OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

tempesta29 said:
... the massive steel and concrete cores?

And even if your ridiculous "mass increases" theory were true, this would be a constant, and would be happening in the crash zone as well, so a discrepancy in resistance would still be measurable.
Click to expand...

Physics for truthers, it takes no training, zero effort. And the massive concrete cores; where have I heard that insane claim?
 
tempesta29 said:
Negative. Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing. Since we both understand Newton's Third, we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower. Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes. It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses. The 10 stories of the North Tower's upper section could never have completely eliminated the 100 stories below it.
Click to expand...

GREAT. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the math and physics equations to demonstrate this argument from incredulity and ignorance. You can provide those equations and the proofs.... right?
 
tempesta29 said:
Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes. It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses.
Click to expand...



Please work out how much explosive force that would require and explain why we don't hear any such explosive detonations on any video.
 
TruthersLie said:
GREAT. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the math and physics equations to demonstrate this argument from incredulity and ignorance. You can provide those equations and the proofs.... right?
Click to expand...
The funny part is, his argument calls for the vast majority of the building to fall outside of the foot print.

So, how's that work? It's a CD if it falls inside of it's own foot print except for all it's mass?


:boggled:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
The funny part is, his argument calls for the vast majority of the building to fall outside of the foot print.

So, hows that work? It's a CD if it falls inside of it's own foot print except for all it's mass?


:boggled:
Click to expand...

Unless it is WTC7 according to ergo... where even falling outside and striking toher buildings is considered "inside" the "footprint."

Go figure.
 
tempesta29 said:
Negative. Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing. Since we both understand Newton's Third, we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower. Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes. It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses. The 10 stories of the North Tower's upper section could never have completely eliminated the 100 stories below it.
Click to expand...

Math please.
 
Edx said:
Please work out how much explosive force that would require and explain why we don't hear any such explosive detonations on any video.
Click to expand...

Chandler works out some of the velocities:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/8/N_UeLXfI37s

Chandler goes over these explosive ejections in this video as well:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/13/atSd7mxgsGY

Despite the fact that the upper section of the South Tower is toppling, the ejections are perfectly symmetric and actually lead the collapse itself, as evidenced by the intact corner of the structure which is visible above these horizontal ejections themselves.
 
He's actually arguing that the lateral debris vectors are caused by explosives? Hilarious.

The Hollywood plot is matched by Hollywood physics.
 
tempesta29 said:
Chandler works out some of the velocities:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/8/N_UeLXfI37s

Chandler goes over these explosive ejections in this video as well:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/13/atSd7mxgsGY

Despite the fact that the upper section of the South Tower is toppling, the ejections are perfectly symmetric and actually lead the collapse itself, as evidenced by the intact corner of the structure which is visible above these horizontal ejections themselves.
Click to expand...

You were asked to work it out.
 
chipmunk stew said:
He's actually arguing that the lateral debris vectors are caused by explosives? Hilarious.

The Hollywood plot is matched by Hollywood physics.
Click to expand...

LOL, I find that claim amusing too. He clearly hasn't thought this one through, I think it would take some pretty extreme explosives to do that. Plus, isn't the mechanical ejection of lateral debris" the sort of thing that CDs are meant to avoid?

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

"The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

Richard%20Gage%20220%20JPG80.jpg

cult leader
 
adkinsjr said:
LOL, I find that claim amusing too. He clearly hasn't thought this one through, I think it would take some pretty extreme explosives to do that. Plus, isn't the mechanical ejection of lateral debris" the sort of thing that CDs are meant to avoid?
Click to expand...

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?
 
tempesta29 said:
Negative. Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing. Since we both understand Newton's Third, we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't square with the basic facts, unfortunately, which is why it is wrong.
If the upper block were actually being destroyed, as you say it was, then it wouldn't be falling at 64% g, it would be falling much faster. But that's not what happened.
Besides, before the upper block disappears into the dust, it is demonstrably intact, so the claim that it was destroyed at that point is disingenuous and false.

The mere fact that the upper block accelerated at substantially less than freefall is hard evidence that it was destroying structure and there was conservation of momentum, as we would expect.
Using physics, you must conclude that the upper block was only experiencing an upwards force roughly 1/3 g, which is actually less force than it had been experiencing since it was built!

Next fallacy that you attempt to pass off is that, since there was some (you never quantify this, so it is a rather empty idea) amount of mass ejected, therefore the descending impulse energy was decreasing!

Yet you utterly fail to offer any meaningful numbers to back the claim up; and indeed you continue to fail to account for the physical certainty that the accelerating masses (whatever they were) most assuredly gained kinetic energy - otherwise they wouldn't be accelerating, you see.

How much energy was gained and lost? You haven't got the foggiest idea, but you're apparently hoping that your audience's brains have mysteriously switched off, and they won't notice the vacuous hot air...... too bad for you, nobody's buying your anti-scientific nonsense.

I double dare you to take your ideas to a good engineering or physics dept at a university and see how much respect you get. You'll never do it, anymore than you're going to go publish a paper in an engineering journal.

But keep fooling yourself if reality doesn't matter, I really don't care. Your opinion, misinformed as it is, just isn't important.
 
I took a look at the videos.

I assumed that the speed of the debris expelled horizontally would be approximately the speed required to expel all of the air from a floor as the collapse proceeded downward.

I used the fact that there was about two frames between the start of the first horizontal plume and the start of the second horizontal plume to get an estimate of the rate of building collapse at this point. So assuming that there is about 4 meters between the floors the building is collapsing at about 60 meters per second (4 meters / 1/15 second).

I assumed that about half the building wall was glass which was blown away by the pressure and that the building was about 70 meters on each side. So there was about 280 square meters of area per meter of building height for the air between the floor to be evacuated through.

Assuming that my data and calculations are correct the velocity needed to evacuate the air through that opening assuming no compression of the air is around 2000 meters per second. This is much larger than the approximately 45 meters per second than was seen in the video.

So... my original assumption that almost all the air in each floor was being blasted out the windows as the floor collapsed seems to be wrong.

What actually seems to be happening is that a large pressure wave is being created as the building collapse pressures the air within the building and that pressure wave is collapsing floors ahead of the collapsing structure.

With my limited skills it seems very difficult to predict the nature of the collapse assuming that an air pressure wave seems to have played a significant role. As the collapse proceeds through the building a lot of the excess pressure is just released up and out through the area where the building had been. This prevents a pressure wave from shooting downward through the entire building and causing a collapse even faster than just caused by gravitational fall. None the less it seems like a significant amount of damage is going to precede a collapsing floor caused by this pressure wave.

As an aside, I realize these ideas have been well thought out by people who know much more about this than I do. That's one of the reasons I posted this. I'm hoping that somebody might provide more details about the analysis of the issue I discussed above.
 
Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alienentity said:
Your argument doesn't square with the basic facts, unfortunately, which is why it is wrong.
If the upper block were actually being destroyed, as you say it was, then it wouldn't be falling at 64% g, it would be falling much faster. But that's not what happened.
Besides, before the upper block disappears into the dust, it is demonstrably intact, so the claim that it was destroyed at that point is disingenuous and false.
Click to expand...

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

Are you claiming the upper sections aren't being destroyed?
 
tempesta29 said:
They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?
Click to expand...

Well you've finally arrived at the inherently (fatal) contradiction in the truther arguments - that these collapses were exactly like CD's yet are completely unlike any CD's in history.
Congratulations. You can't win the argument as it contains a logical contradiction.

Well, there are many logical contradictions, including but not limited to the insistence of truthers that any amount of freefall acceleration is proof of explosive CD; yet neither of the towers collapsed at or even very close to freefall accel.
So clearly that axiom is false. Yet truthers have hung their entire arguments on it.

There is also a terrifying mental hurdle that must be overcome to buy explosive CD dogma - that is, in not a single instance, on any video recorded, has an explosive CD not involved, large, unmistakable explosions, immediately preceding the collapse.
It doesn't matter what brand of camcorder was used, professional or consumer - they all capture the explosions easily....
except.....
none did on 9/11. Oops!

So truthers are in the agonizing position of arguing for something which cannot have happened, simply because there is no evidence - evidence which is always found....just go ahead and check youtube if you don't believe me.

Something which is found 100% of the time, mysteriously absent 100% of the time on 9/11. Hmmm, you just can't win that argument.

Of course, that's why truthers invented thermite demolition, to try to dodge the terrible reality that their CD hypothesis is wrong. Trouble is, there IS no precedent for that kind of CD, and there's no science to back it up either. It's a major fail right from the get-go.
And it unfortunately cannot explain the lateral ejections, so beloved by truthers such as Richard Gage.

So you're stuck in an infinite loop of fail, jumping from one illogical, contradiction-riddled theory to another, in hopes that you won't sink in the sea of your own nonsense.

It ain't pretty. I wouldn't want to be making your arguments, cause you're bound to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom