OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

It's not enough to claim it WAS done. It's not even enough to explain how it COULD be done. There needs to be evidence it actually WAS done. This is the skeptic trifecta.

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

 

[dc1971]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

Well your proposal has been rejected... many, many, many, many, many times!

 

[A W Smith]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

Yet if explosives are used in a cd scenario the remaining columns are still there immediately below the severed sections. Impact onto these severed stumps of columns would result in a visible deceleration. (a jolt) There is no difference in acceleration during the event. QED, your CD delusion is proven false by applying your own conditions.

 

[tempesta29]

Yet if explosives are used in a cd scenario the remaining columns are still there immediately below the severed sections. Impact onto these severed stumps of columns would result in a visible deceleration. (a jolt) There is no difference in acceleration during the event. QED, your CD delusion is proven false by applying your own conditions.

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

 

[adkinsjr]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle.
They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section.

This is pure drivel. What did you just say?

 

[TJM]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Cunning bastards, they prepared the building for a controlled demolition and still got the buildings collapse from the point of the aircraft impacts down.

 

[tempesta29]

This is pure drivel. What did you just say?

That's what it sounds like when someone has to respond to drivel.

 

[A W Smith]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

 

[adkinsjr]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

No he doesn't.

Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement cult, Continue to post, I insist

 

[tempesta29]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.

 

[A W Smith]

I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.

I think you're the one that's confused. Define you're "value". Remember now, you cant have any column stubs that will impact and show deceleration. How are you going to do that by leaving column sections intact on floors? Go ahead sport! Show us.

 

[TJM]

I didn't say floors. I said level

 

[Telltale Tom]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

I would guess that they would only have to have charges at every third floor level to avoid deceleration! Probably also had these fire proof charges at the upper levels just in case the planes hit higher.

But when we talk about squibs and explosions during the collapse, we mean every floor: you can see it so clearly on the YT videos that ae911truth refer to.

I think ae911truth once calculated the quantity of thermite in tons and have assumed several thousand charges. I am glad that you guys are starting to understand the truth.

 

[JamesB]

Why would it be necessary for them to avoid deceleration? What exactly is the point of going to extra work, in order to not only make your plot more difficult and expensive to pull off, but more suspicious. What, were they traying to get caught?

 

[adkinsjr]

"I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either."

You have got to be kidding me, I've rarely seen anybody engage in this kind of wordplay. It's absolutely ridiculous tempesta; ridiculous.

No one here has poor reading comprehension skills. You just keep playing with words to save face, it's a ridiculous game you play and it's really getting annoying.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Tempesta29, I think this is what you said.... level by level

And indeed some of us are proud to believe that there were 10,000 to 50,000 nano-thermite charges placed on the twin towers. Rome wasn't built in a day you know.

Say 10 a night, placed by a demo team of two. So with a team of 100 demo experts plus guards, cleaners etc they could have done it in 20 to 100 days.

How many charges do you think were placed? What's your truth? I am sure we can find out by an investigation with subpoena power.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure.

We're still waiting for you to provide some numbers to back up this assertion.

Now, let's see how much deceleration we might expect.

The downward acceleration of the upper block was measured at something around 2/3g, so we're seeing a retarding force of about 1/3mg. However, there are two major causes for retardation of the upper block, namely conservation of momentum due to acceleration of stationary components of the lower block, and structural resistance. Clearly, damage to the lower block will have a negligible effect on the first component, because the mass is not affected; columns have been weakened or broken, but only an insignificant part of the mass has fallen away. So we need to know what proportion of the 1/3g retarding force is due to structural resistance. Referring to Frank Greening's work at http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf, an estimate of retardation times gives 2.4 seconds for momentum conservation and 0.2 seconds for WTC1, indicating that momentum conservation is in fact the dominant term.

Let's assume that the structural resistance is about 10% of the overall retardation. So now we need to know by how much that was reduced in the damaged part of the building. NIST estimates that about 10-15% of the core column strength was removed by the airliner impacts, and we know that something like half a set of perimeter colums was also severed on the impact face. Overall, a figure of 15% looks like a reasonable one for the weakening of the damaged section.

So let's multiply all that together to get an idea of the reduction in retardation we'd expect. 0.33 x 0.1 x 0.15 = 0.005. So, as a result of the damage to the structure, we expect the downward acceleration to reduce from 0.667g to 0.662g - less than a 1% decrease in acceleration.

Simply put, tempesta29, the effect you're looking for is too small to see. I've analysed the data you're referring to, and the error in acceleration values is close to ±100%. Claiming, on the basis of data that noisy, that you're failing to see a 1% step change in acceleration is like claiming Islam is a false religion because when you look east you can't see Mecca.

Dave

 

[tempesta29]

I think you're the one that's confused. Define you're "value". Remember now, you cant have any column stubs that will impact and show deceleration. How are you going to do that by leaving column sections intact on floors? Go ahead sport! Show us.

First you call them stumps; now you call them stubs. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would it be necessary for them to avoid deceleration? What exactly is the point of going to extra work, in order to not only make your plot more difficult and expensive to pull off, but more suspicious. What, were they traying to get caught?

Is there any other way? How can you have a sequential demolition below a falling mass without producing a constant rate of acceleration? If they had gone out of their way to design a system that produced jolts or periods of deceleration the collapse may not have been a success.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there any other way? How can you have a sequential demolition below a falling mass without producing a constant rate of acceleration? If they had gone out of their way to design a system that produced jolts or periods of deceleration the collapse may not have been a success.

If they had simply initiated the collapse and allowed it to propagate, it would have looked like a collapse that was initiated at a specific level then propagated naturally. You're suggesting that they went out of their way to design a system that didn't look like a naturally propagating collapse, for no reason at all.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

First you call them stumps; now you call them stubs. I have no idea what you're talking about.

evasion noted. You cannot support your claim.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression