Yes, by all means. Let's drop the pretense of concern and weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies. Let's drop the mask and kick off the third stage of moral panics and witch hunts where wild charges are hurled at any and all. Let's have our investigation be driven by hostility and vengeance.
That won't reflect badly on this community at all. Let's burn some witches. Or even better, let's burn some people who question how judgement about who is a witch.
You're a goofball truther who follows George Webb, a very thirsty man who chases crazy tail.
Your challenge is incredibly stupid. And yet you think it's ckever. OK. If you didn't beat your wife on the nights we said you did, you can show us you're sincere by telling us the nights you did beat your wife.
I didn't think 9/11 was an inside job until a couple of months ago. I was just like you. Then I woke up.
"who follows George Webb"
That's a strange way of saying "I can't dismiss any of the evidence George Webb found."
"telling us the nights you did beat your wife"
Epic Straw Man. This isn't 2 people on the Interwebs trying to get their minds around the largest scandal in American History. It's a deplorable shit lord trying to destroy the very foundations of our Republic. What is it with you people. You always accuse your opponents of the crimes YOU'RE committing.
"work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does."
That's what I thought too. For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering and could dismiss anyone who challenged the official story.
The problem is I'm not a structural engineer. I'm actually a European History major. I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed. But ignore my opinion on steal framed sky scrapers if you please.
For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering
That's really wierd. However, you don't need any of that for my question. Given a layman's understanding of the preparations needed to make a building collapse. How could that be done at the wtc?
I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed
Yeah. I believe you claimed it was because of a DeSade book that was unknown until the 1900s
Of course it didn't cause the collapse of the French Monarchy. You'd have to have been exceedingly naive to have believed that. It was merely a great example of the zeitgeist of 18th century France.
Now to answer your original question: "How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?"
Guess who ran the company who was in charge of security at the WTC?
So Marvin Bush was in charge of security and they pre-planted demolition charges and nanothermite 2 years before 9/11.
This doesn't really tell me anything. Let's see if we can get more specific
By demolition charge, I assume you mean a shaped charge to shear the beams and not just something to ignite the nanothermite?
Given the way the building fell, do you feel they had to place charges/nanothermite on every floor below where the collapse began?
Kudos on the two years timeline, because wiring the WTC for demolition would have been an absolutely massive job. It brings up more questions though.
Since a Bush Brother was in involved and work (let alone planning) began in 1999, how did they know George W. would be president in 2001? How could they be sure? The election was one of the closest of all time. Marvin Bush was not the head of the company, he was a member of the Board of Directors which is far, far less involved in a company and also he stopped working at that company a year before 9/11.
Also the folks in charge of security were not an off site group. For the bulk of the time you mention the head of WTC security worked for the Port Authority and worked on site. The Port Authority has their own police force and they guarded key areas of the WTC. Both the current and the previous heads of the WTC security died in the attack. So for this security company to come in and wire up both buildings, all their would have to go unnoticed by the security personnel on site.
"how did they know George W. would be president in 2001?"
I think I figured out what's fueling your disbelief. You're thinking George W. needed to be president for a controlled demolition to go unnoticed. And that's because you think Al Gore would surely have done a more thorough investigation.
And there's the problem. You're thinking Al Gore couldn't have been in on it. That's just an assumption though. What if Al Gore isn't who you think he is?
We won't know the details until Trump starts the painful process of breaking the bad news about 9/11 to the American people. But in the meantime everything points to The Deep State a.k.a. The Shadow Government as the one pulling the strings down in DC.
Here's the one time head of the Deep State getting way too cozy with the future Governor of Arkansas just a few years before a robust cocaine smuggling operation opened shop at Mena Airport in, ding ding ding, Arkansas:
What a colossal shifting of the goalposts. You're the one who brought up M. Bush. You made an assertion without evidence that charges and nanothermite were planted. When I ask for general details, you run away into your safe space of Deep State string pulling nonsense. Nothing that happened in Arkasanas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed.
Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor by floor starting tight under the plane impacts and proceeding to the ground?
By your theory would this mean each floor was rigged for demolition?
Suggesting Al Gore was in on it too isn't shifting the goal posts. It was merely addressing your skepticism the 9/11 conspiracy could have been pulled off without George W. winning the election in 2000.
"Nothing that happened in Arkansas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed"
Correct. The Deep State importing cocaine to pad their black budget is evidence of corruption going across party lines and all the way to the top. Hence it didn't matter who won the election.
"Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor"
Yes. But I suspect you're going to say what caused the collapse of each floor was due to the force of the floor above it collapsing and not due to demolition charges. Correct?
Of course that's what you believe. The problem is that floor by floor collapse theory has been thoroughly debunked by structural engineers. The proof is the speed of the collapse, it's almost free fall speed with no pauses as each floor failed.
For steel to fail it has to be loaded first. The potential energy of the steel above it must be converted to kinetic energy first. The conversion shows up a deformation of the steel itself. Think of a car driving into a wall at full speed. The car is stopped by the deformation of the steel within it.
On 9/11 that would have appeared as subtle stops and starts of the collapse as the steel is loaded up, fails and then continues again with the floor below it.
The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed. This is easily determined in photos of the collapse, where the debris ejected from the building is falling at freefall speed and is passing past intact floors while the collapse is perhaps 20 stories above the falling debris. This would be about 250 feet between the debris and the collapse.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_we.jpg
Your understanding of starts and stops is mistaken and your car analogy fails for this reason. If momentum is great enough there would be no pause or stop whatsoever. If I punch my hand through a sheet of paper, the paper would slow my momentum by a minute amount but my hand would still go right through it. The principle of physics applies to my fist through paper, a knife through butter, or a massive debris pile through an intact building. The car is not stopped by the deformation of steel. The car is stopped because its momentum is not great enough to continue. Unless the deformation causes mechanical failure, you can keep driving a car with a smashed bumper/hood. This is proven at every demolition derby. Here's a better example. A car speeding towards a gate locked with a steel chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqsTksbgbs In this case the car has enough momentum that it simply smashes through the gate doors and keeps going.
There would "not be subtle starts and stops" at all. The car does not stop crashing through the gate, nor does the paper stop my hand. The reason is the resistance provided by the chained gate or by the paper never brings my velocity to zero. It's slows my momentum for a brief time of only miliseconds, and thus is imperceptible to the human eye.
Here's an example of how quickly structural failure can occur. In this case, they first observe a weakening of the structure and then instant failure. No pauses.
If you want to understand why the collapse kept going once it happened, you need to understand the difference between dynamic and static forces. Put a bowling on a glass table and it will hold it fine. But drop it from 12 feet and the bowling ball will smash through the glass. It's simply not strong enough to resistance the dynamic force. It would something like this
There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition. I don't know why you think that both demolition charges and nanothermite were used. In fact the whole theory of thermite or nanothermite was developed by the Truthers when the idea of a regular controlled demolition fell apart. And the controlled demolition theory fell apart for the following reasons.
The Prep
There would be no way to hide the prep of the building. Before a building is demolished, a lot of work is done to
A. Get the explosives on the structural steel. You need to remove the office walls, drywall, concrete, etc and put the explosives on the steel or else they won't cut the steel. Otherwise the explosive forces would follow the path of least resistance and the steel remains intact. The truck bomb that went off in the basement of the WTC was much, much larger than a demolition charge, but it did not cut the steel of the columns in the basement. This is dirty, noisy dusty work. Entire non loadbearing walls are removed. Ideally you want to get to the skeleton of the building. Having occupired offices with intact walls would require more explosives. In the WTC there would be enormous amount work to do. Each floor was about 2/3 of a football field.
B. You also need to weaken the steel. In a controlled demolition columns are usually precut and the charges are put right into this cut. Without doing this, you would need much more powerful and thus "much louder" explosives.
All this work would be loud, create massive amounts of hard to clean up dust and could not happen in an occupied office building without detection.
The Noise
The collapse sounded nothing like a controlled demolition where very loud sharp explosions can be heard for blocks. The collapse sounded like a subway train. The WTC would have been the largest demolition ever done by leaps and bounds A ton of explosions would be needed. Not a couple hear and there. The core columns on the lower levels would be the thickest steel ever in a demolition.* You would need massive charges for these. You can not make these explosions quieter, because if you did, they wouldn't be strong enough to cut the steel. There would a lot of audio evidence on every video of the towers. Windows of the lower floors would be shattered. Windows across the street would probably be shattered.
The Collapse
The collapse started at the same floor the fire was on. Not below. There's no way to have floor wired for demolition and then have it on fire for a hour at 1000 degrees F or more and still have the wires and detonators still able to work simultaneously all over the floor. How would they stay attached to the columns, How would the detonator wires or the RDX explosive or the thermite survive this massive heat? Why would they explode earlier? and non simultaneously. Furthermore, if thermite was used, you would be able to see flares of light even in sunlight.
The Aftermath
No steel was ever recovered showing termite damage, which produces a very recognizable slag. No columns were ever recovered that showed evidence of a linear shape charge used in demolition. A shape charge used an high explosive to melt a copper disk. This melted copper is moving at a tremendous velocity and acts like a knife through steel. (Insurgents in Iraq used shape charges in IEDs to take out armored vehicles.) It leaves a distinctive type cut and copper residue.
No precut columns were found. The Structural Engineers Association of NY had people examining the steel. They would have recognized anomalies. No evidence of conventional explosives were found either and there should have been tons and tons of it. All the blasting caps and detonation wiring used in controlled demolitions should have been in the debris. None was found and the three companies involved with removing the steel were all experienced in controlled demolitons and would have recognized these immediately.
*The steel that failed at the WTC was probably the connectors between the columns and the floor joists. The core columns were the things that stood the longest. In pictures and videos you can actually see core columns still standing hundreds of feet high for a second or two AFTER the dust cloud has passed. These only fell once all lateral support for them was stripped away. See here. That building on the left is 600 feet high. Those colunms are probably 800 feet high.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/spire.interior.box.column.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY
I've seen all those arguments and used to even believe them. They're all wrong unfortunately.
"The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed."
The problem is the word "almost". It's too imprecise. You can drive any argument you want through the space it provides. After "almost" they throw in some "debris" to obfuscate the real speed even further. By the time they're done you don't know if you're coming or going. Fortunately the laws of physics are laws for a reason. For each floor below the plane impact level to collapse would require vertical acceleration(down) be converted into steel deformation. You don't get both at the same time. For steel to deform it must be IMPACTED UPON. That impact energy reduces the velocity of the descent for each floor.
Collapse->Deformation->Deceleration->Collapse->Repeat for each floor.
Was it 10, 20, 30 seconds? Who cares. For the collapse to happen without explosives or fire the steel had to be deformed. That deformation would show up visually as the steel above it DECELERATING. We don't see that, even obscured by debris. A deceleration/acceleration would be seen in the total time of collapse being at least a minute more like 5 or even 50 minutes more likely.
All this is very well established in the videos I provided. How many of those videos did you watch in their entirety?
However, over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progressive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers.
So the mechanism of collapse is
planes hit and start fires
Fires weaken the structural elements ......this is observable by video evidence, you can see sagging floors and exterior columns bending in right where the collapse would begin. Note these structural failures happen before any "explosion like" evidence like dust clouds are seen.
As these structural elements weaken, more load is put onto other elements. Which are also weakened from fire. They are now supporting more than they were designed for.
After a certain point, a hour or so, the load is too great and they almost all fail, this would be the floor truss connections,
So the floors break away and (break up as they do so) sheer from the stronger columns and fall on the floor below hitting it with a dynamic load that is far too much for it to bear, so it's truss connections shear as well and the progression is on and unstoppable.
Essentially there is an internal avalanche of debris as the insides break up and fall on the floors below.
The exterior columns now have no lateral support and start peeling open like a banana as is seen on the video.
After all the floors are sheared away and the dust cloud recedes, the last thing standing, maybe 700-800 feet high are part of the interior core columns. These were known as box columns. They were massive and attached to each other, which provided enough lateral support that they stood for about 10 seconds more than the rest of structure.
This is the third time I've had to tell you I know what the official story is. And the third time I've had to tell you it's physically impossible according to an ever increasing legion of structural engineers. The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Furthermore you write the floors would "break up as they do so". Again you're getting fooled by imprecise phrases like "break up". The floors didn't "break up". The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
There has never been in the history of the universe ANY high rise sky-scraper that's completely collapsed due to fire like the WTC 1,2 and 7 did. Or even any type of collapse for that matter. Never before or since has a building failed like those WTCs did. It's structurally impossible. It can't happen. Steel floor trusses have never failed like that. And concrete has never turned to dust like that.
Finally you don't address the very inconvenient facts
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs.
2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye.
3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
So to be my usual blunt ass self you're living in a fantasy land where you pretend you're an expert in steel structures and where you pretend evidence of thermite doesn't exist.
The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Plane impact was not a required design requirement, however the structural engineer considered a situation like once happened with the Empire State building, a slow flying plane lost in the fog. He only considered the initial impact. He didn't consider any fires from the fuel. Modelling fire impact was beyond mid 60's capabilities. The buildings did withstand the impact of a much larger, much heavier plane smashing into them at higher speed. Even with exterior columns cut at the impact, the load was redirected to other columns and the building stood, but this means the entire structure was under greater stress, with columns now taking more load that usual. The reason the builidng was able to withstand the impact is because the building was wider than the plane. Had the building been narrower and the wings took out an entire side of exterior columns, the collapse would have begun instantly.
And a 707 was nothing like the forces crashing down from the upper floors.
it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations
As I pointed out the dynamic load was 30 times the static load. That is way more than enough force. There's no building in the world that can withstand a 30x dynamic load. You refuse to acknowledge this. In the south tower the floor right under the collapse was facing the force of a 31 story building moving at 19 mph.
You simply don't understand the concept of static forces vs dynamic forces Here's a video that explains this easily. A cardbox box easily supports a 30lb dumbbell. This is static load. But once put the dumbbell in motion and all bets are off. Dropping the dumbell from a few feet flattens the box. The dynamic load is way too much to be supported. Anyone can do this type of experiment. Put something on a bathroom scale and note the weight. Now raise it above your head and drop it on the scale. How much force is registered? If the thing you drop is heavy enough, you'll break your scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyw-6bDbTs
The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
Except you can find chunks of concrete all through the rubble pile. See photos below. The dust from the dust clouds was from mainly fiberglass fireproofing and gypsum sheetrock....they form 77% of a dust sample taken three blocks away. There was concrete bits in the WTC dust, however, this is not unusual. The bits of concrete in the dust were the bits that were tiny to begin with mainly portland cement. 15% of portland cement starts out as particles smaller than 5 micrometers in diameter. 1/10th the width of a human air. The coarse aggregate "rock" part of the concrete was not found.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading06
It's not unusual at at all that some concrete was turned into dust, especially the parts that start out as 5 micron particles. A steel column moving at 100 mph would do that to some of the concrete at impact. The energy released during a simple gravitational collapse would completely account for this. Also what about the 30 floors above the floors we saw "explode." Were happened to that concrete? If there were no bombs on those floors, what should expect of all that concrete?
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs. 2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye. 3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
Again there is zero evidence of thermite. Using thermite to bring the building down, it would produce massive amounts of evidence not found at the site. An output of thermite oxidation is elemental iron. Thermite also burns in a chaotic pattern leaving puddles of metal that solidifies quickly. This iron would be all over the debris site.
There's no way to tell with the naked eye what type of molten metal you see. Any material mixed in with the metal would change its color. Several other metals that existed in the WTC had lower melting points than steel. The corner where the molten metal is seen coming from is also the corner where the aluminum plane wound out.
Thermite is terrible way to produce molten steel. It burns at a high temperature, but it burns out super quickly. At which point the steel can cool again. Here's thermite on top of a bank safe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrNXbC8www&t=45s
How much molten steel was produced? a quart? How much thermite did it take? 5lbs?
How do you keep the thermite from igniting until one hour into the fire?
Nanothermite was ABSOLUTELY not found in WTC dust. Truther's try to say this, but their paper doesn't hold up at all.
A 707 impact "was not a required design requirement".
This is so indicative of your dishonesty. Whether it was "required" or not is irrelevant. The fucking structural engineers designed it to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. Your dishonesty is disgusting.
"Again there is zero evidence of thermite."
That is a blatant lie or you're more naive than I thought. Prof Steven Jones found egregiously clear evidence showing the telltale signs of thermite combustion on steel:
And there's more, after Prof Jones found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust he was threatened and when that didn't work people tried to bribe him to change his course:
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Yes, by all means. Let's drop the pretense of concern and weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies. Let's drop the mask and kick off the third stage of moral panics and witch hunts where wild charges are hurled at any and all. Let's have our investigation be driven by hostility and vengeance.
That won't reflect badly on this community at all. Let's burn some witches. Or even better, let's burn some people who question how judgement about who is a witch.
DarkMath ago
"weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies"
Our enemies? You're not one of us AreWeSure, you're a concern troll trying to throw cold water on any wiff of smoke you see.
What's that? You're not a concern troll? Ok, fair enough. Then put down any valid evidence you feel points to a crime committed by Hillary Clinton.
;-)
Are_we_sure ago
You're a goofball truther who follows George Webb, a very thirsty man who chases crazy tail.
Your challenge is incredibly stupid. And yet you think it's ckever. OK. If you didn't beat your wife on the nights we said you did, you can show us you're sincere by telling us the nights you did beat your wife.
DarkMath ago
"You're a goofball truther"
I didn't think 9/11 was an inside job until a couple of months ago. I was just like you. Then I woke up.
"who follows George Webb"
That's a strange way of saying "I can't dismiss any of the evidence George Webb found."
"telling us the nights you did beat your wife"
Epic Straw Man. This isn't 2 people on the Interwebs trying to get their minds around the largest scandal in American History. It's a deplorable shit lord trying to destroy the very foundations of our Republic. What is it with you people. You always accuse your opponents of the crimes YOU'RE committing.
Why? Because fuck you that's why.
;-)
Are_we_sure ago
Pray tell, what kind of truther are you? Controlled Demolition? Thermite? Other?
DarkMath ago
All of the above.
"Pray tell"
Oh my I was just like you. In fact I was more snarky, more sarcastic, more disgusted than you are. I never thought in a million years..........
NIST lying their ass off(wait for the fireman ;-)
Anatomy of a Great Deception
Are_we_sure ago
How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?
Also when you look into the science, file cabinets, desks and chairs work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does.
DarkMath ago
"work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does."
That's what I thought too. For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering and could dismiss anyone who challenged the official story.
The problem is I'm not a structural engineer. I'm actually a European History major. I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed. But ignore my opinion on steal framed sky scrapers if you please.
Those opinions are better left to the experts.
Wouldn't it be cool if you weren't actually a shill and I was able to convince you to take a second look at the 9/11 evidence?
Are_we_sure ago
That's really wierd. However, you don't need any of that for my question. Given a layman's understanding of the preparations needed to make a building collapse. How could that be done at the wtc?
Yeah. I believe you claimed it was because of a DeSade book that was unknown until the 1900s
So why do you this guy in the video is an expert?
DarkMath ago
"it was because of a DeSade book"
Of course it didn't cause the collapse of the French Monarchy. You'd have to have been exceedingly naive to have believed that. It was merely a great example of the zeitgeist of 18th century France.
Now to answer your original question: "How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?"
Guess who ran the company who was in charge of security at the WTC?
Marvin Bush
They started pre-placing demolition charges and nanothermite 2 YEARS before 9/11.
Are_we_sure ago
So Marvin Bush was in charge of security and they pre-planted demolition charges and nanothermite 2 years before 9/11. This doesn't really tell me anything. Let's see if we can get more specific
By demolition charge, I assume you mean a shaped charge to shear the beams and not just something to ignite the nanothermite? Given the way the building fell, do you feel they had to place charges/nanothermite on every floor below where the collapse began?
Kudos on the two years timeline, because wiring the WTC for demolition would have been an absolutely massive job. It brings up more questions though.
Since a Bush Brother was in involved and work (let alone planning) began in 1999, how did they know George W. would be president in 2001? How could they be sure? The election was one of the closest of all time. Marvin Bush was not the head of the company, he was a member of the Board of Directors which is far, far less involved in a company and also he stopped working at that company a year before 9/11.
Also the folks in charge of security were not an off site group. For the bulk of the time you mention the head of WTC security worked for the Port Authority and worked on site. The Port Authority has their own police force and they guarded key areas of the WTC. Both the current and the previous heads of the WTC security died in the attack. So for this security company to come in and wire up both buildings, all their would have to go unnoticed by the security personnel on site.
DarkMath ago
"how did they know George W. would be president in 2001?"
I think I figured out what's fueling your disbelief. You're thinking George W. needed to be president for a controlled demolition to go unnoticed. And that's because you think Al Gore would surely have done a more thorough investigation.
And there's the problem. You're thinking Al Gore couldn't have been in on it. That's just an assumption though. What if Al Gore isn't who you think he is?
We won't know the details until Trump starts the painful process of breaking the bad news about 9/11 to the American people. But in the meantime everything points to The Deep State a.k.a. The Shadow Government as the one pulling the strings down in DC.
Here's the one time head of the Deep State getting way too cozy with the future Governor of Arkansas just a few years before a robust cocaine smuggling operation opened shop at Mena Airport in, ding ding ding, Arkansas:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A9RXtX4CQAAwDDs.jpg
You thought you knew these people. You don't.
There's a club and you ain't in it.
Are_we_sure ago
What a colossal shifting of the goalposts. You're the one who brought up M. Bush. You made an assertion without evidence that charges and nanothermite were planted. When I ask for general details, you run away into your safe space of Deep State string pulling nonsense. Nothing that happened in Arkasanas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed.
Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor by floor starting tight under the plane impacts and proceeding to the ground?
By your theory would this mean each floor was rigged for demolition?
DarkMath ago
"shifting of the goalposts."
Suggesting Al Gore was in on it too isn't shifting the goal posts. It was merely addressing your skepticism the 9/11 conspiracy could have been pulled off without George W. winning the election in 2000.
"Nothing that happened in Arkansas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed"
Correct. The Deep State importing cocaine to pad their black budget is evidence of corruption going across party lines and all the way to the top. Hence it didn't matter who won the election.
"Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor"
Yes. But I suspect you're going to say what caused the collapse of each floor was due to the force of the floor above it collapsing and not due to demolition charges. Correct?
Of course that's what you believe. The problem is that floor by floor collapse theory has been thoroughly debunked by structural engineers. The proof is the speed of the collapse, it's almost free fall speed with no pauses as each floor failed.
For steel to fail it has to be loaded first. The potential energy of the steel above it must be converted to kinetic energy first. The conversion shows up a deformation of the steel itself. Think of a car driving into a wall at full speed. The car is stopped by the deformation of the steel within it.
On 9/11 that would have appeared as subtle stops and starts of the collapse as the steel is loaded up, fails and then continues again with the floor below it.
Are_we_sure ago
Might as well begin with the debunk.
Collapse
The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed. This is easily determined in photos of the collapse, where the debris ejected from the building is falling at freefall speed and is passing past intact floors while the collapse is perhaps 20 stories above the falling debris. This would be about 250 feet between the debris and the collapse. http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_we.jpg
Your understanding of starts and stops is mistaken and your car analogy fails for this reason. If momentum is great enough there would be no pause or stop whatsoever. If I punch my hand through a sheet of paper, the paper would slow my momentum by a minute amount but my hand would still go right through it. The principle of physics applies to my fist through paper, a knife through butter, or a massive debris pile through an intact building. The car is not stopped by the deformation of steel. The car is stopped because its momentum is not great enough to continue. Unless the deformation causes mechanical failure, you can keep driving a car with a smashed bumper/hood. This is proven at every demolition derby. Here's a better example. A car speeding towards a gate locked with a steel chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqsTksbgbs In this case the car has enough momentum that it simply smashes through the gate doors and keeps going.
There would "not be subtle starts and stops" at all. The car does not stop crashing through the gate, nor does the paper stop my hand. The reason is the resistance provided by the chained gate or by the paper never brings my velocity to zero. It's slows my momentum for a brief time of only miliseconds, and thus is imperceptible to the human eye.
Here's an example of how quickly structural failure can occur. In this case, they first observe a weakening of the structure and then instant failure. No pauses.
https://youtu.be/PK8dsAeMmPk?t=44 You can scale that up by, I dunno, a million and the same principle would apply.
If you want to understand why the collapse kept going once it happened, you need to understand the difference between dynamic and static forces. Put a bowling on a glass table and it will hold it fine. But drop it from 12 feet and the bowling ball will smash through the glass. It's simply not strong enough to resistance the dynamic force. It would something like this
https://youtu.be/upb1XMwKTSI?t=34
No Controlled Demolition
There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition. I don't know why you think that both demolition charges and nanothermite were used. In fact the whole theory of thermite or nanothermite was developed by the Truthers when the idea of a regular controlled demolition fell apart. And the controlled demolition theory fell apart for the following reasons.
The Prep
There would be no way to hide the prep of the building. Before a building is demolished, a lot of work is done to A. Get the explosives on the structural steel. You need to remove the office walls, drywall, concrete, etc and put the explosives on the steel or else they won't cut the steel. Otherwise the explosive forces would follow the path of least resistance and the steel remains intact. The truck bomb that went off in the basement of the WTC was much, much larger than a demolition charge, but it did not cut the steel of the columns in the basement. This is dirty, noisy dusty work. Entire non loadbearing walls are removed. Ideally you want to get to the skeleton of the building. Having occupired offices with intact walls would require more explosives. In the WTC there would be enormous amount work to do. Each floor was about 2/3 of a football field.
B. You also need to weaken the steel. In a controlled demolition columns are usually precut and the charges are put right into this cut. Without doing this, you would need much more powerful and thus "much louder" explosives.
All this work would be loud, create massive amounts of hard to clean up dust and could not happen in an occupied office building without detection.
The Noise
The collapse sounded nothing like a controlled demolition where very loud sharp explosions can be heard for blocks. The collapse sounded like a subway train. The WTC would have been the largest demolition ever done by leaps and bounds A ton of explosions would be needed. Not a couple hear and there. The core columns on the lower levels would be the thickest steel ever in a demolition.* You would need massive charges for these. You can not make these explosions quieter, because if you did, they wouldn't be strong enough to cut the steel. There would a lot of audio evidence on every video of the towers. Windows of the lower floors would be shattered. Windows across the street would probably be shattered.
The Collapse
The collapse started at the same floor the fire was on. Not below. There's no way to have floor wired for demolition and then have it on fire for a hour at 1000 degrees F or more and still have the wires and detonators still able to work simultaneously all over the floor. How would they stay attached to the columns, How would the detonator wires or the RDX explosive or the thermite survive this massive heat? Why would they explode earlier? and non simultaneously. Furthermore, if thermite was used, you would be able to see flares of light even in sunlight.
The Aftermath
No steel was ever recovered showing termite damage, which produces a very recognizable slag. No columns were ever recovered that showed evidence of a linear shape charge used in demolition. A shape charge used an high explosive to melt a copper disk. This melted copper is moving at a tremendous velocity and acts like a knife through steel. (Insurgents in Iraq used shape charges in IEDs to take out armored vehicles.) It leaves a distinctive type cut and copper residue. No precut columns were found. The Structural Engineers Association of NY had people examining the steel. They would have recognized anomalies. No evidence of conventional explosives were found either and there should have been tons and tons of it. All the blasting caps and detonation wiring used in controlled demolitions should have been in the debris. None was found and the three companies involved with removing the steel were all experienced in controlled demolitons and would have recognized these immediately.
*The steel that failed at the WTC was probably the connectors between the columns and the floor joists. The core columns were the things that stood the longest. In pictures and videos you can actually see core columns still standing hundreds of feet high for a second or two AFTER the dust cloud has passed. These only fell once all lateral support for them was stripped away. See here. That building on the left is 600 feet high. Those colunms are probably 800 feet high. http://algoxy.com/psych/images/spire.interior.box.column.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY
DarkMath ago
I've seen all those arguments and used to even believe them. They're all wrong unfortunately.
"The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed."
The problem is the word "almost". It's too imprecise. You can drive any argument you want through the space it provides. After "almost" they throw in some "debris" to obfuscate the real speed even further. By the time they're done you don't know if you're coming or going. Fortunately the laws of physics are laws for a reason. For each floor below the plane impact level to collapse would require vertical acceleration(down) be converted into steel deformation. You don't get both at the same time. For steel to deform it must be IMPACTED UPON. That impact energy reduces the velocity of the descent for each floor.
Collapse->Deformation->Deceleration->Collapse->Repeat for each floor.
Was it 10, 20, 30 seconds? Who cares. For the collapse to happen without explosives or fire the steel had to be deformed. That deformation would show up visually as the steel above it DECELERATING. We don't see that, even obscured by debris. A deceleration/acceleration would be seen in the total time of collapse being at least a minute more like 5 or even 50 minutes more likely.
All this is very well established in the videos I provided. How many of those videos did you watch in their entirety?
Are_we_sure ago
regarding my unscientific word SNAP.
The scientific word would be shear
So the mechanism of collapse is planes hit and start fires Fires weaken the structural elements ......this is observable by video evidence, you can see sagging floors and exterior columns bending in right where the collapse would begin. Note these structural failures happen before any "explosion like" evidence like dust clouds are seen. As these structural elements weaken, more load is put onto other elements. Which are also weakened from fire. They are now supporting more than they were designed for.
After a certain point, a hour or so, the load is too great and they almost all fail, this would be the floor truss connections,
So the floors break away and (break up as they do so) sheer from the stronger columns and fall on the floor below hitting it with a dynamic load that is far too much for it to bear, so it's truss connections shear as well and the progression is on and unstoppable.
Essentially there is an internal avalanche of debris as the insides break up and fall on the floors below.
The exterior columns now have no lateral support and start peeling open like a banana as is seen on the video.
After all the floors are sheared away and the dust cloud recedes, the last thing standing, maybe 700-800 feet high are part of the interior core columns. These were known as box columns. They were massive and attached to each other, which provided enough lateral support that they stood for about 10 seconds more than the rest of structure.
https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf
DarkMath ago
"the floor truss connections"
This is the third time I've had to tell you I know what the official story is. And the third time I've had to tell you it's physically impossible according to an ever increasing legion of structural engineers. The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Furthermore you write the floors would "break up as they do so". Again you're getting fooled by imprecise phrases like "break up". The floors didn't "break up". The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
There has never been in the history of the universe ANY high rise sky-scraper that's completely collapsed due to fire like the WTC 1,2 and 7 did. Or even any type of collapse for that matter. Never before or since has a building failed like those WTCs did. It's structurally impossible. It can't happen. Steel floor trusses have never failed like that. And concrete has never turned to dust like that.
Finally you don't address the very inconvenient facts
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs.
2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye.
3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
So to be my usual blunt ass self you're living in a fantasy land where you pretend you're an expert in steel structures and where you pretend evidence of thermite doesn't exist.
O_O
Are_we_sure ago
Plane impact was not a required design requirement, however the structural engineer considered a situation like once happened with the Empire State building, a slow flying plane lost in the fog. He only considered the initial impact. He didn't consider any fires from the fuel. Modelling fire impact was beyond mid 60's capabilities. The buildings did withstand the impact of a much larger, much heavier plane smashing into them at higher speed. Even with exterior columns cut at the impact, the load was redirected to other columns and the building stood, but this means the entire structure was under greater stress, with columns now taking more load that usual. The reason the builidng was able to withstand the impact is because the building was wider than the plane. Had the building been narrower and the wings took out an entire side of exterior columns, the collapse would have begun instantly.
And a 707 was nothing like the forces crashing down from the upper floors.
You simply don't understand the concept of static forces vs dynamic forces Here's a video that explains this easily. A cardbox box easily supports a 30lb dumbbell. This is static load. But once put the dumbbell in motion and all bets are off. Dropping the dumbell from a few feet flattens the box. The dynamic load is way too much to be supported. Anyone can do this type of experiment. Put something on a bathroom scale and note the weight. Now raise it above your head and drop it on the scale. How much force is registered? If the thing you drop is heavy enough, you'll break your scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyw-6bDbTs
YOu can support 1.3 KG of pennies with a sheet of paper taped tight http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/x_P1010002.jpg
But drop a few pennies taping together and they punch right through. http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/x_P1010003.jpg http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/
To turn a concrete slab completely into dust with explosives, you would need explosives drilled into the slab every few feet. Thermite wouldn't do this. The floors of the collapse were about 7,000,000 million square feet of office space. At one charge per 100 square feet, you've just added 7,000 high explosives to the conspiracy, 7,000 high explosives that were not heard during the collapse and would leave massive amounts of evidence in the rubble pile. How much detonation wiring would it take to rig 7,000,000 square feet of office space? Some of the concrete was turned into dust. Some was not. Lots of chunks of concrete were in the rubble pile showing quite clearly the floors did "break up." http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/check.jpg http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/digs.jpg http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/void.jpg http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Concrete.jpg http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1ChunksofConcrete.jpg
It's not unusual at at all that some concrete was turned into dust, especially the parts that start out as 5 micron particles. A steel column moving at 100 mph would do that to some of the concrete at impact. The energy released during a simple gravitational collapse would completely account for this. Also what about the 30 floors above the floors we saw "explode." Were happened to that concrete? If there were no bombs on those floors, what should expect of all that concrete?
Again there is zero evidence of thermite. Using thermite to bring the building down, it would produce massive amounts of evidence not found at the site. An output of thermite oxidation is elemental iron. Thermite also burns in a chaotic pattern leaving puddles of metal that solidifies quickly. This iron would be all over the debris site.
There's no way to tell with the naked eye what type of molten metal you see. Any material mixed in with the metal would change its color. Several other metals that existed in the WTC had lower melting points than steel. The corner where the molten metal is seen coming from is also the corner where the aluminum plane wound out.
Thermite is terrible way to produce molten steel. It burns at a high temperature, but it burns out super quickly. At which point the steel can cool again. Here's thermite on top of a bank safe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrNXbC8www&t=45s
How much molten steel was produced? a quart? How much thermite did it take? 5lbs?
How do you keep the thermite from igniting until one hour into the fire?
Nanothermite was ABSOLUTELY not found in WTC dust. Truther's try to say this, but their paper doesn't hold up at all.
DarkMath ago
A 707 impact "was not a required design requirement".
This is so indicative of your dishonesty. Whether it was "required" or not is irrelevant. The fucking structural engineers designed it to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. Your dishonesty is disgusting.
"Again there is zero evidence of thermite."
That is a blatant lie or you're more naive than I thought. Prof Steven Jones found egregiously clear evidence showing the telltale signs of thermite combustion on steel:
Thermite Evidence
And there's more, after Prof Jones found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust he was threatened and when that didn't work people tried to bribe him to change his course:
Prof Jones offered bribes.
Have you watched ANY of the video evidence I've provided you?