Sure, but consider the effect of an 'explosion'. To 'slice' it'll have to be some pretty fast moving air, and very focussed, but that's not the point. Any material with mass moving fast enough will suffice. Air, water, paper (aka wood), ...
i was under the impression that explosives create jarring shockwave effects using chemicals and heat, that move materials outward breaking them at weak areas in a general way rather than targeted cutting or piercing.
but after thinking about it for a while i tend to agree with you, there's probably a way to do it under special conditions.
To make conclusions would be a bit rash. Of course the construction was different. Of course the mass was different. Of course the scale was different. Suggesting faulty construction as an absolute no-no in my opinion. Excuse the tone, but...a ludicrous suggestion.
i guess so, but i try to rationalize things without going too far into the crazy zone.
over at the jref forum they are claiming that the failed demo building held together because it was a strong well built reinforced concrete structure, which seems odd to me, my understanding is that concrete is more likely to break apart than steel, but maybe it's because the wtc buildings had so many connections and this building was more solid and less tall, i think around 80ft.
this building was built in 1928, i'm surprised it held up so much better than more modern buildings.
But again, the point is that in absolutely no way whatsoever was "total global collapse inevitable after initiation", which irrespective of changes in scope makes a mockery of the NIST assumptions post initiation of each WTC Tower descent. It also highlights a few fundamental issues with any crush-down or crush-up scenario. A point to keep in mind is that the building in the failure clip would appear to be constructed of materials much more prone to 'crumbling' relative to the steel framework of the Towers, in which only concrete flooring and a few partition walls were capable of 'crumble'.
yeah, i agree.
Another point would be that the 'tipping' cap does not suddenly drop vertically, but humerously does a bit of rolly-polly, in stark contrast to the behaviour of each 'tipping' tower cap. The first clip in the thread you looked at is even more damning for the crush-down and crush-up hypotheses, as a decent period of near free-fall ensues before arrest.
right, what surprises me is how it holds together after hitting the solid earth, whereas the wtc buildings come apart in on themselves, i always since the beginning of my research expected the wtc buildings to partially become crushed and have large portions remain somewhat intact, ie like the two failed demo clips posted.
Another very important factor to bear in mind is that, as with all tall buildings, specific information relating to how one might go about bringing them down was known whilst they were still om the drafting table. The execution of each descent was, to put it mildly, expertly accomplished...IMO
in 93 the terrorists(supplied with real bombs by the fbi) thought they could bring the tower down with a truck bomb so i wonder how expertly it needed to be done, however i do tend to think it was expertly done.
i lean towards a highly sophisticated controlled and intentional process more than i lean towards a natural process resulting from fires.
you're pretty smart femr maybe you can give me a guess on what happend in these two clips from my original post. you've most likely seen these clips before but i've yet to get a good answer.
can anyone explain this squib/pressurized air way below the collapse?
3: this is a newer video of wtc7, an odd veritcal line of what looks like black smoke is poofed out as collapse starts.
why such a straight line? i don't understand how the smoke would just come out of those windows and none of the other nearby areas.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujWitEr-Ww&