Momentum Transfer in WTC

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid, I can get to this, but I'm going to wait and see if any of you brave souls can attempt answering my questions for a change. Stop avoiding guys, there is plenty I have raised. Answer up.

a.) So can you explain how Thermite can make a perfectly straight 45 degree cut like that?? I mean really explain it, or point me to someone who can.

b.) Can you explain how the 45 degree cut is typical of a demolition?

c.) Can you point me to any CD in the history of the business that used Thermite, so that (b.) is actually possible.

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

 

[WildCat]

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

So how many of those "patented devices" were found in the rubble? How large are those devices? Have they ever been manufactured? How would they be attached to the columns w/o anyone noticing? How were they brought into the building? Has Jones ever used said device to cut a column? If so, what was the result? How much thermite would be necessary for the job? How was it ignited?

Just a few of the questions that come to mind...

 

[WildCat]

BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

 

[apathoid]

Apathoid, I can get to this, but I'm going to wait and see if any of you brave souls can attempt answering my questions for a change. Stop avoiding guys, there is plenty I have raised. Answer up.

a - Yes, a patented device made for cutting steel with thermite. Jones.
b - Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall.
c - Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions, you are correct.

You've been given answers. That you cannot accept them is your problem, not ours.

a. I have looked but cannot find it. I know that Jones thinks Thermite can cut sideways(90 degrees), but not 45. Thats not even possible unless gravity is taken out of the picture.
b. Okay, but you said its typical - I want proof, not speculation and rationalizing.
c. Again, you need to prove that a single building in history was demo'ed with Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermite/Nano Thermite in order to say: Yes, 45 degree cuts insure that the column falls, horizontal cuts might just stall. - and - and that these types of cuts are typical in demolitions.

Get it?

 

[WildCat]

Even I, with NO engineering background, can answer this one. The top of the tower is not falling away from the right side. Once again, you are looking at a two-dimensional picture and imagining that it is giving you more information than it really is.

It did fall away - it fell towards the side w/ the plane damage first but once it did so it overwhelmed the structure below and the progressive collapse initiated. And the collapse damaged buildings for blocks around - hardly in its own footprint.

 

[David Wong]

BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

 

[gumboot]

Loss thinks the top of the south tower is not tipping over. This is a great example of the ridiculous lenths people will go to protect the world view. Denying the plainly obvious. Frightening. Anybody else agree with Loss?

I also have told you it is not tipping over. As video evidence shows, the top of the building ROTATED AS IT FELL.

-Andrew

 

[WildCat]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

Why? Because we can!! (maniacal laughter)

 

[apathoid]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

Thats very much like logic. CTers arent equipped with it, if they were - they wouldn't be CTists !

He needs pictures that show every piece of rubble from the WTC. Thats TS' brand of logic..

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Somebody again asked

BTW Truthseeker, have you calculated yet how much explosives would be needed to pulverize 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete?

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

 

[David Wong]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

Wait, are you saying it would take very little or it wouldn't? I can't figure out your meaning. If they're using "ill" logic go say it would take very little, are you saying it would take very much?

 

[WildCat]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

It has nothing to do w/ NIST. This is your claim - that the floors were pulverized not by impacting w/ the building and the ground but because of explosives.

So how much were used?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Or why you would use that much explosive when a much smaller amount could have cut down the supports and let gravity do its thing? Why put in enough to pulverize the concrete? That's an enormous amount of wasted energy.

asked and answered

 

[apathoid]

Somebody again asked

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse


Then global collapse ensued.

We've been through this already. Its YOUR contention that all the concrete was dun' blowed up. Tell us how much C4 it takes to do that.

 

[gumboot]

So I repeated that, according to the (ill) logic of NIST, it would require very little explosive. All that would be needed, according to NIST, would be enough to sever a majority of the columns on one floor. This would initiate local collapse

I believe NISt concluded, had the columns merely been severed, collapsed would not have occured at all.

You're just outright lying now.

-Andrew

 

[David Wong]

asked and answered

Irrelevant.

 

[apathoid]

asked and answered

I must've missed it....care to summarize?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!

 

[apathoid]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!

 

[WildCat]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time. You guys have two irreconcilable positions.

1) You claim that local collapse at the 98th floor leads to the destruction we observe.
2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

if (1) is true, then (2) is false. If (1) is true, then all that is needed is to break the vertical columns on floor 98, and gravity will do the rest.

if (1) is false, then you are a CT!

Are you really this thick? You claim that explosives pulverized 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete. Show how much explosives would be necessary.

We claim that the mass of the towers plus gravity is more than sufficient to account for the damage done. No explosives were used.