Building demolished from the top down.

Simply "avoiding premature detonation" and allowing everything else to take place defeats the purpose of coordinated attacks on key structural members. If your "device" ends up in middle of an open space you just defeated the purpose of setting it to sever a column. But there's no need to worry wort over such minutia, 9/11 "controlled demolitionists" have yet to provide a single credible sample of compelling physical evidence that such devices were used in the first place. As I've said before, forget motive and method; "demolitionists" have been unable to this point to offer a compelling level of evidence of their use, which kills every other speculative nitty gritty that "they" want to use to "cast doubt." TO speculate over something without first proving their use is not only wasting time but also blowing hot air
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Not necessarily survive the impact. Just not detonate prematurely upon impact would be a simpler requirement. Something easily achievable by requiring a mixture prior to detonation. Unmixed base elements would just burn up harmlessly.
Click to expand...

2409019.jpg


And how would you designate the EXACT floors to detonate that the flight impacts?

And why not bring the building down at that time or soon after?
 
Java Man said:
Not necessarily survive the impact. Just not detonate prematurely upon impact would be a simpler requirement. Something easily achievable by requiring a mixture prior to detonation. Unmixed base elements would just burn up harmlessly.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you at all that no explosions were observed?

I just have this morbid curiosity...
 
Java Man said:
Working on the same Jenga example and based on the argument presented by another member here who said that the removal of one structural element cancels the diametrically opposite one as well I can add the following.

Removing one side as in the case of WTC 1 effectively removes the loading capacity of the other diametrically opposite side (based on the other members comment). That's like leaving the Jenga with just the center piece.

Removing the structural elements of one corner eliminates the loading capacity of the opposite corner, but the two other corners are left intact. A a bit like playing with a Jenga that allows you to remove half bricks. Half one brick remains on one side, the center brick remains whole and half the opposite brick remains too. This is more stable than having just the center piece.

So once again we can see that there is less and less reasons to expect the WTC 2 tower falling first. At least based on your Jenga example.
Click to expand...

Once again you focus on a small part of what I said.
Fact is that there are several details that can significantly affect the structural response of the building. THAT was what the Jenga analogy was for.

Yes the removal of one corner also then removes the opposite corner from the equation AS FAR AS redistribution of load goes. Obviously the intact corners are still there but they do nothing to take extra load from more central elements and may in fact be in tension, their original load now being borne by other columns in the structure.

WTC 1 lost no corner columns from the perimeter or the core (some of the heaviest columns), WTC 2 lost a corner perimeter and a corner core, column. The aircraft that struck WTC 2 travelled through less office space before reaching the core than did the one that struck WTC 1 because of the fact that the core was rectangular whereas the perimeter was square.

Add to this that the other columns no longer have the load bearing straight down through their long axis due to the excessive lean of the upper section and you have a situation in which a few columns are under vastly more load than other fully intact columns. It was your simple adding of the load bearing column loss that I was addressing (which I did not even bother to check for accuracy), as well as your attempt to claim that because WTC 2 was hit second by a similar aircraft it should have not been the first to collapse.

Such reasoning is simplistic and cannot be shown to be valid in any way.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
It was your simple adding of the load bearing column loss that I was addressing (which I did not even bother to check for accuracy), as well as your attempt to claim that because WTC 2 was hit second by a similar aircraft it should have not been the first to collapse.
Click to expand...

Simple adding? Well it was simple, but in arithmetic terms and not as you're trying to use the term "simple". But is sure is more numbers and references than you've brought. Face it all you talk about is load distributions and this and that, but you really don't bring any numbers on the table. If only one column had failed there would have been load distributions, but hardly a high risk of collapse (think Cessna impact). All this hand waving is a futile attempt at spinning something to convince us of something for which you don't even have the numbers to back you up.

More so I'd add you're clearly wrong in what my attempt is. I'm not claiming that it should have fallen after the first tower because it was hit afterwards. I'm countering the claim by another member here who says that it feel sooner because it had twice as many stories on top of it.

jaydeehess said:
Such reasoning is simplistic and cannot be shown to be valid in any way.
Click to expand...

A typical debunker closing line to try to throw something, anything, at my arguments in a futile attempt to discredit it with nothing more than empty words.
 
Java Man said:
A typical debunker closing line to try to throw something, anything, at my arguments in a futile attempt to discredit it with nothing more than empty words.
Click to expand...

I missed where you showed that the insurance companies cut Silverstein a gigantic check. Would you mind linking that for me?
 
DGM said:
I missed where you showed that the insurance companies cut Silverstein a gigantic check. Would you mind linking that for me?
Click to expand...

As far as I understand by 2005 they had paid him 2B of the 4.5 owed to him. That's why I ran the spreadsheet numbers with that value. Remember?
 
Java Man said:
About 315 million in annual fees (2002-2005) and estimated 125 million in legal fees.
Click to expand...
You are bright enough to know that as a lease holder he is obligated to replace the property that was lost under his lease? Unlike your "truck" example, this is how the real world works.


Anyway you look at it the best he will make out (and most likely so) is "break even".
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You are bright enough to know that as a lease holder he is obligated to replace the property that was lost under his lease? Unlike your "truck" example, this is how the real world works.


Anyway you look at it the best he will make out (and most likely so) is "break even".
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same question you asked me...

So the towers have been replaced?
 
Java Man said:
Not necessarily survive the impact. Just not detonate prematurely upon impact would be a simpler requirement. Something easily achievable by requiring a mixture prior to detonation. Unmixed base elements would just burn up harmlessly.
Click to expand...

Ya know **** about explosive material! Twoofer twang doesn't wash in my world of real explosive materials. When was the last time you used some?

Ya know **** about structural engineering! The guy who designed and built the WTC does. He disagrees with you yet you wont go direct to him or his peers. Odd way to behave when searching for the truth. Prefer to snerk at JREF with your fantasy. Cool stuff.
 
DGM said:
Are you claiming Silverstein is reneging on his obligation? Do you have evidence of this?
Click to expand...

Where did you read such a claim on my part? Clearly it is being built, but has it been built yet?
 
Jackanory said:
Ya know **** about explosive material! Twoofer twang doesn't wash in my world of real explosive materials. When was the last time you used some?

Ya know **** about structural engineering! The guy who designed and built the WTC does. He disagrees with you yet you wont go direct to him or his peers. Odd way to behave when searching for the truth. Prefer to snerk at JREF with your fantasy. Cool stuff.
Click to expand...

More typical upset debunker lines. If you can't counter me with arguments you'll just throw insults. If I didn't know what a good rating folks like Bill O'Reilly have I wouldn't be concerned with your tactics.
 
Java Man said:
Where did you read such a claim on my part? Clearly it is being built, but has it been built yet?
Click to expand...
So how do you figure he's made a huge profit? He has to pay to replace the buildings. And a part you fail to mention. After he replaces them he no longer has the lease to collect rent and he has to pay the lease until he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom