HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Cutter Charges in the Nor...

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:10 AM

Cutter Charges in the North Tower...

David Chandler shows cutter charges used in the demolition of the North Tower.

&feature=related

73 replies, 9664 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply Cutter Charges in the North Tower... (Original post)
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #1
wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #2
gyroscope Jan 2012 #3
zappaman Jan 2012 #4
gyroscope Jan 2012 #5
sabbat hunter Mar 2012 #60
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #6
gyroscope Jan 2012 #7
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #8
gyroscope Jan 2012 #11
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #12
hack89 Jan 2012 #17
NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #68
hack89 Apr 2012 #69
NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #70
apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #71
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65
zappaman Mar 2012 #66
The Great Haku Jun 2012 #72
wildbilln864 Jul 2012 #73
LineLineLineReply .
jesters Jan 2012 #9
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10
gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
hack89 Jan 2012 #16
hack89 Jan 2012 #15
gyroscope Jan 2012 #18
hack89 Jan 2012 #19
gyroscope Jan 2012 #20
AZCat Jan 2012 #21
zappaman Jan 2012 #22
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #51
zappaman Mar 2012 #53
hack89 Jan 2012 #23
jesters Jan 2012 #24
hack89 Jan 2012 #28
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29
Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2012 #56
Bolo Boffin Mar 2012 #62
hack89 Jan 2012 #13
jesters Jan 2012 #25
zappaman Jan 2012 #26
hack89 Jan 2012 #27
gyroscope Jan 2012 #30
hack89 Jan 2012 #31
gyroscope Jan 2012 #32
hack89 Jan 2012 #33
gyroscope Jan 2012 #34
hack89 Jan 2012 #35
jesters Jan 2012 #36
hack89 Jan 2012 #37
jesters Jan 2012 #38
AZCat Jan 2012 #39
hack89 Jan 2012 #40
jesters Jan 2012 #41
hack89 Jan 2012 #42
jesters Jan 2012 #43
gyroscope Jan 2012 #46
hack89 Jan 2012 #49
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #52
hack89 Mar 2012 #57
gyroscope Jan 2012 #44
jesters Jan 2012 #45
gyroscope Jan 2012 #47
hack89 Jan 2012 #48
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #58
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #50
LARED Mar 2012 #54
zappaman Mar 2012 #55
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #63
jberryhill Mar 2012 #59
wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #61
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #64
wildbilln864 Apr 2012 #67

Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 07:19 PM

1. and a kick! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:43 PM

2. FDNY firefighters...

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:29 AM

3. NIST explains them as pressurized puffs of air

that are ejected horizontally by the the pressure of the collapsing floors.

first of all, these are not puffs of air. they are pulverized building materials.
there's a whole lot of solids in them.

second of all, if they were highly pressurized puffs of air they would be blowing out of ALL the windows of the floor not just exiting out of a single window. unless NIST is claiming each floor had only one window? hah!



welp, there goes another official theory out the window.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:57 AM

4. so you can tell from that picture that the puff is "exiting out of a single window"?

Hah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:23 AM

5. Since they are actually explosives

they aren't likely to be coming out of the windows at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:36 AM

60. how and when exactly

do you think the buildings were wired for implosion?

Do you realize that much smaller buildings day days if not weeks to prepare for implosions, by placing charges very precisely, stripping the buildings, cutting supports, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:26 AM

6. "they would be blowing out of ALL the windows of the floor" - No.

Once one or two windows broke, the pressure would be relieved and further jetting would occur just through those windows.

Also, this is jetting material, not an explosion. The material continues to flow out at the same speed, something not evident with a single frame of a video. If it was an explosion, the material would blast out and then immediately stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:42 AM

7. So this 'jetting material' just happens to resemble

the precise timed 'squib' explosions/ejections (whatever you want to call it) that you commonly see in the videos of known controlled demolitions?

must be another one of those amazing 9/11 coincidences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:46 AM

8. As I explained, they do NOT resemble precisely timed explosions

commonly seen in videos of known controlled demolitions.

Please do take the time to consider my actual words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:37 AM

11. Do you require glasses?

They are in fact, precisely timed and placed explosions.

they are not random. there is a clear pattern to them as anyone with two good eyes and a functioning brain can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:08 AM

12. Please stop the sarcasm.

I explained before that these flows are constantly flowing out with dirt and debris, UNLIKE an explosion which blows out and then stops. Anyone who watches the videos can see they constantly flow out like air being pushed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:58 AM

17. Why would they need to cut the outer walls?

wouldn't have charges confined to the core columns had the same effect and would be easier to hide?

Where are all the executives commenting on how they remember workers coming into their nice offices with the view to work on stuff in the walls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 03:23 PM

68. there were in fact a lot of renovations going on in the towers

 

all the time, up to 9/11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #68)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

69. Feel free to back this up with some evidence. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 03:41 PM

70. are you saying there weren't a lot of renovations going on?

