North Tower Exploding

T

Tranquillus in Exile

New member
This is a well-known video by David Chandler, prolific video maker for AE911truth:


He says that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered no resistance. Hence the collapse took place at or near "free fall". In so far as there is a truther theory of controlled demolition, this is it.

How many separate explosive charges would have been required to do this? It's easy to calculate a ball-park figure without knowing anything about demolition technology, and as this is central to their claims I suppose some truthers must have done it. But no figure is mentioned in the video or anywhere in the truther opus that I know of. Can you see why they prefer to avoid it?

Data:
47 core columns
240 perimeter columns
70-80 stories up to the impact level.
 
Tranquillus, what you fail to understand it that you believe the official mythology of 9-11, so it is up to you to defend it. It isn't up to the "truthers." It is up to the statist, defenders to maintain the myth.
 
Controlled Opposition said:
What's the answer?
Click to expand...

The answer is (47 + 240) x 70 = 20,090.

That's how many cutter charges would have had to be secreted in each tower. Or you could argue that "they" only had to cut the columns every 2-3 stories, then you could get the total down to about 8000.

I have never seen these figures (or any figures) mentioned anywhere in the "truther" literature.
 
Tranquillus, you seem to have established a time frame for the placement of explosives? It could have taken weeks, months or even years. Perhaps you can explain that. You have evaded the issue. I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that the towers were designed to withstand strikes from large jet airplanes?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
This is a well-known video by David Chandler, prolific video maker for AE911truth:


He says that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered no resistance. Hence the collapse took place at or near "free fall". In so far as there is a truther theory of controlled demolition, this is it.

How many separate explosive charges would have been required to do this? It's easy to calculate a ball-park figure without knowing anything about demolition technology, and as this is central to their claims I suppose some truthers must have done it. But no figure is mentioned in the video or anywhere in the truther opus that I know of. Can you see why they prefer to avoid it?

Data:
47 core columns
240 perimeter columns
70-80 stories up to the impact level.
Click to expand...

Yup...
You are now documented as being officially fucking retarded.
Congratulations.
 
Controlled Opposition said:
Tranquillus, you seem to have established a time frame for the placement of explosives? It could have taken weeks, months or even years. Perhaps you can explain that. You have evaded the issue. I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that the towers were designed to withstand strikes from large jet airplanes?
Click to expand...

The towers didn't collapse from being hit by airplanes. They collapsed after burning for an hour or so in a localized area. The explanation for what happened is detailed, well known, and universally accepted by structural experts all over the world. But "truthers" refuse to believe it.

So I took their alternative explanation at face value and made an elementary calculation. People like Chandler must have made it too, but they never mention it. Why not? Because it makes their theory look ridiculous.

They are not seeking truth, they are seeking converts.
 
Right said:
How dumb. It only takes two cuts to fall a tree so that it will land where you want it to.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what "truthers" say! Their big proof point is that the towers collapsed at or near "free fall" (they say), and their explanation is that the support columns were cut on every level so that the falling mass encountered zero resistance.

Watch the damn video!
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
But that isn't what "truthers" say! Their big proof point is that the towers collapsed at or near "free fall" (they say), and their explanation is that the support columns were cut on every level so that the falling mass encountered zero resistance.

Watch the damn video!
Click to expand...

I've seen the video, and the towers collapsed systematically due to column overloading.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
The towers didn't collapse from being hit by airplanes. They collapsed after burning for an hour or so in a localized area. The explanation for what happened is detailed, well known, and universally accepted by structural experts all over the world. But "truthers" refuse to believe it.

Tranquillus, you know that those office furnishing fires were not hot enough to do what you claim. Further, you destroy your argument when you say that the fire (now singular) burned in a single spot, producing sufficient heat to evenly heat the structures of both towers, causing them to collapse.

Your problem, Tranquillus, is that you are not interested in the truth. You are interested in hating on people because they question the official mythology.

The 28 pages should be enough for one with critical thinking skills to realize that the official version is bovine excrement.
Click to expand...
 
Controlled Opposition posted:
"...you destroy your argument when you say that the fire (now singular) burned in a single spot, producing sufficient heat to evenly heat the structures of both towers, causing them to collapse."


I said no such thing. Get the facts straight if you want to be taken seriously.

CO added: "The 28 pages should be enough for one with critical thinking skills to realize that the official version is bovine excrement."

For years you were telling everyone that the redacted pages of the Congressional Inquiry showed that Israel did it. Then the pages were released ... and not a word about Israel.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Yes, and they also didn't collapse "at or near free fall" - there was massive resistance. But try telling "truthers" that.
Click to expand...

It looked close to free fall to me. That's exactly the way columns collapse when massively overloaded. The buckling occurs at explosive speed, not at all like a beam overloaded.
 
Right said:
It looked close to free fall to me. That's exactly the way columns collapse when massively overloaded. The buckling occurs at explosive speed, not at all like a beam overloaded.
Click to expand...

Hello, Right. We don't have to rely on what it looked like.

The most precise measurements of the collapse were made by Frank Greening, who analyzed the video record to track the motion of a fixed point at the top of each tower until it was obscured by dust. The results are on page 902 of this paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf

For example, the North Tower fell 30 meters in the first 3 seconds, an average acceleration of

2x30 / 3^2 = 6.67 m/sec^2 = 0.68g - two thirds of free fall.

9/11 truthers, however, say that the collapse was "at or near free fall", from which they infer that the support columns must have been cut by explosives on every storey before the descending mass reached that level. This is one of their big proof points for "controlled demolition". But their data is/are faulty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top