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

oh my 22" is indeed wrong :/

its 2035 kg now.

thx

cant edit the OP

4.342m is the parimeter (thought its Circumference)
with the 52" or 0.5588 m side in a 35° angle (1.6124m)
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
oh my 22" is indeed wrong :/

its 2035 kg now.

thx
Click to expand...

Still only for one floor, and you have admitted already having problems with a progressive collapse being possible without additional explosive input below the initiation floor.
How much more explosive would be needed, DC??
How many floors needed to be rigged before the collapse becomes possible?
Click to expand...
 
scissorhands said:
Still only for one floor, and you have admitted already having problems with a progressive collapse being possible without additional explosive input below the initiation floor.
How much more explosive would be needed, DC??
How many floors needed to be rigged before the collapse becomes possible?
Click to expand...

read again and notice what is writen :)
Click to expand...
 
Dictator Cheney said:
sure i agree
Click to expand...

Changed your mind?

Aanthanur: "what theory? that 2 110 floors towers can collapse in only 9 and 11 seconds (according to NIST) without any explosives? Dr. Bazant's Progressive Collapse theory is indeed a very freakin' loony your moronic "theory"."
 
Actually a decent CTer post for once.

My guess is that you have to make more than one cut per column within a short distance to get the "BANG!" then collapse effect. The way that the floor trusses sagged and then bowed the perimeter columns in is a different effect than a straight cut. That being said I don't think that you need to cut every column to get the effect, just enough of them in a way the overload the others.

In a strange way I think that the jet fuel is actually better for the task. It weakened the steel around the collapse area and used fuel from the environment. Though it took quite some time to get the effect, it did it in a far more elegant way than you could mimic with explosives. My intuition tells me that you would be employing explosives in an inefficient manner to get the effect. That being said I would choose explosives over jet fuel for demolitions, but then I would never use a minimum amount of anything for this kind of task.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
and in real CD's the remove alot of "resistance" before they pull it.
and not only for savety reasons.
Click to expand...


"Pretty sneaky, sis."

Hey, DC, "pull it" is not a term used by demolitions expert to denote an explosion.

And you, in 2008, wandering around using the phrase "pull it," it will not make time invert itself and rewrite history so that "pull it" somehow meant "explosive demolition" back in 2001.

It didn't. Pretending differently will not change that fact.

If you want to uncover the "truth," try not being dishonest yourself. You'll find it helps your image.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well we already know that explosives couldn't bring down the towers in 93 even when they were placed near the foundation. But some building content fire near the top and that was the end of that. Airplanes and building content fire work so good at bringing down steel constructed high-rise buildings it can even knock down the building across the street. But only on 9/11. So debunkers will tell you no explosives were needed. In fact to use explosives according to debunkers you would have to take a year at least and wire every single floor very carefully. But spread a little fuel around a floor or two near the top and drop a match and you got global collapse in less then an hour. It's like magic and so very efficient.
 
LastChild said:
Well we already know that explosives couldn't bring down the towers in 93 even when they were placed near the foundation.
Click to expand...

The foundations have nothing to do with it, the issue is the columns and the van wasn't parked close enough. Even so they very nearly succeeded, far closer than was officially admitted to for many years. Had the bomb been a fraction bigger, or the van parked right next to the pillars and there never would have been a 9/11 because the towers would have fallen in '93.

But some building content fire near the top and that was the end of that.
Click to expand...

Different senario, different result. And you seem to have forgotten the damage from the Aircraft impact, that did play a part ion the collaspe you know.

Airplanes and building content fire work so good at bringing down steel constructed high-rise buildings it can even knock down the building across the street.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd be able to stand up perfectly well if we dropped a building on you and then set you on fire for 7 hours... right?

But only on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Feel free to list all steel framed tube type skyscrappers that have suffered from impact damage and fires and have not collapsed.
 
Couple of points:

1. Would destroying the columns on one floor result in collapse? (I ask this because the official account calls for failure of perimeter columns on one face over multiple floors, with floor trusses already destroyed).

2. You have the number of columns wrong.
 
Lemme get this straight. Two tons of CCL.

I think you're a wee bit off.

Also, planes, fires, hole, etc.
 
DC, I'm not an explosive expert, but... Assuming no damage and no fires, we just wanted to take out the buildings, then I suspect your figure it high. You don't have to take out every column to get the top to collapse onto the bottom, you merely have to take out enough that the remaining columns can no longer support the load on them.

If we take the assumption that has been shown accurate in numerous papers, that 20 floors is sufficent to crush the floor below and thus start a global collapse, then cutting enough of the columns on the 90th floor would cause the buildings to collapse.

Of course to do this you would have to remove all the sheetrock board from around the columns, drill holes in the columns, run wire all over the floor and generally make a rather noticable mess, but assuming we were planning to blow it up and didn't care about it being seen, yes it would be possible and likely with less explosive that you list.

However, this senario is not a plausable one for the Truth Movement. Firstly they deny that the collapses would have been progressive, thus leading to the requirement of EVERY floor requiring wiring. The explosives would have to have been taken intio the buildings and set up without the knowledge of anyone, and no one noticing anything strange. The explosives would have had to have gone undetected by the bomb dogs which were still there despite claims to the contary. And somehow the explosives would have had to survive the impact and fires from the planes hitting them.

So while, yes in a sterile hypothetical situation, explosives could be used to mimic what happened on 9/11, in the real world, there is no way they could have been used to intiate and sustain a collpase like the Truth Movement claims.
 
gumboot said:
1. Would destroying the columns on one floor result in collapse? (I ask this because the official account calls for failure of perimeter columns on one face over multiple floors, with floor trusses already destroyed).
Click to expand...

Most papers I have seen seem to work on the premise of a one floor freefall between the bottom of the top and the top of the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Phantom, just remember that your idea is not what the twoofers are suggesting. They aren't suggesting that the initiation was due to explosives. They are claiming that the whole thing from top to bottom was explosives and thus explaining their freefall claim.

So while DC may be just talking in the minimum just to get them to collapse, that has never really been the claim of the twoof movement.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Phantom, just remember that your idea is not what the twoofers are suggesting. They aren't suggesting that the initiation was due to explosives. They are claiming that the whole thing from top to bottom was explosives and thus explaining their freefall claim.

So while DC may be just talking in the minimum just to get them to collapse, that has never really been the claim of the twoof movement.
Click to expand...

You mean like the bit where I said:

However, this senario is not a plausable one for the Truth Movement. Firstly they deny that the collapses would have been progressive, thus leading to the requirement of EVERY floor requiring wiring. The explosives would have to have been taken intio the buildings and set up without the knowledge of anyone, and no one noticing anything strange. The explosives would have had to have gone undetected by the bomb dogs which were still there despite claims to the contary. And somehow the explosives would have had to survive the impact and fires from the planes hitting them.
Click to expand...
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Phantom, just remember that your idea is not what the twoofers are suggesting. They aren't suggesting that the initiation was due to explosives. They are claiming that the whole thing from top to bottom was explosives and thus explaining their freefall claim.

So while DC may be just talking in the minimum just to get them to collapse, that has never really been the claim of the twoof movement.
Click to expand...


Not just normal explosives. Silent smokeless fireproof explosionless explosives. :boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom