It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 54
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:49 AM
And when thermobaric explosives, the disc shaped versions, were used, as I highly suspect they did, you and the video camera microphones would only hear a thunderclap sound if you were near enough, and/or only a very low deep rumble if further away from Ground Zero with many buildings in between, which muffle those sounds.
Examples, click and read or view them, one by one :

1. The Kenneth Summers interview;
2. The Phone-boot video on Murray Str, 2 blocks away from the north side of WTC7 aside Barclay Str, compared to a shaped charge explosion : Identical sounds;
3. NYPD officer Graig Bartmer's eyewitness interview;
4. The cap man's eyewitness interview )

Because that very low deep rumble came from the demolition charge that cut some central WTC7 core columns.
That huge TB explosion its seismic waves were then passing the camera man under his feet, (which waves let the nearby buildings oscillate its walls and glass windows, which then give off deep sounds too) a tiny bit earlier than the air waves, since seismic waves traveled about 2000 m/s in Manhattan rock, which seismic waves were followed by its aerial transported deep sound wave component that traveled about 333 m/s through the air, which the camera microphone also registered in the famous Deep Sound WTC7 collapse initiation video. Thus the camera microphone recorded the seismic waves sounds 5/6th of a second earlier than it recorded the following sound waves, if the camera man stood 333 meters away from WTC7.

These disc shaped TB explosives, when exploded in the center of a core floor region, cut through steel like butter. And their > 20,000 m/s initial explosive front speed, bleeds off within a few meters to the speed of f.ex. RDX, then bled further off to zero, since they are gaseous explosion fronts. Then the back parts of those explosion fronts implode back again into the huge vacuum they created, and then get bounced back outwards again, and that's the thunderclap.... : Lots of my thermobaric posts as links. : Many important links to seismic facts; Charles M. Beck's published papers in the publisher, f.ex. this article :
Charles M. Beck; Title : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse.
It's one of his three mathematical calculations papers that show indications of explosions used in all three towers on 9/11 and their ATS discussion.
Found those Beck papers related posts of mine and the usual opponents back in this same thread in this post of mine.
Do then read also from that linked to thread, its pages 14 to 25.
It's the pages long discussion with me, about these three Charles M. Beck papers. They couldn't refute them. Not by far.
Here are his 2 other mathematical WTC publications :
1. Role of Compaction Ratio in the Mathematical Model of Progressive Collapse
Charles M. Beck, 14 April, 2008.
Submitted to ASCE J. of Engineering Mechanics.

2. Descent curve and the phases of collapse of WTC 7
Charles M. Beck, February 18, 2013.
Submitted on 29 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 20 Jan 2009 (this version, v4), to Cornell University Library (

And then we have this :
9/11 WTC Detonations Finally Revealed. Video produced by Matt H. (BoneZ, former moderator at ATS 9/11 forum) :

Listen with professional earphones to my posted WTC7 collapse initiation video below, with that deep rumble in its first 2 seconds, after which you see the eastern penthouse sink into the roof area from WTC7, followed by the western one.
It's that FOIA freed video, posted in my OPs in my "WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY solved" thread.

Here is that thunderclap mentioned by him, in Graig Bartmer's testimony video, in the Dr Andre Rousseau paper, page 8 :

The same thing happened at WTC7.
A witness (LT : Graig Bartmer) watching this building heard something like a "thunderclap" that caused the windows to explode outwards, while the base of the burning building gave way a second later, before the whole building followed the movement (Testimony [4] [LT : on page 13] ), aided by a second explosion, which generated the second Rayleigh wave 6 to 7 seconds later.

And that thunderclap was not recorded by the camera in the FOIA freed WTC7 collapse video held so long back by NIST, but the deep low sound 6 to 8 seconds earlier did get recorded. That explosion must have cut several crucial WTC7 core columns, because then both roof penthouses toppled slowly and slid down, which process took about 8 seconds, and then that thunderclap explosion Bartmer heard, started the global collapse of WTC7 and its first 2.3 seconds of real free fall acceleration.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:56 AM
And waypastvne, it wasn't an avalanche, as you proposed as a possible cause for the 2.35 secs free fall acceleration in the beginning of WTC7 its collapse, in this same thread, where perhaps speeds even higher than free fall could occur, as you thought.
That it definitely wasn't an internally started, naturally occurring avalanche in WTC7, by the failure of that fat steel column number 79 as NIST proposed, is quite eloquently proven by the SAE measurements of WTC7 its measured descent curves, proven by Charles M.Beck in his WTC7 paper, revision 4 :

Some of his best evidence for human intervention in the collapse of WTC7, in my opinion :
Title : Descent curves and the phases of collapse of WTC 7, by Charles M. Beck.
His redacted Version 4 is now dated August 29, 2018. It's Beck's revised, BRANDNEW version.

Some decent positive criticism of the Beck paper : HERE : List of all scientific research 9/11 papers.
Three posts spend there on October 3rd 2009, in a further mainly prof. Bazant papers thread. His main worry was, that if Beck used unreliable data, the points in his paper fall to pieces. Luckily we also have the NIST research they performed on the WTC7 collapse, after Mr Chandler pointed them to the 2.5 sec of real free fall acceleration starting from the global collapse initiation of WTC7. They, NIST, later came up with even more reliable and precise figures for that FFA period. Thus it seems the second poster's worries are not valid, in the only answer there to the two posts mentioning the Beck WTC7 collapse paper, on October 4th 2009. Do not forget however, that the second poster explained that he also used another, different viewpoint than all those NW corner ones from Chandler and NIST. But he still thinks that apparently, Beck gets a good fit for three distinct phases in the collapse initiation and following free fall acceleration.

Beck offers on page 18/24 his conclusive evidence that those first, 2.3 seconds into the global collapse of WTC7, were indeed proof of free fall acceleration, and not, like NIST and others tried to propose, an interior avalanche as a result of failure of just column 79 :

Note : SAE = sum-of-absolute-errors. See Beck's page 10 its bottom, then page 11, 12, 13 for a thorough explanation of the SAE its determination.

Page 18 : In Fig. 6 we show the data set “C,” the respective theoretical trajectories and their accelerations, and SAE.
Here, SAE is calculated over the first 13 points of the data set “C” and the positions predicted by each theoretical model. We note that the free fall has SAE ~= 2.09 m, on one hand side, and on the other, that SAE for the entire three-zone crush-up model over 25 points (~= 3.82 m) is less than SAE for either of the 0-opposition avalanche models (~= 4.69, 4.94 m).
This finding reaffirms our previous conclusion that Phase I is a free fall for H1 ~28 m and not an avalanche that started somewhere in the building (LT : around column 79, as NIST proposed) and propagated for the same distance.

In page 14 part B , and some further following pages, Beck explains that the NIST hypothesis regarding the collapse initiation is not valid.
Column 79 was NOT the start of a cascading avalanche inside WTC7.
That NIST theory does not fit and disagrees with the full descent curve C (based b.t.w. on measurements by David Chandler), in Fig 3 on page 10.
Note that later on, after Chandler noticed NIST of his calculations for a 2.35 secs real free fall acceleration period at the real start of the WTC7 global collapse, NIST recalculated this with their own data measured from existing video material, which came even closer to FFacc than Chandler.

Page 19/24 : It is a reasonable assumption that the seismic signal is excited by changes in the apparent weight of the building, δw, given by δw=fˆ∆W/(M g), where f is the sampling rate, while ˆ∆ is a difference operator acting on a time series of W collected at the sampling rate.

Another interesting remark by Charles M. Beck, page 9/24 :

We believe that W', and in particular its time derivative, can be used in interpretation of the seismic signal of the building’s collapse.
As an attempt to connect the two, brings forth numerous additional complications which need to be properly addressed, we leave this topic to future publications.

W' is an apparent weight that the top section exerts during the collapse, on the Earth’s crust, W′/(M g) .
It's the weight of the top section, above the 26 meters high building section that must have been instantaneously destroyed, to provide the means for a 2.3 secs free fall accelerated descend of the rest of the building mass, situated above that obliterated 26 m building section.

Perhaps Charles M. Beck has read my WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved thread, and seen my seismic evidence in my opening post its seismic diagram there. We'll wait and see if he did. He may use it at will.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:57 AM
THERE IS NO OTHER Twin Tower or WTC7 steel columns EVIDENCE TO INSPECT than those measly two columns their three pieces of vertical steel, to eventually check the words of the main suspects, in case of conclusive, hard evidence will ever coming up, that it was a false flag operation by powerful parts of the US Administration(s).
Or orchestrated by their "OWNERS". Which in case of the 9/11 attacks, is your best bet.
Parts of the US Military top brass together with the most powerful Banker Families and lots of Captains of Industry.

The OTHER 4589 missing crucial pieces of steel columns from within the core and perimeter regions that were plane impacted, then in each tower subsequently burned about 1 hour (2S) and 1.5 hour (1N) only, and then somehow initiated the 2 collapses, are NOWHERE to be inspected.
Melted in iron and steel-melting blast furnaces in Chinese, Indian and other steel factories. Even in the USA.
A 9/11 planner, would have chosen to plant any incriminating WTC steel in US steel melting ovens.
Then they had for sure their "inspectors" present there, when all actual incriminating steel was melted.

AND NO REPORTS or PHOTOGRAPHS exist of buckled VERTICAL steel from these CRUCIAL collapse initiation Twin Tower regions.
Only 2 folded steel pieces and 1 slightly bended one :
WTC1N : from 1 core column, 1 folded piece HH (605A: floors 98-101) and other core column, slightly bended piece C-80 (603A: floors 92-95)
WTC2S : from 1 core column, 2 folded pieces C-88a (801B: floors 80-83) still connected to C-88b (801B: floors 77-80)

And if some US institute miraculously would find such reports back, just ask them then :
"Where is the corresponding WTC-steel EVIDENCE ? "
And steel has also a distinct "footprint", so we can test if such steel really came from the WTC towers. In case of such a miracle.
However, it is not out of their 9/11 planning and preparation powers, to have some WTC steel still in secret stock, and let that now buckle in a test factory , just as in the Cardington tests was done, where the steel was loaded on top with the same weights as in the Twin Towers, and by the way, no buckling of vertical columns occurred then. While they went up to much hotter fires, and a lot longer. Still no buckling....
However, I don't think anybody with a sane mind will believe such a sudden treasure trove WTC steel discovery miracle. After 17 years...

This below post link can be used to shut up all those OS Trusters who keep posting, that explosives according to NIST always are audible at 120 to 130, even 140 decibel levels. That's simply not true, especially not for any 2001 camera and its sound recording equipment. See this post :

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:00 AM
Ad 1. : Expanding and contracting -SAGGING- floor trusses, like this misleading screenshot from a 2004 NOVA website video, where they promoted Dr. Thomas Eagar his zipper theory which tried to get the 2002 FEMA's floors pancaking theory on the rails again. No huge and strong composite floor on dual truss tops, no 2 transverse trusses between all these trusses (which were there), nor the huge steel floor pans covered with 4 inch steel bar reinforced concrete, to see.... :

Professor Bazant also declared that sagging trusses theory impossible. His explanation is already given.

This was the real situation, reinforced concrete 4 inch thick, later decked on those visible steel pans, on top of, here invisible, lots of pairs of floor trusses, that had transverse trusses situated perpendicular to the truss pairs, running through them :
Note below the transverse trusses, perpendicular connected to/in the longitudinal trusses.
Below is the fully visible total trusses and reinforced concrete decked floor pans its construction picture.
Note again the 4 transverse trusses in there, too :
Note the transverse truss below.

I posted a photo a long time ago already, from floor trusses that were subjected to a far, far longer burning massive fire in a high rise hotel, the Broadside Hotel in Chicago , where you saw a 2 inch (0.1 m) to maximum 4 inch (0.2 m) deformation of composite reinforced concrete on steel decks floors, around a thick vertical steel column, which column was buckled and wrinkled over about 0.3 to max 0.5 m, just under those floors. Since it is there where the most heat is accumulated in a closed floor fire.
Note that the column is still straight, no displacement, since those very strong composite floors plus trusses, held that column in place. It deformed and buckled somewhat, but did not move sideways, as you can see. And that, after been heat showered by raging fires, in a many hours longer fire than the 1 to 1.5 hr WTC fires :

And under those floors were the same kind of trusses, but single ones, not pairs as in the Twin Towers. Which were not deformed at all. Why? Read the explanation by Prof. Bazant already given up there.
Thus, when expanding and contracting floor trusses (which thus NOT sagged, says Prof. Bazant) were the hypothetical cause of that inward bowing effect we see in videos from shortly before global collapses of a Twin Tower, you have to regard that in such a hypothetical scenario, those still straight trusses thus first had to expand about 55 inch +/- 6 inches (1.4 m (+/-0.15 m), while still being fairly straight (says Prof. Bazant), thus causing the perimeter walls first to bulge outwards for the same distances. Then, after cooling slowly down, these bulges should slowly disappear.
Which we don't see at all happening. The perimeter walls caved in, without any preliminary bulging outwards.

2. No evidential fire-affected vertical steel parts, regarding neutronflux his remarks, have been preserved.
Except 3 measly pieces. No buckling there.
Which crucial 4589 missing vertical steel parts from the plane impacted, then on fire, then collapsing crucial Twin Tower floors, is of course the MAJOR reason why any reader here should mistrust all US Administrations officially endorsed 9/11 investigations, started after 9/11/2001, until a revised official 9/11 theory is offered by any neutral to 9/11, future US Administration.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:02 AM
Neutronflux :
1. Quote where I said WTC 2 steel buckled because of heat. The outer columns buckled by inward bowing caused by contracting floor trusses that pulled on the outer vertical columns, drawing them inward.

Ad 1. : Straight out baloney.
Well, when you're that sure, then show your calculations, if you ever can (you can't), which prove that ALL the floor trusses on these crucial TWO floors in WTC2S and WTC1N, where the inward bowing occurred and was filmed, could f.ex. in case of that floor in WTC1N, first expand 1.397 m (+/- 0.1524 m) outwards, that's a minimum of 1.24 m to a maximum of 1.55 m, under temperatures up to 250 C. (NIST : deformations on south wall of WTC1N were max 55 inch +/- 6 inch). Then contract back again over roughly the same length after cooling of the steel. Keep firmly in mind that Prof. Bazant declared sagging of trusses impossible.

Do however especially keep in mind, constantly, your own posted GIF of these TWO sides that were inwards bowing....because the right side in that animated GIF, has NO perpendicular trusses besides its one floor length perimeter columns.....only longitudinal trusses....while only the left side of perimeter columns had them.
So, wake up from your (des-)illusion.!

Since that can only mean, since both corner column's perimeter columns sides bowed in, that the whole corner floor area was acting (pulling) on BOTH perimeter column rows, left and right of that big sturdy perimeter corner column.
Which therefore means, that there must have occurred a failure of that damn strong corner-core and its adjacent columns . !!!
And it thus means, that ON a single floor line, to both sides of the over engineered outer core column, a row of outer core columns failed.
Everybody else than you and like minded souls here, call such a failure of rows of very strong outer CORE columns, a DEMOLITION.

NIST published that 250 Celsius value in NCSTAR 1-3, 6.6.2, after testing for mud cracking of the paint leftovers on these peculiarly, solely THREE preserved vertical steel parts of both Twin Towers, that were under fire conditions on 9/ more were preserved.! A crime on its own.
Then show, that these same trusses, first expanded, then during cooling, could contract again for a total length of 1.24 to 1.55 meter.
Because that was the maximum inward bowing of a line of perimeter columns on one corner of a floor of WTC1N, as recorded and calculated by NIST from your constantly posted inward bowing video link :
The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2

Note too, that NIST said that these measly THREE core column pieces they tested for mud cracking of the few paint spots on them, represent less than 1 percent of the core columns on floors involved with fire, and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.
Ever read a more obsolete comment ? Anyone in their right mind can understand that !

SO, WHY ON EARTH did NIST not test MUCH MORE core and perimeter columns from burning floors for their paint mud cracking ? Because then, and only then they could have conclusively determined the temperatures that all that vertical steel was exposed to before the collapses, and could have strengthened enormously their by now, simply very weak thesis for collapse initiation.
Thus it's clearly VERY SUSPICIOUS that they only examined THREE vertical steel pieces from TWO CORE columns in the fire zones in both Twin Towers.

It means, that either they were told not to test any further, OR...., there were no more than those measly three pieces of vertical steel preserved, from fire engulfed Twin Towers and WTC7 floors, by the ones responsible in the years before NIST got its contract, (n)or by NIST.
And we know by now, that the latter is the case; there were no more than those 3 vertical steel pieces from plane impacted, burning and collapse initiation floors of the three totally collapsed WTC towers left in the USA at the time NIST got its contract.
A straight out CRIME. If you choose to adhere to strict crime scene rules, laid out in all in 2001 existing crime scene laws.

These kind of details f.ex. of the girder seats in WTC7, they certainly and obviously did not want to preserve :

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:05 AM
After each collapse-initiation event in each tower, there was no need for further explosive assistance, since the set-in-motion of the now failing floors their total mass, and thus resulting failing perimeter column floor-seats AFTER that initiation event, was aided by the ever increasing mass of failing floors and their accumulating debris mass on their way down.
Thinks Major_Tom and quite some of his posters and our posters. And lots of JREF/ ISF posters.

See this excellent photographic explanation and evidence of member waypastvne, of what happened AFTER the collapse initiation events in each of the Twin Towers.
Thus, NOT at the crucial floors but below those crucial floors.! Since we have no steel evidence from the crucial floors.
Which was the inevitable following, gravitational acceleration induced failure of all the floors their mass, around the core, each next floor impacted by an increasing mass of upper floors debris. Thinks waypastvne, and many with him.
Which is the standard "modus operandi" for a building demolition. Be it from the top down, as used in the Twin Towers, or from the bottom up, as used in WTC7. Think lots of others.

See further, Major_Tom's excellent explanation, from 2011 and updated in 2013, with photos and drawings :
Title: Explaining Inward Bowing via Core Failure. CLICK HERE.
Look up especially his last drawing of a failing row of core columns that pull via the attached composite floor area and its many underlying pairs of trusses the perimeter columns then inward. Major_Tom explains that last drawing :

Different variations of pivots (LT : of trusses) can lead to an inward bowing along the face of the perimeter of about 4 ft (1.22 m) with only about 8 ft (2.44 m) sagging of the (LT : blueprint numbered, number - ) 1000 row columns.
That would be the maximum inward bowing seen on WTC1.
WTC2 had much less inward bowing until the initiation sequence.
These geometrical possibilities were not considered within the NIST reports.

See where the nr 1001 to 1008 row of core columns was situated, in this picture that waypastvne posted; a plan of the 96th floor of WTC1N :

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:05 AM
Ad 2. : For pro and contra official 9/11 story believers, and for all neutral and open minded readers too :

The US government, NOR any of its Institutions rewarded with the task of cleaning up Ground Zero, and following 9/11 investigations, did NOT meticulously preserve all steel components from the WTC Towers floors, involved in the 2 plane impacts, following fires and initiation of the three collapses.
They only preserved ONE vertical column steel piece of WTC2S and only TWO pieces of a WTC1N vertical core column from those collapse initiation floors or fire region floors.
Which is against any standard US crime scene investigation procedures. And there are to my knowledge, also no photographs or descriptions from vertical steel from those crucial floors preserved. Perhaps they ever were, but never for the public eye.

Every floor had 4 x 59 = 236 + 4 corner columns = 240 perimeter columns pieces, and 47 core columns pieces, that's 287 pieces per plane impacted floor per tower, 574 for both towers, one floor each.
WTC2S was plane-struck between the 77th and 85th floors.
WTC1N was plane-struck between the 94th and 98th floors.
That's 9 + 5 floors is 14 floors x 287 = 4018 - 3 preserved pieces of steel = 4015 pieces of steel columns of plane impacted floors MISSING.!!!
Plus at least 1 floor each under the lowest plane impacted floors in the Twin Towers, where initiation began. That's 4015 + (2 x 287) = 4589 missing crucial pieces.

And NONE were preserved from WTC7.
That WTC7 collapse was the most obvious bottom up demolition example of the three tower collapses on 9/11.

See for full info this : NIST examines only 2 core columns from the collapse initiation zones of both Twin Towers

Major_Tom : These columns are interesting but it is the absence of the other 195 core column segments from the steel collection and the investigation, which is much, much more interesting.

It is pretty obvious that for WTC1 careful examination of the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 101 and the 47 core column sections spanning floors 98 to 95 would show investigators all they need to know about the collapse initiation processes.
Likewise, for WTC2, careful examination of the 47 core columns spanning floors 80 to 83 and those spanning floors 77 to 80 are very important to understand the WTC2 collapse initiation process. For example, if these columns were pretty straight on the whole, lacking significant signs of visco-plastic creep and buckled hinges, that would tell investigators that there was little collective core buckling.

James G. Quintiere, professor, Dept of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland:
Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

Every piece of the 4589 missing crucial pieces of vertical steel from the collapse initiation floors was shipped away China and India and some elsewhere.

While steel parts from these so utter important collapse initiation floors, in case of the two Twin Towers, would have ended up somewhere on top of the debris piles surrounding their footprints.
Since on highest floors situated steel parts such as any failed core columns, that were not catapulted outwards like most perimeter Vierendeel parts, tended to reach any ground debris level among the last falling pieces. Thus, on top of the debris piles.
WTC7 steel was FIRST removed !
So they ALL were among the first steel parts removed and were shipped first to Catskill Island.
Then to China or India their steel melting furnaces.

Much later, after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had been damn busy delaying any serious action to investigate what really happened on 9/11, the serious checking of debris begun, after the Jersey Girls had forced them by public outcry, to start up the 9/11 Commission. But then all that steel from these important floors was already shipped away to China, except those three pieces. The NIST investigation came into play even much later on. The FEMA investigation was just a comprehensive, preliminary one.

We are missing, to inspect for demolition traces of the collapse initiation processes :
Per tower, per floor, 4 x 59 + 4 corner perimeter columns, which are 240 of them, plus 47 inner core columns, of which the 4 much sturdier corner columns of the inner CORE, held up a considerable bigger part of the weight of the building above them, than the other core columns.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:07 AM
The perimeter columns their inwards bowing video shows that only a partial line of columns, not even fully extending to the centerline of the sides of the North tower, were severely bowing inwards. Up to 55 inches +/- 6 inches (1.397 m +/- 0.1524 m) inwards, says the description beside a NIST photo.

From this link ( ), page 3 of 40, you can read that the trusses spanned either 60 feet (18.288 m) to the sides or 35 feet (10.668 m) at the ends of the central core.
Which core in WTC2S was oriented N to S. And in WTC1N was oriented W to E.
Please view now pages 1 to 10 of this FEMA WTC-study pdf, where details of the floors and their trusses are explained, lots of nice drawings, and many more details.

I hope nobody thinks that such steel trusses could expand and contract again, a whopping 1.22 meters, when heated up to no more than maximum 600 Celsius, as NIST calculated and explained from their steel paint tests.
And if he mis-typed, and meant sagging trusses, he should realize that these pairs of trusses were part of a very sturdy composite floor system, covered with steel bars reinforced concrete, 4 inches thick. Which is not going to sag after exposure to max 600 C fires, and which fires were not exceeding a 1 to 1.5 hrs duration.
And no photos exist of sagged trusses from the debris piles. From all those trusses there exist as good as no photograph. One I believe, of a small end part of one of them. All those trusses, not present in the piles ....? No photos made? Or was there a serious scrubbing of photo material going on from day one, with all those FBI interviews every day of every worker leaving the site. Even the USGS researchers send to Ground Zero were NOT allowed to set foot on it, the first weeks......Not suspicious, you think.....?

Everything points to a concerted effort from day one on, to suppress EVIDENCE of the manner(s) of DEMOLITION used on 9/11.

A repeatedly linked-to inward bowing video of WTC2S indicates strongly, that at least the four, much stronger corner columns (probably many more), of the 47 inner core columns, were compromised, and that event started a slowly progressing sinking of these core columns and their connected 4 x 2 = 8 outrigger trusses, and also the whole floor area in between each pair of outrigger trusses, which floor areas with their underlying lots of pairs of trusses started to pull their line of connected perimeter columns increasingly further inward, the deeper those core corner columns sunk under the progressively increasing force of the dead weight from above them.
And when reaching a point 8 ft (2.44 m) lower than their initial positions, the global collapse started and of course proceeded after that, as a naturally progressing, gravitational collapse. That's why the INITIATION process is so damn important.

Because the 9/11 planners have done their utter best to have the whole collapse process look as naturally occurring gravitational collapses.
Which for sure they were NOT. There were explosive initiations of that process, calculated just as strong that no direct collapse followed, but a slow, creeping core columns sinking process, that HAD to end in the start of an, at that point in the process, following natural gravitational collapse of a whole floor, for both Twin Towers.

And while the planners had free hand access to the debris piles for many months, and cordoned the whole Ground Zero complex off, and checked every person, going out through by them designated entry/exit gates, on eventual smuggled-out steel or other evidence, it was not really difficult for them to let all crucial steel from the collapse initiation floors disappear from the top of the piles, which debris tops were among the first debris to be cleared.
Show me any other PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of/or VERTICAL steel parts than the three parts NIST preserved, from inside the plane impacted, then burning, and later collapse initiating FLOORS of both Twin Towers, IF YOU CAN.

Even better, show me ANY VERTICAL steel parts of collapse initiating floors of WTC7.
NIST did not preserve any other vertical steel from any collapse initiating floors of those three buildings, except those three pieces.
Two pieces from one column of WTC1N and one piece from a column of WTC2S.
And NONE from WTC7.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:08 AM
These are some valid observations told at the911forum by Tony Szamboti and OneWhiteEye :

""Tony Szamboti wrote:
Ductile steel does not fail catastrophically and quickly. That can only happen with brittle materials. Ductile steel needs time to deform. The immediate, symmetric, and high vertical acceleration is a telltale sign of something unnatural occurring. The steel used for buildings has an elongation of over 20% before it fractures. To put this in perspective that would require stretching a 12 foot tall item about 2.5 feet before it would break. In a buckling situation it would never even get to that, so the ductility would be maintained throughout the buckling and the remaining resistance felt throughout the fall. In addition to that, any heating would have made it even more ductile and even less prone to rapid failure.""

OneWhiteEye : Everything he says is true. However, it's not the entire picture, not by a long shot.

Summary of objections:
1) There is direct evidence "the steel" failed slowly and progressively before catastrophic failure. (LT : only at the Twin Towers, not WTC7)
2) Cascading failure is a well-characterized phenomena and is plausibly applied here. (LT : Charles M. Beck proves it wasn't, at least for WTC7, an avalanche process, by his SAE values he calculated for WTC7)
3) He only considers ductility of the steel members and gives an example using a large member. Other sizes and materials must be considered as well.
4) Buckling occurred, and is also directly observed, but does not represent the dominant global failure mode.

The objections do not dispute the assertions about material properties, rather take a more refined approach to characterizing what could be expected and what was observed, based on existing research and forensic evidence. The problem with Tony's statements is that, while true, these statements do not plausibly have universal applicability to the towers, and the implication that these conditions did not occur at all is simply false. There actually WERE large, slow deformations present but insinuating this should continue indefinitely is unrealistic.

OneWhiteEye, as he in his next post there explained, meant the perimeter wall's inward bowing lines stretching from a corner, to both sides, up to near the wall's center lines, observed minutes before WTC2S started its global collapse. Which could f.ex. indicated that the much sturdier CORE-corner column, plus a few adjacent columns were compromised, then started to slid slowly downwards under influence of the dead load from above, and took that whole area of composite floor inclusive its multiple pairs of trusses under it, with it, slowly downwards.
The 911 perpetrators clearly have planned to have it look like a purely gravity driven global collapse.
That's why you have to search for the, hidden to the eye, ear or video camera and microphones, initial cause that started the progressive failure.

But the perpetrators were, and are still in the actual power positions at State levels, so the fact that all proof of nefarious deeds was shipped swiftly to China, keeps them in the best position to fool their populace, and placed us, non-OS-believers, from the very beginning, in a difficult defense position. Since we do not have a single piece of steel, other than those mere three pieces of vertical steel, preserved by them, the ones in power, to study for signs of demolition techniques.

This crucial steel removal fact, on its own, however, should be THE main reason for most freshly interested 9/11 researchers, to start digging for additional evidence. And there's lots of it, to be found in this forum and many other ones.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:09 AM
Some further helpful sites, which offer lots of very detailed facts about 9/11 :
Very detailed 9/11 site.
Mostly populated by disgruntled former top-posters at JREF, later renamed as ISF.
Many very thorough 9/11 researchers discussing the leftover uncertainties of 9/11.

Explaining Inward Bowing Through Partial Core Failure.

NIST examines only 2 core columns. From the collapse initiation zones in the Twin Towers.
Good basic understanding of the construction details of the Twin Towers. With lots of very good explanatory drawings.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:28 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Got to laugh at YOU and other truthers first you never seem to consider certain facts, other examples of building fires always quoted or shown at not the same construction methods/materials or have similar loadings and most ignore the aircraft impacts. The other more important point we would NEVER be able to tell the EXACT damage done no one on either side could.

The impact was a totally chaotic event if it happened a million times the exact same damage could not be predicted the result would be the same. Structural damage / thermal loading which was NOT calculated for back then using the same methods as it is now.

I have had interactions with many structural engineers here in the UK since the event NOT ONE thinks the way you people do.

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 04:01 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

A thermobaric weapon is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion, and in practice the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel-air bomb is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapons.


And when thermobaric explosives, the disc shaped versions, were used, as I highly suspect they did, you and the video camera microphones would only hear a thunderclap sound if you were near enough

One didn’t you start this thread it had to be underground explosions?

Two, the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed to achieve the witnessed collapse rates of WTC 7.

9/11: WTC 7 Collapse (NIST FOIA, CBS video)

Three, there is no audio of “thunderclaps” cutting te resistance floor by floor.

Four, still no high speed pressure waves leaving the building floor by floor.

Five, no flashing of detonations setting off.

Six, no evidence of steel columns worked on by explosives.

You are full of BS

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 04:06 AM
Thermobaric bombs survived for seven hours in a burning buiding. Riiiiiight

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:49 PM

originally posted by: LaBTop

That WTC7 collapse really looked exactly as any YouTube video from a demolition job of a high rise.
I posted in this post the AFE Tower demolition, 116 m high, in Frankfurt, Germany, to compare it to.
Listen to the deep low explosions sounds there too, only those from this particular camera position. No high pitch sounds to hear.

Another one from the same building, the same deep sounds first, from the same camera, but now you hear first the high pitched sounds of the warning sirene too. And later on in that video, you hear higher pitched sounds than from the first camera, now however shot in the open air, by another camera.

This shows that different cameras and different positions, like on 9/11, can give totally different explosion sounds from the same demolition event.
That's why I posted this remark at the end of my above linked to post :

Whenever one of these OS Truster wolf-pack members pop-up again with all these repetitive remarks that "no explosions at the WTC complex were heard", post a link to this lengthy post of mine with all the evidence of EXPLOSIONS on 9/11, to stop their annoying -knowingly- LYING.

This is that link full of 9/11 explosion noises and visuals, just copy and paste it in your posting window, with f.ex. this text :

Stop your annoying endless falsehoods posting, of no-explosions on 9/11, here they are :

Good video that is. Weird this German building kind of resembles WTC7 as well. Ignore the dummies you posting some convincing evidence.
edit on 18-9-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 07:26 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

To bad it’s all speculation and pseudoscience.

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 09:09 PM

originally posted by: Jesushere

Good video that is.

Top video the count down is in english.

Bottom video the count down is in german.

The top video, the sound track is dubbed in.

Bottom video has the original sound and some really loud bangs.

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: Jesushere

It looks NOTHING like WTC7 and it was a reinforced concrete structure.

Official Name AfE Turm
Other Names Universitätshochhaus
Structure Type Building
Status Demolished
Country Germany
City Frankfurt am Main
Street Address & Map Senckenberganlage 13-17
Postal Code 60325
Building Function education
Structural Material concrete

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Thank you for the excellent discussion of facts and scientific principles.

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:33 AM
waypastvne I referring to the second video. You don't hear multiple noises before the building falls. You hear one loud bang and it collapsed.

WTC 7 is a longer width building so naturally, it takes a number of seconds to start falling down.

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:39 AM
wmd_2008 Whats hilarious that you guys believe one girder coming off its seat lead to the collapse but don't think CD whereas blowing up one column could have had the same result. You have to imply the same principle.

top topics

<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in