Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: hellobruce

The top of the building does not have to fall to compress air inside the building, we did not know what was collapsing inside.

However that is not what is witness when the WTC fell.

energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.

originally posted by: Informer1958
energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.

The building is obviously compromised, so we do not know exactly what is falling down inside to produce the air being expelled.

a reply to: hellobruce

The building is obviously compromised, so we do not know exactly what is falling down inside to produce the air being expelled.

We are discussing what is witnessed from the outside of the collapse and what is visibly in the videos. I do not understand what you are talking about from the inside?

originally posted by: Informer1958
We are discussing what is witnessed from the outside of the collapse and what is visibly in the videos. I do not understand what you are talking about from the inside?

What happened inside, the air compressing, is what caused the puffs of dust seen on the outside...

a reply to: hellobruce

What happened inside, the air compressing, is what caused the puffs of dust seen on the outside...

I assuming this is your opinion.

What I see is too much energy being blasted out, my opinion is I am certain the only thing that can explain this is some kind of demolition.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What does a "normal collapse" of a large office building look like, Informer? How would you know if a collapse wasn't "normal?"

I am sure you know that anyone can pull up hundreds of videos of buildings collapsing from earth quakes, or from faulty design online to see how buildings fall without the use of demolition.

Here is something I would like you to read, that are facts concerning the WTC demise.

Collapse Features Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show

The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.

Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.

The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.

Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.

911research.wtc7.net...

This is exactly what I observed when I watch the videos of the the WTC 1 & 2.

There is way to much energy involved when watching the WTC fall. Would you agree?

Interestingly, the tower that was hit second collapsed first. It was hit lower and had a larger mass above the damage and heat weakened steel. If you look at photos of Fresh Kills, you can see concrete rubble that is not dust.
The core of at least one tower can be seen standing for seconds after the collapse.
The way the towers were constructed was unique. As the floors collapsed, the outer support columns peeled away along with the cladding moving such away from the building.
The building collapsed too fast for demolitions; clearing a floor between 150 and 200 milliseconds would require noticeable amounts of explosives. Thermite is far too slow and not timable. Gravity is the only explanation.

a reply to: pteridine

The building collapsed too fast for demolitions; clearing a floor between 150 and 200 milliseconds would require noticeable amounts of explosives. Thermite is far too slow and not timable. Gravity is the only explanation.

I disagree.

Interestingly the fist tower to fall, fell after 55 minutes after being struck, there was not enough heat that could have weakened the steel since the WTC steel was tested to handle 2500 degrees for several hours before the steel would weaken.

The questions I wanted to address here are what was visibly in the WTC videos during the collapse of that day. When I watch the videos ( so many times ) this is what I observe when looking at the News videos.

Do you agree you see the same thing, if not what is it you see?

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.

Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.

originally posted by: Informer1958
there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.

Not all the concrete was pulverised, and there was enough energy to do that.

www.911myths.com...
and
www.uwgb.edu...

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column

Once the supports were removed there was nothing holding the perimeter walls up, so of course they collaapsed.

a reply to: Informer1958

I disagree.

That is not what I see.

Let's take a look at the video and you can see debris, which are falling at free fall speed, outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower beginning at time line 3:08.

WTC Tower Collapse Video

Debfis falling at free fall speed are already striking the ground as the collapse of the WTC Tower continues many stories above ground level.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

The building collapsed too fast for demolitions; clearing a floor between 150 and 200 milliseconds would require noticeable amounts of explosives. Thermite is far too slow and not timable. Gravity is the only explanation.

I disagree.

Interestingly the fist tower to fall, fell after 55 minutes after being struck, there was not enough heat that could have weakened the steel since the WTC steel was tested to handle 2500 degrees for several hours before the steel would weaken.

The questions I wanted to address here are what was visibly in the WTC videos during the collapse of that day. When I watch the videos ( so many times ) this is what I observe when looking at the News videos.

Do you agree you see the same thing, if not what is it you see?

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.

Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.

Steel melts at 2500 F; it weakens at much lower temperatures. At 1000 F structural steel has only 40% of its original strength www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

a reply to: hellobruce

Once the supports were removed there was nothing holding the perimeter walls up, so of course they collaapsed.

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column

Thank you hellobruce, but that does not answer this question.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Interestingly the fist tower to fall, fell after 55 minutes after being struck, there was not enough heat that could have weakened the steel since the WTC steel was tested to handle 2500 degrees for several hours before the steel would weaken.

There is a great deal of information to cast doubt on the statement that I bolded above.

As I've stated several times in the past, the New York Times ran an exposé on the substandard construction taking place at the WTC construction site, from 1968/9 to 1970, and again in 1971. All the construction firms were owned by organized crime, and the NYC building inspector's office was rampant with corruption.

There is online information about this, and a building inspector's whistle-blower who was eventually hushed-up.
Carlos Gambino-Masterminds of WTC Collapse
The World Trade Center towers had substandard construction: the real scandal of the collapses
$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

Unfortunately, since it doesn't support their narrative, those proposing that something other than the impact of passenger airlines and subsequent fires caused the collapse, continue to ignore this crucial information.

a reply to: Informer1958

Interestingly the fist tower to fall, fell after 55 minutes after being struck, there was not enough heat that could have weakened the steel since the WTC steel was tested to handle 2500 degrees for several hours before the steel would weaken.

Steel weakens at temperatures at much lower temperatures.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength.

Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

In other words, structural steel under load would have failed at a temperature of only 1400 degrees F. or lower.

a reply to: Informer1958

What I see is too much energy being blasted out, my opinion is I am certain the only thing that can explain this is some kind of demolition.

That was compressed air and the compressed air had nothing to do with explosives, which is proven by the fact that the interior of a building consist mostly of air. As the buildings collapsed, all of that air had to go somewhere and you can see the same results in photos and videos that depict the Verinage demolition method, which does not require the use of explosives.

It can be further determined that explosives were not detonated by the fact that there is no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is further backed by the fact that demolition explosions were not detected by seismographs and no evidence of demolition hardware was ever found in the WTC rubble.

.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
That was compressed air and the compressed air had nothing to do with explosives, which is proven by the fact that the interior of a building consist mostly of air.

About 88% of the tower was air, so about 1,450,000 cubic metres which had to escape when the building started collapsing!

a reply to: Informer1958

From your link.

Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed...

Let' take a look at time line 0:30 in the following video to see if there are explosive events before the WTC Tower collapsed.



The video proves that no such explosive event occurred prior to the collapse of the WTC Tower.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958
That was compressed air and the compressed air had nothing to do with explosives, which is proven by the fact that the interior of a building consist mostly of air.
.

This isn't the only explanation. Any engineering student (raises hand) knows that when any structure fails under load in the lab, there can be an explosive ejection of material.


It has been suggested that the "eject" being seen is from explosive structural failure of the reinforced concrete floors.

a reply to: hellobruce

And, all of that interior air had to go somewhere as the WTC buildings collapsed.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Rudy "Gouhl"iani/Carlos Gambino-Masterminds of WTC Collapse

Gambino asked Gouhliani, an attorney, if he had any solution to the problem
of the now idle WTC project.

Gouhliani came up with a solution. The mob would muscle the building
inspectors while Gouhliani and his college educated thugs would lobby the
courts to get the NYC building codes changed allowing the substandard steel
to pass inspection and thus prevent the steel contractor from having to
replace the steel used in the building with the proper product.

That is what transpired.

The NYC building inspectors and their families were terrorized and
threatened by the filthy Degos of Mafia and Gouhliani got the codes changed
in a hurry to allow the steel to pass muster.

The WTC tower's construction began again immediately afterward and Rudy "The
Rat" was the hero of the day along with Gambino and the rest of the Degos of
NYC.

www.diy-forums.com...

Thank you for this

In all my years of research in the WTC, this was never brought to my attention. I had no idea.

I am not finished reading all of this but I have read enough now to understand why the fires weekend the steel.

Apparently the steel was substandard.

If this is all true, then I can now except the OS of the WTC.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That is correct and in fact and you can also see some results here.