What's the answer? You asked the question, so you must know. Right?
This is a well-known video by David Chandler, prolific video maker for AE911truth:
He says that the collapse front was preceded by a wave of explosions which cut the support columns, so that when the falling mass reached each story it encountered no resistance. Hence the collapse took place at or near "free fall". In so far as there is a truther theory of controlled demolition, this is it.
How many separate explosive charges would have been required to do this? It's easy to calculate a ball-park figure without knowing anything about demolition technology, and as this is central to their claims I suppose some truthers must have done it. But no figure is mentioned in the video or anywhere in the truther opus that I know of. Can you see why they prefer to avoid it?
Data:
47 core columns
240 perimeter columns
70-80 stories up to the impact level.
What's the answer? You asked the question, so you must know. Right?
Tranquillus, what you fail to understand it that you believe the official mythology of 9-11, so it is up to you to defend it. It isn't up to the "truthers." It is up to the statist, defenders to maintain the myth.
The answer is (47 + 240) x 70 = 20,090.
That's how many cutter charges would have had to be secreted in each tower. Or you could argue that "they" only had to cut the columns every 2-3 stories, then you could get the total down to about 8000.
I have never seen these figures (or any figures) mentioned anywhere in the "truther" literature.
You do know that those buildings were designed to withstand hits by aircraft. Start from there in explaining your bizarre theory of 9-11.
Why? That isn't the "truther" theory.
I prefer to start from what they say. Watch the video, lol.
Tranquillus, you seem to have established a time frame for the placement of explosives? It could have taken weeks, months or even years. Perhaps you can explain that. You have evaded the issue. I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that the towers were designed to withstand strikes from large jet airplanes?
The towers didn't collapse from being hit by airplanes. They collapsed after burning for an hour or so in a localized area. The explanation for what happened is detailed, well known, and universally accepted by structural experts all over the world. But "truthers" refuse to believe it.
So I took their alternative explanation at face value and made an elementary calculation. People like Chandler must have made it too, but they never mention it. Why not? Because it makes their theory look ridiculous.
They are not seeking truth, they are seeking converts.
MAGA MAN (10-25-2017)
[QUOTE=Tranquillus in Exile;2074835]The towers didn't collapse from being hit by airplanes. They collapsed after burning for an hour or so in a localized area. The explanation for what happened is detailed, well known, and universally accepted by structural experts all over the world. But "truthers" refuse to believe it.
Tranquillus, you know that those office furnishing fires were not hot enough to do what you claim. Further, you destroy your argument when you say that the fire (now singular) burned in a single spot, producing sufficient heat to evenly heat the structures of both towers, causing them to collapse.
Your problem, Tranquillus, is that you are not interested in the truth. You are interested in hating on people because they question the official mythology.
The 28 pages should be enough for one with critical thinking skills to realize that the official version is bovine excrement.
Bookmarks