Is 1908 kg of explosives enough to bring down a WTC Tower?

DC

Banned
DC
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
23,064
Would 1908 kg of CHARGE CUTTING LINEAR be enough to bring down a WTC Tower?

Assumptions:
(Simplified and based on this info)

Core Columns

52" by 22" (ca. 1.32m x 0.31m)
4" thick (ca. 100mm)
3.7m long
48 of them

CHARGE CUTTING LINEAR - CCL
2.7 kg/m

Circumference with the 52" sides in a 35° angle = 3.85m

48 * 2.7 * 3.85 = 498.96 kg

we need 2 cuts (top of column and bottom)

498.96 * 2 = 997.92 kg

Perimeter Columns

14" by 14" (ca. 0.36m x 0.36m)
2.3" thick (ca. 60mm)
3.7m long
240 of them

CHARGE CUTTING LINEAR - CCL
1.2 kg/m

Circumference with 2 sides in a 35° angle = 1.58m

240 * 1.2 * 1.58 = 455.04 kg

we need 2 cuts (top of column and bottom)

455.04 * 2 = 910.08 kg

997.92 + 910.08 = 1908 kg (ca.4206.4 lb)

would that be enough?

Edit:
no airplane damage. just a hypothetical assumption.
with Airplane damage and Fires, it is claimed to not need any explosives.
but when talking about CT's i often hear it would need a huge amount of explosives. so i wondered how much would that be?
 
Last edited:
Actually, no explosives were needed to bring down the towers. The impacts and subsequent fires were enough. Since 1908 kg > 0 kg, your answer is yes.
 
AZCat said:
Actually, no explosives were needed to bring down the towers. The impacts and subsequent fires were enough. Since 1908 kg > 0 kg, your answer is yes.
Click to expand...

i heard about that yes, but it was more like, IF.
 
I have DC on ignore but is the 1908 Kg with or without the aircraft damage? Without I think it might be only marginally enough.
 
funk de fino said:
So, you can now spell "circumference" and "assumptions" and "simplified" but you cannot learn to spell "thought" or "their"

very good pal
Click to expand...

circumference is from wiki, i switched from german to english, copy paste the word.

simplified was first simplyfied, but it looked strange to me while i previewd the post. so i checked and corrected it.

and the other... lol i thought they was spelled correct.
 
seems to me a better person to ask would be a true demolition expert (not your Torin Wolf guy either).

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
seems to me a better person to ask would be a true demolition expert (not your Torin Wolf guy either).

TAM:)
Click to expand...

my expert?
thats AJ's medicine man, not mine, thx

no expert asked. i ask you critical thinkers :)
 
Didn't the largest demolition in history use 2700 tons of explosives? And wasn't that about 1/3 the size of one of the towers?
 
After looking into the amount more closely, Yes just over 2 tons of explosives per tower should do the trick without the planes. With the planes damage anything is over kill.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
with Airplane damage and Fires, it is claimed to not need any explosives.
but when talking about CT's i often hear it would need a huge amount of explosives. so i wondered how much would that be?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Debunkers do not claim that "a huge amount" of explosives would be needed. Debunkers determine just how much explosives would be needed if, hypothetically, the Truthers' arguments actually made sense.

For instance, take the "Freefall" claim. Truthers claim that the Towers shouldn't have fallen as fast as they did; that it should have taken over a minute at least, because each floor would provide resistance. Now in order for this argument to make any sense at all, the Bad Guys would've had to plant bombs on EVERY floor--and not only that, they would've had to plant ENOUGH bombs to completely eliminate the resistance that should be provided by that floor.

If you decide to drop the "freefall" claim; if you agree that it is perfectly plausible for the towers to have fallen as fast as they did--THEN AND ONLY THEN can you claim that it could've been done with "a small amount" of explosives.
 
1337m4n said:
You misunderstand. Debunkers do not claim that "a huge amount" of explosives would be needed. Debunkers determine just how much explosives would be needed if, hypothetically, the Truthers' arguments actually made sense.

For instance, take the "Freefall" claim. Truthers claim that the Towers shouldn't have fallen as fast as they did; that it should have taken over a minute at least, because each floor would provide resistance. Now in order for this argument to make any sense at all, the Bad Guys would've had to plant bombs on EVERY floor--and not only that, they would've had to plant ENOUGH bombs to completely eliminate the resistance that should be provided by that floor.

If you decide to drop the "freefall" claim; if you agree that it is perfectly plausible for the towers to have fallen as fast as they did--THEN AND ONLY THEN can you claim that it could've been done with "a small amount" of explosives.
Click to expand...

what, i must have been drunk, where did i claim freefall?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom