. See, you wouldn't want the public to hear the explosives! Duh!
If they did, who'd explain how they got there?
Al CIAda?
I do notice you qualify the words "explosion sounds" with that adjective "huge". Why. Huge wouldn't be needed or wanted with thermit to aid in destroying the support structure.
And we've already seen video of firemen clearly being surprised by a huge explosion.
Which you seem to ignore! Maybe it was earlier that morning though. Maybe though, that explosive that made the sound was supposed to bring the building down then but didn't. So they "pulled it" later instead.

people DID hear explosions. Just not loud enough to be captured on any footage of the buildings falling. But Richard Gage has like 30 slides of people saying they heard explosions, right?

So if they used nano/thermi/ate to keep people from hearing explosions, they did anyway. But nano/thermi/ate isn't explosive by nature. So what was exploding?

Getting the explosives/thermite/whatever to survive 50 to 100 minutes of raging fire and the massive damage from being rammed by an airliner is the inexplicable part. Supposedly temperatures ~600 degrees centigrade may or may not deform steel. Being rammed by an object weighing ~190 metric tons at speeds measuring hundreds of kph may or may not bring down a skyscraper.

But what about the dentonation triggering systems?

That any device, wired or radio, could survive such stresses is implausible. A system supposedly complex enough to bring down multiple buildings stretches credulity beyond reason.

When the aircraft struck Tower 1 (Tower 2 also?) some of the elevators feel to the basement which was very loud. Plus fire balls from the aircraft fuel made it to the basement. Here's a dramatic, and sad, description from someone that was in the WTC1 basement when the aircraft struck:

Not from the basement.

And who the heck would be in the area to hear explosions and live to tell about it with all that rubble coming down?

And weren't you just arguing that thermite was used to obviate the sound of explosions. You keep shifting "theories" everytime the facts don't meet your pre-determined conclusion.

And who identifies themselves as such?

how does one floor fall onto another floor and destroy it yet the floor that falls isn't destroyed also?
They made of the same things and will react the same way to the impact! It is not backwards!
The upper section that fell onto the lower building was smaller! Also it was damaged so weaker!
Yet you honestly think it went all the way down to the ground before being finally destroyed at the bottom?
See this image:

there's no way the small section of the building above impact is going to plow straight down through the rest of the undamaged floors below all the way with out help(demolition charges). It would be equally destroyed as it went therefore losing momentum as well as weight as much of the building is clearly seen going over the side in the videos of the collapses.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

I've tried in the past to determine whether the top or bottom section is destroyed more quickly. I can't really tell. They're obscured by the debris, though they both seem to destroy each other pretty quickly.

Since the top section and bottom section strike each other just as hard, one would think (all things being equal) that they should both disintegrate just as fast. Perhaps they did. But, perhaps, since the bottom section would also experience the impacts from the loose debris (much more than the top section), the bottom section may desintegrate more quickly. That's just my speculation.

"The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum

All things being equal, the debris from both sections tearing apart would be a middle layer that would act more on the lower section than the higher.

Although in the case of the WTC towers, the center core columns would and did "punch through" the top section, leaving them standing after the top section passed by. To my layman's mind, that would tend to tear the top section apart as well. However, loss of structure doesn't mean loss of mass, and that much mass falling would be impossible for the WTC structure below to deflect. Bazant demonstrated that in his first paper on the subject, commonly called Bazant-Zhou.

why?
"the debris from both sections tearing apart would be a middle layer that would act more on the lower section than the higher. " please explain this assertion.

Two structures come together. The force begins tearing pieces off of both. These pieces are necessarily in between the two structures, a middle layer. This middle layer, as it falls, will affect the lower structure more than the upper structure because the lower structure is -- well, it's lower. The pieces are falling down, not up.

there is an equal and opposite reaction! Your bull disregards that fundamental law! But thanks for the laugh and for exposing your lack of understanding!

The top and bottom sections do have equal and opposite reactions. But that is not all that is going on. The lower section is also being struck by the increasing debris between the sections as they break apart. The debris is forced downward by gravity, which means the debris strikes the lower section much harder than the top section.

The debris does have equal and opposite reaction with the lower section also.

I guess you'll want to ignore all that debris going over the side!
Conservation of momentum!

Bazant's calculations account for debris "going over the side" or mass shedding.

As Bolo (and Bazant) said, the forces present at the boundary between the debris layer and the lower structure were greater than the forces present at the boundary between the upper structure and the debris layer; the difference being the force due to the weight of the debris layer itself falling on the lower structure.

You didn't bother saying what you were getting at, but I presume that your intent was to launch yet another futile assault on Bazant's one-dimensional "crush down, crush up" model, laboring under the mistaken belief that you can thereby defeat Bazant's argument that collapse was inevitable. That might lead to yet another futile attempt to explain to you that Bazant's analysis presents an argument about energy -- that there was much more energy in the falling mass than the structure could possible absorb -- and was explicitly stated by Bazant to not represent a "realistic" model of the collapse. Furthermore, if "truthers" want to convince me that they can tell what's going on inside that cloud of smoke and dust, and they somehow "know" that "crush down, crush up" didn't happen, please provide some evidence of this remarkable sixth sense.

You may even agree with him that the collapses were like Steuben glass meeting a sledge hammer. But that's another crock of shit also that shows his limited ability to understand! Yours too maybe?
perhaps this will help:

"... that WTC 1, 2 and 7 did not slow down."

Really? Some people realize that Cole's claim that they didn't slow down is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but Chandler's and Szamboti's crude measurements at the roof line, which shouldn't be expected to show even major decelerations. And some people realize that the "jolts" could have been spread out in time such there might not be any major decelerations of the roof, anyway. And some people realize that Szamboti's measurements actually DO show decelerations if they're properly interpreted -- just not ones of the magnitude that Szamboti imagines with the silly assumption that all the columns acted simultaneously to counteract the falling mass.

You prefer to ignore those people, but if and when Gage ever gets that new investigation and this is the kind of CRAP he brings as "evidence," then there isn't really any serious doubt about the outcome.

"Really? Some people realize that Cole's claim that they didn't slow down is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but Chandler's and Szamboti's crude measurements at the roof line, which shouldn't be expected to show even major decelerations. And some people realize that the "jolts" could have been spread out in time such there might not be any major decelerations of the roof, anyway. And some people realize that Szamboti's measurements actually DO show decelerations if they're properly interpreted -- just not ones of the magnitude that Szamboti imagines with the silly assumption that all the columns acted simultaneously to counteract the falling mass. "= same old same! opinion based on bias! Show the evidence!

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

As you scale up objects, all else being equal, the larger object has a lower strength to weight ratio.

As you scale up objects, the weight increases in three dimensions but the strength only increases in two dimensions. For a cylinder the weight is proportional to its cross section area times its height, and its strength is proportional to its cross section area only. If you double it dimensions, its strength to weight ratio is cut in half.

This is a big reason why ants can carry many times their own weight.

The strength to weight ratio is far less for the towers than for any experiment in this video.

Plus the towers weren't solid, nor did they give a continuous resistance to the collapsing top sections. The towers weren't over built. They were design to withstand normal loads, not the tremendous loads of large collapsing sections of buildings from above.

BFD.

1. Conditions during the collapse allows for material to be ejected at velocities that break the sound barrier.
2. Shit falling 60+ stories, like pieces of concrete, steel, even 55lb sheets of aluminium alloy, tend to make a dramatic noise on impact.
3. Each tower contained 100 acres of office space. Basically two towns within a city. There are electrical service systems that frankly, no one had ever tested the breakers and shut off's in this manner before. Entirely possible for things that were not explosives, to be busily exploding in the vicinity of the towers that day. Things like racks of UPS batteries, transformers, etc.

The South Tower burned for 56 minutes. The North Tower burned for 102 minutes. That's a lot of time for fires in enclosed space started by aviation fuel to burn.

Hell, the firefighter's radios didn't even work properly in all that shit.

You really couldn't use radio controlled explosives in that sort of environment. Too much EM noise. Much of it destructive, like exploding transformers in the building, and from the planes, the rotors in the engines spinning at 10k rpm when they digested aluminum and steel from the outer wall.

If you asked a demolitions engineer to set something up in that environment, he or she would probably immediately break out in hives.

I hope everyone has had a very merry Christmas and has the best New Year yet!

..from 1 hour drywall, 2 hour drywall, 3 hour drywall, 4 hour drywall coupled with fire-proofing caulk and fireproof insulation. I don't think that particular aspect of your argument is viable. Most "silly" cters are of the opinion the explosives they believe were planted were below the impact area, and not affected by the explosion or fire. Pretty solid system, and don't get me started on how many elevator shafts I've built. From 20 years experience, just sayin'. Not sure I'll revisit this thread, but I thought the observation would be food for thought for the more serious on this issue. Thanks.
quickesst

Not to mention the collapses are plainly visible as beginning at the level of the impact points.

....not to get me started on elevator shafts. I've built quite a few. Elevator shaft board is almost two inches thick, coupled with fireproofing in all cracks, crevices, and seams. I would think more doubt would be cast had the "explosives" if there were any had been detonated immediately. Even if the jet fuel had escaped from the elevator shaft somehow, a single sheet of drywall has a rating of one hour. I'd be surprised if they didn't do at least a two hour firewall, especially on the exterior. The fuel down the elevator shaft thing just makes me smile. I'll let you guys get back to it now. Thanks.
quickesst

An impact of the magnitude of a jumbo airliner would have destroyed the drywall. I'm speaking to kinetic force, not temperature. Once that was destroyed any fire proofing would go with it.

...don't give me that crap. Sure, a 757 crashing directly into one floor will do the damage you profess, but, given the floors below it will not have that much immedeate damage. Anyone's opinion, not having any real experience in construction, that the floors below the impact fail just as the floors that were actually impacted may have alll the knowledge in the world that academics may provide, but we, who know the business, understand that what happened could not have happened without help. Thanks.
quickesst

On further edit, know this eggheads, when you have floors that have not been damaged, and pulverized shit falls on it, the floors will, for the most part, stand, and offer resistance.
The twin towers should have had at least a third of their structure still standing. I didn't really want to get into this, but the ignorance was just too much for me to ignore. Thanks, and I hope you're proud of yourself.
quickesst

On further, further edit, sometimes it's not just the higher educated, which I admire, as I have a son and daughter-in-law with masters degrees, but occasionally it falls into the hands of the blue collar. Thanks again.

It's about overcoming the strength of the connections below.

if that's the case wouldn't the core remain standing until a big gust of wind took it down or something? How did the horizontal columns rip off the verticle core columns at each floor? Pretty strong and weak bolts at the same time?

That would be a gross understatement of the nature of the events.

20 feet above, onto the top floor of either of the buildings, and you think the building would resist it?

Not a fucking chance.

Dumb ideas in EVERY field should be run to ground, tested, and confirmed, or destroyed.