Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

beachnut said:
What explosives? The towers fell due to impacts and fires, no booms from explosives were heard on 911. You failed to research 911. You are 9 years behind and falling back into nonsense. Did you ask the FBI what they looked for? Explosives would burn off in the fires, do you research this before you post delusional nonsense? Why ask questions, can't you answer anything on your own? No wonder you can't go to 20/20, or 60 minutes you have nonsense.
Click to expand...

Your contribution is as about as pertinent to this topic as "take my wife, please" is to comedy.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You're serious? And the 1/4 inch bone fragments?
Click to expand...

1. Yes, I am serious. Just look at images from Ground Zero and notice the big chunks of debris everywhere
2. Bones are not part of the structure
3. 1/4 inch pieces are not dust

Did you seriously think that mentioning non-dust parts of non-structure would convince anybody that all of the structure was turned to dust? Seriously? Do you still hope anybody here is dumber than you?
 
I'm proud to be part of a 0.56% elite.


Funny how everyone else is in it too.
 
Carlhole said:
6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of at least 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Everything from here on is speculation and woo.

The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples!
Click to expand...
The standard safety margin is twice the weight, IIRC. Not thirty.
 
ergo said:
Let's get back to this claim that explosions were not heard by any of the survivors. Still unsubstantiated, and obviously contradicted by countless eye/earwitness testimonies.
Click to expand...
Explosions. Not explosives. Explosions are common in fires. Explosives powerful enough to cut steel beams would be clearly audible.

But bee dunkers claim that there were survivors in the core, during the collapses, who stated that they did not hear explosions.
Click to expand...
Nope. Straw man. We're claiming none of them did say they heard or experienced explosions consistent with demo charges.

They still haven't told us how many survivors there were in the core during the collapses, for one, and secondly, who claimed they did not hear explosions. So this remains an unsubstantiated assertion.
Click to expand...
1. We did, you just refused to accept it because of your abitrary need for two sentences to inform you of one number. Nobody wanted to play your little power-trip game, since you would just ignore the information anyway. 2. None of them claimed they did hear explosions, or experienced injuries consistent with barotrauma. You're arguing from ignorance again. The burden of proof is on you; find the survivors who say they did hear or experience powerful explosives.
 
NoahFence said:
Because they're a full three times the size of the world record,
Click to expand...
Four, if you're going by floors alone. Implosionworld says 26 stories.

NoahFence said:
Aircraft impact that shakes the entire building from top to bottom, with jet fuel laden fire and a massive fireball traveling down the core of the building, leaves these magic explosives unharmed.
Click to expand...
Also, weren't beams knocked out of the buildings into Manhattan by the initial impact? How come none of those had the explosives on them?
 
Last edited:
Carlhole said:
Nah... that 12.18 seconds completely disregarded any resistance of the vertical columns, either core or peripheral, in Kuttler's paper. That portion of his paper dealt only with static inertial resistance.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I just said. You were implying that he got 15 seconds from conservation of momentum alone, and that therefore additional time is needed to account for structural resistance. You're wrong, plain and simple; he got 12.18 seconds from conservation of momentum alone. At least 2.5 seconds is available for structural resistance, and it turns out it's easily enough.

Carlhole said:
The point is, you can attribute a reasonably certain number of seconds delay in collapse time due to overcoming sheer inertia. And you can attribute a reasonably certain number of seconds delay to the effects of actual structural strength.

It is much easier to calculate the resistance of inertial mass than it is to mathematically quantify resistance due to strength and deformation.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. But it's not impossible; even some truthers have managed. The structural resistance contributes a surprisingly small amount to the collapse time, because for most of the time the columns aren't presenting any resistance at all. As the collapse progresses, sections of column first shorten, then buckle, then snap, and then there isn't a column, so there's no resistance until the next section is impacted. Since the column snaps when it's only buckled a fairly small amount, then, averaged over the collapse time, the resistance of the columns is many times less than their static strength.

Carlhole said:
This is the sort of question that NIST should have addressed. It's the first thing that occurred to me on the very day of the events. I waited years for an acceptable answer from the officials and never got any.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that they've got better things to do than educate a bunch of people who'll probably never believe them anyway in the complexities of structural engineering.

Bottom line: The collapse times have been calculated, many times over, by many different people. So far, only Kenneth Kuttler has managed to get a number that doesn't agree reasonably well with the actual collapse times, and he has to violate the laws of physics to do it.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
So how does this gravity collapse work?

Is it something like this?

The top 30 floors fall into floor 80 smashing it and floor 81 into dust [etc, etc, etc,...]
Click to expand...

No, because there isn't enough energy to smash every floor into dust the moment the upper block hits it. But if you pretend it's like that, then you can go on to pretend the collapse should have taken a lot longer than it did, which is exactly what Kenneth Kuttler did. In fact, as we know, most of the concrete wasn't smashed into dust at all, none of the steel was, and at least some of the concrete pulverisation must have happened not during the collapse, but when it hit the ground; when you factor all that it, there was more than enough energy from gravity to do all the damage that was observed.

Dave
 
WHY TONS?
Click to expand...

Safe assumption on my part. It took tons to take down a 439' building. WTCs were over 1100'. (That's feet)

Impossible.
Even more impossible if you're saying it happened in both towers.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness reports from the lobby state the fireball blew out the elevator doors. The lobby is on the ground. Therefore.....

There were no massive fires in either tower.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being an idiot for the sake of doing so.

Didn't the government say that explosives were not considered in their investigations?
Click to expand...

Not sure to be honest with you - but if they did, it's probably because they have the common sense you so eloquently show a lack of.

Hey ergo- you bailing from this thread, pyroclastic boy?
 
000063 said:
Four, if you're going by floors alone. Implosionworld says 26 stories.
Click to expand...

I was going by feet (ish) It's not exactly 3x but close enough. 6x if you want to include the other tower.....

Also, weren't beams knocked out of the buildings into Manhattan by the initial impact? How come none of those had the explosives on them?
Click to expand...

Silly man. The beams that were strewn over Manhattan didn't have explosives on them on purpose, as they were the ones the aircraft was supposed to miss.

:jaw-dropp
 
ergo said:
:D

Um, so Noah, how does verinage work?
Click to expand...

...and here's where truthers trip over their own feet.

If it's possible for a small amount of explosives to collapse a high-rise, then it's also possible for a small amount of structural and fire damage to do the same.
 
NoahFence said:
Silly man. The beams that were strewn over Manhattan didn't have explosives on them on purpose, as they were the ones the aircraft was supposed to miss.

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

They had rockets attached to them, of course, since there's no way vertical kinetic energy can ever be transferred horizontally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom