Momentum Transfer in WTC

[David Wong]

Okay, so he agrees that it would be impossible to put enough explosives in the towers to pulverize 99% of the concrete.

He disagrees that a mere collapse could have caused the damage he observes.

So... what does that leave us? Some kind of Quantum particle reversal device? A subsonic wave plasma atomizer? Nanobots?

 

[apathoid]

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.

Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!!

 

[David Wong]

Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!!

But only 99% of it was pulverized.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. 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 having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.

 

[Dog Town]

So... what does that leave us? Some kind of Quantum particle reversal device? A subsonic wave plasma atomizer? Nanobots?

Sshhh!

 

[David Wong]

Oh, I see your confusion. We differ in what we "observe." We don't agree that 99% pulverization of the concrete is observed... or even possible by any means ever invented by man.

If I've misrepresented the view here, please correct me.

 

[gumboot]

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!

Actually I believe we're talking local collapse at the 94th to 98th floors (for the North Tower).

The reason large numbers of explosive would be required is because severed columns did not cause collapse - the floor sagging pulled the entire exterior wall inwards and the walls failed.

Explosive do not cause floors to sag and pull exterior walls inwards, thus would need to cause collapse a very different way.

-Andrew

 

[apathoid]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. 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 having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.

This is really getting silly. Even if it was a CD, the explosives would be used on columns, not floor slabs. Any 99% pulverization would be mostly from gravity. If you clicked the Landmark Tower implosion video I linked for you (twice) - you'd see that.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

 

[R.Mackey]

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

What, you're asking for my help now? Give me a break. Make your case yourself. Make it good, too, or I'll be there to tear it down.

 

[WildCat]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

Finally we're getting somewhere!

But you are claiming that the concrete pulverized not because of impacts w/ the building and ground, but because of explosives. And these explosives turned the concrete to powder before they impacted anything.

Now all that is missing is for you to calculate the amount of explosives needed.

 

[David Wong]

I'll spell this out. Pay attention. Last time (really). Read carefully and think. 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 having the vertical columns fail at one floor, whether by fires, impact damage, explosive, cutting torches, rust, machine guns, a wrecking ball, thermite, hurricane, magic, or anything else, will result in a global collapse and the destruction of the tower that we all observed. Is that clear?

if (1) is false, then you are a CT! I say (1) is false. So does Gordon Ross.

I think you've just misread the thread.

1. You contend that 99% of the concrete was turned to powder. You say only explosives could have done this.

2. We contend that nowhere near 99% of the concrete was turned into powder, that the materials behaved pretty much as the experts expected from a collapse due to the kind of failure caused by, say, planes hitting them, and that it would take an impossible amount of explosives to cause what you say happened above.

That's all. Sorry you misunderstood.

 

[Dog Town]

All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

You would know this in advance, how?

 

[David Wong]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

 

[apathoid]

Guys, you need to understand what NIST is saying. It doesn't matter whether is was the 98th floor or floors 94-98. NIST says that a local collapse occured. There was no damage below the impact and fires. All of that structure was in perfect shape. They say that a local collapse causes the upper part to fall down, and that the dynamic load is too much for the structure below, so it fails, and this progresses all the way down.

Thus, if a local failure brought on by impact damage and fires will cause this to occur, then so would local failure brought about by any other means, including explosives.

Therefore, if you believe that local failure leads to global failure and the observed pulverization (whatever percentage), then it would not take a lot of explosives to bring about these observations. All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

How is this logic escaping you guys? Mackey, you around? I know you can follow this

Either you are deliberately being obtuse, knowing your whole premise for this thread is indefensible, or you aren't very bright. Which is it?

In short, your contention is this:

100 micron particles/99% pulverization=CD=explosives.

We've asked you how much explosives is required to account for 99% pulverization of concrete.

You've thrown out a fallacy thats so stupid it doesnt even have a name - basically arguing from the opposing POV and not your own.

 

[Dog Town]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

Nope. Think of it as whack a mole. They just keep coming. Great work by the way!

 

[CurtC]

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.

For #1, I think you're referring to NIST, and how they studied the collapse initiation, but didn't study the collapse. That's because once the top floors of the building began falling down, there is no way that they could stop. You have a building segment 14 floors high crashing down on one floor (the one below the failure point). Then you have 15 floors worth of building crashing down on the next floor down. Even though some of that material would be ejected to the side, and some of the materials were pulverized into dust, there still is way more than enough to gain mass, and therefore gain destructive potential, in the avalanche that's headed downwards. Do you seriously expect that, say at floor 67, with 43 floors worth of building coming down at high speed, that the single floor 67 is supposed to stop that? And if not 67, then which? The answer is that no single floors could stop it, therefore none did.

About your #2 assertion, we are saying that gravity alone is a much much much larger energy source than any reasonable amount of explosives. You're claiming that gravity wasn't enough to cause the pulverization that happened? Some nuts have said that the gravitational potential energy is too small by a factor of 10 to do the job. The trouble is, the calculations are fairly easy to do to show that nine times as much energy as the buildings' GPE would require around a million pounds of C4! Do you think that a million pounds of C4 was planted in each tower?

 

[Foolmewunz]

So these threads don't really end, do they?

It depends, .....

Category A. Sometimes a lightweight will sTROLL over from the LC boards, get his/her butt handed back with serious bite marks and disappear.

Category B. Then you get the seriously impaired, like Christophera. He ain't going no where! He wouldn't know if he was proved wrong or proved right. He's just the Energizer Bunny.

Category C. And then, of course, there are the morally impaired - Killtown being the best example, who will keep coming back after dashing home to LC for a little R&R and snappy bon mots. These are the folk heroes of the Nutbar movement. "Wow, KT just really trashed that Gravy guy, again."

Category D. Seagull Posters (Childlike Empress, say no more.) They zoom in, make a whole lot of noise, drop loads of crap all over the place, then zoom out again.

What I think happens is that the Loosers sit around in their tin hats in the NWO/Illuminati-proof bunker and discuss recent arrivals to LC and decide who to send out as their latest stalking-horse-cum-guineau-pig. "Whoa, dude, this Trootseeker, like he knows how to read and write and like, uh, what you call it?... Punktuate? He even sounds sinetific with all that stuff about observing! I mean, wow,.. I can't follow him half the time but I'll bet he he can handle those eggheads over at JREF."

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2) you claim that some impossible-to-plant amount of explosives would be needed to lead to the destruction we observe.

WRONG!

We claim that a plane load of jet fuel delivered at 500 miles per hour is necessary to start the fires wich destroyed the WTC towers.

YOU claim that an impossible-to-plant amount of explosives brought the towers down.

 

[gumboot]

All that would be needed is enough explosives to imitate the damage done by the jet impacts and fires.

Yup. Which would be a butt-load of explosives.

(By the way, if eyewitness testimonies are to be believed the floors below impact were not all "perfectly intact")

-Andrew