WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[Grizzly Bear]

Maybe you should actually reply to my question. I didn't ask how WTC1 and 2 differed from a conventional implosion. I'm aware there are differences. The purpose of a standard demolition, or an implosion, is to bring a building down in such a way as to minimize damage to adjacent structures. This was not the case with WTC1 and 2.

Well then once we have the physical remains of these explosives we'll be all set. The consensus that it was a 'done unconventionally' is based on an unsupported premise, the conclusion that was set from the get go that the government orchestrated everything.

I asked how would the destruction of each tower have looked different, if WTC 1 and 2 were blown up from the top-down? You are saying that WTC 1 and 2 were not destroyed by explosive charges. Okay, but if explosive charges were used what would it look like?

data venia, Should there be any difference in what a collapse should 'look' like when the structural integrity is fatally lost?

 

[bje]

Maybe you should actually reply to my question.

Maybe you should learn to answer questions, Tanabear. Ignoring questions posed to you about your claims is a dead giveaway of intellectual dishonesty.

It's also the most common behavior of 9/11 Truthers determined to ignore inconvenient evidence in favor of pushing their own agenda.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What world do you live on? For crying out loud, you get an AUTOMATED REPLY from his email client and you automatically believe that he "peer reviewed" your paper?

And the automated reply he received is nothing more than a "read receipt". Despite it's name, all it indicates is that the recipient opened the email. For all we know, he opened Heiwa's email, quickly recognized it for the insanity that it quite likely was, and deleted it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I love the whole premise of a controlled demolition being that it looks like a controlled demolition, yet when presented with the facts that it certainly does not look like a controlled demolition it's explained that it was an unconventional controlled demolition which voids the original premise from which the 2nd premise was derived and thus there being no premise to left at all.

Except of course absurd paranoia brought on by excessive drug use.

 

[X]

Maybe you should actually reply to my question. I didn't ask how WTC1 and 2 differed from a conventional implosion. I'm aware there are differences. The purpose of a standard demolition, or an implosion, is to bring a building down in such a way as to minimize damage to adjacent structures. This was not the case with WTC1 and 2.

I asked how would the destruction of each tower have looked different, if WTC 1 and 2 were blown up from the top-down? You are saying that WTC 1 and 2 were not destroyed by explosive charges. Okay, but if explosive charges were used what would it look like?

Apologies. I veered to a tangent.

What would it look like?

1) The interior would be gutted. Every floor, not just the initiation zone.
2) The windows would be removed. On every floor, not just the initiation zone.
3) There would be a sequence of flashes and loud bangs. These would be unmistakeable, and heard by everyone for a long way around.
4) In all likelihood, since this would be an extremely risky demolition, there would be flashes and bangs throughout the lower part of the tower, weakening critical supports, just in case.
5) There would be no fire. It would damage the explosives and triggers.
6) There would be no plane crash. It would damage the explosives and triggers.
7) There would be no people. If you walk into an office building, and find the floors gutted, with explosives rigged up, would you stick around?

Beyond that, if all went well, once collapse intiated, it would progress much like what you saw on 9/11 (things falling downwards).



ETA:
Heya, Cl1m. Heiwa pointed ou a small detail I overlooked in the following post

No...

As near as I can figure, Heiwa believes that if the columns of the upper section did not impact exactly on the columns of the lower section, then the upper section would have fallen through the lower section, stripping out the floors but leaving the frame intact and standing.

To which you replied:

I... I'm not sure that's any better. Wow.

And Heiwa's correction:

Almost right. Half the wall columns above will hit nothing as they are outside the building when dropping and the other half of wall columns are inside slicing the floors.

Only floors above will contact columns below, and as stated many times, the floors will fail. The columns below will remain.

After a while the locally damaged floors are jammed between the columns below and ... that's it. No global collapse! Just local failures up top.

Not so difficult to figure out.

I have a feeling Bazant & Co fooled you. But they are no real engineers.

Make you feel any better?

 

[Heiwa]

We'll continue our "Physics for Psychotics" dialogue. If I remove the 109th floor, the 110th floor drops neatly and quietly on the 108th, causing no strain on the load-bearing capacity. If I drop the 81st through the 110th floors on the 80th, it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING--RIGHT????
The crush-up completely balances the crush-down? Really?

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

 

[Heiwa]

And the automated reply he received is nothing more than a "read receipt". Despite it's name, all it indicates is that the recipient opened the email. For all we know, he opened Heiwa's email, quickly recognized it for the insanity that it quite likely was, and deleted it.

Actually NIST, I assume Shyam, opened the link according my stat.software, soon after reading the mail. Sometimes they reply, sometimes they modify their 911 Update web page. Anyway, NIST should improve its report with calculations of available strain energy in the structure and explain why it cannot absorb the (little) potential energy released.

The amount of strain energy a structure can absorb is enormous compared with the amount of potential energy that is released if a part of the structure displaces. No big deal actually.

Of course, such a calculation would confirm that what happened after collapse initiation was not due to local failures and gravity.

Maybe NIST will do the proper calculations after the presidential election? To finally clarify the case.

 

[GlennB]

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

Dunno what your problem is here, pom.
Action = reaction, right?
So, when a 10 million tonne asteroid travelling at 10,000kph strikes your house, clearly the forces are equal. Newton said so.
So the asteroid comes to a halt on your roof. It's pretty damn clear ... why must you fuss so about basic Newtonian physics??

 

[gumboot]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Conspiracy Theorists have somehow mashed the Laws of Motion and the Laws of Thermodynamics together?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Actually NIST, I assume Shyam, opened the link according my stat.software, soon after reading the mail. Sometimes they reply, sometimes they modify their 911 Update web page. Anyway, NIST should improve its report with calculations of available strain energy in the structure and explain why it cannot absorb the (little) potential energy released.

The amount of strain energy a structure can absorb is enormous compared with the amount of potential energy that is released if a part of the structure displaces. No big deal actually.

Of course, such a calculation would confirm that what happened after collapse initiation was not due to local failures and gravity.

Maybe NIST will do the proper calculations after the presidential election? To finally clarify the case.

Does your stat program also measure the number of times he laughs at the absurdity of your article?

 

[stateofgrace]

Actually NIST, I assume Shyam, opened the link according my stat.software, soon after reading the mail. Sometimes they reply, sometimes they modify their 911 Update web page. Anyway, NIST should improve its report with calculations of available strain energy in the structure and explain why it cannot absorb the (little) potential energy released.

The amount of strain energy a structure can absorb is enormous compared with the amount of potential energy that is released if a part of the structure displaces. No big deal actually.

Of course, such a calculation would confirm that what happened after collapse initiation was not due to local failures and gravity.

Maybe NIST will do the proper calculations after the presidential election? To finally clarify the case.

Hilarious. So funny you deserve no less than three dogs



Any chance you can support yet another claim, That being that NIST are taking any notice whatsoever of you?

 

[phunk]

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

No!

Just because the forces on the 2 impacting sections of the building are equal to each other, doesn't mean they are equal to the force required to stop the falling upper section.

If you drop a bowling ball on a sheet of glass, the ball and the glass will experience equal forces. That doesn't mean the ball will stop.

 

[pomeroo]

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

I'm laughing so hard I'm almost choking on my soda! You are a fabulous idiot!

You are saying that dropping almost a third of the building on the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles doesn't crush the whole thing!! Sorry, but you couldn't buy a degree in engineering from any fake internet site.

 

[pomeroo]

No!

Just because the forces on the 2 impacting sections of the building are equal to each other, doesn't mean they are equal to the force required to stop the falling upper section.

If you drop a bowling ball on a sheet of glass, the ball and the glass will experience equal forces. That doesn't mean the ball will stop.

Does it boggle your mind to make this point to someone who pretends to be an engineer? If you had to explain this to a ten-year-old, wouldn't you regard that child as a bit slow?

 

[pomeroo]

Dunno what your problem is here, pom.
Action = reaction, right?
So, when a 10 million tonne asteroid travelling at 10,000kph strikes your house, clearly the forces are equal. Newton said so.
So the asteroid comes to a halt on your roof. It's pretty damn clear ... why must you fuss so about basic Newtonian physics??

Yeah, I just have some sort of conceptual problem. There's an explanation. When I was a teenager, I used to do a fair amount of boxing. I figure now that the punches that lightly grazed my chin didn't hurt me because my chin hit the opposing fist with equal force. Similarly, the punches that connected solidly with my chin were also met by a counterbalancing force. The only question that remains is why the latter, the big punches, hurt so damn much and left me woozy as hell.

 

[pomeroo]

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

I'm going to take a wild guess here. According to you, Achilles never does actually catch the tortoise. Right?

 

[John Blonn]

Given this interesting interpretation of Newton, Heiwa, shouldn't the planes have just slammed into the building and fallen to the ground, intact, as if someone threw a pencil against a wall? The building, of course, would be intact as well, given these "balancing forces."

How come the plane went through the building when the forces acting on the building and the plane were the same?

 

[pomeroo]

According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

I understand that your illness will not permit you to acknowledge the possibility that you might be in error, but the suspicion must be creeping over you by now that your answer is laughably, ludicrously, embarrassingly, absurdly, preposterously, fantastically, staggeringly, breathtakingly, colossally, ridiculously, surreally, insanely WRONG.

 

[~enigma~]

Given this interesting interpretation of Newton, Heiwa, shouldn't the planes have just slammed into the building and fallen to the ground, intact, as if someone threw a pencil against a wall? The building, of course, would be intact as well, given these "balancing forces."

How come the plane went through the building when the forces acting on the building and the plane were the same?

Isn't Heiwa a graduate of the Gene Rodenberry School Of Newtonian Force Field Mechanics?

 

[Heiwa]

No!

Just because the forces on the 2 impacting sections of the building are equal to each other, doesn't mean they are equal to the force required to stop the falling upper section.

If you drop a bowling ball on a sheet of glass, the ball and the glass will experience equal forces. That doesn't mean the ball will stop.

Newton is of course right and the advisors of Condoleeza and GWB are wrong. Unfortunately Condo and GWB have never heard of Newton. I wonder about NIST. Hasn't it heard about Newton?

Yes, the forces are equal. One up, the other down according Newton. Equilibrium. Without it you would fly away.

And you are then 100% right. The upper block, the sheet of glass, and the lower structure, the bowling ball, experience equal forces at contact of any type.

And it means, according you, that the sheet of glass, the upper block, breaks. and the bowling ball, the lower structure, is hardly affected at contact.

It is not so simple re WTC1, but you are on the right track.

Or did I misunderstand? The upper block was the bowling ball and the lower structure of WTC1 was a sheet of glass?

That is Bazant, Seffen, NIST P0S! You do not believe that, do you? The plane hit the tower and released a bowling ball that dropped on a sheet of glass.

That is ridiculous. But NIST wants you to believe it.