It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Some last questions about 9/11

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
IMHO those pictures show buildings collapsing in a much different fashion than the WTC.


Of course you would think this.

You are biased.

And so am I.

Let the viewer decide where he or she sees similarities, and differences. I should note, however, that without comparisons to known gravity-driven collapses, there is little point.


In those pictures there are initial huge blasts all throughout the building. I don't see those on WTC footage.


Yes; and I suppose it is further evidence against our case that you don't see a man throwing the switch, either. With all the resources at their disposal, our government would obviously decide to wire up the WTC just like all other demolitions and not try to hide obvious demo-traits, or make it look more natural. Why bother trying to hide something, when you are only trying to fool an entire nation? You certainly make a very sound point, here.



All those buildings collapsed from the bottom up. The two towers collapsed from the top down.


Seriously, dude, they can be freaking wired to go off in any order they're programmed to! How many times does this need to be stated before you will take notice of it? I'm not entirely convinced that you even care to know details like this. Further, the technology required to do these kinds of things isn't exactly cutting-edge.


I wonder what key points were needed to be bombed and who had the leases for those areas. Which point in the video do you think shows the initial blast that started the collapse?


I don't think any "initial blast" is conspicuous from the outside of the building, or at least from any known video. Nor would they necessarily have to be seen from the outside, and indeed, such a detonation would be just a little too obvious of an error when it would later come to the official story.


If the building wasn't completely lined with explosives, are the "squibs" proof of anything?


Wtf?

The squibs were, by the only approach that makes sense scientifically (until you show otherwise - as we all know explosives cause explosions, which is undoubtedly what those massive ejections were, but unfortunately for you, you cannot dream up evidence of magical air currents, etc., as these b.s. claims are impossible to have caused the squibs), explosive detonations coming from the buildings during collapse. In no part of that definition is there any significance given to how frequent these were or how many explosives must've been set up, and rightfully so. There is no correlation. Your argument here makes about as much sense as throwing out the theory of gravity because another planet is discovered!


I was under the impression that "squibs" were evidence towards having the entire building wired up. If we say that only key points were bombed, were the squibs caused by something else?


And so because one of the possibilities here is that only key areas were blown out, suddenly evidence and information we have regarding the squibs changes? Again, there is absolutely no correlation here and your arguments in general are becoming quite weak. I would ask how the frequency of the squibs relate in any way to the other characteristics, but I don't even want an answer. Just save me the trouble, as I'm sure you could pull something out of your behind so as to try to save yourself some dignity or whatever else it is that you post for here.




posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Seriously, dude, they can be freaking wired to go off in any order they're programmed to! How many times does this need to be stated before you will take notice of it? I'm not entirely convinced that you even care to know details like this. Further, the technology required to do these kinds of things isn't exactly cutting-edge.


You have indeed stated such things many times. You have yet to prove it. If it's so easy to do it from the top down, why isn't it ever done?

I don't know why you feel ridicule helps your argument. I was attempting to explore a different demolition scenario, but it seems that you can only repeat the same things, in the same mocking tone. If you want to prove what you say do one simple thing.

Show a demolition that was done from the top down.

I don't buy into the "whole building wired to explode like a freefall theory" that doesn't mean I can't explore one that makes more sense to me, and also involves demolition.

BTW thank you WCIP for replying civilly and actually engaging in conversation. It is refreshing in this type of thread. Bsbray could learn a lot from that approach.



I don't think any "initial blast" is conspicuous from the outside of the building, or at least from any known video. Nor would they necessarily have to be seen from the outside, and indeed, such a detonation would be just a little too obvious of an error when it would later come to the official story.


Ok. So if no blast needs to be seen from the outside, and no explosives were placed near the outer edge, how could the same explosives cause the squibs?

According to said theory, there would be no visible explosions at all. In such a scenario they would have to be caused by something else.


I still don't see how or when they had the oppurtunity to place explosives in the building. I know that some of you think that the government can pull off anything, but I need something more solid than that.

WCIP, you earlier made a point about bombing key points in the building using rented offices. Have you looked into where those points might be? I find that line of reasoning much more believable then the other demo theories. With just a few offices being wired up, it actually makes it somewhat possible to do so covertly.

I just haven't seen anything that makes it possible for the entire building to be wired up with no one noticing.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Let me first say that this "sequential demolition by segments" is just a speculative hypothesis I've come up with recently and I certainly welcome debate and discussion, but in light of the fact that the pancake hypothesis doesn't hold water when it comes to destroying the towers entirely (among other things), I feel it's as valid as any other.




You can see the cap size in relation to the building (WTC1) itself. As the cap descends on the "body", all that grinding, crushing, snapping of steel welds and bolts, snapping of whole steel pieces, pulverization of the concrete, and expansion of the dust cloud requires energy. This energy is provided in the form of potential energy transforming into kinetic energy as the cap descends. When the components collide and grind, the kinetic energy of the cap is reduced as it is transferred into heat, sound, kinetic energy transferred to the Earth through the intact structure, and back to potential energy in the parts which come to rest. In addition, as the cap is disintegrated and falls over the side, the energy available to act in the grinding and crushing process is reduced. There's simply not enough energy in the caps to go through this process and completely destroy the buildings down to the ground. Here's a couple of papers describing the energy deficiencies in the pancake collapse hypothesis:

www.hawaii.indymedia.org...

www.saunalahti.fi...

Since the government's hypothesis is not reproducible, does not fit with observed phenomena, and does not even stand up under theoretical examination, in accordance with the scientific method that hypothesis needs to be adjusted, or other ones need to be formed. Since the US government refuses to budge from pancake land, it is up to the rest of the world to explore other possibilities. A descending cap will destroy the building underneath, but one is not enough, and not of the size observed. Segmenting the building sequentially as the collapse progressed downwards would opvercome the energy hurdle, and would also reduce the amount of explosives required and the number of locations for placement.

As a side note, I'm still of the opinion that it would have been plausible to place explosives on the concrete re-bar before it was poured. Combined this with strategic placement of some form of cutting charges, and it would explain the observed collapse mode and resultant effects (such as the squibs), and would more importantly account for the energy deficit of the pancake hypothesis.


Leftbehind wrote:
WCIP, you earlier made a point about bombing key points in the building using rented offices. Have you looked into where those points might be? I find that line of reasoning much more believable then the other demo theories. With just a few offices being wired up, it actually makes it somewhat possible to do so covertly.


No, I haven't looked into where those points would be, and frankly I'm not qualified to do so. A structural demolition expert with access to the original WTC blueprints would be the only person qualified to do so with any credibility. Of course, I'm sure the feds wouldn't have any trouble with that one.



Ok. So if no blast needs to be seen from the outside, and no explosives were placed near the outer edge, how could the same explosives cause the squibs?

According to said theory, there would be no visible explosions at all. In such a scenario they would have to be caused by something else.


As I've stated before, I'm willing to accept that the initial "jets" observed close to the collapse were indeed a by-product of the "syringe hypothesis". However citing the syringe hypothesis as producing the squibs observed further down the structure is simply insupportable, for reasons we've discussed before, most notably:

A. If the dust in the squibs was from the collapse point as the syringe hypothesis depends on, since the HVAC system is interconnected, the entire building above each observed squib point would also necessarily be filled with concrete and drywall dust. The cross-section of the shafts was relatively small and there is not enough room for such a gargantuan volume of concrete to be pushed down such a small area.

B. In fluid (/gas) dynamics, pressure does not increase uniformly across a system when one end is pressurized. The pressure needs to travel. There was simply not enough time for such a huge volume of concrete dust to travel down that many floors, and if it did, the pressure in the floors above it would increase proportionately closer to the plunger, thus creating more and more squibs the further up the building you looked - floors with 10+ squibs shooting out in all directions.

As for what created the squibs if explosives were indeed the cause, well, firstly explosions create expansion of gases and geometric increases in pressure. Individual explosions on specific floors could produce overpressure sufficient to cause localized expulsions of debris or powdered drywall. Admittedly, conventional cutting charges may not, depending on how many and how large they were, however a different method of severing the core columns (perhaps one of the outrageous exceptions cited by QuietSoul's demo expert if access to all sides of a beam in not possible) very well could. And again, a combination of column severing and explosions near the concrete would also produce such an effect.


BTW thank you WCIP for replying civilly and actually engaging in conversation.

No worries, and again, I apologize, but be aware that now that I've bitten on the "provide complete solutions" bait, Howard & Co will undoubtedly jump in with some condescending snipes and the debate will turn vitriolic once more. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid...

[edit on 2005-11-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You have indeed stated such things many times. You have yet to prove it.


We'll I'm going to email a demolition company and we'll see what they have to say.


I don't know why you feel ridicule helps your argument.


I doubt that it does, but it helps me take a little steam off when talking to someone that doesn't accept scientific evidence contrary to his own beliefs, substitutes his own completely unsupported ideas, and then tells me that I have no proof of what I'm saying, that I'm somehow incorrectly citing scientific laws (especially when this someone does not tell me how I'm doing so - but just assures himself that I am simply because I must be wrong - and doubly especially when he doesn't even attempt to cite anything to support himself), and makes arbitrary and/or nonsensical arguments, expecting me all the while to remain polite.

I know I shouldn't be so cranky, and shouldn't let behaviors like this bother me, but I'd rather not hear that from you, as I've asked you many times to support the things you say with some reference to something outside of your biased head, before hypocritically and incorrectly telling myself and others that what we say must be wrong - because 9/11 could never, ever, possibly have been an inside job. Just impossible! I don't see why you even waste your time arguing something that is so plain-as-day to see, as the fact that no good evidence could ever point to conspiracy on 9/11 simply because there was no conspiracy. You already know this.


I was attempting to explore a different demolition scenario, but it seems that you can only repeat the same things, in the same mocking tone.


It shouldn't surprise you that when I must repeat things over and over, I don't become happier. Not everyone is as morally disciplined as yourself.


If you want to prove what you say do one simple thing.

Show a demolition that was done from the top down.


Nah;

I'm going to email a demolition company and ask them if demo charges can be set off any way they please. Let's be mindboggled at what they say, instead of sending me on a goose chase.


Ok. So if no blast needs to be seen from the outside, and no explosives were placed near the outer edge, how could the same explosives cause the squibs?


They wouldn't, and I'm beginning to see that you haven't really put much thought into what we're pointing out (but please do). I personally think that at least 3 different kinds of "explosives" (is thermite "explosive"? cause it just sort of, burns brightly... :puz
were used at the WTC on 9/11, based on different observed and recorded phenomena from that place and time.


Btw, thanks for that post, WCIP. I suppose it could have worked that way, and it would have been much easier to accomplish; but if I get what you're saying (and I may not), might there not seem to be changes in the amount of material being ejected? A video comes to mind, taken from ground-level, where rows explosions coming out simultaneously, floor by floor, "boom boom boom," can be seen. The blows look exactly like squibs and seem way too symmetrical and properly-timed for my liking (maybe you've seen this video?). That reminds me of other videos, like CNN, or what-have-you, where the ejections always seemed consistent enough all the way down. If your proposal is true, maybe less explosive ejections can be witnessed as the collapses reach certain sections of the building?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Excellent post WCIP.

While I may not agree with everything you posted, it's nice to get a dialog going instead of a flame fest.

That is an interesting version of the Jim Hoffman article. I have never seen those added red words. They are not in Hoffman's original article.

911research.wtc7.net...

I have a number of problems with the added red editorial. You should too as it refutes the article at the end.


From www.hawaii.indymedia.org... This article by J. Hoffman is a deliberate attempt to divert your attention from the fact that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. By presenting a possible explanation for the debris cloud without considering explosives, he is implicitly stating that he, as an expert in the field, does not consider explosives an option, so why should you? He is deliberately pointing you in the wrong direction.


Their devising of a 10-90 amatol mix was very interesting.

The only problem is that such a mixture is never used as far as I can tell. Amatol was added to TNT to make a larger supply. Nothing I can find mentions using a mix that has more amatol than TNT, so I doubt that it explodes with the energy stated by the anonymous red source.

en.wikipedia.org...


Amatol is a highly explosive material, a mixture of TNT and ammonium nitrate, and used as an explosive in military weapons.

Mixture ratios range from 80 percent ammonium nitrate/20 percent TNT, down to 50/50.


Wikipedia was not the only source I found saying this. I have not seen mention of an amatol mix at less than 50/50. Leading me to believe that such mixes were actually less explosive.


As to whether or not Hoffman is correct, I am undecided. I have seen some that say not as much energy was required, or that there were other sources of energy not mentioned by Hoffman. This one probably deserves more looking into before it can be definitive.

Your second link I have not seen before, but comes to a conclusion similar to Hoffman, without the caveat about explosives.

That being said, I believe that these calculations actually make demolition an even more unlikely scenario.

Hoffman's calculations require almost 10 times the amount of available energy, which was 4 x 10^11 joules.

To be conservative I'll say 9 times that number to end up with 36 x 10^11 joules.

PETN is one of the most powerful explosives today with a R. E. Factor of 1.66 or 1.66 times the strength of TNT. It is commonly used in demolition work.

www.globalsecurity.org...

1.66 times more powerful than tnt would give a ton of PETN 6.95 x 10^9 joules.

Since we need to have 36 x 10^11 joules that means we need 517 tons of PETN to destroy the WTC and create the dust cloud that was observed.

I really don't see how more than 250 tons of demolition charges with miles of cord could have been covertly snuck into each building.

But who knows maybe Hoffman's figures are too high. Maybe his numbers don't mean anything.


Considering that, I don't have quite the same problems with the "pancaking theory" that others do. To me it makes sense, but I'm sure some will call me a moron for that.

I think the biggest problem we have on these threads is that both sides want to insist that their story is 100% correct. I do support a reopening of the investigations into 9-11, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the truth falls somewhere in between.

It will be interesting if we can find any good evidence pointing towards a segmented demolition. If we can find key sections of the building that wouldnt require 250 tons of demo charges we might be able to find a theory that we both can agree on as a possibility.

While there are problems with the official story, IMHO the demolition theory has much larger ones.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I'm curious, for the sake of science. If you were to clear out every person
out of new york's high rises, and slam 747's into them with the same fuel and impact as was seen on 9/11, how many high rises would fall perfectly on their footprint? Let's say ya did it into 15 high rises. I wonder what the results would be?

What frightens me is that as much as I want to believe the debunkers...I relaly want that NIST data to fit, something just doesn't feel right. There was a time when the mere mention of a conspiracy or 'explosives' made me roll my eyes, but now I don't think the issue can be ignored.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
I'm curious, for the sake of science. If you were to clear out every person
out of new york's high rises, and slam 747's into them with the same fuel and impact as was seen on 9/11, how many high rises would fall perfectly on their footprint? Let's say ya did it into 15 high rises. I wonder what the results would be?

What frightens me is that as much as I want to believe the debunkers...I relaly want that NIST data to fit, something just doesn't feel right. There was a time when the mere mention of a conspiracy or 'explosives' made me roll my eyes, but now I don't think the issue can be ignored.


The number of high-rises that would collapse would be none if they do in fact collapse. This is because for the steel to be become a semi-liquified state, the steel would have to be subject to a 2000 degree blaze for about four to five hours. If you were to strike 15 high-rises with, oh, let's say the Boeing 777-200LR, none of the buildings would experience a complete collapse, but they could experience a partial collapse, which if not properly secured, could lead to a further and complete collapse.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

That is an interesting version of the Jim Hoffman article. I have never seen those added red words. They are not in Hoffman's original article.

I have a number of problems with the added red editorial. You should too as it refutes the article at the end.

quote: From www.hawaii.indymedia.org... This article by J. Hoffman is a deliberate attempt to divert your attention from the fact that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. By presenting a possible explanation for the debris cloud without considering explosives, he is implicitly stating that he, as an expert in the field, does not consider explosives an option, so why should you? He is deliberately pointing you in the wrong direction.

You know I didn't actually read through the article to notice the red text. I googled for Hoffman's paper (I lost all my bookmarks recently) and found that link to post, assuming it was an unalterated reproduction. Interesting though, although I wouldn't call the statement at the end a "refutation"; more like a bit of a whine because Hoffman didn't come straight out and say, "They blew the bloody thing up!".
And to anyone who has followed Hoffman's work, their inference that he is a disinfo agent is pure comedy. Hoffman, rightly so, presents the paper purely as an analysis of the energy sources and sinks. Speculation and analyses of where the deficient energy came from is for another thesis. (Speaking of comedy, check the 2nd reply to the article: "My husband can't satisfy me", frikkin hilarious.)

I've seen many attempted rebuttals to Hoffman's paper, some reasonable and some pure fantasy, but none of them have produced any amazing reduction in the energy sinks or increase in the sources; certainly not enough to reduce it down to where input > output. But I feel that the 10-fold disparity seems a little outrageous.



That being said, I believe that these calculations actually make demolition an even more unlikely scenario.
[...]
I really don't see how more than 250 tons of demolition charges with miles of cord could have been covertly snuck into each building.


Which leads us into an interesting conundrum. Calculating the behavior of pyroclastic flows is one of the more error-prone areas of physics, and Hoffman was brave to tackle this aspect - perhaps just a precursory examination indicated a huge disparity between input and output energy that spurred him to really chase it down to the wire. But the more incorrect Hoffman's calculations are, and the more the energy disparity is reduced, the more feasible the explosives theory becomes as the amount of explosives required is reduced in direct proportion to the energy output. Debunkers beware. Only once the calculated output is reduced to less than or equal to the input can the explosives hypothesis be ruled out.


Considering that, I don't have quite the same problems with the "pancaking theory" that others do. To me it makes sense, but I'm sure some will call me a moron for that.


It's interesting that you should say that, because the "pancake hypothesis" was perpetrated by FEMA in their quote:"half-baked farce" report, not by NIST. You might find this hard to believe, especially after $20,000,000 and 3 years, but the NIST report avoids investigating and describing the collapse mode completely. Their "investigation" limits itself to the jet impact and the initiation of the collapse of each tower. Every time they get to the point about collapse, they simply state, "collapse became inevitable", and, "global collapse ensued", and then quickly move on to unimportant minutae - shameless hand-waving and abracadabra. Nowhere is the collapse mode described, and they use deceptive titles for sections such as "Probable Collapse Sequence", the contents of which upon further examination reveal nothing. Don't believe me? Read through the reports and see for yourself. The "pancake collapse" is one of those untruths that has been imprinted in the public's mind and lodged there, just like Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda.


I think the biggest problem we have on these threads is that both sides want to insist that their story is 100% correct. I do support a reopening of the investigations into 9-11, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the truth falls somewhere in between.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree, which is one of the reasons I don't visit this forum much anymore except to read others' contributions; it's too stressful. Unfortunately the combative and vitriolic nature of the debate makes people deal in absolutes - just like the Sith eh? No one is willing to concede any points when the opposition is like a school of piranha, ready to tear to shreds any mistake or weakness. Most people are not here to research the truth, they are here to prove they are right...a subtle yet important difference.


It will be interesting if we can find any good evidence pointing towards a segmented demolition. If we can find key sections of the building that wouldnt require 250 tons of demo charges we might be able to find a theory that we both can agree on as a possibility.

Again, if the energy deficit is reduced to a more reasonable magnitude, then this hypothesis on its own may become more credible. Furthermore, if explosive placed on the re-bar at the time of construction is considered feasible and added into the hypothesis, then the energy deficit is accounted for.


While there are problems with the official story, IMHO the demolition theory has much larger ones.

And this is where our road forks, my friend.




[edit on 2005-11-11 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
A video comes to mind, taken from ground-level, where rows explosions coming out simultaneously, floor by floor, "boom boom boom," can be seen. The blows look exactly like squibs and seem way too symmetrical and properly-timed for my liking (maybe you've seen this video?). That reminds me of other videos, like CNN, or what-have-you, where the ejections always seemed consistent enough all the way down. If your proposal is true, maybe less explosive ejections can be witnessed as the collapses reach certain sections of the building?


I'm pretty sure you're talking about this video, and I agree, you can see the explosive ejections of concrete dust and debris racing down ahead of the cap. Even if one were to claim a shock wave proceeding down the building ahead of the collapse point, such a wave could conceivably fracture the perimeter column connections and the windows, but would not be able to pulverize the concrete and eject it thus. The observed phenomenon does however fit with the C4 on the re-bar as I mentioned before. Food for thought.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The observed phenomenon does however fit with the C4 on the re-bar as I mentioned before. Food for thought.


Ah, true.


And now something to make this post longer:

(taken from an actual IRC convo btw)


Cthon98: hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars
Cthon98: ********* see!
AzureDiamond: hunter2
AzureDiamond: doesnt look like stars to me
Cthon98: AzureDiamond: *******
Cthon98: thats what I see
AzureDiamond: oh, really?
Cthon98: Absolutely
AzureDiamond: you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2
AzureDiamond: haha, does that look funny to you?
Cthon98: lol, yes. See, when YOU type hunter2, it shows to us as *******
AzureDiamond: thats neat, I didnt know IRC did that
Cthon98: yep, no matter how many times you type hunter2, it will show to us as *******
AzureDiamond: awesome!
AzureDiamond: wait, how do you know my pw?
Cthon98: er, I just copy pasted YOUR ******'s and it appears to YOU as hunter2 cause its your pw
AzureDiamond: oh, ok.


Er, the usernames didn't display originally because of the >'s and



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Here's a pic to add to the "segmented collapse" I mentioned before.



The Penzer Building in Detroit, courtesy of Controlled Demolition, Inc.

All of the core columns are severed just at specific floors, and the weight of the falling sections above hammers the building to the ground.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Demolition is like building a house of cards. Even though you use the whole deck of cards to build the structre, just one missing column could send it all crashing down on you.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Demolition is like building a house of cards. Even though you use the whole deck of cards to build the structre, just one missing column could send it all crashing down on you.


That's not true. One, or even multiple damaged or missing columns cannot send a building crashing down like a stack of dominoes. If it could, I would never enter a building higher than two floors ever again.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
But, on the other hand, if a building is collapsing and so much as a single column resists, everything above that column could off-set and fall to the side. In demolition, not a single column can be left intact during collapse or the symmetry of the whole thing could be compromised just like that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join