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

Loss Leader said:
"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.
Click to expand...

well well i readed CDI's homepage to compare my number, and i red Pull, so i guess i got influenced. :)
 
"When completed in September of 1925, the 1.1 million square foot Sears Mail Order Center in Kansas City, Missouri, handled catalog sales for Mid Western America.
Shortly after 7:00 AM, Central time, on June 01, 1997, Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) of Baltimore, Maryland felled the massive 8 and 12-story tall Warehouse to clear the site for new development.

Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage.

CDI acted as a specialty explosives subcontractor to Spirtas Wrecking Company of St. Louis, Missouri. "

Felled is the term they used to describe bringing down the building. Pulled is used to describe the way the building was caused to fall away from the other structure to avoid damaging it. Yes they said pulled. The sequencing of the explosives was done so that as the building fell down it pulled itself in the direction they intended for it to fall. Pulled here refers to inducing collapse in a certain direction. It's a thing called context. Proper quoting requires context. Quote mining does not.
 
if you want to discuss the demolition term, Pull it, pls open a new topic.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
if you want to discuss the demolition term, Pull it, pls open a new topic.
Click to expand...

Just getting the proper context out there. No need to start a new thread. However if you would like to discuss that issue I'm sure that there are allready a few threads here where the non demolition term pulled, or pull have allready been discussed.

You were the one who started down the "pull it" path not me. If you didn't wish to discuss it why did you bring it up?
 
Frontrunner91 said:
Just getting the proper context out there. No need to start a new thread. However if you would like to discuss that issue I'm sure that there are allready a few threads here where the non demolition term pulled, or pull have allready been discussed.

You were the one who started down the "pull it" path not me. If you didn't wish to discuss it why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...

discussions about the non demolition term pull, are fine and well. but we was talking about the demolition term pull :)

but now back to Topic. :)
 
PhantomWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

are you saying that you dont even need the 3.7m freefall to get a total "collapse" like we saw on 9/11?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
if you want to discuss the demolition term, Pull it, pls open a new topic.
Click to expand...

We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we have spoken with.
-Brent Blanchard
Director of Field Operations,
Protect Documentation Services Inc
Click to expand...

Protec is one of the world's most knowledgable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosive contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.
Click to expand...

Both sourced from:

Blanchard, B A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse Of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From An Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint, August, 2006
 
gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. Dr. Bazant uses 3.7m freefall. thats not my theory.

2. yes i used too thick ones, too large ones and too many, in other words, i took the assumptions in the favor of the official theory.
 
gumboot said:
Both sourced from:

Blanchard, B A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse Of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From An Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint, August, 2006
Click to expand...

well, Jovenko knew the term.

also stacy is using pull alot when talking about Demolitions with explosives.

and pull it is a demolition term, because it is used for sure when they talk about pulling a building with cables. so the claim, that pull it is not a demolition term is just wrong. because Demolition with cables is also demolition.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
 
Jonnyclueless said:
So 2.7 tons for a 438ft building.

Now we're talking about 2 1360ft buildings. And we're not talking about simply getting it to come own. We're talking about creating a vacume on each floor to suck it down faster than free fall. So we aren't just worried about getting it down, but we now have to move the debris outwards out of the way of the building to get it up in speed.

So about 270 tons sounds about right.
Click to expand...

are you saying that 2700 pounds are 2.7 ton? :confused:
 
jsfisher said:
What a peculiar amount, 1,908 Kg of explosives!

Coincidently, that happens to be the payload on the vintage R2 rocket.
Click to expand...
Another tidbit: 4,200 lbs (1900 kg) is the weight of incendiary bombs that a B-17 typically carried on raids to Berlin during WWII. (The general purpose high-explosive bombload on such raids was slightly higher at 5,000 lbs.)
 
Remind me again: if you have a couple of tons of explosives in place and that's enough to bring the towers down, why go through with all that hoopla with the planes? You'd think that three huge collapsed office towers in downtown Manhattan would be enough to get people's attention all by themselves.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
well, Jovenko knew the term.
Click to expand...

I think anyone with a brain could work out what you meant from context, that doesn't mean it's used in the industry.

I could say "I think this was imploded because they said they wanted to "flatten" it" and a CD expert could understand what I meant despite "flatten" not being an industry term for explosive demolition.


Dictator Cheney said:
also stacy is using pull alot when talking about Demolitions with explosives.
Click to expand...

The word "pull" is a fairly common word in the English language, and can be used in all sorts of contexts. This is quite different to using the word "pull" specifically to refer to the act of demolishing a building by explosives.


Dictator Cheney said:
and pull it is a demolition term, because it is used for sure when they talk about pulling a building with cables. so the claim, that pull it is not a demolition term is just wrong. because Demolition with cables is also demolition.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was not a demolition term, and neither did Brent Blanchard - the claim is that it is not ever used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building. Indeed, the mere fact that there is a conventional demolition method which is referred to as pulling pretty much utterly destroys any chance of "pull" being used in the context of explosive demolition, as this would cause confusion and misunderstanding.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
are you saying that you dont even need the 3.7m freefall to get a total "collapse" like we saw on 9/11?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that if the energy of the falling block exceeds the energy required to destroy the floor it falls on then it will cause a progressive collapse. The distance it is required to fall depends entire on the mass of the upper block.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
are you saying that 2700 pounds are 2.7 ton? :confused:
Click to expand...

My mistake. But seeing how far from reality your estimates are, I don't think you have much room to be ver condescending anyways. The amount of explosives needed in order to carry out this supposed inside job are so great that it is absurdly impossible to even consider. And that being if one forgets the logistical impossibility.

So go back to 1 ton of magical explosives.
 
timhau said:
Remind me again: if you have a couple of tons of explosives in place and that's enough to bring the towers down, why go through with all that hoopla with the planes? You'd think that three huge collapsed office towers in downtown Manhattan would be enough to get people's attention all by themselves.
Click to expand...

after the planes, every single TV station showed NY and the towers. and its "collapses"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom