ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th October 2016, 09:22 PM   #1
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,092
Help with numbers, please.

I am currently engaged in a debate on Facebook with a group of truthers. I am, as most of you know, an English teacher and not an engineer or a mathematician. I'm in need of some figures, and am asking for help, as I know that several posters here will have them at their fingertips.
Apologies for this, as I know it's all been done before here, but I don't know the exact answers, and, if I were to search this sub-forum, I would get hundreds of hits that I really don't want to trawl through.
This is what I need:
  • How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?
  • What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
  • If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
  • How long did they actually take to collapse?

Appreciation in advance for your assistance. It's all in a good cause!
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 04:06 AM   #2
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 92
If they were to fall at free fall, it would have taken roughly 9 seconds. Too tough to tell the actual time due to all the dust and debris.
heymatto70 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 06:02 AM   #3
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,834
750 Kg to sever an average column and 1500 kg to sever a core column. (D. P. Grimmer)

Multiply by number of columns.

Roughly 30,000 Kg per building.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 06:09 AM   #4
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
750 Kg to sever an average column and 1500 kg to sever a core column. (D. P. Grimmer)

Multiply by number of columns.

Roughly 30,000 Kg per building.
Not exactly true if oxygen is used in combination with thermite, then that significantly lowers the amount nessisary.

Oxygen turns the steel itself into fuel to release energy to cut it.

The question is though what oxydant could survive the fires and why no mushroomed columns were ever seen since cutting a loaded structure results in mushrooming of the ends that are thermally deformed.

Looks like Twoofers never actually tried to cut though a large loaded column and have no Idea if the physics involved in such a proposal.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 07:12 AM   #5
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I am currently engaged in a debate on Facebook with a group of truthers. I am, as most of you know, an English teacher and not an engineer or a mathematician. I'm in need of some figures, and am asking for help, as I know that several posters here will have them at their fingertips.
Apologies for this, as I know it's all been done before here, but I don't know the exact answers, and, if I were to search this sub-forum, I would get hundreds of hits that I really don't want to trawl through.
This is what I need:
  • How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?
  • What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
  • If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
  • How long did they actually take to collapse?

Appreciation in advance for your assistance. It's all in a good cause!
When the truth is of secondary importance to you, this is a good place to come.

If you cannot spare the time to do some unbiased fact-checking on your own dime, how will you know when someone is lying to you -- and more importantly, do you really care?

I hope your students do.

Some quick answers to your requests;

Thermite most likely had the limited function of being a collapse initiator.

How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.

Explosives would be very easy to calculate if you could be sure your calculations allowed for all known explosive chemistry.

The freefall acceleration is better explained by imagining whole floors, floors interconnected by structural steel framing and bedding the area of a football field -- DROPPING through air in virtual unison -- unimpeded like a falling brick.

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse.

Last edited by Criteria; 26th October 2016 at 07:14 AM.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 07:20 AM   #6
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,574
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
When the truth is of secondary importance to you, this is a good place to come.

If you cannot spare the time to do some unbiased fact-checking on your own dime, how will you know when someone is lying to you -- and more importantly, do you really care?

I hope your students do.

Some quick answers to your requests;

Thermite most likely had the limited function of being a collapse initiator.

How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.

Explosives would be very easy to calculate if you could be sure your calculations allowed for all known explosive chemistry.

The freefall acceleration is better explained by imagining whole floors, floors interconnected by structural steel framing and bedding the area of a football field -- DROPPING through air in virtual unison -- unimpeded like a falling brick.

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse.

Your lack of math disturbs me...
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 07:35 AM   #7
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
All the above was required to take down the JL Hudson building. It was (still is??) the world record controlled demolition.
The JL Hudson was 439 feet tall.

Each WTC building was 1,100 feet tall and WTC 7 was over 500 feet tall.

So we are supposed to believe that two buildings well over twice the size of the world record were rigged, and a 3rd building that beat the world record was rigged all at the same time.

LOL!!!
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 07:43 AM   #8
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This is what I need:
  • How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?
Simple answer: Nobody knows. More complex answer: We only know of at most two instances of thermite being used in a demolition, neither of which was remotely similar to any possible 9/11 collapse scenario. Truthers aren't interested in trying to work out the numbers behind their own theory - you'll see that from Criteria's carefully constructed fact-free post above - so at best they'll demand that their critics flesh out their own theories for them so that they can cry "Strawman!"

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
  • What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
Very difficult to say; it would require a demolition contractor to study the structure in detail and construct a demolition plan, because there isn't a simple guideline. For information on the sort of schemes that are used, the Controlled Demolition Inc. website is a great place to start. The 33 floor J. L. Hudson department store in Detroit required 4,118 charges totaling 2,728lb of high explosives, but this was a very much smaller structure than WTC1, 2 or 7, and required extensive pre-weakening of the structure which could not have been carried out in any feasible WTC demolition scenario.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
  • If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
  • How long did they actually take to collapse?
The relevant page on 9/11 Myths gives good data with sources for this for WTC1 and 2. It's a very old site and hasn't been updated in a long while, but it remains the very antithesis of what Criteria and his ilk like to pretend debunking sites are.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 08:57 AM   #9
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 523
The NIST model demonstrated that WTC7 was susceptible to progressive collapse if column 79 failed between the 10th and 13th floors of the building, regardless of the damage to other parts of the building. It might be an interesting exercise then to try to calculate how much thermite it would take to fail that column across those floors. It might be surprisingly little.

Of course, that said, calculating that amount, while perhaps an interesting math exercise, tells you nothing about what actually happened on 9-11. For one, there is no strong evidence of man-made thermitic materials at the WTC site (there are major problems with the Jones paper that have been addressed here and elsewhere ad naseum and none of the promises for further research to resolve those problems have been fulfilled, except in the case of the Milette study, which cast even more doubt on Jone's purported findings). There is also no evidence that such materials, if present, could have survived the documented fires in WTC 7. Lastly, there are now four public models made by expert structural engineers that have concluded that there are reasonable scenarios in which the observed fires alone could have caused the observed collapse.

Assuming there was thermite involved in the collapse thus explains nothing and calculating how much would have been involved is purely a fanciful exercise in math.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 10:51 AM   #10
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,092
Very helpful- thank you all.
Just to update you, for the first time ever in a FB debate, someone else turned up who was on my side. Usually, I'm dealing with a baying horde of truthers single-handedly. This time, a white knight appeared, who is an engineering student. He swiftly and precisely dealt with a number of the engineering-related questions (lots of JAQing off, as you can imagine. "How do you explain that, sheeple?" etc etc etc), and suddenly the truthers don't want to play any more.
However, the information you have provided will no doubt come in handy for the next time.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 10:52 AM   #11
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
The NIST model demonstrated that WTC7 was susceptible to progressive collapse if column 79 failed between the 10th and 13th floors of the building, regardless of the damage to other parts of the building. It might be an interesting exercise then to try to calculate how much thermite it would take to fail that column across those floors. It might be surprisingly little.

Of course, that said, calculating that amount, while perhaps an interesting math exercise, tells you nothing about what actually happened on 9-11. For one, there is no strong evidence of man-made thermitic materials at the WTC site (there are major problems with the Jones paper that have been addressed here and elsewhere ad naseum and none of the promises for further research to resolve those problems have been fulfilled, except in the case of the Milette study, which cast even more doubt on Jone's purported findings). There is also no evidence that such materials, if present, could have survived the documented fires in WTC 7. Lastly, there are now four public models made by expert structural engineers that have concluded that there are reasonable scenarios in which the observed fires alone could have caused the observed collapse.

Assuming there was thermite involved in the collapse thus explains nothing and calculating how much would have been involved is purely a fanciful exercise in math.
20 kg would be fine for WTC 7, because that was a progressive collapse initiated by one column if you believe the Arup/Nist report. Of course in a nice fire proof casing.

If the "truth" is to be believed you would need several hundred tons for each of the towers, since they blew up every level as is "proven" by the squibs
Richard the G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 12:12 PM   #12
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I am currently engaged in a debate on Facebook with a group of truthers. I am, as most of you know, an English teacher and not an engineer or a mathematician. I'm in need of some figures, and am asking for help, as I know that several posters here will have them at their fingertips.
Apologies for this, as I know it's all been done before here, but I don't know the exact answers, and, if I were to search this sub-forum, I would get hundreds of hits that I really don't want to trawl through.
This is what I need:
  • How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?
  • What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
  • If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
  • How long did they actually take to collapse?

Appreciation in advance for your assistance. It's all in a good cause!
Grrrr ... my "new" (actually used and at least 6 years old) ThinkPad has this goddamned "browser page back" key next to the normal up/left keys, and I have now twice hit it accidentally and thus erased what I wrote - won't write it all a third time, just the short results:
[*]How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?[*]What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
A smart military demolition engineer could probably figure out how to take down each tower by applying, order of magnitude, 500 pounds of explosives or 1000 pounds of specially formulated thermite on one floor, and letting gravity do the rest. Perhaps even less, if specific weaknesses are found.
Reason: NIST says 9 pounds will sever the fattest WTC7 column, so 9*47 = 423 pounds will do for the 47 core columns of WTC1. Thermite may be half as efficient.
But truthers never believe that failure on only one floor could result in total collapse as observed, and they typically assume that you need to cut all columns on all floors, or every other floor. So, multiply the above by 100 or whatever, and you need 20 tons of explosives or 40 tons of thermite to demolish "truther style".

[*]If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
Depends on what part of the building you are looking at - the roofline? The bottom of the "top block" (95th or 80th floor)?
In any case, a bit under 10 seconds is near enough.

[*]How long did they actually take to collapse?
No one knows, as no feature of the structure could be observed all the way to the ground. The structure vertically split into several parts, when the floor slabs pancaked down and separated core from perimeter, and the walls zipped loose from one another and fell, in part, outwards. Toppling isn't falling. There are indications that the pancaking happend at 2/3 of g, that would have taken a bit under 15 second then. The walls I do not know, as some parts fell, some toppled, some toppled a bit before falling also. Parts of the cores remained standing for some seconds after the walls and floors were down, before they, too, toppled then fell. I wouldn't be surprised if you find that the last bit of at least one of the towers took 20 or 25 seconds to hit the debris pile on the ground.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 02:06 PM   #13
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
When the truth is of secondary importance to you, this is a good place to come.

If you cannot spare the time to do some unbiased fact-checking on your own dime, how will you know when someone is lying to you -- and more importantly, do you really care?

I hope your students do.

Some quick answers to your requests;

Thermite most likely had the limited function of being a collapse initiator.

How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.
Fantastic.
Now, reconcile that with the supposed fact that it was very easy to find unreacted thermite in a few small random samples of the WTC destruction dust!
If only a small amount was used just to initiate collapses then it is very unusual that ANY would be found in the dust.

Well that OR the thermite used was extremely unreliable and a lot of what was loaded into the three structures did not react.

Quote:
Explosives would be very easy to calculate if you could be sure your calculations allowed for all known explosive chemistry.

The freefall acceleration is better explained by imagining whole floors, floors interconnected by structural steel framing and bedding the area of a football field -- DROPPING through air in virtual unison -- unimpeded like a falling brick.

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse.
sure, 2.25 seconds occurring 1.75 seconds after the entire building began moving downwards and a whole 15+ seconds after the building began coming apart in side.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 03:28 PM   #14
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,535
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
[*]If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?[*]How long did they actually take to collapse?[/list]
Appreciation in advance for your assistance. It's all in a good cause!
There's actually a fairly simple way (requiring no math) to show that the towers did not actually collapse at free-fall. Look at any picture of the collapses, and you will see that the debris field outside the towers is quite a bit lower than the actual current portion of the tower collapsing. Assuming that the debris field is not somehow falling at faster than freefall acceleration, this means that the towers themselves were collapsing slower than would be the case in freefall.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 03:45 PM   #15
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,834
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Very helpful- thank you all.
Just to update you, for the first time ever in a FB debate, someone else turned up who was on my side. Usually, I'm dealing with a baying horde of truthers single-handedly. This time, a white knight appeared, who is an engineering student. He swiftly and precisely dealt with a number of the engineering-related questions (lots of JAQing off, as you can imagine. "How do you explain that, sheeple?" etc etc etc), and suddenly the truthers don't want to play any more.
However, the information you have provided will no doubt come in handy for the next time.
Great. I should have added the miles of det cord required to be installed and the utter oddness of how said det cord would survive the aircraft impacts.

Are we to believe that the ebil conspirators said "Meh, it might work." I somehow doubt it.

Perhaps they went for redundancy, Double the amount of det cord? Triple? And all of it vanishes without trace? Really? We are now up to at least 30-50 miles of det cord in each building all of which must vanish. By magic. After having been installed in the first place by magic.

This leads truthers to a difficult place. This is the origin of the no-planer nonsense. Unfortunately, this leads to the hologram nonsense and if you keep going, you meet Judy Wood coming the other way.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2016, 04:35 PM   #16
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
The wall of stupid.

Some hit it, some don't.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 12:33 AM   #17
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
<snarkysnip>
Thermite most likely had the limited function of being a collapse initiator.

How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.
So your own fact-checking has not gone as far as establishing how thermite, was used, nor how much was used.
The statement that it was used is, from what I have seen in other threads, not based on any evidence at all.
It is this kind of shallow knowledge and unevidenced assertion that I was challenging on FB.
It is also worth noting that, despite my repeated requests, not one of them came up with any actual evidence for an inside job. Nothing. Plenty of incredulity with the usual details (the passport that was found, BBC reporting the collapse ahead of time, etc.) but no actual evidence of explosives, planting of debris, orders to the BBC to report an official script, or any other part of their claimed massive conspiracy.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 03:12 AM   #18
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
When the truth is of secondary importance to you, this is a good place to come.

If you cannot spare the time to do some unbiased fact-checking on your own dime, how will you know when someone is lying to you -- and more importantly, do you really care?

I hope your students do.

Some quick answers to your requests;

Thermite most likely had the limited function of being a collapse initiator.

How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.

Explosives would be very easy to calculate if you could be sure your calculations allowed for all known explosive chemistry.

The freefall acceleration is better explained by imagining whole floors, floors interconnected by structural steel framing and bedding the area of a football field -- DROPPING through air in virtual unison -- unimpeded like a falling brick.

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse.
Rubbish you can't know that because all you see is the outer wall, not the Interior floors so that statement is pure fantasy BS.
The building plays a misdirection trick on you, and you can't cope with it.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 08:14 AM   #19
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
"The freefall acceleration is better explained by imagining whole floors, floors interconnected by structural steel framing and bedding the area of a football field -- DROPPING through air in virtual unison -- unimpeded like a falling brick.

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse."
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
"- Rubbish."

- "you can't know that because all you see is the outer wall"

- "not the Interior floors so that statement is pure fantasy BS."

- "The building plays a misdirection trick on you, and you can't cope with it."
Rubbish?

Because of your chosen belief or because you can provide a better science-based explanation for what was observed?

The NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds.

During this one hundred foot drop, daylight spread, unobstructed.

We were given a clear view of what remained behind "the outer wall".

When those floors dropped, our eyes told us; that the core was already gone, or the core was dropping at the same time.

Of course rejectionists of controlled demolition claim that indeed, the core was already gone and that what was really observed was the the global collapse of the shell.

This fantasy is based solely on the observed collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse a few seconds prior to WTC7's global collapse.

Fire-induced failures could never have caused a major internal failure of WTC7.

You and other self appointed guardians of the official story believe that heat-induced collapse forces caused the sudden failure of WTC7's interior steel structural support.

This belief requires accepting that WTC7's windowed-shell could remain relatively unscathed by this enormous amount of pre-global collapse devastation to its internal steel structure.

Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.

When the 'shell' begins to drop we quickly see the formation of a huge debris cloud.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 08:55 AM   #20
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You and other self appointed guardians of the official story believe that heat-induced collapse forces caused the sudden failure of WTC7's interior steel structural support.

This belief requires accepting that WTC7's windowed-shell could remain relatively unscathed by this enormous amount of pre-global collapse devastation to its internal steel structure.
And yet the thermite hypothesis requires the collapse to have been induced by a far greater amount of heat, but nevertheless spares itself the inconvenient necessity of conforming to the same logic.

Or, indeed, any logic at all.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 09:02 AM   #21
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Rubbish?

Because of your chosen belief or because you can provide a better science-based explanation for what was observed?

The NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds.

During this one hundred foot drop, daylight spread, unobstructed.

We were given a clear view of what remained behind "the outer wall".

When those floors dropped, our eyes told us; that the core was already gone, or the core was dropping at the same time.

Of course rejectionists of controlled demolition claim that indeed, the core was already gone and that what was really observed was the the global collapse of the shell.

This fantasy is based solely on the observed collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse a few seconds prior to WTC7's global collapse.

Fire-induced failures could never have caused a major internal failure of WTC7.

You and other self appointed guardians of the official story believe that heat-induced collapse forces caused the sudden failure of WTC7's interior steel structural support.

This belief requires accepting that WTC7's windowed-shell could remain relatively unscathed by this enormous amount of pre-global collapse devastation to its internal steel structure.

Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.

When the 'shell' begins to drop we quickly see the formation of a huge debris cloud.
Wrong I base my Ideas on the photos of the rubble, how it laid and how the debris fell in the original video I saw on 9/11/2001.

Also on the fact-( Fact) you don't know what the crap your talking about.

Column kicking by debris would cause the free fall collapse in both CD, or natural collapse!

No evidence has ever existed for thermite,-Thermate useage and Jones & Harrit are proven liars so why should I believe the thermite thermate fairy tales?

I know what steel cut under loading with thermite, thermate looks like, you don't, no one saw or reported mushrooming do to thermal cutting in the steel, no one!

That would have been evidence of thermate, thermite usage!

You're only spouting fairy tale belief.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 09:08 AM   #22
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And yet the thermite hypothesis requires the collapse to have been induced by a far greater amount of heat, but nevertheless spares itself the inconvenient necessity of conforming to the same logic.

Or, indeed, any logic at all.

Dave
It requires squat mushroomed steel, more noticeable than Monrue cutter charges, or even shrapnel the steel would have recorded visually any force used to compromise it.

No one notice and has seen what thermite cutting does to loaded steel, but me.

I actually cut loaded steel with thermite the thermal deformation of steel is obvious, in such cuts.

Place a 50 ton jack on an inch bolt and attempt to cut it with termite or even an oxyacetylene torch, and you will see what I mean the heat and the pressure causes distinctive deformation.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 01:30 PM   #23
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.
Can you point us to a clear view of the street level at the time of the start of the fašade collapse, that supports your assertion?

Because I think you've made that up. In fact, I've observed the videos and I see something that quite looks like an emerging cloud, even in views where the first visible floors are quite high.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 03:06 PM   #24
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds.
You never seem willing to acknowledge that the entire structure had already been falling for 1.75 seconds when this freefall began..
Quote:
We were given a clear view of what remained behind "the outer wall".

When those floors dropped, our eyes told us; that the core was already gone, or the core was dropping at the same time.
Ok
Quote:
Of course rejectionists of controlled demolition claim that indeed, the core was already gone and that what was really observed was the the global collapse of the shell.
This fantasy is based solely on the observed collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse a few seconds prior to WTC7's global collapse.
Self serving comment aside, yep.


Quote:
Fire-induced failures could never have caused a major internal failure of WTC7.
Bald assertion disputed by several engineering firm's reports.

Quote:
You and other self appointed guardians of the official story believe that heat-induced collapse forces caused the sudden failure of WTC7's interior steel structural support.
Sudden?
You claim a 10+ second interval between initial collapse indications and the facade movement to be sudden?
Quote:
This belief requires accepting that WTC7's windowed-shell could remain relatively unscathed by this enormous amount of pre-global collapse devastation to its internal steel structure.
Aside from the massive ground to roof kink in the north face and previous damage on the south. Right?
Quote:
Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.
Oh, which video should have caught that? We do know the penthouse caved in. Where did the debris cloud from it become visible then. 45th floor?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 07:41 PM   #25
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Oh I get it now.

WTC7 :
Thermite planted in a few key places to bring down the penthouse just far enough to make it look like ol 79 failed low down
In order to bolster this fallacious view, thermite also takes out a few columns to form the kink in the north face.

Then , still requiring silence, thermite is used to weaken all other interior columns and the building corners. Then the whole structure begins moving down for 1.75 seconds.
NOW explosives take out every single column so that free fall can take place.

Maybe it's just me but a questions begs an answer; if the whole building was already moving, why was it required to blow all columns and obtain free fall?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 07:48 PM   #26
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
No, wait, that's too much thermite. Criteria says it's only for initiation. Or it's not enough since so much is found in the dust.

Oh when will truthers answer these questions?!
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 09:01 PM   #27
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Rubbish?

Because of your chosen belief or because you can provide a better science-based explanation for what was observed?

The NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at freefall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds.

During this one hundred foot drop, daylight spread, unobstructed.

We were given a clear view of what remained behind "the outer wall".

When those floors dropped, our eyes told us; that the core was already gone, or the core was dropping at the same time.

Of course rejectionists of controlled demolition claim that indeed, the core was already gone and that what was really observed was the the global collapse of the shell.

This fantasy is based solely on the observed collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse a few seconds prior to WTC7's global collapse.

Fire-induced failures could never have caused a major internal failure of WTC7.

You and other self appointed guardians of the official story believe that heat-induced collapse forces caused the sudden failure of WTC7's interior steel structural support.

This belief requires accepting that WTC7's windowed-shell could remain relatively unscathed by this enormous amount of pre-global collapse devastation to its internal steel structure.

Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.

When the 'shell' begins to drop we quickly see the formation of a huge debris cloud.
We already had a thread on this, the 2.25 s was approximately and not exactly the same acceleration as free fall and so the building cannot be claimed to have been freely falling, since it was not measured as constant. Force stack up from the collapse dynamics can explain the observed behavior without resorting to the "column removal" conjecture. Please, peddle the sloppy engineering analysis elsewhere.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 12:15 AM   #28
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,697
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
How much was installed is only speculation at the moment.


How much more time do you feel as though you need?
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:17 AM   #29
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post


How much more time do you feel as though you need?
Perhaps another decade and a half will do it. Or simply three/four times as long as NIST took to publish the final WTC 7 report.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 28th October 2016 at 06:18 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 08:10 PM   #30
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Fire-induced failures could never have caused a major internal failure of WTC7.
Why not?! After all, fire alone caused the internal collapse of WTC 5.

Quote:
World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4).

While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage

https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Availab...ed/LaMalva.pdf
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2016, 04:38 AM   #31
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post


How much more time do you feel as though you need?
The sun will die, the Galaxy will become a quasar, and the big bang will begin again before he figures how much thermite ( wasn't used.)
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2016, 02:20 PM   #32
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
All the above was required to take down the JL Hudson building. It was (still is??) the world record controlled demolition.
This may be splitting a hair or comparing apples to oranges but I believe you are correct that the Hudson building is the tallest CD ever performed. But it's worth mentioning The Landmark Hotel in Las Vegas. While shorter than the Hudson (356' vs 439'), the Landmark was 31 floors vs Hudson's 29.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by cantonear1968; 29th October 2016 at 02:40 PM.
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2016, 02:57 PM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
This may be splitting a hair or comparing apples to oranges but I believe you are correct that the Hudson building is the tallest CD ever performed. But it's worth mentioning The Landmark Hotel in Las Vegas. While shorter than the Hudson (356' vs 439'), the Landmark was 31 floors vs Hudson's 29.
The Landmark is a better comparison with the WTC with a clean, symmetrical, tall layout, whereas the Hudson building was quite a mess, with several wings of different designs, which made the task of controlling the demolition complex, requiring many additional charges on top of the mere necessity to break vertical support.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2016, 06:09 PM   #34
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
This may be splitting a hair or comparing apples to oranges but I believe you are correct that the Hudson building is the tallest CD ever performed. But it's worth mentioning The Landmark Hotel in Las Vegas. While shorter than the Hudson (356' vs 439'), the Landmark was 31 floors vs Hudson's 29.
Are we referring to the demolished Landmark Hotel in Las Vegas, or the demolished Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth, Texas? I count only about 20 stories in the Las Vegas Landmark. The LV Landmark demolition video was used in the film Mars Attacks.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landma...t_Worth,_Texas)
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2016, 07:57 PM   #35
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Interestingly, in spite of this major gutting pre-collapse that is supposed to be established by the falling east penthouse, at street level we see little sign of what should have been a rapidly protruding debris cloud.
Can you point us to a clear view of the street level at the time of the start of the fašade collapse, that supports your assertion?

Because I think you've made that up. In fact, I've observed the videos and I see something that quite looks like an emerging cloud, even in views where the first visible floors are quite high.
Still waiting. It's becoming more and more evident that he made that up.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 12:24 PM   #36
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Are we referring to the demolished Landmark Hotel in Las Vegas, or the demolished Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth, Texas? I count only about 20 stories in the Las Vegas Landmark. The LV Landmark demolition video was used in the film Mars Attacks.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landma...t_Worth,_Texas)

This from CDI's website:

Quote:
Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, the family owned company that demolished the remainder of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, will be felling the 31-story, 356' tall Landmark Hotel Tower in Las Vegas, Nevada in early November.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by cantonear1968; 30th October 2016 at 12:25 PM.
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 01:07 PM   #37
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,134
I was talking about the Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth, Texas.
Sorry for the confusion.
The Ft. Worth Landmark was a steel frame tower and thus a better comparison with the WTC. It was 30 stories and thus at least close to the record.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 04:40 PM   #38
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

WTC7 did this for at least 2.25 seconds during its global collapse.
No... all you can SEE is the curtain wall w/ attached moment frame dropping. You can't see what happened to the interior and when that occurred. But it like took place BEFORE the curtain wall dropped.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2016, 05:29 PM   #39
Elind
Philosopher
 
Elind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: S.E. USA. Sometimes bible country
Posts: 7,779
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I am currently engaged in a debate on Facebook with a group of truthers. I am, as most of you know, an English teacher and not an engineer or a mathematician. I'm in need of some figures, and am asking for help, as I know that several posters here will have them at their fingertips.
Apologies for this, as I know it's all been done before here, but I don't know the exact answers, and, if I were to search this sub-forum, I would get hundreds of hits that I really don't want to trawl through.
This is what I need:
  • How much thermite would have been needed to bring down each tower (WTC 1, 2 & 7)?
  • What quantity of explosives would have been needed, if it had been done this way?
  • If the towers had fallen at free fall, how long would they have taken to collapse?
  • How long did they actually take to collapse?

Appreciation in advance for your assistance. It's all in a good cause!
Do you consider a good cause to be engaging in this sort of idiocy?
Elind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2016, 12:40 AM   #40
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by Elind View Post
Do you consider a good cause to be engaging in this sort of idiocy?
I'll be happy to answer, once you've defined your terms.
To which sort of idiocy were you referring?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.