John Berry wrote: >A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished. >The evidence? The twin towers and building 7.
So you say, but the people at Controlled Demolition say otherwise. I have read books and seen documentaries from them. They make a very good case for that, based on straightforward classical physics. So forgive me if I give them a little more credibility than I give you. They show that is physically impossible to make a building pancake down (implode) with a small amount of preplaced explosives without first weakening the structure. Your assertions to the contrary are not physics. Of course you can blow up an intact building with explosives alone, but you have to use tons of explosives, and the sound and physical effects from that are unmistakable. You can tell a mile away -- literally. The building does not pancake. The Controlled Demolition people use about a hundred times less than a bomb, as I recall. You can still hear it, but it is nowhere near as dramatic. >Yes > >, but >> nobody noticed. > > >They did notice. >They are saying how odd it was. Ah, you mean the people came to work every day for weeks before the event, and they took no notice of the fact that the furniture was gone and the elevators were torn out, and brawny men were using cutting torches to slice the main beams holding up the building? Those people were remarkably sanguine. All they said was "this is odd"? I doubt it! >Not looking is not the same as no one reporting it . . . Ah. Thousands of ordinary workers showed up in a large office building in New York for weeks, and men were gutting the buiding and cutting the supports. But no one reported it. Because New Yorkers are famous for not complaining when someone removes their furniture and drops tons of steel out the window and down the elevator shafts. They must have thought it was a renovation. >> It is physically impossible to "pre-rig" a building to collapse, >> otherwise. You would have to trigger a massive explosion that would >> also destroy much of the surroundings > > >And send beams into nearby buildings as happened with the WTC? >That is exactly what happened. But nobody noticed the sound of the explosion. Sure. >Buildings collapse from smaller fires all the time, including steel >> frame buildings. > > >Funny, you seem to be the only person that knows this. No it is common knowledge. That is why no expert engineer has joined the loony-tune conspiracy theory brigades. As I said, my father and his colleagues researched this in the 1960s at the National Bureau of Standards. Buildings collapse a lot later than they used to, and the Twin Towers held up a lot longer thanks to the Bureau (which now goes under a different name - National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST). >Please give something a little bit more solid because i have seen stuff >about how buildings have been on fire and not far more violent that the >mysterious fire if WTC 7. For something solid, I suggest you read any introductory book on engineering, or read what the Controlled Demolition Corp. has published. Stop reading garbage published by idiots like Jones, and see what the real experts have to say. Their case is convincing. >If you "pre-rigged" with such a small amount of explosives no one >> even heard the bang > > >Except for the fireman saying they heard the bangs, but other than those >that did no one. What a bomb does is not a "bang." It is KABOOM big enough to break your eardrums a good distance away, or instantly crush a fireman standing nearby. The explosives used by Controlled Demolition can be heard blocks away, and if they heard a video track of an explosive demolition they would recognize it instantly, the way a soldier can distingish between different weapons being fired. Of course there are banging noises when a building collapses in a fire. What would you expect? >Funny, you go from saying that a building which had supports cut would just >collapse on it's own, to the claim that explosives couldn't takje out the >supports. A massive explosion can, of course. A small explosion produces far less energy than the cutting torches used to cut the beams. >There is no middle ground? weaken the supports enough to leave them >vulnerable to the explosive charges. Yes, that is how they do it. >Buildings are way stronger than >> that. > > >And yet weak enough to collpase due to fire, and so weak they they will >readily pancake at freefall speeds! A fire released orders of magnitude more heat and energy than an explosive. Explosives are weak -- but rapid. Of course the building pancakes quickly. What would you expect? It is falling at 1 G and it is not being held back by a parachute. The weight of the falling material instantly breaks through the remaing support beams. It is like what happens when you fall out of a tree and hit a few light branches that are nowhere near strong enough to support you. They hardly slow you down. >Explosions were heard. >Seen. Noises were heard. If they had been explosions, the experts in explosions would have instantly identified them as such. They would know instantly what kind of explosive material it was, and how many pounds were used. As noted, these people have heard thousands of explosions in buildings. >Burnt people. Yes, there was a fire. >And there is plenty of shrapnel (metal and bone) that has never occurred >with building deliberately imploded. There was a large explosion when the airplanes hit. Perhaps you missed that. >To be honest there is far far more evidence but what is the point, you are >simply not open to this regardless of the evidence. I am not open to this because every expert in the world who knows anything about the subject is certain that he or she knows what happened and why it happened, and most of them knew it was going to happen hours beforehand. They present comprehensive physical proof of their claims. They show that explosives could not have been involved, and anyone familiar with explosive demolition can see their point. Why do you think you can second guess these people? Do you also think you know more about electrochemistry than Fleischmann? Especially, why do you think a certified dolt like Jones can second guess Controlled Demolition. His endorsement should be taken as the kiss of death -- if he says "there may be something to it" you can damn sure there isn't anything to it. - Jed
