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

It has been claimed here on this forum that explosives were used to slow the descending debris front of WTC1 and WTC2 to 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]). Since gravity was trying to pull everything down at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP], I would like someone to explain to me how explosives were used to create the resistance needed to slow that debris front from 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] to 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

Any takers from the truther side? Anyone?

 

First of all you have miss-quoted the argument
"explosives were used to slow" NO, not even close!
given that in a complete structure where the topmost
floors are being supported by the undamaged lower floors,
the structure is stationary and if some damage is done to
the building, then material from above will descend at a rate
that is inversely proportional to the resistance that it encounters,
explosives can be used to reduce resistance + to organize the
process to insure complete destruction in the case of a
controlled demolition.

 

Again,it wasn't complete destruction......
it's getting tiring pointing out that fact to you

 

can you document that allegation?

 

I did? I miss-quoted?

Have a look at your own quote below.

So explain how explosives were used to reduce resistance so the debris front accelerated at 64% of g or 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. You REALLY need to think this through. You are claiming that there was some resistance that was CONSTANTLY (do you get the CONSTANTLY part here?) applied to the descending debris front to get it to descend at a uniform rate 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) instead of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

With me so far?

In order to keep the uniform acceleration (without getting any slower or faster than the 64% of g or 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]), explain how a "medium", consisting of 4" thick concrete floors, followed by 12' air, followed by 4" thick concrete floors, followed by 12' of air, etc., creates a CONSISTENT resistance against the descending debris?

Example.

If a 16 lb bowling ball was dropped from 1000 ft up, and at 20 foot intervals there was a 3' x 3' x 1/2" thick piece of plywood that the bowling ball would have to smash though, are you trying to tell me that the rate of descent would be a consistent rate of X% of g?! That there would be no slowing due the the impact as the ball smashed through the plywood, followed by acceleration at g, followed by another impact as the ball smashed through the plywood, followed by acceleration at g?

I am asking you plain and simple. How did the descending debris front fall at 64% of g? What was that consistent resistance? Are you suggesting there was a viscous liquid within the buildings?

 

How? Explosives create more gas, not less.

 

Here's an even simpler scenario for you to explain how explosives would create an environment where a descending object would be reduced to falling at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] instead of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

Let's say I have a 100' tall box column with a 200 lb concrete block set that the top. How would explosives be employed to produce resistance to make that block descend at 6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] instead of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]?

 

Please link the formula for this.

 

Well, this is beyond imagination. Since I'm on the net [I begun to be on social forums in 2006] the damnation of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 is really persecuting my patience and usually I ignore them.

But this one!

When something falls on this planet [on the Moon it's different, it's physics ...] it has to win the resistance of a lot of things [starting from the air] before of reaching the ground. Gravity attracts the falling object, but all which stays between the point of release and the ground makes resistance.

In the case of the towers, the structures were physical [the towers weren't made by air!], so we don't need to imagine "NEGATIVE EXPLOSIVE POWER" to slow down the fall of the highest layers of the towers ... simply they had to win the resistance of what was under them ...

[but now I guess someone will suspect I work for NSA, CIA, Red Cross or even for David Letterman!].

 

I have been trying to express this idea for some time now,
and people continue to miss-quote me.
the "explosives can be used to reduce resistance"
morphed into "explosives can be used to slow ...... "
REALLY?

Is this a debate or? I ask of the others on this forum
PLEASE do not miss-quote anybodies posts.

 

You miss-quoted me
"explosives can be used to reduce resistance"
does NOT = "explosives were used to slow"

I do NOT appreciate being miss-quoted.

Explosives used to reduce resistance
is a valid statement.

In the case of the towers, the structure,
sans any other source of energy, would
NOT destroy itself in the manner that was observed
on 9/11/2001. The fact that consistent descent of
the wave of destruction could be observed is a significant factor.

 

The scientific, structural engineering and demolition experts worldwide disagree with your opinion.

 

I didn't misquote you.

I want you to explain how explosives created an environment in which enough resistance was created to slow the descent of the debris down to a consistent 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) instead of falling at free fall (9.8 m/s[SUP]2 [/SUP]).

What I am trying to get you to learn on your own is that your first misconception is that the debris front traveled at a CONSISTENT 64% of g. This would imply that a CONSTANT resistance or CONSISTENT MEDIUM was below that debris front in order to maintain that consistent acceleration. That is why a viscous fluid/material keeps being brought up as an example.

The environment inside the perimeter columns was not a CONSISTENT MEDIUM thus making it impossible for a CONSISTENT/CONSTANT acceleration rate. The MEDIUM was 4" thick concrete floors followed by 12' of air. This creates an IMPACT/SLOWING (debris impacting/shearing the floor) followed by freefall (falling through the 12' air space AFTER shearing the floor). This cannot be a CONSISTENT acceleration, but must be an average acceleration rate.

 

We are again being asked to embrace
TRUTH by consensus.

 

Wrong: truth by evidence.

 

No, I am asking you to explain your understanding of what happened that day.

 

Note that it is the least probable out-come
to have WTC 1, 2 & 7 destroyed in the manner
that was observed.

You cite experts however, If any "truther"
cites experts, you call that an appeal to
authority and therefore not valid.

its one thing if you defend your position
based on your belief that the towers "collapsed"
because of the alleged airliner crashes ( etc... )
however if you cite experts, you are guilty of
the very same appeal to authority that draws
fire toward the "truthers".

 

Based on what? It's "least probable" in your eyes because you know nothing of structural engineering.

Yet again, you try and deflect the subject to something else without answering the questions at hand.

 

Do I know probabilities,

Let me cite a Myth Busters episode
the set-up was a huge truck, an a line
of cars ( like a freeway traffic jam ) and
the idea was that the truck would simply
ram the line of cars and push them out
of the way and that would be that, however
it didn't work that way on the first try with a
basically unmodified truck, the line of cars
resisted the advance of the truck and stopped it.
They had to build a "cow catcher" onto the front of
the truck in order to do the job.

Likewise, we somehow expect that random
bits of the WTC skyscrapers, could fall down
onto lower floors and effectively destroy each
level as it went, without said bit of structure
having to be a purpose-built implement for the job.

 

Random bits?!

You make it sound like someone randomly dropped 5 lb weights on each 208' x 208' floor every 5 minutes. The fact that the descending debris fell a mass and applying it's weight to each floor in a matter of seconds. You don;t understand structural engineering nor do you understand impact mechanics.

It is evident that you will continue to believe that which is easier for you to understand based on your lack of knowledge that explain things in other ways. You ignore explanations given to you and thus prefer to stay in the dark.

Bantering back and forth with you like this is fruitless at this point.

 

Can anyone cite an example of any
non-purpose-built implement that
does a complex job, ( like destroying a skyscraper )
what do you have?

anyone?

 

Gravity does a pretty thorough job.

 

and you insist that is sufficient answer?
what with the chaotic nature of the damage & fires,
the tower(s) "collapsed" straight down.
and into "inevitable total destruction" or something.....
That is what you think?

 

It's enough...it always has been enough..

 

"always has been enough" Please cite precedent