OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

Look you said you didn't understand engineering and we accept that. You don't have to prove it every post.

It was tongue-in-cheek actually. Glad you caught it.

 

[GlennB]

Yes. I've heard this argument before. Really though, in this case, we have vertical columns, in a way two large, continuous steel tubes.

Really though, we don't.

The two 'tubes' were not continuous. They were built with many 3-storey high components, welded and/or bolted together and connected by floor assemblies. 'Tubes' that depend on each other and those floors for structural integrity, and which are designed to function in the vertical plane (with an allowance for wind shear).

Start smashing the floors downwards and the columns are experiencing horizontal forces that were never part of the plan. And the 'tubes' are no longer braced (to use that word loosely, perhaps) against each other. Start whacking the column connections themselves with brutal and sudden sideways forces and that's another thing never in the engineers' calculations.

When I refer to deceleration I mean a decrease in the rate of acceleration, not merely a decrease in velocity.

In which case you'll need a sufficiently discrete axial impact to observe the jerk or jolt you're referring to here, and a measurement system accurate enough to detect it. We have neither at WTC. Both top sections tilted first, as has been mentioned already (search the "Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper" thread for a full discussion. eta: here). Bottom line - each floor-by-floor impact was a chaotic unsynchronised mess to the extent you couldn't call it floor-by-floor impact at all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why wouldn't you see a difference in this instance? This reduction in resistance was responsible for the biggest structural failures in history. Surely this discrepancy was measurable within the margin for error, or are you insinuating that the Twin Towers were on the verge of failure since their completion?

Like I said, shouting in a language you don't understand. I'm sorry, I can't help you here. Remedial maths classes might be a good start, then a course in reading the last few posts (if anyone offers one).

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

By the way, something I missed:

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses.

I think I've discovered a new logical fallacy, as yet unknown to the taxonomy of failed arguments, although we've encountered it many times in the wild. It sits in the intersection between the argument from ignorance ("I don't understand how this could have happened, so it can't have") and the argumentum ad populum ("Everybody thinks this, so it must be true").

I'd like to dub it the Appeal to Social Isolation:

"I've never met anyone who agrees with your argument, so it must be wrong".

Dave

 

[adkinsjr]

Well quite simply: you're wrong.

No I'm not, you play with words tempesta, any body who reveiws your comments can see that.

 

[triforcharity]

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

Then why don't you send us the guy who DOESN'T act like a child, and who doesn't play semantics with word games, and who doesn't try to blow smoke up our rear ends.

Why don't YOU post your COMPLETE theory here. We'll wait.

 

[triforcharity]

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all.

This is called an argument from personal beliefs. This is a logical fallacy.

Let's see what the PROFESSIONALS have to say about it.

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499


Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.


Have you read these? They ALL show that you are wrong.


Now, if the collapse was NOT possible, as you claim, then WHY would Zhou et al. publish THIS paper?

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall.

Sure. I guess.

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground.

Show me the math that proves this. Not just your personal beliefs.

These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

So, when the collapse began, what speed was it going, and what speed was it going when the collapse was complete?

Show us the math. We love math around here. Please, show us your calculations.

 

[triforcharity]

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?

Show us these cuts. I'll wait.

 

[JamesB]

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



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.

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"

Why do truthers need to make plots as complicated and complex as possible in order to feed their fantasies?

 

[DGM]

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

Maybe it will take this time.







For some reason I doubt it

 

[Telltale Tom]

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"
...

Sure, if the towers hadn't collapsed we would still be demolishing them, if the Deutsche BanK Building is anything to go by.

Can't see how that would have fired up congress and the Coalition of the Willing, to attack Iraq. It was essential that the towers were demolished so that Al Queda could prove to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... namely a fleet of passenger planes.!

 

[tempesta29]

By the way, something I missed:



I think I've discovered a new logical fallacy, as yet unknown to the taxonomy of failed arguments, although we've encountered it many times in the wild. It sits in the intersection between the argument from ignorance ("I don't understand how this could have happened, so it can't have") and the argumentum ad populum ("Everybody thinks this, so it must be true").

I'd like to dub it the Appeal to Social Isolation:

"I've never met anyone who agrees with your argument, so it must be wrong".

Dave

You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.

 

[tempesta29]

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"

It's far more psychologically disturbing and more casualties are guaranteed. Why not completely destroy them? Also makes for easier clean up.

 

[DGM]

You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.

The funny thing is you'll never realize the irony of your post.

 

[JamesB]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?

 

[DGM]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?

You really need to ask?

 

[tempesta29]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

 

[JamesB]

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed!

 

[adkinsjr]

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?




Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed!

This is a game to him, he makes it up as he goes along. This is why it's hard for 9/11 "truth" cult apologists to be consistent.

 

[tempesta29]

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?

What the hell are you talking about? You need to read and grasp context. I said "what risk" in response to being asked why they destroyed the entire buildings. I was not referring to risk involved in planting explosives.

Read.

Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed!

Having the upper sections plow so easily through all of that steel and concrete then suddenly not being able to might seem odd. It might actually look like some failed CDs that do just that. I never suggested that was what should have happened.