How would explosives have been used to create a 64% of g acceleration in the towers?

Ummm,you know of an instance where gravity hasn't 'worked'?

 

The question is NOT did gravity work
it most certainly never fails to work,
however did gravity work in such a manner
as to guarantee the complete destruction
of WTC 1, 2, & 7? how did that happen?

 

No,because the destruction wasn't 'complete',And gravity worked as it always has,on 9/11

 

Can you cite documentation that more than 1% of either
tower stood after the dust settled?

 

They weren't 'looking for that' so, it wasn't documented? If only we could get Philip Zelikow on record TODAY, and have him explain the omissions about those particulars that he chose to edit out of the final report?

 

genericBob,

When the upper section came down, what do you think happened impact-wise? Can you give us a description? Were the 47 columns of the upper section aligned with the 47 columns of the lower section so that they impacted each other?

To try and get you to understand, please tell me what unit of measurement you think is used to define how much of a load a floor can withstand.

 

genericBob,

Why haven't you addressed this?

 

do I have to draw you a picture?
In the case of a Controlled demolition of the
sort that destroyed WTC7, the upper mass
was used to crush the building and so needed
to accelerate as much as it could be accelerated,
in order to do the job, in the case of the Towers,
the upper mass was not being used to actually do
any work at all, and the explosives didn't have to be
sufficient to remove ALL of the resistance from under
the falling bit, only some of the resistance for a
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Now, I answered your question,
how about answering one of mine.
that is where is the evidence that the towers were
allegedly not totally destroyed. bring it.

 

You STILL didn't answer the question did you?

Explain to me HOW explosives were used to create an environment which caused the debris front to fall at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]? How do you think it was done? You HAVE to have an idea in order to think it's possible?

 

Here is the scene, & obviously either you are drowning in denial,
or you are intellectually challenged.
The fact is that if the engineers of the demolition, used
a lot of explosive in a specific area, it could blow away
all of the support out from under the upper part of the building
and therefore cause that part to descend as free-fall, however
if the engineers simply used less explosive in that phase of the
demolition, the top bit would encounter resistance on the way
down but not enough resistance to stop it, just enough to cause
it to descend at aprox 64% of g.

How how about my question?

 

You have a MAJOR problem in your "understanding".

In order for something to fall at a CONSTANT rate of acceleration less than g, you need a CONSTANT resistance beneath the something. Otherwise your acceleration rate is an AVERAGE, not a CONSTANT. Hence, when you have an object in free fall, then it impacts something, then free falls, then impact something, it isn't a CONSTANT acceleration.

So I'll ask you yet again. How would explosives be used in a structure to create an environment that would have a CONSTANT resistance below the debris front in order for said debris front to maintain a CONSTANT acceleration of 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]? I can get the same results from the debris front impacting the floors, shearing through them, free falling, impacting the next floor, etc.

 

What you insist on, is that events with asymmetrical forces can produce
damage that is consistently symmetrical & uniform, you have also alleged
that the damage to the towers did not constitute total destruction, however,
have provided no proof of that.

 

Let me understand ...

the point of discussion now is why the towers fell so "slowly"? [Slowly is quite a paradoxical definition, anyway if this is the case, let's use it to be clear].

Now, the towers had a clear vertical development [little base in comparison with the total height of the buildings], so that the "way to go" for the higher levels wasn't brief.

The impact happened in the higher sectors [one near the middle, anyway, again to make it simple], so that the "sane" layers weren't a few to face for the falling high sections.

And there was a factor ... probably you have read about witnesses talking about noises of explosions while the towers were falling ... it was compressed air leaving the building at great velocity. Now I know I sound more loony than the conspiracy lovers, anyway the floors of the towers weren't rooms of vacuum, they were full of air. Falling down the higher layers compressed this air [like when you compress a balloon] making the windows explode, literally. As any packaging worker can tell us, air bags are really resistant, they stand a considerable pressure. Until those cavities full of air resisted, the fall of the high layers broke being a bit slower than expected.

 

Amazing,.... incredible .... pick your word .....

Please think about this, in order to do what you say was
done, in that the floors, by collapsing down, compressed
the air in the floor area and then the pressure exploded out.
causing the observed result.
The problem with this is the fact that the pressure could
have been lost, leaked away before that critical explosive
point was reached by air escaping through elevator shafts
stairwells, & cracks in the decks, whatever. Note also that
it takes a significant bit of energy to compress air to a point
that the force becomes explosive, this need for energy has
to be expressed in the impeding of the drop of the upper mass.
Why was the upper mass seen to drop at the rate that it did,
when it was doing so much work ( causing the explosive
compression of air ) + pulverizing mass quantities of materials.

 

Now, was the fall fast or slow, from your perspective?
From my perspective it was normal considering the characteristics of the buildings ...

About that "it takes a significant bit of energy to compress air to a point
that the force becomes explosive" ...

1. Where have I said it became "explosive"? I said it generated noises which sounded like explosions because of the speed of the exiting air [think to when you make an air bag explode, think to the noise you produce doing that, it's the air to produce the noise, not the impact of the plastic "walls" of the bag].

2. "it takes a significant bit of energy to compress air " [depending on the volume, if it is very little, like the volume of a plastic bag, even human muscle force is enough!]. Air is not a liquid, it's a fluid, and it's well more easy to compress it than to compress a fluid in liquid state [and note that a part of that energy becomes heat, again heat].

 

You need to explain this because you're not making sense.

The 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) is indicative of resistance in the form of impacts and then shearing. The fact that the buildings did NOT fall at freefall means there was resistance.

Your 64% of g is not a constant, but an average.

Falling debris causes MUCH more of a load than a same load being static.

 

HOW genericBob?

I gave you a simple secenario to explain how explosives could be used to make something fall at a constant rate of 64% of g and you won't answer it. You are telling everyone it's possible so you must have an idea of how this works.

Here is that scenario again.

Let's say I have a 200' vertical box column. On top of that box column is a 300 lb block of cement. Please explain to me how one might use explosive to control the descent of said concrete block to maintain a consistent descending rate of 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) until it impacts the ground.

 

Less explosives? You mean enough to DAMAGE the particular structural components and not cut them?!

 

Remember this:
"Now, I answered your question,
how about answering one of mine.
that is where is the evidence that the towers were
allegedly not totally destroyed. bring it. "

You keep pestering me about your question
that I have indeed answered, and you avoid my question.
why, because you have nothing?

 

Nice try.

What do you mean by "less explosives"? What affect are "less explosives" going to have on structural members? Do you mean to damage them but not sever them?

How do you employ "less explosives" to a structural member to make them apply a controlled resistance to make a load fall at 64% of g?

Having a hard time coming up with an viable explanation huh?

 

the engineers who planned this understood the strength of the
structure they were about to CD, therefore, knowing what constitutes
enough explosive to do the job, without over-doing it.

I don't believe anybody started out with a figure of 64% g
and worked back to get the quantity of explosive that would
produce that result, more like the calculation was on having
enough explosive to guarantee the destruction of the tower
without causing excessive damage to adjacent skyscrapers.

now what about that PROOF
of incomplete destruction of the Tower(s)?

 

You haven't answered SQUAT!

You keep saying your scenario is possible, but refuse to explain HOW. Below is what you stated. The part I highlighted in red are the relevent parts.

Do you even understand what you are claiming with the red parts above?

In the first part, you are claiming that "X" amount of explosives equals removal/severing of all components to generate free fall of the upper section.

In the second part, you are claiming that a lesser amount of "X" explosives above will not remove severe components to generate free fall, but WEAKEN said components to a point that the above sections falls at percentage of g (64% in this case).

So my questions (and my point) are how in the world do you envision explosives would be used to ONLY WEAKEN and not remove/sever components to achieve a CONSTANT fall rate of a certain percentage of g (again, 64% of g)? I even made it easy for you by giving you a simple scenario (repeated below) to apply your "understanding" and you balked at it.

Let's say I have a 200' vertical box column. On top of that box column is a 300 lb block of cement. Please explain to me how one might use explosive to control the descent of said concrete block to maintain a consistent descending rate of 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) until it impacts the ground.

You seem to have a pretty good idea on how this can be achieved. Why don't you think this through and explain to us. I bet you can't and that's why you're avoiding putting forth an answer.

 

Jesus H. Christ...

HOW genericBob? This is the million dollar question.

You can't just get away with saying "engineers can do it". You seem to think they can because you have an IDEA of how this can happen. Or do you think engineers can accomplish anything possible?

See my post above.

 

Message # 46

 

Still not answering.

How can explosives be used to create ANY % of g descent? Use my scenario above to TRY and explain your "understanding".