The Collapse of WTC1 and 2

[R.Mackey]

If you blow one floor, below say Floor 100, then yes, a WTC Tower replica would collapse. This is what Dr. Bazant shows. However, you would get none of the other phenomena seen on Sept. 11th as others have noted, including the bowing perimeter, sag in the upper structure, leaning, rotation, the "kink" seen in the upper block, sagging floors near impact, etc.

Destroying a WTC Tower in this fashion would almost surely not be cheaper than a less dramatic form of disassembly, simply because the collapses destroyed numerous other buildings nearby. This is the kind of thing we like to avoid.

A truly controlled demolition, i.e. emptying and weakening of the structure followed by minimum-charge explosives on virtually every floor, might be cheaper than a more gradual demolition -- this is hard to say -- but it would be by far the most complex explosive demolition in history, and there are legal problems that might prove insurmountable.

 

[e^n]

I'm convinced with significant basement work involving basically emptying it out combined with removing a significant amount of floor trusses and some hat truss reconfiguration you could get the entire towers to fall in on themselves.

Of course it's way beyond feasible but damnit it would work and no damned scientist is going to tell me otherwise.

 

[Apollo20]

I think the most interesting aspect of Coughymachine's question is that he/she wants to bring the towers down with explosives ON ONE FLOOR.

This is important because most Demolitionists assume/propose that there were explosives on MANY FLOORS. (Hence all the squibs stuff, etc, etc.).

The point is that a controlled demolition, once initiated, is a gravity driven collapse. I believe that explosives ON ONE FLOOR would certainly have brought down the towers.

But if you believe Gordon Ross, he would argue that explosives ON ONE FLOOR would be INSUFFICIENT to bring down the towers!

 

[Architect]

Just one of Gordon's many errors, I'm sure.

 

[beachnut]

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

A decision has been made to bring a WTC-type tower down in a controlled manner. The reasons are legitimate and irrelevant.

Time is taken to prepare the building in the proper way and the site is evacuated in advance.

If all of the core columns were blown simultaneously on one floor - say the 80th - would the building collapse as the towers did on 9/11?

If the collapse mechanism couldn't be replicated by the simultaneous removal of the core columns at one floor, could it be replicated by simultaneously removing the core columns at two floors? If not, how many?

If the collapse mechnism couldn't be replicated, why not?

I started having a similar conversation with one of your members in another forum but, unfortunately, that ended before I got to grips with his line of reasoning.

I was watching a video of the WTC fail. The section 2 or 3 floors above the initial impact seem to start down first and then the whole area impacted the lower section driving out flames and smoke. To a truther this is the explosives going off, but I have never seen explosives so slow without the sound. Point being, the upper section had a chance to build up KE, possible falling more than a floor before impacting the lower section of the WTC.

To blow up one section you need to study the collapse or look at some of the studies out now. I think there may be enough energy if you have enough mass to begin global collapse when your top section falls one floor to the lower section. Most of the studies I believe were conservative, not like my visual take above, and they only used one floor to calculate the initiation of the failure. Thus dropping the top floors one floor are enough to start a chain reaction of destruction. I would have to study the papers again, but I think some used one floor of fall, and based the KE/momentum on that. If you want a someone to tell you the building will stand see Ross's work.

 

[gumboot]

Anyone else suspect the woo-woos are lying up for a game of "chase-your-own-tail"?

It seems like they're planning to rework the CD theory to argue that only one floor as blown, and the rest happened as is.

The problem with this scenario (aside from the practicality of planting said explosives) is to accept it you have to automatically abandon every single argument CTers have ever raised to support CD.

First responders heard explosions? None of them reached the impact areas, and any that did didn't live to tell about it.

Looked like every floor was blown? Not any more.

Bombs in basement? Nope.

Time of collapse? It was gravity driven after the one floor was blown.

Basically they have nothing left at all.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

I was watching a video of the WTC fail. The section 2 or 3 floors above the initial impact seem to start down first and then the whole area impacted the lower section driving out flames and smoke. To a truther this is the explosives going off, but I have never seen explosives so slow without the sound.

I've never seen demolition explosions that happen after the collapse has already started.

 

[Firestone]

As the great 28th Kingdom once said: "Right brained = nerdness"

I'm not sure precisely what the hell he was talking about, but I think we've got some seriously right brained, nerdny people in here^*.




^*Including me.

Please respect the Master's theories: left-brainers are nerds, right-brainers are ... well let Him explain how right-brainers are:

Right-brain people...can look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Ask a few questions like...what type of building...how tall, what type of damage. 47 story, steel structured high rise, with a few scattered fires, and some exterior damage (on one side) from falling debris. We take in this basic information, watch the video a few times...and, conclude...that the building couldn't have physically collapsed the way it does from the damages reported. It doesn't take any degree in structural engineering...it just takes common sense.

Real left-brainers watch the video a few times ... and conclude ...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .the post-collapse initiation process.

The what...?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

As the great 28th Kingdom once said: "Right brained = nerdness"

I'm not sure precisely what the hell he was talking about, but I think we've got some seriously right brained, nerdny people in here^*.




^*Including me.

At the risk of earning a Stundie along the way, I must admit, quite honestly, that I can never tell which side of my brain is working on a problem. Is one side of your head supposed to tingle when you think about something?

I'm an engineer, so I know I deserve a nerd tag somehow, but, as a nerd, I need to know which side of my brain I'm using. What if I'm listening to music, or looking at a piece of art? Do I use the same side of my brain that I use when I'm determining what volume of hydrogen must occupy a space before the atmosphere has reached it's lower explosive limit?

Inquiring minds, etc....

 

[Mr. Skinny]

The what...?

The post-collapse initiation process is when rescue workers started looking for bodies, I think.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm convinced with significant basement work involving basically emptying it out combined with removing a significant amount of floor trusses and some hat truss reconfiguration you could get the entire towers to fall in on themselves.

Of course it's way beyond feasible but damnit it would work and no damned scientist is going to tell me otherwise.

It could probably be done with a VERY large amount of planning involved. But if the wind blows the wrong way or you set a charge wrong, and the whole thing is going to come down on everyone's head. Controlled Demolition isn't done on very large buildings for a very specific reason: the small, the not insignifcant chance that something goes wrong and damages buildings/life around it is too expensive to insure.

The cost to infastructure around the WTC was what, 500 billion? Yes, I'm pulling that number out of my "filing cabinet", however suppose the insurance company that was going to bond the contractor for demolition of the building estimated that there was a 99% chance that nothing would go wrong. That's a 1% chance that something will, or 5billion dollars in risk. Can you imagine what your premiums on that would be?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The post-collapse initiation process is when rescue workers started looking for bodies, I think.

You know, even nearly 6 years on, that still seems just a little inappropriate.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The post-collapse initiation process is when rescue workers started looking for bodies, I think.

But that's not the context...

The point is that he wonders if you could reprocude the collapse by blowing up the columns of one story (core and maybe even the perimeter columns), he is interested in the post-collapse initiation process.

The official story indeed says: yes

 

[CHF]

The point is that a controlled demolition, once initiated, is a gravity driven collapse. I believe that explosives ON ONE FLOOR would certainly have brought down the towers.

But if you believe Gordon Ross, he would argue that explosives ON ONE FLOOR would be INSUFFICIENT to bring down the towers!

Just shows how absurd the twoofers are being with this whole issue.

The simplest demolition theory would indeed have charges on one floor initiating the collapse. (Granted that theory is still a bit silly since it assumes the charges would survive the jet impact and fires).

Instead what do they generally go with?

Charges on almost every floor! Enough explosives to blast all the concrete into dust! And create rivers of molten steel!

 

[Gravy]

(snip)

Without answers to those questions, I don't think that anyone can say that "obviously" explosive demolition of the buildings were the cheaper, easier way to go. I think that an argument could be made that with the wealth of materials in the towers and the extra risks (sure, in the CT scenario insurance doesn't need to be paid, but I'm thinking danger pay/hush money would make up for that expense) would be worth taking them down in the conventional manner if they did need to come down (which has not been shown).

The short answer is that yes, in most cases where CD is an option, it would be less expensive (and much safer) than demolition by hand, because a relatively small work crew is needed and gravity does most of the work of reducing the building to pieces that can be hauled away. I doubt if there are many people who would choose the CD option if it were more expensive than traditional demolition.

Of course, the "less expensive" CT argument is based on the fallacy that the buildings were losing money and falling apart, which is silly.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just shows how absurd the twoofers are being with this whole issue.

The simplest demolition theory would indeed have charges on one floor initiating the collapse. (Granted that theory is still a bit silly since it assumes the charges would survive the jet impact and fires).

Instead what do they generally go with?

Charges on almost every floor! Enough explosives to blast all the concrete into dust! And create rivers of molten steel!

And this just in. New documents show that the WTC was actually built using C4 and thermite, not concrete and steel and the US Government claims...

 

[Dave Rogers]

The simplest demolition theory would indeed have charges on one floor initiating the collapse. (Granted that theory is still a bit silly since it assumes the charges would survive the jet impact and fires).

Instead what do they generally go with?

Charges on almost every floor! Enough explosives to blast all the concrete into dust! And create rivers of molten steel!

Ah, but the charges on multiple floors are needed to explain the fact that the collapse initiated in the collision zone, and since an experienced airline pilot couldn't even hit the Pentagon on a simulator then the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy wouldn't know where their remote controlled nonexistent planes would hit the tower with their thermite-loaded explosive missiles, so there have to be charges on every floor so the collapse can start in the right place and they have to be embedded in the concrete so that the dust can make all the rescue workers ill because, er...

I have to go and lie down, my brain hurts.

Dave

 

[coughymachine]

Thanks to all who contributed. Sorry I went down-periscope - I had to attend a customer meeting and, frankly, didn't expect such a swift and voluminous response.

I guess the conclusion is that the removal of the core columns at one floor (or else a very small number of floors) would lead to the 'global collapse' of a WTC1-type structure.

Appreciate your time.

 

[einsteen]

I guess the conclusion is that the removal of the core columns at one floor (or else a very small number of floors) would lead to the 'global collapse' of a WTC1-type structure.

That is an implication of the official story. Then you have to accept that solid structures with a density of 300 kg/m^3 (or a solid structure with a density only dependent on the y-axis) and a similar strength as the wtc will also collapse if you drop the upper block a little bit.