about that WTC tower "collapse"

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jul 13, 2014.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it was stated that the events
    that is aircraft crash & fire, constituted
    a trigger for the "collapse" of the tower(s)
    but the event itself was strictly gravity driven,
    and a function of the potential energy of the
    mass of the tower(s). OK, lets examine this
    closely shall we, in pictures of Manhattan
    right after the "collapse" of either the north
    or south tower, there is a cloud covering
    river to river and at least a third of a mile
    from south end to north, and in this volume
    given a figure of 10kg of stuff per cubic meter,
    ( educated guess, if somebody has another figure please post it )
    and if then one were to calculate
    the volume involved and multiply by that 10kg/meter^3
    how many tons of material would have to be dispersed in this cloud? and what is the required energy for not only the pulverization of mass quantities of material, but the dispersal of said material over a large area of lower Manhattan? and does this put the event over-budget with regards to how much energy could be expected to be in the potential energy of the tower mass?
     
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,262
    Likes Received:
    2,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it does not
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How are you coming up with this figure?

    Math and data used please.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and can you elaborate, add detail, or something?
    4 words is a very slim rebuttal.
     
  6. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,262
    Likes Received:
    2,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was not a rebuttal it was an accurate and factual response to a question YOU asked
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Educated guess?
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, what makes you so certain that it is accurate?
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,262
    Likes Received:
    2,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you cannot prove otherwise
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'll ask again.

    How did you come up with this figure?
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You've got a bad habit of avoiding questions...
     
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Potential Energy cannot be accurately computed without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

    psik
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The other feature of this is the focus and expression of that
    energy, if the tower was alleged to have X megajoules of energy
    available in its potential energy, how was that energy focused in
    order to produce the observed result?
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No need..the energy was sufficient on 9/11
     
  15. Micketto

    Micketto New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    12,249
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Couldn't help notice the obvious, myself.
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and in two factors, the quantity of energy available and the focus
    of said energy, you are certain that the energy available without
    any addition from explosives or weaponized particle beam or anything
    of the sort, was most assuredly adequate to do the job of demolishing
    the towers & 7 ..... right?
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Easy, forget which tower but the weight above was something like 91 million tons. Once the supports gave way, all that was left to stop it were each floor which was never intended to support any weight other than the floor and furnishings/people.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There were the levels of the tower, that constitute much
    more than just the floor, so with that in mind, what enabled
    the mass from above to not only completely destroy the structure
    level by level, but to stay focused such as to stay on top of the
    building so as to accomplish this task?
    See post #23 in "FEA data regarding WTC1"
    and think about what makes the total demolition
    of the tower any more likely than this outcome?

    May I also add that the damage from the alleged
    airliner crash would have made the distribution
    of resistance in the structure asymmetrical and
    non-uniform from the very start of the "collapse" event.
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's called gravity.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and Gravity is responsible for the focus of said energy
    when the alleged airliner crash would have made the
    pattern of resistance asymmetrical?

    do you have an explanation as to why
    the picture in post #23 in "FEA data regarding WTC1"
    is any less plausible or probable than the total demolition
    of the tower?
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NOTHING on 9/11 was 'assymmetrical',nor was the demolition total.

    You're in error continuing to claim this

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm certian....based on EVIDENCE,something you lack.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First I get claims that the destruction of the towers
    wasn't symmetrical or in any manner uniform because
    it was total chaos..... and then we get this statement,
    OK what is it? The alleged airliner crash to the tower(s)
    would have damaged parts of the levels where the
    airliner was alleged to have crashed, but not all of the
    structure would have been affected, and most certainly
    not in a uniform manner.

    I ask a simple question: why is the picture
    in post # 23 of "FEA data regarding WTC1"
    any less plausible or probable than the observed result?
    that is with .... or without help from explosives or other
    energetic materials or weaponized energy beams.
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could enlighten me as to the alleged gaps in what you assert that the EVIDENCE (at least the bit presented by the INSIDE JOB faction) lacks.

    My assertion that the energy that produced the observed result
    that is the destruction of WTC1,2 &7 would have to include focus
    to do the job properly, without focus, energy will express itself in a
    chaotic manner, and that is most likely to NOT produce the observed
    result, if you call it "less than total destruction" so be it but the towers
    & 7 were destroyed none the less. The raw calculation of "enough"
    energy to do the job is only part of the problem, the other part is the
    focus, how is it that this energy could be focused?
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to be the only one who thinks it's not plausable
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No gaps.

    Alleged or otherwise
     

Share This Page