Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[jaydeehess]

It's not even remotely close. As has already been pointed out.

I am sorry if I did not read every bit of your problem with comprehending physics and technology.

Verniage uses the momentum of a falling bolck to produce a very short duration impulse on a lower structure and in doing so transfer its momentum to the lower structure quickly thus creating an extremly high force on the lower structure and failing its components. (hey! this sounds a lot like what actual explosives do with less mass and much greater velocity although it occurs along a different axis)
True verniage works best then on concrete structures which have a very stiff construction.

In the case of a lightweight steel structure(light is of course a relative term but one major reason for using steel is that it is lighter than concrete) of the construction technique of long spans and open floor space in the towers and WTC 7 the falling mass collapsed the floors, taking away the lateral supports and compromising the structure's ability to stand.

Similar, different but similar.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad,

Is that scale in feet? It seems to indicate that in some places the pile was almost 5-7 storeys high?

Am i misreading the scale (it is almost illegible on my ipad)

TAM

My apologies. I had to crop and reduce the image to fit VB Image Host's requirements. I usually also provide a link to the original because of that, but I forgot to this time. The original is here.

Gallery of relevant CUNY images here. This includes a (somewhat lower resolution) LIDAR image of the same area from 7/1/2000 for comparison (clearly showing the elevated plaza, and the higher street elevation on the Church Street side).

What appears to be the highest "piled" rubble is color coded the brighter yellow, which the color scale (still hard to read in the original but quite clear when magnified) puts at 75-100 feet above street level (tan). The green areas appear to all be roofs of surviving structures, and the tops of columns and panels that are still sticking up. Definitely more than 5 storeys, so you were reading it correctly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[triforcharity]

We are referring to basement workers who are describing an explosion in the basement. "Oh, they got us again." What do you think that might refer to? What other terrorist attack has occurred in the WTC?

What is she describing? You have no idea. My assumption, based on the hundreds of survivors that I personally spoke to, was the plane impact. But, it is speculative at best.

I already referred you to the web page of testimonials, many of which make this comparison. You refused to go look for yourself. I can't help you with that. I'm certainly not going to continue arguing with someone who won't even avail himself of the evidence.

The list of quotes that you posted, only ONE even mention 1993. NONE of the others make ANY sort of comparison to the 1993 bombing.

This is such a stupid point to be arguing anyway. I can't even remember why it matters. It was something Big Al brought up, to make some as yet unstated point.

You are the one who made the claim. You need to back it up. To date, you have not.

 

[triforcharity]

Not in the WTC. If this is "new" to you, then I can only assume you don't read threads here.

Really? What cased the continued collapse? Mothra?

 

[ergo]

I did look and I could not find any quotes,

I'm sorry you couldn't find them. This does seem to be a thorn in your side.

It was you trying to play gotcha, and it came back to bite you. Feel free to runaway now.

No, I believe it was Big Al, moving goalposts when I pointed out that there were eyewitness reports and therefore was evidence of large explosions in the buildings on that day.

How long are you going to keep arguing over this?

 

[ergo]

By the way, Trifor, did you have nothing to say about this?

 

[leftysergeant]

No, I believe it was Big Al, moving goalposts when I pointed out that there were eyewitness reports and therefore was evidence of large explosions in the buildings on that day.

So? Cite one that would have to be HE.

 

[leftysergeant]

By the way, Trifor, did you have nothing to say about this?

That is not relevant.

 

[ergo]

That is not relevant.

Not relevant to what? This was a different discussion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, we're not there yet. I am just establishing that other types of demolition can occur that don't involve bang-bang-bang explosions.

well I think your bosses, like Steven Jones need to come in line with you then. Steven Jones, in an email reply to Dr. Frank Greening admitted that his theory falls apart (essentially) and states that the thermite was most likely used for fuses for traditional explosives...so this whole "The baddies used thermite to cut through the columns" doesn't hold up...according to your top physicist.

So now what?

Back to BOOM BOOM BOOM.

TAM

 

[ergo]

well I think your bosses, like Steven Jones need to come in line with you then. Steven Jones, in an email reply to Dr. Frank Greening admitted that his theory falls apart (essentially) and states that the thermite was most likely used for fuses for traditional explosives...so this whole "The baddies used thermite to cut through the columns" doesn't hold up...according to your top physicist.

I guess we're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we?

 

[T.A.M.]

I guess we're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we?

So do you agree or disagree with this assessment by the person who originated and did all the investigations regarding thermite at the WTC collapse?

Simple question...yes or no?

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

I'm sorry you couldn't find them. This does seem to be a thorn in your side.

Not a thorn in my side, as you are just another truther who makes claims and can't provide evidence for them.

No, I believe it was Big Al, moving goalposts when I pointed out that there were eyewitness reports and therefore was evidence of large explosions in the buildings on that day.

Actually, Al made a statement that there were no witness statements comparing 1993 to 2001. You said he was wrong and have since made a definitive claim tht there were comparisons. Then, you tried to backtrack and say that you had never tried to look for a comparison.

How long are you going to keep arguing over this?

Not sure. When are you going to admit that you can not back up your claim about witnesses comparing 1993 to 2001? Or, if you provide evidence of such a statement, I will admit that I am wrong.

 

[ergo]

So do you agree or disagree with this assessment by the person who originated and did all the investigations regarding thermite at the WTC collapse?

I would probably want to see the email text first, and also read more about the thermite hypothesis. So I can't possibly agree or disagree at this point.

My uninformed and unthought-out theory would be that if you can use thermite to cut up the core, then you only need a few strategically placed bombs or whatever that could initiate failure, and let gravity do the rest.

 

[excaza]

You mean the demonstrated weakening of steel (and pretty much every other material) as it is heated?

Hello? Earth to ergo. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[T.A.M.]

I would probably want to see the email text first, and also read more about the thermite hypothesis. So I can't possibly agree or disagree at this point.

My uninformed and unthought-out theory would be that if you can use thermite to cut up the core, then you only need a few strategically placed bombs or whatever that could initiate failure, and let gravity do the rest.

so what you are saying, is despite no evidence to prove it, you believe that a never before used (in building demolition) cutting material was applied in some as of yet unknown fashion, by an as of yet imaginary applicator mechanism, and this was done so in numerous locations simultaneously moments before the collapse occurred, but did so in such a way that the collapse started at the top, and then progressed down.

Does that about sum it up for your view on the collapse cause?

You know the "unthought-out" part of your statement...work on that, and please god if you have a grain of sense, you might actually join the rest of is in rational-logical-land.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Hello? Earth to ergo. Do you agree with this statement?

I have no idea what it was a response to, so I don't understand its context.

 

[excaza]

Don't be dense.

Do you agree that materials weaken when heated?

 

[ergo]

so what you are saying, is despite no evidence to prove it, you believe that a never before used (in building demolition) cutting material was applied in some as of yet unknown fashion, by an as of yet imaginary applicator mechanism, and this was done so in numerous locations simultaneously moments before the collapse occurred, but did so in such a way that the collapse started at the top, and then progressed down.

I'm not going to get into arguments about thermite when I don't know enough about it. I shared an idea with you, that's all. I certainly don't expect any of you to agree with it. And I would think whatever cut the columns, whether it was thermite or something else, would have had to have been applied prior to the event itself and activated shortly before.

In the case of WTC7 I think the notion of pre-rigged demolition explosives would explain a lot, and would make sense considering the agencies that building housed. It sounds maybe a little bit 007, but it's amazing how many things we first read in fiction turn out to be true or possible or having been experimented on in real life. Especially in the U.S. of A.

 

[ergo]

Don't be dense.

Do you agree that materials weaken when heated?

I agree, or at least don't contest that structural steel weakens at a certain heating point, yes.