Twin Towers 3GB of Structural Drawing Books

gamolon · Jul 13, 2018

Sadling said:
Now, where are those photos of a lot of large chunks of concrete?

Funny how you can't provide any factual support for your claim that "most" of the concrete floors were turned to powder. I'll provide the photos of concrete chunks just as soon as you provide your data for backing up your most of the concrete was turned to powder claim.

zyzygy · Jul 13, 2018

Sadling said:
You're slipping. Now you've increased the amount of material that was pulverized into dust within the first three seconds of collapse. Now go ahead and explain to us all where the energy to pulverize all that **** in three seconds into the collapse came from.

Why are you so coy about telling us where you think it came from?

zyzygy · Jul 13, 2018

Sadling said:
You believe that that unbelievable cloud of dust that appears three seconds after the beginning of collapse is a reasonable expectation. You are the owner of that insane proposition.

Now, where are those photos of a lot of large chunks of concrete?

I posted photos but you ignored them.

Sadling · Jul 14, 2018

gamolon said:
No, what I find unbelievable is that you can discern, from a dust cloud, that the concrete floors which impacted each other during the collapse were turned to powder. Tell me again how you can determine that?

Here, have a look at the photos below, and then convince me that within three seconds of the collapse, all of that dust cloud was just the result of some gypsum board and office furnishings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/hufschmid/eh04.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/hufschmid/eh06.jpg

zyzygy · Jul 14, 2018

Sadling said:
Here, have a look at the photos below, and then convince me that within three seconds of the collapse, all of that dust cloud was just the result of some gypsum board and office furnishings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/hufschmid/eh04.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/hufschmid/eh06.jpg

Was it the result of explosives? We can't go on until you answer that question.

Sadling · Jul 14, 2018

gamolon said:
I'll provide the photos of concrete chunks just as soon as you provide your data for backing up your most of the concrete was turned to powder claim.

See photos above.

Also, what you don't understand is that your inability to produce photos of a lot of large pieces of concrete after the collapse supports my claim.

So where are those photos you were talking about?
______________________________________________________________

Maybe Peter Jennings and George Stephanopoulos can help clarify the point as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbeIq2mRWpk

Gypsum board: http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

mike2810 · Jul 14, 2018

Sadling said:
See photos above.

Also, what you don't understand is that your inability to produce photos of a lot of large pieces of concrete after the collapse supports my claim.

So where are those photos you were talking about?
______________________________________________________________

Maybe Peter Jennings and George Stephanopoulos can help clarify the point as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbeIq2mRWpk

Gypsum board: http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

Here you go. Look at the debris and condition section. A great number of photos of the debris field.

A World Trade Center Collapse Investigative Resource - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

So do you support the explanation that the Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition? Yes or No.
Your failure to answer will support "the claim" that you believe it was a controlled demolition.

Sadling · Jul 14, 2018

mike2810 said:
Here you go. Look at the debris and condition section. A great number of photos of the debris field.

I'm afraid you're going to have to find the photo that shows all the large pieces of concrete you believe exist. I looked at over thirty photos and saw just one small piece of concrete. So which one that you looked at showed more?

zyzygy · Jul 15, 2018

Sadling said:
I'm afraid you're going to have to find the photo that shows all the large pieces of concrete you believe exist. I looked at over thirty photos and saw just one small piece of concrete. So which one that you looked at showed more?

Explosives or no explosives? We need to get on with the thread.

gamolon · Jul 16, 2018

Sadling said:
I'm afraid you're going to have to find the photo that shows all the large pieces of concrete you believe exist. I looked at over thirty photos and saw just one small piece of concrete. So which one that you looked at showed more?

Yeah, all the concrete was turned to a nice, fine powder...

So Sadling, please provide your data/numbers/evidence that all the concrete was turned to powder as you insinuate with your energy calculations. It is impossible to figure out because you have no idea of the range of the size of concrete pieces to make this calculation.

Take your junk science elsewhere.

Sadling · Jul 16, 2018

gamolon said:
So Sadling, please provide your data/numbers/evidence that all the concrete was turned to powder as you insinuate with your energy calculations. It is impossible to figure out because you have no idea of the range of the size of concrete pieces to make this calculation.

You asked if I was claiming that 100% of the 90,000 tons of concrete was crushed to 2mm size particles or smaller?

I provided you with this:

"Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps," says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site | Waste360

From you:

YOU provided the term "most" in relation to the 86,000 tons of pulverized concrete.

I acknowledged the below-grade concrete when I said: "That actually comes to 94,700 tons. However, the below-grade concrete was probably not pulverized. So we're left with something like 86,000 tons. Not that it really matters, because the energy sink caused by the pulverization of concrete is just one of the energy sinks."

Where we left off:

Even at 80,000 tons of concrete, it would require 120,000 kilowatt hours of energy to pulverize it. And so you're still left with an energy deficit within the closed system. And this does not even factor in the core structure itself, which was cross-braced throughout. In other words, before the concrete within the core could be destroyed, the cross-braced core columns had to be destroyed. And as you have already seen, the Tower began its descent at virtual freefall, which begs one of two questions. One: why did the intact core structure below offer virtually no resistance to the upper block? Or two: where did the extra energy to cause the core structure below to offer virtually no resistance come from?

And that brings us to the expansion of the dust cloud, the time frame in which that expansion took place, and the calculated energy requirement for such an expansion. So far, we have your claim that it was office furnishings, ceiling tiles, and gypsum board.

http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

I know you were hoping that those pieces of concrete you brought pics of would make those questions go away, but that was just some wishful thinking on your part.

So, go ahead and explain where all the energy to smash all the steel and concrete came from. And then explain where all the energy to laterally eject the steel and concrete as seen in photos and videos came from. And then take a crack at where all the energy to create that dust cloud seen seconds after collapse came from. And then try to explain where the energy to accomplish all of those things at once came from when the only energy available was from gravitational force.

gamolon · Jul 16, 2018

Sadling said:
You asked if I was claiming that 100% of the 90,000 tons of concrete was crushed to 2mm size particles or smaller?

I provided you with this:

"Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps," says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site | Waste360

What percentage of the total concrete was turned to fine dust Sadling? You need this number to correctly determine how much energy was needed to convert the concrete slabs to the various size pieces/particles. Your energy calculations were based on 100% of the concrete being turned to powder (2mm size pieces/particles or less).

I (and others) have provided photos that show pieces/particles much larger than that.

Please provide the particle size ranges and what percentage each was of the total concrete. If you do not have those numbers, you're just guessing.

gamolon · Jul 16, 2018

So for the above ground concrete, you're estimating 86,000 tons per the quote below.

Sadling said:
So we're left with something like 86,000 tons.

Below you're saying that of the 86,000 tons of concrete quoted above, 80,000 tons was crushed to particles 2mm or less in size. So you're estimating that only about 7% of the total 86,000 tons was larger than 2mm size pieces?

Sadling said:
Even at 80,000 tons of concrete,

Can you provide the basis for these numbers so we can check your math? Or are you assuming "most" means 7%?

zyzygy · Jul 16, 2018

gamolon said:
Yeah, all the concrete was turned to a nice, fine powder...
View attachment 67236228
View attachment 67236229
View attachment 67236230
View attachment 67236231
View attachment 67236232

So Sadling, please provide your data/numbers/evidence that all the concrete was turned to powder as you insinuate with your energy calculations. It is impossible to figure out because you have no idea of the range of the size of concrete pieces to make this calculation.

Take your junk science elsewhere.

All planted after the event by the evil gub'ment.

zyzygy · Jul 16, 2018

Sadling said:
You asked if I was claiming that 100% of the 90,000 tons of concrete was crushed to 2mm size particles or smaller?

I provided you with this:

"Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps," says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site | Waste360

From you:

YOU provided the term "most" in relation to the 86,000 tons of pulverized concrete.

I acknowledged the below-grade concrete when I said: "That actually comes to 94,700 tons. However, the below-grade concrete was probably not pulverized. So we're left with something like 86,000 tons. Not that it really matters, because the energy sink caused by the pulverization of concrete is just one of the energy sinks."

Where we left off:

Even at 80,000 tons of concrete, it would require 120,000 kilowatt hours of energy to pulverize it. And so you're still left with an energy deficit within the closed system. And this does not even factor in the core structure itself, which was cross-braced throughout. In other words, before the concrete within the core could be destroyed, the cross-braced core columns had to be destroyed. And as you have already seen, the Tower began its descent at virtual freefall, which begs one of two questions. One: why did the intact core structure below offer virtually no resistance to the upper block? Or two: where did the extra energy to cause the core structure below to offer virtually no resistance come from?

And that brings us to the expansion of the dust cloud, the time frame in which that expansion took place, and the calculated energy requirement for such an expansion. So far, we have your claim that it was office furnishings, ceiling tiles, and gypsum board.

http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

I know you were hoping that those pieces of concrete you brought pics of would make those questions go away, but that was just some wishful thinking on your part.

So, go ahead and explain where all the energy to smash all the steel and concrete came from. And then explain where all the energy to laterally eject the steel and concrete as seen in photos and videos came from. And then take a crack at where all the energy to create that dust cloud seen seconds after collapse came from. And then try to explain where the energy to accomplish all of those things at once came from when the only energy available was from gravitational force.

No comment about the pics of the large pieces of concrete? You asked for them but I understand why you are ignoring them.

mike2810 · Jul 17, 2018

Sadling said:
I'm afraid you're going to have to find the photo that shows all the large pieces of concrete you believe exist. I looked at over thirty photos and saw just one small piece of concrete. So which one that you looked at showed more?

I'm afraid you forgot to answer, "So do you support the explanation that the Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition? Yes or No.
Your failure to answer will support "the claim" that you believe it was a controlled demolition. "

By not answering , then the default was correct. You believe it was a controlled demolition. Are you prepared to answer questions regarding controlled demolition of the towers?

zyzygy · Jul 17, 2018

mike2810 said:
I'm afraid you forgot to answer, "So do you support the explanation that the Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition? Yes or No.
Your failure to answer will support "the claim" that you believe it was a controlled demolition. "

By not answering , then the default was correct. You believe it was a controlled demolition. Are you prepared to answer questions regarding controlled demolition of the towers?

Why he won't come out and say it is a mystery. Everything he posts points towards a cd truther.

gamolon · Jul 23, 2018

Sadling said:
So, go ahead and explain where all the energy to smash all the steel

ALL the steel was "smashed"? Define "smashed". Do you mean bent, sheared, vaporized, crumpled, etc.? Are you saying 100% of the steel was "smashed"? How can I look into numbers to use for explaining when you aren't giving any?

Sadling said:
and concrete came from.

Still an ongoing discussion which you have yet to provide any numbers or evidence of what you are claiming.

Sadling said:
And then explain where all the energy to laterally eject the steel and concrete as seen in photos and videos came from.

Laterally ejected steel and concrete? Where are the videos for this?

Sadling said:
And then take a crack at where all the energy to create that dust cloud seen seconds after collapse came from.

Dust cloud? What type of dust cloud do you think it was that you are making a big deal out of it? I'll bet you think it was a "pyroclastic" dust cloud created by expanding hot gases right?

Belieth · Jul 23, 2018

it was primarily done by directed free energy.

Sadling · Jul 23, 2018

gamolon said:
ALL the steel was "smashed"? Define "smashed". Do you mean bent, sheared, vaporized, crumpled, etc.? Are you saying 100% of the steel was "smashed"? How can I look into numbers to use for explaining when you aren't giving any?

Still an ongoing discussion which you have yet to provide any numbers or evidence of what you are claiming.

Laterally ejected steel and concrete? Where are the videos for this?

Dust cloud? What type of dust cloud do you think it was that you are making a big deal out of it? I'll bet you think it was a "pyroclastic" dust cloud created by expanding hot gases right?

We have an impossible collapse scenario in which the upper block of the North Tower descends at virtual freefall speed right through the intact core structure below it. Assuming you're not pretending to not understand what "smashed" means in that context, I'll help you out. It means breaking every connection of every cross-bracing to every core column, and then pushing the core structure of columns down through itself at virtual freefall speed right from the beginning of the collapse. And assuming that you really don't understand how such an acceleration--40 feet shy of freefall in the first 360 feet of descent--of collapse required more energy than was present in the closed system of the Tower's potential energy, I don't think I'll help you out with that because there's no way that you don't understand the ridiculousness of that proposition. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be entertained by your attempt to explain it.

And concerning that incredible dust cloud which could only have come from the closed system within the Tower, I didn't mention pyroclastic clouds, so why are you mentioning it? However, that cloud of dust expanded at a rate which, like the upper block dropping through the core structure below it at virtually freefall speed, cannot be explained by gravity alone. Here, have another look:

http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

So far, we have you standing here pointing to office furnishings, ceiling tiles, and gypsum board to explain it. If I were you, I would opt for the inclusion of concrete dust because without it, you're left with ceiling tiles and gypsum board. You might just as well, since your pics don't show six thousand tons of concrete.

And of course nothing was laterally ejected. Anyone can see that! All they have to do is look, right?

9-11 Research: South Tower Collapse

. . . Riiight.

Now, back to where we started. Explain how the energy required to pulverize most of the concrete and everything in the building below the impact zone, plus "smash" the steel core, and the energy required to produce the explosive lateral ejections--as seen in photos of the collapses--still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtual freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

Go.

zyzygy · Jul 23, 2018

Sadling said:
We have an impossible collapse scenario in which the upper block of the North Tower descends at virtual freefall speed right through the intact core structure below it. Assuming you're not pretending to not understand what "smashed" means in that context, I'll help you out. It means breaking every connection of every cross-bracing to every core column, and then pushing the core structure of columns down through itself at virtual freefall speed right from the beginning of the collapse. And assuming that you really don't understand how such an acceleration--40 feet shy of freefall in the first 360 feet of descent--of collapse required more energy than was present in the closed system of the Tower's potential energy, I don't think I'll help you out with that because there's no way that you don't understand the ridiculousness of that proposition. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be entertained by your attempt to explain it.

And concerning that incredible dust cloud which could only have come from the closed system within the Tower, I didn't mention pyroclastic clouds, so why are you mentioning it? However, that cloud of dust expanded at a rate which, like the upper block dropping through the core structure below it at virtually freefall speed, cannot be explained by gravity alone. Here, have another look:

http://niftythings.org/usattack/wtc_collapse/P7300435.jpg

So far, we have you standing here pointing to office furnishings, ceiling tiles, and gypsum board to explain it. If I were you, I would opt for the inclusion of concrete dust because without it, you're left with ceiling tiles and gypsum board. You might just as well, since your pics don't show six thousand tons of concrete.

And of course nothing was laterally ejected. Anyone can see that! All they have to do is look, right?

9-11 Research: South Tower Collapse

. . . Riiight.

Now, back to where we started. Explain how the energy required to pulverize most of the concrete and everything in the building below the impact zone, plus "smash" the steel core, and the energy required to produce the explosive lateral ejections--as seen in photos of the collapses--still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtual freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

Go.

We can go no further until you answer the question about a controlled demolition.

Belieth · Jul 24, 2018

Interesting to see how the government trolls (yes, there are may many many here), ignore Judy Wood's work.
It's a way of picking them out.

But now, of course they start to react, they have to. I wonder what their families think of what those government trolls for work do?

Maccabee · Jul 24, 2018

Belieth said:
it was primarily done by directed free energy.

View attachment 67236755

An example of evidence?

gamolon · Jul 24, 2018

Sadling said:
We have an impossible collapse scenario in which the upper block of the North Tower descends at virtual freefall speed right through the intact core structure below it.

Virtual free fall right through the intact structure below it?

There were portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) that stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation. So let's use about 18 secs (WTC1) and 28 seconds WTC2) for the TOTAL collapse times for each building. The towers were about 1360 feet tall. For WTC1, that gives us about 2.56 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. For WTC2, that gives us about 1.06 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

How can you consider 2.56m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] and 1.06 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] "virtual freefall?

gamolon · Jul 24, 2018

Sadling said:
And concerning that incredible dust cloud which could only have come from the closed system within the Tower, I didn't mention pyroclastic clouds, so why are you mentioning it?

What's so "incredible" about it? Here's an approximate 16 story building being demolished by the upper block verinage style. Look at the dust cloud created by it. Why did you decide to use the term "incredible" to describe the dust cloud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTVXH9dJjhU

Or this one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA