How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

This unfortunately calls for a tangent of speculation, because its really impossible to know exactly what happened, however in the case of an explosives driven "collapse" event, there could have been a pre-planned tip simply for effect, or it could have been an accident of having explosives go off too soon or too late. in any case, if it were a truly gravity driven "collapse" event, what explains the disappearance of the tipped part behind a cloud of dust/smoke? and how could it be that an off center part of the building could be responsible for the destruction of the whole building?

 

So, you using statements like "it's really impossible to know what exactly happened", "there could have been a pre-planned tip", or "it could have been an accident of having explosives go off to soon" shows that you have no idea. Yet you continue to argue and debate a controlled demolition as if it were fact.

This just shows why you cannot come up with any supporting evidence when asked.

You simple just don't know what happened. Your words.

 

You don't have any evidence either, and that then leaves us
with what is plausible or probable, and by gross stretch of the imagination, people have been led to believe that airliners were hijacked and used as weapons.

 

So if there is no evidence for EITHER scenario, in your opinion, then why do you say that it was controlled demolition? You say you don't believe the "official story" because there is no evidence, but you buy into the controlled demolition. Even though you just stated above that there is no evidence for either.

Contradiction here?

 

Look at what is most plausible & probable.
How does a 110 story building simply "collapse" right down to ground level, all the while pulverizing many thousands of tons of material. The fact of complete destruction is a factor, and now people are going to express the thought that 99% destruction can not be considered complete because it was indeed 99%, please take your nits and go, I really don't have time for this. Most people would agree that 99% destruction is enough to call it total. Fact is that three buildings suffered total destruction while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not leveled. This speaks volumes about intent, somebody intended for WTC1,2 & 7 to be destroyed. ( & not the "radical Arabs")
9/11/2001 has all the markings of a FALSE FLAG ATTACK.

 

But you don't understand structural design and engineering enough to say what's plausible and/or probable. How can someone do this? You don't know both sides of the argument.

And you have been asked to verify certain aspects of you claims and statements. For example above, you have been asked numerous times about this. How did you come up with "thousands of tons of material" being pulverized? What was that "material" comprised of that makes you think enormous amounts of energy were used to pulverize said "material". How can you make these types of assumptions when you can;t tell me if it was gypsum planking or concrete?

The fact of complete destruction is a factor, and now people are going to express the thought that 99% destruction can not be considered complete because it was indeed 99%, please take your nits and go, I really don't have time for this. Most people would agree that 99% destruction is enough to call it total. Fact is that three buildings suffered total destruction while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not leveled. This speaks volumes about intent, [/quote]
So all buildings, regardless of design, should act exactly the same? Is that what you are getting at here?

 

You say that all buildings should act exactly the same(?)
I say in exactly one regard, YES, they are all designed to stand and not fall down. and in this regard the towers are no exception.

Also, I state thousands of tons of pulverized material with accuracy
because a wide area in lower Manhattan was covered in this dust
and the other factor, is that there are no pictures of intact slabs of
concrete decks, in fact where is it documented that there was even
a part of a concrete deck recognizable as such? where is the concrete?
pulverized & scattered all over Manhattan(?)

 

Designed to stand against what genericBob. This has been the quesiton I have asked you and every other truther and none of you can answer it.

Do you think structural engineers design structures to be 100% impervious to every single permutation of damage scenarios? Do you think they run tests for every possible event?

You have provided NO accuracy whatsoever. You just claim this, but provide nothing that supports this claim. That doesn't work here. You just can;t claim something and then have no support for it.

Sorry.

 

what was that covering most of lower Manhattan?
and were are the pix documenting the concrete remnant from the towers?

 

You mean you don't know? How can you claim that crazy amounts of energy was consumed to pulverize material when you have no clue as to what or how much was pulverized. I asked you to provide me with your calculations and/or information that you used to come up with "thousands of tons" of material. If I had a thousand tons of down feathers and a thousand tons of granite blocks, which would cover more cubic feet if laid in a one foot high layer?

and were are the pix documenting the concrete remnant from the towers?[/QUOTE]

 

So wait a minute.

You're claiming that the concrete floors of the towers were completely pulverized based on the "thousands of tons" of material that you think came solely from said concrete floors and the lack of what.... pictures showing chunks of concrete?

Then you extrapolate that data to mean that a tremendous amount of energy was consumed to pulverize that concrete thus making the point that there was not enough energy contained in a gravity driven collapse to destroy the entire structure AND pulverize the concrete.

Thus, there HAD to be explosives to account for the needed extra energy?

And you came up with this based on probability alone?

 

where is the documented concrete from the floors of the towers?
if you can't find any chunks of concrete that used to be these floors,
what is logical conclusion here?

 

Formed during the collapse of the towers, and then months of exposure to high-heat fires, this object has come to be known as the composite. Weighing between 12 and 15 tons, it holds the compressed remnants of four stories of one of the towers. It is just over four feet high.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/remembering-9-11/pictures-memory-remains/

 

This accounts for SOME of the concrete, but not all of it, and this is an issue, you see if the towers were supposed to be 90% air, that means the tower was 10% structure, so for every 10 floors broken up by the "collapse" event, there would be enough rubble to completely pack 1 level of the tower. The factor that modifies this packing is the ejection of material from the tower(s), the proponents of the Gravity induced collapse theory would have the net mass, that is the bit that was responsible for crushing the lower & as yet undamaged part of the tower, to experience an increase over time as the tower collapsed. Can anyone be certain of that net increase in mass?

 

Moving the goalposts again,I see

 

The picture shows just a small sample of the concrete that was present in the WTC tower(s) where is the rest of it?

 

Not the point,you asked for a picture documenting a concrete remnant from the towers,and I provided it.

Now all of a sudden,that's not good enough for you.

 

Do you see your function here as seeking clarity or just stirring the pot?

who here doesn't understand the significance of the fact that the vast majority of the concrete in the decks of the towers, was pulverized, and by what exactly?

 

You might ask yourself that very question...And your question had nothing to do with 'pulverized' concrete

 

The original question was about accounting for the pulverized material in that it was useful information to understand what the composition of said pulverized material was. & yes, it had to have been some % of concrete, and the proof of that would be found in the fact that so little concrete in solid form could be accounted for. This is seeking clarity in the things that can be defined about the events of 9/11/2001.

 

You answered none of my questions. I wonder why?

 

You didn't even know about the remnant I posted in the picture....How are you supposed to be acting like you know exactly how much of the towers was 'pulverized'

 

From the bits that I have seen, I have a very good educated guess as to exactly what happened to all the concrete. Nobody can produce pix of huge slab remnants because they don't exist. The fact is that the vast majority of the concrete was pulverized and scattered around lower Manhattan. and this was the product of explosions.

 

Well,you got it HALF right....it was a guess....

 

So, can you produce proof that there were huge chunks of solid concrete post "collapse" .... or?