Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[slojoe]

The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air.

Sure they did.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The first thing I point out to people who ask me about it is the "resistance paradox."

So, basically, you lie to them?

The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air.

No, they didn't. The top portions reached the ground in about 12-16 seconds. Pieces falling through the air reached the ground in about 9-11 seconds. Those are different numbers.

Assuming a collapse, this would indicate the lower portions provided little more resistance to the tops than air would. Yet the top portions disintegrated while falling,This is an irresolvable paradox, material cannot simultaneously present high and low resistance.

Except that, if one looks at what actually happened, rather than at the vague handwaving fantasies of truthers, there isn't even a paradox to resolve. However, if there were, there's the other plank of fail in the truther argument to fall back on:

Controlled demolition on the other hand explain both phenomena.

No, they don't. Controlled demolitions are initiated by explosives, not propagated by explosives. You're talking about collapse propagation.

Now, you could argue that explosives are removing the structure below the falling block as it falls, and that this is how the structural resistance is removed. Apart from the fact that there's no conceivable reason to do so, and that it would require timing to a precision of milliseconds, that still wouldn't make the upper blocks fall at freefall. Because, as each part of the lower structure is released, it's initially stationary, and will then be moving more slowly than the upper block as the upper block hits it. The impact will slow down the upper block, and speed up the lower, so that the upper block falls slower on average than freefall. We can calculate how much this slows down the collapse, and it comes to about 12-13 seconds even if explosives remove all the structure.

In fact, if we work out the effect of the structural resistance, it's not all that great; it comes to no more than another second or so. So, in fact, the near-freefall fantasy is suggesting something that even explosives can't cause. In effect, it's an impossible explanation for a non-existent anomaly.

There are many aspects of the 9/11 WTC events which to me indicate controlled demolitions.

If you had any relevant knowledge, then they wouldn't indicate any such thing.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

The first thing I point out to people who ask me about it is the "resistance paradox." The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air.

There is your problem. They don't fall "about as fast as chunks which were falling through adjacent air."

Why don't you take out a stopwatch and actually TIME the collapses... they were MUCH slower.

In fact you can see the parts which broke off falling at freefall and hitting the ground MUCH faster.

Assuming a collapse, this would indicate the lower portions provided little more resistance to the tops than air would. Yet the top portions disintegrated while falling,This is an irresolvable paradox, material cannot simultaneously present high and low resistance. Controlled demolition on the other hand explain both phenomena. There are many aspects of the 9/11 WTC events which to me indicate controlled demolitions.

Again you use word salad. Nothing "disintegrated." Have you managed to LOOK IT UP yet?
didn't think so.

 

[triforcharity]

The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air.

Don't lie like that.

I've even taken the liberty of drawing arrows and circles to explain how this is absolutely false.

 

[beachnut]

... The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air....

As seen above, you are wrong. This is a big error, like all your claims. Did you mean to make a major mistake? Are you doing a parady of 911 truth?

... There are many aspects of the 9/11 WTC events which to me indicate controlled demolitions.

The only thing about the WTC collapse that is like CD, the gravity part. Where did 911 truth get their engineering degrees from? Did they leave out the class on physics and gravity, and photo interpretation.

You should study this stuff before you push the lies of 911 truth.

 

[ergo]

Walkyrie, one thing you'll find here is that every post you make will receive something in the range of 12 to 15 replies from different bedunkers. It takes them that many to actually address a point, and sometimes they don't even manage to do that. It's a little like being Gulliver. Just so you know. Try to find the most rational one (it can be hard) and respond to that. Ignore the others.

 

[A W Smith]

The first thing I point out to people who ask me about it is the "resistance paradox." The WTC towers' top portions fell through the steel and concrete of the lower portions about as fast as chunks and pieces from them were falling through the adjacent air. Assuming a collapse, this would indicate the lower portions provided little more resistance to the tops than air would. Yet the top portions disintegrated while falling,This is an irresolvable paradox, material cannot simultaneously present high and low resistance. Controlled demolition on the other hand explain both phenomena. There are many aspects of the 9/11 WTC events which to me indicate controlled demolitions.

Wrong

 

[ladmo]

Great pictures... absolutely fantastic detail.

Q: Did the entire top portion fall outside the footprint of the Tower?

 

[Animal]

Great pictures... absolutely fantastic detail.

Q: Did the entire top portion fall outside the footprint of the Tower?

Of course not, Why would one even ask such a silly question?

 

[beachnut]

Walkyrie, one thing you'll find ...

You give him nonsense when he needs help. He needs help, he can't get the simples stuff correct. You could tell him he was wrong if you understood engineering, physics, or a photo. The core standing bedunked the core-led nonsense. Got a paper to go with your single integrated story of 911? Why did you fail to explain why he was wrong? He needs help, you offer failed insults. He needs help, not faulty claims. You need to work on your math too.

 

[ozeco41]

Great pictures... absolutely fantastic detail.

Q: Did the entire top portion fall outside the footprint of the Tower?

ladmo the brief answer is "No" and it could help if you were aware of the mechanics of the collapse.

A lot has been published. Let me give as brief an overview as I can and not eliminating CD possibilities at this stage. I will make quite a few simplifications in the interest of brevity - none of the simplifications are intended to bias the explanation either way.

I an addressing the collapse of the twin towers, not WTC 7 at this stage. For purposes of a simple explanation both fell to the same mechanism - the differences between WTC1 and WTC2 are not important to a broad understanding.

I find it convenient to consider the collapse in several distinct stages. Four will do for this explanation:

1) Initial impact of the aircraft caused some damage following which there was a period when fires burned without fire-fighting and more damage was caused until;
2) The damage became too much and the "impact and fire zone" could no longer support the "top block" which started to fall. This is one point where CD could have been used to contribute to the collapse. For reasons of logic which should be self evident if CD was used it had to be used here whether or not it was used elsewhere in the collapse.
3) Once the top block started to fall it was unstoppable and the rapid "global collapse" down to near ground level occurred. This is the second stage where truthers have suggested CD was used;
4) End of collapse and later events.

Now the answer to your question "Q: Did the entire top portion fall outside the footprint of the Tower?" is "No!"

The falling of the top portion is what I described as stage 3.

This is how it happened. As it starts to fall the top block is still a more or less intact structure comprising (a) core; (b) floors of the open office space; (c) the columns of the outer perimeter walls; PLUS (d) the roof structure including what was called the hat truss - a strong girder setup which tied the outer walls to the core at the rooftop level.

As it started to fall the entire top block with a couple of minor exceptions fell inside the perimeter outer wall columns of the lower tower. At that stage every column had failed in the impact zone (or was one of a few still failing) and the bottom end of the top bit was bypassing the top end of the bottom bit. No end for end contact between the column ends.

So in effect the top block fell inside the outer tube of the lower tower and that outer tube acted as a guide to constrain the top block into falling vertically.

That, so far, broadly answers your question. The "minor exceptions" include that in a couple or so instances the outer columns of the top block did not fall outside the lower tower but were sheared off when they tried to fall outside whilst the attached floors were still inside the tower.

As it continues to fall the top block fell apart to become a collection of debris rather than a structural entity. Details of that not relevant here either.

So - with a lot of questions left hanging - that is the brief answer and the start of an explanation to your question "Q: Did the entire top portion fall outside the footprint of the Tower?"

No it didn't. Most of it (and, for purposes of this simple explanation, all of it) fell inside the outer perimeter tube of columns. The exceptions being some outer wall columns which fell outside the footprint plus some minor bits of debris and a lot of dust which cannot be identified as to source.

 

[ladmo]

Thanks ozeco41... my aim was not to sound sophomoric but that is exactly how it came out. This coupled with Mr. Gregory Urich's chart along with Mr. Shagster's and Mr. Newton Bits comments... helps me move forward. thx

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks ozeco41... my aim was not to sound sophomoric but that is exactly how it came out. This coupled with Mr. Gregory Urich's chart along with Mr. Shagster's and Mr. Newton Bits comments... helps me move forward. thx

No problem.

I left a lot out - just setting the scene really.

....if you have any part you want to follow up just ask.

 

[dafydd]

There are many aspects of the 9/11 WTC events which to me indicate controlled demolitions.

What training do you have and what qualifications do you have that enables you to make that judgment? It didn't look right will not do if you know (as I suspect) nothing about engineering and physics.

 

[dafydd]

You give him nonsense when he needs help. He needs help, he can't get the simples stuff correct. You could tell him he was wrong if you understood engineering, physics, or a photo. The core standing bedunked the core-led nonsense. Got a paper to go with your single integrated story of 911? Why did you fail to explain why he was wrong? He needs help, you offer failed insults. He needs help, not faulty claims. You need to work on your math too.

What math?

 

[ergo]

Um, ozeco, maybe take those fairy tales elsewhere, hmm? Thanks.

This thread is about core-led collapse and explosive demolition.

 

[ozeco41]

Um, ozeco, maybe take those fairy tales elsewhere, hmm? Thanks.

This thread is about core-led collapse and explosive demolition.

Which is why I left two of the three possible places where CD can be inserted into the collapse. So spot on topic.

The one I left out as you probably astutely noticed was the one that deals with..............nah - I won't spoil your fun - I'll let you fill in the missing one

 

[ergo]

Nah, it's just a regurgitation of Bazant with some token CD thrown in just enough to not get you kicked out.

And then you make this claim, which is neither true nor logical. I know you're just trying to lure Major Tom back, but this is my thread, dammit. Why would you need to put CD in the one area where we might be able to imagine some structural failure?

For reasons of logic which should be self evident if CD was used it had to be used here whether or not it was used elsewhere in the collapse.

 

[ergo]

Why would you need to put CD in the one area where we might be able to imagine some structural failure?

Might it be because you suspect that the 85% remaining intact columns might indeed not have given way like suddenly wet noodles, thus allowing for a free fall impact of the upper block?? If so, maybe we're making progress.

 

[ozeco41]

Nah, it's just a regurgitation of Bazant with some token CD thrown in just enough to not get you kicked out. ...

ackcherly I worked it out for myself before I even heard of Bazant.

...And then you make this claim, which is neither true nor logical. I know you're just trying to lure Major Tom back, but this is my thread, dammit. Why would you need to put CD in the one area where we might be able to imagine some structural failure?

Having you condescend to deny it must mean I'm close to the mark.

And the logic is quite simple - not that I need to explain it for you. BUT for all those not so fast lurkers - If you don't need CD to start the collapse why do you need it at all?