On This Anniversary - 9/11: How it Was Done, the Science of Demolition (Epic Essay)

[Skylar]

The Twin Towers Affair is now a huge social psychological issue. Logic has gone out the window. No matter what the truth of the destruction of the Twin Towers is/was tall vertical structures must hold themselves up and withstand the wind.

Consider the shape of the Eiffel Tower. Google it and you will encounter the term exponential. The ET was the tallest man-made structure for 40 years. The Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building were designed without electronic computers. The distribution of the 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower can be seen because it is not a building and does not have to support twice its own weight in concrete. It couldn't do it. A complete redesign would be necessary, but it shows us something about gravity.

Imagine that you were on the 5th level of the North Tower in 1998. There would have been 105 stories that the steel would have to support.
On the 105th level there would only be 5 more.
Do you think the 5th and the 105th had the same amount of steel when the 5th level had to support TWENTY ONE TIMES as many stories? Consider the shape of the Eiffel Tower.

So how have engineering schools in the nation that put men on the Moon gone for Two Decades without discussing the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers? How is it that the 10,000 page $20,000,000 NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

The destruction of the towers is merely the trigger of the much bigger and more important psychological issue of the failure of the American people to resolve a simple physics problem.

Oh yeah, the Twins were 35% taller than the Eiffel.

You get that the Eiffell Tower and the World Trade Center were designed by different folks for a completely different purpose, using very different technology?

The 'demolition' theory of 911 is just a terrible explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. It doesn't make sense, doesn't have evidence to support it, and is exactly opposite of how actual controlled demolition.

Actual controlled demolition: Bottom to top.

WTC 1 and 2: Top to Bottom.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You get that the Eiffell Tower and the World Trade Center were designed by different folks for a completely different purpose, using very different technology?

The 'demolition' theory of 911 is just a terrible explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. It doesn't make sense, doesn't have evidence to support it, and is exactly opposite of how actual controlled demolition.

Actual controlled demolition: Bottom to top.

WTC 1 and 2: Top to Bottom.

I didn't say anything about demolition. I said the Eiffel Tower was not a building and that is why the support structure can be seen.

Both structures had to support their own weight against gravity but we are supposed to believe that straight down collapses are possible without being told how the steel had to be distributed. You are just trying to play debating games not explaining the physics of collapse of the North Tower.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't say anything about demolition. I said the Eiffel Tower was not a building and that is why the support structure can be seen.

Half of the WTC 1 and 2's support structure were on the outside of the building, with load bearing of the building being split between the outer panels and the core columns.

The outer panels are visible to the open air.

Both structures had to support their own weight against gravity but we are supposed to believe that straight down collapses are possible without being told how the steel had to be distributed. You are just trying to play debating games not explaining the physics of collapse of the North Tower.

What direction was the WTC 1 or 2 supposed to fall if not down? That's the direction gravity was pulling.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What direction was the WTC 1 or 2 supposed to fall if not down? That's the direction gravity was pulling.

What are you blathering about? I was simply saying that the designers had to figure out the distribution of steel therefore any top down collapse had to have the top falling through stronger and heavier steel. Therefore no scientific analysis can be valid without that data.

So why doesn't everyone want it after Two Decades and why haven't engineering schools been talking about it?

 

[Hossfly]

What are you blathering about? I was simply saying that the designers had to figure out the distribution of steel therefore any top down collapse had to have the top falling through stronger and heavier steel. Therefore no scientific analysis can be valid without that data.

So why doesn't everyone want it after Two Decades and why haven't engineering schools been talking about it?

We'll put AI on it right away. AI can re-create it and show it from the beginning.

 

[Skylar]

What are you blathering about? I was simply saying that the designers had to figure out the distribution of steel therefore any top down collapse had to have the top falling through stronger and heavier steel. Therefore no scientific analysis can be valid without that data.

So why doesn't everyone want it after Two Decades and why haven't engineering schools been talking about it?

Babbling? You're talking about the Eiffel Tower in a thread about WTC1 and 2 being demolished. You're the avatar of babbling.

And you're honestly putting your personal opinion up again NIST on engineering knowledge?

And perhaps Enginnering schools aren't talking about 'this' because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[psikeyhackr]

We'll put AI on it right away. AI can re-create it and show it from the beginning.

ROFLMAO

Any computer simulation would have to be provided with accurate data on the state of the building before the aircraft hit. That would include steel and concrete distributions.

It is hilarious that climate scientists can supposedly simulate the oceans and atmosphere of a planet 8000 miles in diameter 80 years into the future but a 1360 foot skyscraper collapse has not been properly simulated in two decades.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Babbling? You're talking about the Eiffel Tower in a thread about WTC1 and 2 being demolished. You're the avatar of babbling.

And you're honestly putting your personal opinion up again NIST on engineering knowledge?

And perhaps Enginnering schools aren't talking about 'this' because you don't know what you're talking about.

ROFLMAO

Is there something stopping you from downloading the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST and searching it for yourself? I did that in 2007.
Tell us what book and page the NIST provides the concrete data and give us the quote.

I'll tell you what else ain't there. The NIST says the top of the South Tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees. They do not tell us the Center of Gravity of that huge mass. When in the history of mankind has such a huge man-made mass been in such an unstable position 900 ft above the ground?

You are part of this psychological problem. Trusting in AUTHORITY without understanding anything for yourself. The word 'concrete' is in the NIST report more that 3000 times. I read every one. Fortunately it usually occurs multiple times per paragraph when it is there.

 

[Skylar]

ROFLMAO

Is there something stopping you from downloading the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST and searching it for yourself? I did that in 2007.
Tell us what book and page the NIST provides the concrete data and give us the quote.

You're claiming that NIST doesn't know the 'concrete data' or simply didn't include the 'concrete data' in the NIST report?

As for your 'psychological problem', I trust the 'authority' in comparison to who?

You, insisting you know better than the NIST?

 

[psikeyhackr]

You're claiming that NIST doesn't know the 'concrete data' or simply didn't include the 'concrete data' in the NIST report?

As for your 'psychological problem', I trust the 'authority' in comparison to who?

You, insisting you know better than the NIST?

Trust is irrelevant. Check it YOURSELF!

I couldn't stop you if I wanted to.

If you refuse to check and just BELIEVE then look in a mirror to see who to blame.

 

[Skylar]

Trust is irrelevant. Check it YOURSELF!

I couldn't stop you if I wanted to.

If you refuse to check and just BELIEVE then look in a mirror to see who to blame.

So you're claiming that because the NIST didn't include the 'concrete data' in the NIST report, that the weight of the concrete was never considered by the NIST, and thus the NIST report is 'non-scientific'.

I just want to be sure I'm articulating your position correctly.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you're claiming that because the NIST didn't include the 'concrete data' in the NIST report, that the weight of the concrete was never considered by the NIST, and thus the NIST report is 'non-scientific'.

I just want to be sure I'm articulating your position correctly.

If you go back and read the first post where I mentioned the Eiffel Tower, which you complained about, you might notice that I said the Eiffel Tower could not support twice its weight in concrete.

The NIST says in Three Places that the towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. They do not describe the Distribution of that Steel. They Never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Sources from before 9/11 specify 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.
It should be obvious, even to you, that the steel had to support its own weight and the concrete, plus glass, plus plumbing with the water and many other things. But the NIST says there were two densities of concrete, 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft. So knowing the cubic yards does not tell us the weight.

Now I do not know what amount of data you think is necessary for an analysis to qualify as scientificm, but I say that the NIST is not even close.

But I downloaded it and searched it many times for many things. I would not even bet that you knew it was even called the NCSTAR1 Report.

 

[Skylar]

If you go back and read the first post where I mentioned the Eiffel Tower, which you complained about, you might notice that I said the Eiffel Tower could not support twice its weight in concrete.

The NIST says in Three Places that the towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. They do not describe the Distribution of that Steel. They Never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

What is your point? That if they didn't describe the distribution of the steel, they never considered it?

That if they didn't include the 'concrete data' they never once considered concrete in the building?

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is your point? That if they didn't describe the distribution of the steel, they never considered it?

That if they didn't include the 'concrete data' they never once considered concrete in the building?

With that you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are not worth communicating with regarding anything SCIENTIFIC relating to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Bye!

 

[Skylar]

With that you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are not worth communicating with regarding anything SCIENTIFIC relating to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Bye!

Laughing....I accept your concession with all the patience and grace it deserves.

If you ever muster the courage to try again, here's the same question that ran you off last time:

So you're claiming that because the NIST didn't include the 'concrete data' in the NIST report, that the weight of the concrete was never considered by the NIST, and thus the NIST report is 'non-scientific'?

 

[Skylar]

Here learn something.

University of Alaska Engineering Dept. Proves 9/11 was a demolition


2000 Architects and Engineers say 9/11 was a demolition


Firefighter John Schroeder


Clear demolition explosions

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

By "James Madison" #howtheydid911 NOTE: CLICK RED "YOUTUBE" BUTTON ON VIDEOS IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE VIEWING As public awareness grows...

911explained.blogspot.com

New Film SEVEN Available Today on Multiple Streaming Platforms

AE911Truth is thrilled to announce today’s release of the much-anticipated documentary SEVEN on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon, iTunes Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft.

www.ae911truth.org

9/11Research


U.S. Military Officers and Patriots Question 9/11

Oh no! There's a YOUTUBE video? Well I guess that settles it.

Meanwhile, back in reality......WTC 7 got hit by enormous chucks of the falling towers that did catastrophic structural damage to the building. The FDNY evacuated their people out of the WTC 7 as it burned, leaned, and structurally failed over about 4 hours.

They put a transit on the building, measure it as it began to lean, and accurately predicted its collapse from fire and structural damage to within about an hour.

Not bad!

 

[PeterPilot]

Anybody that still believes today the official narrative regarding 911 must live under a rock. Such people most likely also believe the entire series of lies told by Anthony Fauci and Pharma.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Anybody that still believes today the official narrative regarding 911 must live under a rock. Such people most likely also believe the entire series of lies told by Anthony Fauci and Pharma.

There is no official narrative.

 

[Skylar]

Anybody that still believes today the official narrative regarding 911 must live under a rock. Such people most likely also believe the entire series of lies told by Anthony Fauci and Pharma.

The official narrative compared to....what?

The hapless conspiracy jibberings about explosive demolition? The explosive demolition theory is dogshit, and an awful explanation of the collapse.

Even you haven't tried to polish that turd. Wise.

 

[Gamolon]

The Twin Towers Affair is now a huge social psychological issue. Logic has gone out the window. No matter what the truth of the destruction of the Twin Towers is/was tall vertical structures must hold themselves up and withstand the wind.

Consider the shape of the Eiffel Tower. Google it and you will encounter the term exponential. The ET was the tallest man-made structure for 40 years. The Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building were designed without electronic computers. The distribution of the 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower can be seen because it is not a building and does not have to support twice its own weight in concrete. It couldn't do it. A complete redesign would be necessary, but it shows us something about gravity.

Imagine that you were on the 5th level of the North Tower in 1998. There would have been 105 stories that the steel would have to support.
On the 105th level there would only be 5 more.
Do you think the 5th and the 105th had the same amount of steel when the 5th level had to support TWENTY ONE TIMES as many stories? Consider the shape of the Eiffel Tower.

So how have engineering schools in the nation that put men on the Moon gone for Two Decades without discussing the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers? How is it that the 10,000 page $20,000,000 NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

The destruction of the towers is merely the trigger of the much bigger and more important psychological issue of the failure of the American people to resolve a simple physics problem.

Oh yeah, the Twins were 35% taller than the Eiffel.

Your idiotic videos/experiments have been proven to be created out of incompetence. Please pick another hobby. Preferably one that does not make you look like a fool.