Not all Controlled Demolitions are exactly alike also the lame excuses offered up by the NIST as to why the 2.25 sec of free fall happened are pathetic!
Link to any explosives based controlled demolition that caused the building being demolished to collapse in free fall acceleration. Any. Thanks.
since all controlled demolitions are unique events, the one fact that unifies all, is the fact of total destruction of the building therefore WTC1, 2 & 7 exhibit the one critical element of controlled demolition. WTC1, 2 & 7 allegedly destroyed by chaotic damage & fire, right ...... how many videos can you find of Controlled Demolitions gone wrong resulting in the incomplete destruction of the building? the fact is, doing it right results in total demolition, and that is what happened on 9/11/2001 ..... 3 times over.
Since the NIST has stated "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" and then never presented anything supporting this "total collapse" theory, what then is anybody to think? the total collapse bit is totally unsupported. and indeed the total destruction of anything is a trigger for an investigation because total destruction by chaotic forces is extreamly rare, so then WTC1,2 & 7 are completely destroyed on 9/11/2001 and that is not to be considered suspicious? what?
Please define "dynamic energy" and why should any mass in motion, not slow down while breaking or crushing structural elements of a skyscraper?
Energy Produced By Motion & Force. The opposite of static energy. The mass of the WTC did slow down while breaking the structural elements, which is why it did not fall at full FFA.
I disagree, note that the downward motion of the "pile driver" is characterized by ACCELERATION not deceleration therefore it did not at any time slow down, it continued to accelerate until it reached ground level where it stopped.
It was not consistent. 64% is what is known in mathematics as an "average". What is an "average', you ask? The definition of "average" is the result obtained by adding together several quantities and then dividing this total by the number of quantities. You're welcome.
Thus, as an average, one can count on times when the acceleration would be greater than 64% of g, therefore, what accounts for these greater than 64% of g periods of acceleration? as an average, it works well to note the average because the whole structure is being destroyed and so the question remains exactly what caused the total destruction of the upper stories, that is the 93rd & down floors initially because at that point the bit bearing down upon the structure was only the upper 17 stories and this comprised aprox 5% of the mass of the tower and so 64% of 5% = 1.8% of the weight of said tower and at that, the reaction to this is striking in the ejection of pulverized material & destruction of the structure. + how is it to be proven that the alleged increase in mass as the collapse progressed actually happened?
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True David Ray Griffin Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006. Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm). Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,” Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html). _____, 2004. “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html). _____, 2005. “Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html). Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software. Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html). King, Jeff, 2003. “The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show,” Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast). Lavello, Randy, n.d. “Bombs in the Building,” Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html). Meyer, Peter, n.d. “Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?”, Section 3 of “The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism,” Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html). _____, 2005b. “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,” Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm). Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink). Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. “Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,’” American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html). Baker, Jeremy, n.d. “PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,” Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).
Fact is, there are no documentary photographs of ground zero right after the collapse, what are these people hiding? If the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 was not complete, where are the pix of whatever remained?
91 million tons? This is what a Canadian chemist told us in 2006: ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE By F. R. Greening http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf This is what he used for the total weight of the building: 510,000,000 Kg = 561,000 tons He divided by 110 to compute the AVERAGE weight of each level: 4,636,364 Kg = 5,100 TONS But by doing that he put all of the weight from the basements above ground. On page 6 he says the north tower came down in less than 15 seconds. After that his math starts getting more complicated with kinetic energy and supposedly the amount of energy required for the collapse. But he says FLOOR while I say LEVEL. He talks about the core columns so he must really mean LEVEL rather than the FLOORs outside of the core. But I criticised his assumptions on JREF about every LEVEL having the same weight years ago: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316 But skyscrapers have to hold themselves up, and there is no getting around that. That means every LEVEL must support all of the weight above itself. So assuming the total weight of the building was 400,000 tons and every LEVEL had the same weight then how much weight did each LEVEL have to be strong enough to support? Code: Weight Weight of ON Level Level Level 110 3,448 0 109 3,448 3,448 108 3,448 6,896 107 3,448 10,344 106 3,448 13,792 105 3,448 17,240 104 3,448 20,688 103 3,448 24,136 102 3,448 27,584 101 3,448 31,032 100 3,448 34,480 99 3,448 37,928 98 3,448 41,376 97 3,448 44,824 96 3,448 48,272 95 3,448 51,720 94 3,448 55,168 93 3,448 58,616 92 3,448 62,064 91 3,448 65,512 90 3,448 68,960 89 3,448 72,408 88 3,448 75,856 87 3,448 79,304 86 3,448 82,752 85 3,448 86,200 84 3,448 89,648 83 3,448 93,096 82 3,448 96,544 81 3,448 99,992 80 3,448 103,440 79 3,448 106,888 78 3,448 110,336 77 3,448 113,784 76 3,448 117,232 75 3,448 120,680 74 3,448 124,128 73 3,448 127,576 72 3,448 131,024 71 3,448 134,472 70 3,448 137,920 69 3,448 141,368 68 3,448 144,816 67 3,448 148,264 66 3,448 151,712 65 3,448 155,160 64 3,448 158,608 63 3,448 162,056 62 3,448 165,504 61 3,448 168,952 60 3,448 172,400 59 3,448 175,848 58 3,448 179,296 57 3,448 182,744 56 3,448 186,192 55 3,448 189,640 54 3,448 193,088 53 3,448 196,536 52 3,448 199,984 51 3,448 203,432 50 3,448 206,880 49 3,448 210,328 48 3,448 213,776 47 3,448 217,224 46 3,448 220,672 45 3,448 224,120 44 3,448 227,568 43 3,448 231,016 42 3,448 234,464 41 3,448 237,912 40 3,448 241,360 39 3,448 244,808 38 3,448 248,256 37 3,448 251,704 36 3,448 255,152 35 3,448 258,600 34 3,448 262,048 33 3,448 265,496 32 3,448 268,944 31 3,448 272,392 30 3,448 275,840 29 3,448 279,288 28 3,448 282,736 27 3,448 286,184 26 3,448 289,632 25 3,448 293,080 24 3,448 296,528 23 3,448 299,976 22 3,448 303,424 21 3,448 306,872 20 3,448 310,320 19 3,448 313,768 18 3,448 317,216 17 3,448 320,664 16 3,448 324,112 15 3,448 327,560 14 3,448 331,008 13 3,448 334,456 12 3,448 337,904 11 3,448 341,352 10 3,448 344,800 9 3,448 348,248 8 3,448 351,696 7 3,448 355,144 6 3,448 358,592 5 3,448 362,040 4 3,448 365,488 3 3,448 368,936 2 3,448 372,384 1 3,448 375,832 -1 3,448 379,280 -2 3,448 382,728 -3 3,448 386,176 -4 3,448 389,624 -5 3,448 393,072 -6 3,448 396,520 Total Weight = 399,968 LEVEL 9 was where the standard perimeter wall panels began on the outside of the building. There were 2900 panels from there to the top of each tower. These assumptions mean that LEVEL 9 had to support 348,248 tons. But LEVEL 109 would only have had to support 3,448 tons. So with a difference of two orders of magnitude in strength required between levels 100 stories apart how could they possibly have the same amount of steel and therefore the same weight? This is something you cannot see from the outside of a skyscraper, but it is obvious if you THINK about it. So how does the media and scientists and engineers not talk about it for 13 years? There should have been more concrete near the bottom of the towers also to provide a counterweight to stabilize the structures against the wind. So all supposedly scientific discussions of the destruction of the twin towers that do not even mention trying to get the steel and concrete distributions correct are crap. psik
"A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns (perimeter columns) tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964, concerning the perimeter columns.
I remember seeing someplace, a link to what was alleged to be the blueprints for the tower(s) and going over the original design of the building(s) one could get a very good educated guess as to the weight of each level by checking the specified steel thickness at each level. This would be a time-consuming exercise, however would yield at least a decent educated guess as to the difference in weigh for different levels. One feature of the "collapse" that I have a serious problem with is the fact of "total collapse" in that the whole building was effectively destroyed (people may be able to point to remnants that constitute <1% of the original building ... but hey, lets get real here.) Bottom line is that the bottom third of the building would have to be extra sturdy to support the upper two thirds of the structure and as such, I don't care how much rubble was dropping down from above, that lower third will resist and do so very well, thank you very much and with that, even if there was a "gravity driven collapse" ( what a CROCK! ) the lower third of the building should have stood and not be destroyed. However, there are all sorts of alternatives, such as losing mass out the sides at such a rate as to deplete the pile driver and stop the action. Thinking beings on this planet need to push back and ask WHY is it to be considered as if written in stone "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" ? whats up with that?
You ask this because you're NOT a thinking being......And psikey's blizzard of numbers means squat,because it assumes so much.
So it is ..... YOU believe that "total collapse was inevitable......" ? is that what you believe? what about all of the other possibilities, that is other than "total collapse"? To support the official story of the "collapse" of the towers, one must assume that every weld/bolt & rivet in the structure failed exactly on time as if on a schedule in order to do what was observed.
What part of 'Once it started,there was no stopping it' don't you get?< And NO,one doesn't 'need' to assume any such thing,it just needed to be progressive,down the structure A to B,B to C,and so on..
The problem is one of uniformity, the structure failed at each level uniformly, given that the towers were the work of human hands, the uniformity of the collapse is grossly improbable! and once at any given level, the "collapse" event became tipped, the center of gravity would shift and start dumping mass quantities of rubble off one side or another and that would be the end of the "progressive collapse". That is but one scenario for the system to reach equilibrium without total destruction of the tower(s). There are a multitude of possibilities.
<sigh> for the hundredth time,the collapse was NOT 'uniform. And it was dumping rubble off the side because that was one way it had to go
