Where Did the Towers Go?

a reply to: Bedlam

Well, if the major charges were times with the load, then nobody would notice. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that this is a typical demo. You do raise some good points about the squibs. But I don't see how air shoots down 40 stories and blasts out one window, at the same time, your points about charges are noted. So who knows?

a reply to: Sremmos80

No the towers lost fire protection due to the building swaying under wind load during ther lifetime check my post re comments made about quality of fire protection.

a reply to: cestrup

I am on mobile just now but I will post a link later to a picture of pancaked floors taken by NYFD !!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Okay, I'd be interested in seeing that

a reply to: cestrup

Well why dont you explain how the so called squibs appear to work the opposite way to REAL demolition squibs ie if you look at videos of demolition squibs and what happened at the towers lets see if you notice the difference.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008

Okay, I'd be interested in seeing that

As requested a couple of links.

Floor Layers


Layers Close Up

In the close up you can see the steel decking the concrete was laid on, the reinforcement mesh that was in the floor slab sticking out from concrete and also twisted truss steel.

Remember the concrete was only 4.5" thick so even 110 floors of that NEATLY stacked with NO DAMAGE would only be just over 41 feet high.

a reply to: wmd_2008

So in the millions they spend on fire protection, the swaying of the building is what did them in????
Again, as you said they spend millions on the fire protection, I think the building sway would come into the planning.

Do you have another source outside of the 2 pictures? Where did you quote all that other stuff from a previous post

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

So in the millions they spend on fire protection, the swaying of the building is what did them in????
Again, as you said they spend millions on the fire protection, I think the building sway would come into the planning.

Do you have another source outside of the 2 pictures? Where did you quote all that other stuff from a previous post

THAT is not what's being said!!!!

It's a sad combination of the PLANE impact,structural damage,fire protection being removed, heat creating THERMAL LOADS that were not designed for, the fact that the floors could fall internally and the shear mass of material falling!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

That's it? That's your proof of 110 floors pancaking? I can see maybe 4 layers at the most, and considering where the photo is taken, I'd say they were the basement floors.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: wmd_2008

That's it? That's your proof of 110 floors pancaking? I can see maybe 4 layers at the most, and considering where the photo is taken, I'd say they were the basement floors.

So YOU are another expecting to see 110 neatly stacked floors then

Just to help YOU with your maths 4 x4.5" = 18" if undamaged and neatly stacked!!!

a reply to: hellobruce

The point of that comment is during clean up no one looked for evidence of explosions.... And the investigations were never geared toward explosives because they knew in less then 2 hours it seemed that it was OBL

Both the 911 commision and NIST were had PRE DETERMINED conclusions and found the evidence to support it..

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: hellobruce

The point of that comment is during clean up no one looked for evidence of explosions.... And the investigations were never geared toward explosives because they knew in less then 2 hours it seemed that it was OBL

Both the 911 commision and NIST were had PRE DETERMINED conclusions and found the evidence to support it..

For anyone with EXPERIENCE of loadings on structures that would be the result have you looked at the link for the impact calculator I gave

a reply to: Sremmos80

One of the links you were after

Fire Proofing Problems

a reply to: wmd_2008

So YOU are another expecting to see 110 neatly stacked floors then

No, but I'd expect to see more than maybe 4. Also, if you look at the concrete wall to the left, you can see where they were anchored.

It's too blatantly obvious what happened to the 3 towers. They were destroyed by explosives. All 3 came down exactly the same way. Only an idiot cannot see that as being the obvious cause of their destruction. Judy Wood is correct. And in the case of the Pentagon? Cruse Missile. Another obvious conclusion.

Just listen to the witnesses of that day. What do they all say at ground zero? Explosions, Explosions etc. Fire Fighters said it, Police, Responders, Witnesses, News crews......All said explosions. Before and during the collapses!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes I have heard that it was just the worst case scenario and that everything that could have gone wrong did, all to create this clean, uniform and global collapse.... three times......

Cause again, plane impact HIT FLOORS THAT HAD JUST BEEN RECENTLY RENOVATED
Structural damage ONLY TOOK PLACE ON THE IMPACT FLOORS

And now we are into thermal loads? Seems like you are using that one very loosely as well. I get by the letter of the definition it works, not sure if that is how it is used tho....

And the shear mass of what was left below the impact zone was MORE then what fell on it. So why did the smaller section of the building destroy a lager section by just falling on it.... twice

Oh and your picture, the ONE picture you showed, again with no context or anything, who what when where, basic stuff.
Shows maybe 4 floors of 110, or 220 if you count both towers... What kind of proof is that?
drjudywood.com...
drjudywood.com...
msnucleus.org...

a reply to: wmd_2008

It doesn't matter what you assume.... That is not how you investigate things.
Any body with any investigation experience would know that...

a reply to: wmd_2008

Come on, bro. I'm talking proof of the pancaking, pile driver/dynamic load. What you posted has no context, could be anywhere in the building ( looks like basement) and is not the load is was looking for. Do you think those pictures are the smoking gun of the pile driver collapse?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: cestrup

Well why dont you explain how the so called squibs appear to work the opposite way to REAL demolition squibs ie if you look at videos of demolition squibs and what happened at the towers lets see if you notice the difference.

When did I say I considered the towers a typical demolition? I see squibs and you see air. Neither of us know what they are but I think seeing them 40 stories below the collapse is rather odd. Don't you think so?

originally posted by: Dorrell
They were destroyed by explosives....... Judy Wood is correct.

Judy Woodsclaims it was a beam weapon, you claim it was explosives.... You make no sense at all!


If it was a cruise missile how do you explain all the 757 parts inside and outside the Pentagon, how do you explain the damage caused by a 757 sized aircraft, how do you explain the DNA from the passengers on the 757....