 

I don't think it's that hard to find evidence for the work.

e.g. http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:08 PM

71. But you haven't found it yet: keep looking. That link proves NOTHING. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 12:58 AM

65. LOL!

It's amazing isn't it. Don't believe what your eyes tell you, believe what the government tells you. Here's a video I found last week that shows popping in the first tower before the other impact at around the 4:26 minute mark to about 8 minute mark. But of course I'm the nut. Those aren't explosives, just floor dropping at free fall speed. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:28 PM

66. "But of course I'm the nut."

Your words...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #66)


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 09:32 PM

73. thanks for posting this! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:59 AM

9. .

The ejected material is dusty and sometimes contains debris. Since these ejections are happening as far down as 20 to 40 storeys below the "collapse" wave, where is the dust and debris coming from?

And through what pathways in the building is the air travelling down this far, to select a single point out of which to escape, which turns out to be different on each floor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:02 AM

10. There are reports of the air blowing down much further than that during the collapse.

The towers were not vacuums, nor were they open-air plazas. When the top came crashing down, crushing the lower section, the air, dust, and debris in the lower section would have to go somewhere.

Selection is simply which window breaks first. Why would explosive devices be staggered in a building that is so similar in design all the way up and down? Breakouts in different places on each floor is evidence that it's simply chance selecting which window breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:48 AM

14. Something else they can't to explain

why the ejections are taking place 20 to 40 stories far below the collapse front?
so there's no source of dust and debris for the 'puffs of air.'

the firemen in the above video describe them as a series of explosions going down the building "boom boom boom boom boom." a 'puff of air' does not go boom. that's what an explosion does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:55 AM

16. See my post #15 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:55 AM

15. When the volume of a single floor went from 400K cubic feet to zero in fractions of seconds

how much pressure do you think was generated? Four million cubic feet of air was displaced in seconds during the collapse - where do you think that air went?

Do you think some of it was forced down elevator shafts and vented on lower floors? Floors with different walls and corridors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:24 PM

18. So these 'puffs of air' as you call them

were so strong that they blew out elevator doors, and after blowing through the elevator doors still retained enough energy to blow out the glass plate windows? amazing.

why didn't the puffs of air just keep traveling down (or up) the elevator shaft following the path of least resistance?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:33 PM

19. Do you understand compression?

400,000 cubic feet of air per floor went to zero cubic feet in a fraction of a second. That would generate enormous pressure and heat.

As for the path:

1. many elevator shafts were "local" service and did no go all the way to the lobby.
2. what elevator doors were open on what floor when the collapse started?
3. the stairwells were another path
4. the HVAC ducting were another path


Again, where are all those executives talking about all that work done on the walls of their nice window offices? Thousands of charges were installed in total secrecy - yea right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:45 PM

20. Compression requires an airtight seal.

For this extreme compression of air to occur, you would need an airtight seal between the upper block and lower block. or else the air simply escapes out of the gap between the two blocks. there was no airtight seal between them.

2) the installation of the charges took place at night and/or on the weekends when people weren't working.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:48 PM

21. No, it doesn't.

The bursts of debris were the visible signs of air escaping from the compressed volume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:52 PM

22. "the installation of the charges took place at night and/or on the weekends when people weren't work

and you have some shred of evidence of this, yes?
might as well say aliens came in when no one was looking at planted mini-nukes created on their home planet.
after all, I have as much evidence of that as you do of "the installation of the charges took place at night and/or on the weekends when people weren't working."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:18 AM

51. There was video

Of workers in the WTC a few months or weeks before 9/11 and they had concrete dust all over their window sills, and offices. And they heard loud noises in the floors above and below. Those must have been the "aliens" you talked about. And I can't find that video anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:17 PM

53. "There was video"

Let's see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:55 PM

23. The WTC was a sealed building - all the windows were closed

if the air cannot escape all at once it will be compressed. At the WTC4 million cubic feet of air went somewhere in a matter of seconds. It over pressurized the building below the collapse front and blew out a handful of windows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:34 PM

24. No.

Still doesn't answer why it would be so selective in which floors to escape from. Why 40 floors below the collapse wave, for example? An immense pressure such as you claim would not blow out only one window at a time, on floors 40 storeys below the collapse wave.

I agree with Boloboffin's question (post #10) as to why would charges be placed that haphazardly, and in areas of the structure that would probably least need weakening; however, by the same token, the air pressure argument also fails. A pressurized system like that would blow out sections of windows at a time, and in a sequence that correleates with the "collapse" progression. Explosive ejections make more sense in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

28. Because of where the elevator and HVAC shafts terminated?

that's the floor with the stairwell door open. That's the office with the open door. That's the floor with the floor plan that facilitated the flow of air.

Come on - use some imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:46 PM

29. maybe you and gyroscope can settle this and then get back to the rest of us

It's not that I expect you to agree about everything, but it's a bit dizzying that one of you is citing a "clear pattern" of "precisely timed and placed explosions" as proof of controlled demolition, while the other one is citing the absence of a clear pattern as evidence of controlled demolition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:41 PM

56. the 'puffs' come out of the windows in regular demolitions - see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 14, 2012, 04:12 PM

62. But the venting in the WTC buildings don't "puff," they jet

A continuous stream of material, not a puff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:48 AM

13. Why weren't the plotters smart enough to put the cutter chargers

in the core of the building where they would not be filmed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:37 PM

25. There would have been some destructive devices along the core. Obviously.

What makes you think there wasn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:41 PM

26. more importantly

where is your evidence they were?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:43 PM

27. Why would they need them on the exterior walls?

it was not necessary to make the towers collapse. And, according to you, they would leave high visible traces of demolition. Lets apply some logic here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:32 PM

30. Simple.

The perimeter steel frame were load-bearing structures.

What do you think supported the floors of the North and South towers?

Do you think the floors were supported by only the core columns?
That would be like building a table with only two legs on one side of it.



So to bring down the towers, the perimeter frame had to be knocked out along with the core columns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:20 AM

31. So a table can stand with only two legs on one side?

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

because if I understand you correctly, the towers would have remained standing if only the core columns were removed.

Since the floor pans were connected to the core, when the core collapsed wouldn't the floors have been pulled down too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:21 AM

32. Don't you forget what you said

Why would they need them on the exterior walls?

it was not necessary to make the towers collapse. And, according to you, they would leave high visible traces of demolition.


You clearly lack basic understanding of how the towers were constructed if you think demolition devices were not needed on the perimeter to bring them down. Which is why I use a simple analogy to help you understand how they were built.


The perimeter steel frame of these towers were load bearing structures that held up the floors of the building along with the inner core. The inner core holds up one one side of the floors. The perimeter frame holds up the other side. You can't have one without the other.

That would be like having a table with only two legs. You need all four legs to hold up the 'table.' The 'table' being the floor. The inner core representing two legs of the table, the outer perimeter steel frame representing the other two legs. You need all four 'legs' to hold the table up so to speak.

Comprende? It's not rocket science.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:42 AM

33. So if you "need all four 'legs' to hold the table up"

then removing two of the legs means the table will collapse.

If you need both the core and the perimeter walls to hold up the floor then logic says that neither the core or the perimeter walls can hold up the floors by themselves.

If you eliminate a condition required for the tower to stay upright then it will collapse. According to you having both the core and the perimeter walls is required to keep the tower from collapsing. Removing just the core violates this condition - therefore the tower will collapse.

Comprende? It's not rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:47 AM

34. But it wont come straight down

will it?

you need to knock out all four legs of the table at once to make it come straight down. or else it topples over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:54 AM

35. If the core of the tower collapses straight down while the perimeter remains stationary

which would happen if the core columns were cut, then the floors would initially be dragged down towards the center of the tower. The center is falling, the perimeter is stationary. So no - it would not topple over. The floors would fall in toward the center of the building until they were separated from both the core and the perimeter. Then they would fall straight down.

Which is what we saw with the buckling of the perimeter walls just before the collapse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:56 AM

36. So you agree that the core sank first.

How would this happen through fire and gravity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:05 PM

37. Too many damaged columns further weakened by fire

the towers were hit by fully loaded 767s at top speed. They had to have inflected significant damage to some core columns. Which meant you have fewer columns supporting the same amount of weight. You then heat those columns until they are weakened - not melted but weakened. The fires were plenty hot and it doesn't take that long before the weight carrying capacity of the columns were degraded.

Once the first column sagged it was all over. All that massive PE was instantly converted to KE and the collapsed began. The lower floors were not designed to withstand such massive dynamic loads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:26 PM

38. Lol.

"Once the first column sagged it was all over."

Oh I see, the fires were "plenty hot" and the column "sagged."



Goodness, this bodes ill for most highrises gracing our skylines today. Has anyone alerted FEMA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:29 PM

39. The professional building community has been discussing these issues for some time.

High rise fire safety has been a big deal since the early 1900's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:34 PM

40. You do understand why highrises have fireproofing and sprinkler systems?

the WTC fires were massive - they encompassed hundreds of thousands of square feet.

Remember that massive smoke plume that was seen from space? Think for second what an enormous outpouring of energy that represented.

steel looses 50% of its strength at 600 F. The fires were plenty hot enough to weaken them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:38 PM

41. Lol.

So when one core box column "sagged", so did the rest of the core columns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:41 PM

42. Only one needed to sag.

I suggest you research PE vs KE, static loads vs dynamic loads.


Any movement instantly converted all of the enormous PE into KE. Buildings are not designed with vertical dynamic loads in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:44 PM

43. Hack says that "Buildings are not designed with vertical static loads in mind."



I have no words for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:56 PM

46. Levitation?

I heard modern structures rely on levitation technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:01 PM

49. Sorry - meant vertical dynamic loads. Now answer my question. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:38 AM

52. The fires weren't massive

The fireman who got to the 78th floor said there were pockets of fire that could be put out. This link here has pictures of a massive fire in Madrid. And that building didn't collapse to the ground. So lets compare it to WTC7. Neither were hit by a plane.

https://www.google.com/search?q=madrid+fire+pictures&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CnJcT8eINbTUiAKp26WYCw&ved=0CCMQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=799

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 12, 2012, 10:32 PM

57. He was right at the edge of fire and below the impact floor

what a fireman sees in one tiny pocket at the very edge of the fire says nothing about the fire on the floors above.

Three questions to ponder:

1. Which direction do fire in high rises spread?
2. If the fires were so weak, why did so few survive from the floors above the impact zone? What stopped them from simply walking down to safety?
3. If you see massive smoke plume on the horizon sending thick clouds of smoke miles into the sky, do you think "pretty weak fire there."? Those smoke plumes were large enough to see from space.

Take a close look at Madrid again. It remained upright only because it had a concrete core. The steel portions of the building did collapse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:48 PM

44. The inner core isn't going to give very easily if at all

with the perimeter still intact and resisting it.
the perimeter holds up at least 50% of the building's weight.

the core isn't going to collapse with that kind of resistance pulling against it. that's what a CD is designed to do, to remove all the resisting forces holding it up so the building can come down smoothly.

it doesn't work without removing the resistance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:53 PM

45. "it doesn't work without removing the resistance. "

Well, there were a lot of "firsts" on 9/11... Didn't you know that?

Haven't you seen the new controlled demolitions? They just punch a hole somewhere near the top of the building, and light a fire on that floor, let it cook for an hour, and voila, straight-down symmetrical descent in under 15 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:00 PM

47. Maybe I'll start my own CD company

using this amazing jet fuel demolition technology.

I'm going to be rich!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:00 PM

48. You cut out a big chunk of the core

and the section of the core above it is going straight down - the weight is too massive.

The floors were connected to the perimeter walls with relatively weak metal clips. They certainly were not going to support the entire weight of the floor pans. Especially when the core end of the floor pans were being dragged down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 12, 2012, 10:59 PM

58. I seem to recall...

I seem to recall that the perimeter columns were to take the wind loads and the core was to take the gravity loads.

It's would have been impossible for the WTC to simply fall over. Falling over requires a pivot point able to support the entire weight of the building. When WTC2 finally collapsed, you saw the upper block of the building start to topple over but it soon overwhelmed the 'hinge' and then just fell straight down.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 04:11 AM

50. LOL!

I like it. Squibs 30 stories below the falling debris is also from floors landing on floors and causing it to push out a few of the windows. I am so happy I discovered this group. And if you ever watch a video of the first plane hit, watch how quick smoke comes billowing out the roof top. It takes like a minute 30 for smoke to rise 30 or 40 stories with not much other smoke coming out of the building anywhere else before the roof, it like jumps. Amazing isn't it. And yet with all this the deniers don't even believe the janitor who said he felt an explosion under his feet while in the lobby that happened in the basement a few seconds before the first plane even hit. Even the commission took his testimony out. I guess true eye witnesses aren't any good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:30 PM

54. It's a trip back in the time machine

 

I didn't know there were folks that still believe that nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #54)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 06:02 PM

55. Amazing, right?

I guess some folks just discovered this internets thingie...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 15, 2012, 06:40 PM

63. Do we now have a magic smoke theory?

It takes like a minute 30 for smoke to rise 30 or 40 stories with not much other smoke coming out of the building anywhere else before the roof,
Did you get this theory from Arlen Specter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 02:33 AM

59. Good one, Bill

You posted a brief description of the content of the video!

See, it's not that hard.

I'm proud of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:27 PM

61. I'm glad you're proud!

& thanx 4tk!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:32 AM

64. Riddle me this, billman...

The little jet of smoke discussed at 0:48 and beyond is moving at exactly the same speed as the smoke/debris surrounding it.

If this jet of smoke were the result of some kind of explosion, wouldn't, SHOULDN'T it be moving at oh, 1800 m/s to 8000 m/s, which is the rate of expansion of most commercial explosives?

Don't you find that a little strange that the jet of smoke caused by an explosion moves only as fast as that of the smoke/debris we KNOW is forced out of the building by the bellows effect of pancaking floors?

I do, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:11 PM

67. kick! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread