Momentum Transfer in WTC

CurtC said:
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?
Click to expand...


Floor 37. I know, from a secret documentary, that floor 37 was specifically designed as a special elite ninja-floor, capable of stopping a pancake collapse. Since Floor 37 collapsed, clearly it was a CD.

-Andrew
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
YOU claim that an impossible-to-plant amount of explosives brought the towers down.
Click to expand...
Yes and I have a difficult time believeing that "truth"seeker doesn't know what his claims are, while we do.

To bring everyone up to speed, basically this is what he argued:

"truth"seeker1234: 99% pulverization. No way a global collapse could cause that. Mustve been explosives.
JREF: Okay, so how much explosives would be needed to account for what is observed?
"truth"seeker1234: NIST says explosives on one floor could theoretically cause collapse, so not much explosives.
JREF: So gravity caused the concrete pulverization then and not explosives? I thought you said 99% pulverization was caused by explosives?
"truth"seeker1234: You guys just dont get it.
JREF: :confused:
 
Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."

Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.

Now, the present matter. No one will attempt to refute the contradiction I have pointed out with NIST and OCT.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.
Click to expand...
Liar. Are these not your words?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.
Click to expand...

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.
Click to expand...
Liar. I don't believe one way or the other, and I need provide no evidence. Here's what I said:

R.Mackey said:
It appears you are in such a hurry to "discredit" me that you've lost track of whom you're speaking to.

I have "asked you to believe" nothing. I asked you to show me that there was additional cross-bracing that neither I, Ross, nor Greening knew about. If you can do that, please do. So far what you've shown me is a terrible picture that may or may not represent temporary bracing during construction. It may also represent bracing well down in the structure that is irrelevant for purposes of collapse initiation.

I don't know what your picture represents. I'm asking you. Seems you don't know either, though you think you do.
Click to expand...

And you lose the debate yet again. Why not go for the all-time futility streak?
 
This is farcical. Yes, a lot of explosives must have been used. Steven Jones, after consulting a demolition guy, said it would be on the order of 2000 lbs. But it would certainly depend on what type(s) and we don't know that yet. I don't know much about superthermites, but I understand they deliver a lot of energy per weight unit relative to RDX. There is evidence for sol-gels being used, according to Jones, because of the DPP in the dust.

Now, can anybody refute the logic I have offered.

But, before anyone gets into the logistics of planting this stuff, you have to resolve the contradiction I have raised.

If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."

Then there is Mackey, who believes that the cross bracing was removed from the core structures, yet offers no evidence.

Now, the present matter. No one will attempt to refute the contradiction I have pointed out with NIST and OCT.
Click to expand...
Which best descibes your theory?

- Local explosives(on 1 or 2 floors) initiating collapse. Gravity does the rest.
- Explosives throughout the building, in fact, enough to turn most of the concrete to fine powder.
- Other(explain)

300 posts into this thread and you have not offered your theory.
 
If local collapse leads to global collapse, then explosives were only needed at one level of the tower.
Click to expand...

Again, how would you know where, to put them? If this were true, you would have to cover your a** quite a bit. No way this works, to many variables! Bah!
 
Last edited:
Mackey, I posted two pictures, not one. I also linked you to a nice article, with pictures, that discusses the core structure and its cross bracing.

It is here

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

here is evidence of cross bracing
core_2.jpg

9-11-Picture5.jpg

here's a nice one from gz, note the cross bracing
core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
 
At least it doesn't mention 3 in rebar on 4 foot centers. I can smell it though.

edit: damn it it's in the picture, Doh!
 
Last edited:
apathoid wondered
Which best descibes your theory?

- Local explosives(on 1 or 2 floors) initiating collapse. Gravity does the rest.
- Explosives throughout the building, in fact, enough to turn most of the concrete to fine powder.
- Other(explain)

300 posts into this thread and you have not offered your theory.
Click to expand...

Man, long ago I linked you to Ross' paper called "How the Towers Were Demolishes" and said that it fit with what i think. Also, in the post right above your last one, I answered.

The answer to your quote above is that there were explosives throughout the building. Not every floor, as explained by Ross. Read his paper. He goes through it, and I agree with it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Again, don't complain, this was hundreds of posts ago.

Local collapse leading to global collapse? In the twin towers?? Ha, absurd, I say. But NIST says so. And so do you OCTs.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, I didn't say that 99% percent of the concrete was turned to powder. I started out with the number 50%, at one point I said, in passing, that it was "more like" 99%", and that i was being generous. I do not know exactly what percentage of the non-metallic mass was rendered into fine powder, but it was a lot. If sufficient photographic data exist, it could be estimated.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the debate. You guys won't answer questions. Like Kent. I repeatedly asked him his observational basis for thinking that the flashes were reflections, pointing out that no debris is falling near them. No answer. Just Kent saying "I belive ..."


Why are you so dishonest.:confused:
I thought I have explained myself
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1911129&postcount=265
Now do you still believe this is bombs or debris?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1911274&postcount=290

But I can answer again, likely it is materical being pushed out especailly considering it occurs during the begining of the collapse. (Could be flame on that one.) But no you really can't make out the debris very well, that's why I recommend a better video or photo.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mackey, your questions are best answered with pictures. I could say anything. But the pictures show cross bracing. How about not dodging my question anymore. Question:

Where is your evidence that the core structures were not cross braced?

If the cores were not cross braced, what is all that cross bracing evident in the picture above from GZ?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
apathoid wondered

Local collapse leading to global collapse? In the twin towers?? Ha, absurd, I say. But NIST says so. And so do you OCTs.
Click to expand...

Okay. Now, what in the hell were you going on about between posts 330 and 349. We asked you(or more correctly - told you) how much explosives would be required to blow 3 million cubic feet of concrete to smithereens, and you havent answered(refer to posts 330 and 349).
Now that youve cleared up where you stand on local -> global collapse, You cant use the local collapse in your explanation.

So. Do you think Jones estimate of 2000 lbs of explosives is enough to blow up 3 million cubic feet on concrete while cutting the core/perimeter columns(and desks, furniture, carpet, moniters, computers, humans)?
 
apathoid said:
Thats 3.14 million cubic feet of concrete!!! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

It's interesting to get info like this...

In comparing the WTC dust cloud to the ash clouds from the 1995-96 Ruapehu eruptions it becomes clear the volume of actual particles in the WTC dust clouds is most likely very small.

Now, of course, the volume of the material in the Ruapehu eruptions was far greater - about 60 million cubic metres over 13 months. But individual eruptions give volumes much closer to the 80,000 cubic metres of WTC concrete. And yet the "clouds" from these individual eruptions quite literally dwarf the WTC collapse clouds. We are talking about pillars of ash that rose as high as 12 km into the sky.

-Andrew
 
Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

Maybe someone else could take a crack at this one.

In this video

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

There are flashes evident. Focus on the one that occurs on the corner, about halfway up between the damage zone and the top. I do not observe any falling debris of any kind in this area. Do you? Kent has stated that he "believes" that the flash is the reflection of sunlight off of falling debris. Do you agree, or what is your explanation?

Any of you brave souls want to go on record on this one? What is the flash?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You OCT's sure can't answer direct questions, can you?
It's very interesting. In this picture, the "white dots" do appear to be pieces of debris, unlike in the video I linked, where large flashes appear and disappear suddenly in the exact place where the structure breaks.
Click to expand...
What demolitions genius planted explosives on floor 108, Truthseeker?
What high explosives have a blast duration of 1.75 seconds?
 
Anyone who cites Christophera photos of proof of anything, as "truthseeker" did above, is probably certifiable on that basis alone.

That aside, surely I am not the only one to notice that while "truthseeker" purports to be interested in science, he hasn't actually advanced any. All he has offered thusfar is photographs and videos and his own uneducated opinions about them, while distorting what others have said.

My guess is that he has no scientific knowledge whatsoever and that his only expertise is in googling conspiracy theories and convincing himself that they *must* be true because some other tinhatters told him so.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.

Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.

Maybe someone else could take a crack at this one.

In this video

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

There are flashes evident. Focus on the one that occurs on the corner, about halfway up between the damage zone and the top. I do not observe any falling debris of any kind in this area. Do you? Kent has stated that he "believes" that the flash is the reflection of sunlight off of falling debris. Do you agree, or what is your explanation?

Any of you brave souls want to go on record on this one? What is the flash?
Click to expand...

Funny how you continue to avoid that video I keep posting.
Yes I see that video as I stated I believe the debris could be obscured in the smoke. In fact it looks like it is falling a little bit now that I look at it again. Although its hard to tell. Again I mentioned this before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom