Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Architect]

Nobody can be expert on everything. And to examine the whole 9/11 issue, several things, and in separate areas of expertise have to be included. Otherwise it will be like the blind men examining an elephant and one of them says that the elephant is like a snake (feeling the trunk) while the next man says that the elephant is like a tree (touching on of the legs).

That's why the design or, as the case may be, analysis of a building such as WTC requires a multi-disciplinary team. However that's not the point we're discussing, is it?

What we're covering is your stated reluctance to consider technical issues in any depth. So, for example, you state blithely that the building is designed with a FoS of between 3 and 10 and hence collapse is impossible but - when pushed - can't acutally cite a valid source or provide a calculation for same.

If I may provide a Biblican analogy, your house does rather appear to be built on sad. And possibly made out of papier mache to boot.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And when it sits down, both of them think it was a controlled demolition.

Dave

Yep, amazing how they can believe that. My theory doesn't need any demolition charges (except the shape charges for the plane impact holes). Of course, I'm holding on to a speculative theory at the moment, BUT I have the luxury of being able to change my option directly. Something those who cling to the official story tend to be reluctant to do. Dogma? Rigid belief in authorities always knowing things best, or even telling the truth?

 

[Architect]

Modest? I was talking about the surface area they covered. How could they have found a large and fairly intact piece of the fuselage with airplane windows on it, when the 47 core columns covered such a large surface area together? Maybe it's theoretically possible that the piece found outside the building got sliced off before severely impacting anything further and then was thrown out of the building, but maybe not. That would perhaps be tricky to determine, yet it seems unlikely to me that something like that could have happened.

Anders, that's an argument from incredulity rather than any form of detailed analysis or discussion.

 

[Architect]

Dogma? Rigid belief in authorities always knowing things best, or even telling the truth?

Professional qualifications in the design of structures? Track record of project delivery? Understanding of the issues involved?

 

[leftysergeant]

Nobody can be expert on everything. And to examine the whole 9/11 issue, several things, and in separate areas of expertise have to be included.

That's the problem I have with twoofers. Jones, DRG name any of them, look at things from the perspective of their expertise alone and then attract a following who refuse to look at any other possibility.

Thus the idiotic thermite theories.

None of the major players have any experience outside their own fields and many are apparently not well-enough versed in their own fields.

All of them are less clever than they think themselves.

So, when I come to the discussion and point out that the thermite is actually paint chips, all the twoofers get their panties in a bunch and demonstrate how poorly they have grasped the situation.



If the consequences for letting these morons get away with it were not so ghastly, I might find it amussing.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's the problem I have with twoofers. Jones, DRG name any of them, look at things from the perspective of their expertise alone and then attract a following who refuse to look at any other possibility.

Thus the idiotic thermite theories.

None of the major players have any experience outside their own fields and many are apparently not well-enough versed in their own fields.

All of them are less clever than they think themselves.

So, when I come to the discussion and point out that the thermite is actually paint chips, all the twoofers get their panties in a bunch and demonstrate how poorly they have grasped the situation.



If the consequences for letting these morons get away with it were not so ghastly, I might find it amussing.

Ok, even 'truthers' often have a problem with dogma I agree (I myself am free from dogma of course. Of course! ). Often they are somewhat of being the same sheeple, just with a different shepherd.

 

[Jackanory]

My theory doesn't need any demolition charges (except the shape charges for the plane impact holes). Of course, I'm holding on to a speculative theory at the moment,

Cool. lol. Please explain these 'shape charges' to me.

I had a young officer straight from training attached to me many years ago who thought that he could 'shape' explosives into our units palm tree insignia/emblem and have a trophy to pin to his wall. lol. He diligently roled out the C4 (as your grandmother does with pastry). He then placed this onto a sheet of steel. He carefully cut out the 'shape' of a palm tree. We muffled our laughs as we watched. Encouraging him, mockingly. He ran out some don 10, attached a det and we walked to the safety zone. He attached the shrike - pressed the button and boom. We all walked back towards the dems area.

Did we find a palm tree cut out of the steel? Or did we find a piece of steel plate buckled and twisted out of shape? Or did we find any steel at all? lol.

'shaped charges' dont mean what you think they mean. lol. Yet another misconception picked up by the ever gullible and clueless truthers. But hey ho, they know best. lol.

That young gullible officer turned out to be one of the best ATO's we had. He was killed in Afganistan whilst defusing an IED. The experts make mistakes too. Yet they know what can and cant be done with explosives. They know what to expect. They know what to see. They know what is left. Try speaking to one. Tell them what you sprout here. Then step back and listen to them roar with laughter at your speculations and ignorance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course, I'm holding on to a speculative theory at the moment, BUT I have the luxury of being able to change my option directly. Something those who cling to the official story tend to be reluctant to do. Dogma? Rigid belief in authorities always knowing things best, or even telling the truth?

Or perhaps just frustration at the antics of truthers, who tend to say one of two things: (1) The official story has changed, so that proves it was a mistaken fabrication all along and therefore we were always right, or (2) the official story has never changed, so clearly it's a rigidly-enforced orthodoxy based on no scientific analysis whatsoever. When confronted by a god-of-the-gaps argument, in which any uncertainty in a narrative, no matter how minor, is falsely assumed to be a complete refutation of that narrative, it's an understandable response to be over-dogmatic. In fact, though, there is a continuum of mechanisms by which all three towers could have fallen as a result of no more than damage due to impact and subsequent fire, and there is ample room for re-evaluation of the fine details of the mechanism while still noting that the physical, testimonial and documentary evidence effectively rules out the possibility of any other causes.

Dave

 

[Anders Lindman]

Cool. lol. Please explain these 'shape charges' to me.

I had a young officer straight from training attached to me many years ago who thought that he could 'shape' explosives into our units palm tree insignia/emblem and have a trophy to pin to his wall. lol. He diligently roled out the C4 (as your grandmother does with pastry). He then placed this onto a sheet of steel. He carefully cut out the 'shape' of a palm tree. We muffled our laughs as we watched. Encouraging him, mockingly. He ran out some don 10, attached a det and we walked to the safety zone. He attached the shrike - pressed the button and boom. We all walked back towards the dems area.

Did we find a palm tree cut out of the steel? Or did we find a piece of steel plate buckled and twisted out of shape? Or did we find any steel at all? lol.

'shaped charges' dont mean what you think they mean. lol. Yet another misconception picked up by the ever gullible and clueless truthers. But hey ho, they know best. lol.

That young gullible officer turned out to be one of the best ATO's we had. He was killed in Afganistan whilst defusing an IED. The experts make mistakes too. Yet they know what can and cant be done with explosives. They know what to expect. They know what to see. They know what is left. Try speaking to one. Tell them what you sprout here. Then step back and listen to them roar with laughter at your speculations and ignorance.

The bending inwards could have been done using a small amount of ordinary explosives, like:

When the explosives are triggered the upper part breaks off and flies out to the left (indicating the outside of the building) and the lower part bends inwards to the right (representing the inside of the building).

Shape charges means, if I remember correctly, that the explosion is focused in a certain direction. So they would have to use those for cutting the exterior columns neatly in many places in order to produce the 'cookie cutter' silhouettes of an airliner in the facade of each tower.

The main difficulty would have been to hide those explosives from the people working on those floors on 9/11, but not impossible I guess.

 

[Anders Lindman]

In fact, though, there is a continuum of mechanisms by which all three towers could have fallen as a result of no more than damage due to impact and subsequent fire

I doubt that. Office fire could not have weakened the core columns to have pancaked like they did. Something more than sloppy design of the steel and concrete infrastructure is needed to explain the pancaking I think.

From: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

 

[Dave Rogers]

I doubt that. Office fire could not have weakened the core columns to have pancaked like they did. Something more than sloppy design of the steel and concrete infrastructure is needed to explain the pancaking I think.

That's called the argument from incredulity. The calculations show otherwise.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

The bending inwards could have been done using a small amount of ordinary explosives, like:

[qimg]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8371/sh2u.gif[/qimg]

When the explosives are triggered the upper part breaks off and flies out to the left (indicating the outside of the building) and the lower part bends inwards to the right (representing the inside of the building).

[qimg]http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3033/id2x.gif[/qimg]

Shape charges means, if I remember correctly, that the explosion is focused in a certain direction.

We are still dealing with a Newtonian universe here. (Well, we skeptics are.) You still get a back-blast from a shaped charge payload.

So they would have to use those for cutting the exterior columns neatly in many places in order to produce the 'cookie cutter' silhouettes of an airliner in the facade of each tower.

Not feasible.



The main difficulty would have been to hide those explosives from the people working on those floors on 9/11,

 

[Sabretooth]

Re-search is not my cup of tea.

No ****?

Especially not when the information is so confused.

Not if you actually read a website outside of troofer-ville and utube.

Take interior box columns for instance. Seems to me to be some kind of hoax term, conspiracy theory bait. Very little information on the Web about it, and that which I found didn't make it much clearer. Who comes up with crap like that?

Not if you actually read a website outside of troofer-ville and utube.

I don't believe you. I don't believe that you really are trying to convince anyone that your a truther. Your posts are full of nothing but the usual tripe, but the fact that you admit you have no intention of researching anything to support your delusions says to me that your just saying them for S&G's. Your a troll and you have no intention of having a meaningful dicussion here. Stop wasting my innernetz.

 

[Jackanory]

The bending inwards could have been done using a small amount of ordinary explosives, like:

[qimg]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8371/sh2u.gif[/qimg]

When the explosives are triggered the upper part breaks off and flies out to the left (indicating the outside of the building) and the lower part bends inwards to the right (representing the inside of the building).

[qimg]http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3033/id2x.gif[/qimg]

Shape charges means, if I remember correctly, that the explosion is focused in a certain direction. So they would have to use those for cutting the exterior columns neatly in many places in order to produce the 'cookie cutter' silhouettes of an airliner in the facade of each tower.

The main difficulty would have been to hide those explosives from the people working on those floors on 9/11, but not impossible I guess.

lol. Only in the movies or in the delusions of the truther can such far fetched senarios exist. Only in the movies and in your delusions can such precise 'bending and cutting' be done with explosives to create something as specific as the 'shape' of an aircraft. lol. Not forgetting that if such was remotely possible, then we are into the how, when and who CT etc etc - which i am sure you cant or wont answer rationaly except sprouting the 'super secret techniques and technology that only the gubmint and military are aware of', yada yada yada! Cool stuff.....for a sci fi kid. Much easier to speculate on the unknowns of 'ifs' and 'buts' rather than the rational reality. Hey ho, you know best. lol. Is that what you resort too......'anything is possible'?? Cool. Let me know when!!!

 

[Architect]

I doubt that. Office fire could not have weakened the core columns to have pancaked like they did. Something more than sloppy design of the steel and concrete infrastructure is needed to explain the pancaking I think.

Anders, can you answer some questions for me please?

1. Do you accept that normal fire loadings are sufficient to cause weakening and failure in unprotected structural steelwork?

2. How do you account for the weakening effect of the damage to the steelwork arising from the aircrat impact? Likewise do you accept that the aircraft impact and explosions will have compromised the integrity of any structural fire protection?

3. To what extent to you believe that this is dependent upon your previous guesstimate of safety factors within the structure? So, for example, do you wish to revise your position now you know that there wasn't (say) a FoS of 5?

 

[Sabretooth]

Nobody can be expert on everything. And to examine the whole 9/11 issue, several things, and in separate areas of expertise have to be included. Otherwise it will be like the blind men examining an elephant and one of them says that the elephant is like a snake (feeling the trunk) while the next man says that the elephant is like a tree (touching on of the legs).

Your right, no one is an expert in everything. But you have an entire forum here of those who are borderline experts in the fields you are trying to discount just because you feel like it.

I am a firefighter and I have held an Airframe & Powerplant license to work on aircraft...

Tri is also a firefighter...

Architect is, well, an architect...

This is not even scratching the surface of the qualifications here. You come in here and question everything, we give you answers, and then you complete ignore and/or discount them because it doesn't fit into your little world. And the kicker is that you have no intention to find out if we are right or wrong.

There is a plethora of evidence here that you are nothing but a troll. Either engage in a real discussion and do the research or STFU and GTFO.

 

[Architect]

Architect is, well, an architect...

..who's been part of the team working on tall buildings projects.




ETA: Unlike Richard Gage, who appears to have zero expertise in this specialist field.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yep, amazing how they can believe that. My theory doesn't need any demolition charges (except the shape charges for the plane impact holes). Of course, I'm holding on to a speculative theory at the moment, BUT I have the luxury of being able to change my option directly. Something those who cling to the official story tend to be reluctant to do. Dogma? Rigid belief in authorities always knowing things best, or even telling the truth?

Unless you find valid information that shows demo charges that can suck inward, your stupid theory has no legs...

 

[Sabretooth]

The bending inwards could have been done using a small amount of ordinary explosives, like:

...or from a 767 flying into the building at 500 mph...

 

[Jackanory]

..who's been part of the team working on tall buildings projects.




ETA: Unlike Richard Gage.

uhhhhh.........your skills and experience fail in comparison with an internet warrior searching for the truth. Your years of learned graft and hands on experience means didly sqwot to the tin foil brigade of hearsayers, failed grade 9ers and pot smoking jobless pions who watch too much TV fakery........and believe it. Nahh........those years at college and university, coulped with those years of long hours and dirty hands have nothing on these warriors of truth who do nothing but bleat on forums for 9 years. Cool stuff this internet warrior business.........no need for real friends or contact withy the real world, just a key board, an imagination and plenty of time. Eternal stupidity.............the internet is a wonderful thing, isnt it?