Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Is this what you are calling the core?

Looks like a section of the outer wall to me...

Do I have to make a huge post now with pics and enlargements to convince you that it's the core and not the outer wall? What is this, "International Keep WCIP Occupied Day"?

Here, watch these and tell me that's the outer shell:

WTC1 core 01 - wmv

WTC1 core 02 - wmv

WTC1 core 03 - avi

WTC2 core 01 - wmv

You know how the perimeter wall was constructed, right? Do you see any of the outer shell composite panels? Do you see any staggered sets of three, thinner columns with spandrel panels connecting them? Look at the size and sheer thickness of the columns. Look at how they are in a huge, narrowly collected spire. Look at the size compared to the original building. Look at where it is situated in relation to the original building. Heck, in some of the vids you can even see the individual corridors and horizontal bracing bars in the core space.

Here's a pic of WTC2:


I'm not going to go to too much effort to convince you of something that you simply don't want to see. I'm tired and about to hit the sack, so how about you look thru those vids and then make a post convincing everyone else that what we are seeing is the outer shell.



[edit on 2005-11-29 by wecomeinpeace]

Ya I've looked at all of those vids ( thanks BTW for posting them )...

And I've yet to see that grab from any of the vids...

In the pic I posted...Is that the core you are talking about?

And you've still not answered my question...

Why is the outer wall still standing, when the bomb theory requires a total collapse...

Originally posted by Long Lance
see for yourselves:

original source for pics: nineeleven2001.t35.com...

let me get this straight, i am merely interested in the pics, not overall site content


i'd like to point out that there's something that immediately popped up in my mind: www.fas.org...


any comments? i know we're basically past the stage of investigating the planes, but i found that rather peculiar.


edited due to careless use of return

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Long Lance]

For me it's a smoke puff/squib of smoke from explosion.
911.wtc.2.hit.northeast.1.slow.wmv
Looking at the angle and area of WTC2 where that plane hit it it's hard to believe that this is some plane parts mixed with some office debries... Like what parts ?

[edit on 29-11-2005 by STolarZ]

Originally posted by STolarZ
For me it's a smoke puff/squib of smoke from explosion.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by STolarZ]

Funny that.

The plane exploded. I wonder why it looks like smoke from an explosion.

Finally a real squib, caused by a real, but unconventional bomb made out of a plane full of fuel.

Here's a much better picture, where you can actually see the burning thermite taking care of those remaining corner pieces.

This is a very clear photo of mine from the remaining north-west corner spire with the remaining hot spots of the cutter charges clearly visible, and those are NOT compression heating points, as you can clearly see that the spire was not compressed, but in the process of being cut :



One falling piece of that spire is seen falling to the left, just above that dust cloud on the bottom left, with the thermite still burning on several spots, especially the ends, where they were cut away from the original position, and tumbled down.
Especially observe those smoke trails from the thermite.

Just thought I'd ask for some clarifying here.

Labtop do you believe that the demolition was done with tons of explosives and thermite?

Why would you need both?

If only thermite was used, then do you concede that the seismic record shows only the collapse?

If both, why go to the trouble of planes, thermite and demo charges?

Originally posted by LaBTop
Here's a much better picture, where you can actually see the burning thermite taking care of those remaining corner pieces.

This is a very clear photo of mine from the remaining north-west corner spire with the remaining hot spots of the cutter charges clearly visible, and those are NOT compression heating points, as you can clearly see that the spire was not compressed, but in the process of being cut :

One falling piece of that spire is seen falling to the left, just above that dust cloud on the bottom left, with the thermite still burning on several spots, especially the ends, where they were cut away from the original position, and tumbled down.
Especially observe those smoke trails from the thermite.

That's interesting...

Have you ever thought that what you call thermite could be elecrtical sparks from high powered electrical equipment ?

****Edit***

The more I look at it it looks like a picture that has been...well over compensated in a media software package...

Look at the upper left of the pic, looks like it has been over compensated by the contrast adjustment...

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by STolarZ
For me it's a smoke puff/squib of smoke from explosion.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by STolarZ]

Funny that.

The plane exploded. I wonder why it looks like smoke from an explosion.

Finally a real squib, caused by a real, but unconventional bomb made out of a plane full of fuel.

What I would be wondering is why it isn't a fireball, if it's from the jet fuel, but looks exactly like all the other squibs instead.

Because it's ACTING like an FAE. When an FAE goes off, you can see the fuel spread visibly, and then there's a non-attached detonator that goes off and causes the fuel to explode. IF that's jet fuel, it's probably doing the same thing here. It erupted from the building, and then a spark, or the fire hit it, and it exploded.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Just thought I'd ask for some clarifying here.

Labtop do you believe that the demolition was done with tons of explosives and thermite?

Why would you need both?

If only thermite was used, then do you concede that the seismic record shows only the collapse?

If both, why go to the trouble of planes, thermite and demo charges?

I know this was addressed to LaBTop but I think I have an idea how he will respond.

The core structures of the buildings were strong. The core columns themselves had over 75% redundancy (I can't remember the exact figures, but they were more like 85% - figured from NIST's own published figures), and also from the NIST report, they apparently also had their own resistance to lateral loads, even if less than the outer columns, meaning they could stand on their own.

If the perimeter columns were blown out with an explosive such as C4, all the way down the buildings, the core structures would most likely not fall unless some 85% or so of the columns were damaged on any given floor, and even then it would be hard to say how much exactly would fall. The core columns had to be dealt with separately, and so thermite was most likely used to quietly melt through the much-thicker core columns at least at the base, and maybe in places higher up as well. Not to say it only thermite necessarily, that destroyed the core columns, but it fits up well enough that it was used.

And of course the reason the planes and subsequent fires were not enough is because they couldn't cause anything to collapse in those mammothly over-engineered buildings anyway.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Why is the outer wall still standing, when the bomb theory requires a total collapse...

Those bottom portions were the lobbies, no?



And if I'm not mistaken, only the core structures were embedded into the ground, which got pretty messed up on 9/11.

Would it be too much to consider explosives were not placed in the bottom lobby given the especial trouble it would have been, as the image above might suggest? I would find it odd that those columns would still be standing by a theory such as the pancake theory, in which you would certainly expect the bottom-most parts of the buildings to be crushed to the ground, if a small cap managed to crush all the rest of the building to the ground. All the weight was falling downwards, right? And that's what caused them to fall in whole? Except for the very bottom, of course, and only then the perimeter columns which weren't even really anchored to the ground?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because it's ACTING like an FAE. When an FAE goes off, you can see the fuel spread visibly, and then there's a non-attached detonator that goes off and causes the fuel to explode. IF that's jet fuel, it's probably doing the same thing here. It erupted from the building, and then a spark, or the fire hit it, and it exploded.

Would jet fuel be that grayish color, then?



Also considering there's now a flame all around it and it's still not burning, maybe this is just another case of a fluid pulverizing materials and sending it outwards.

If not a squib, then it's at least an ejection of non-flammable materials from the plane's impact, because it never catches on fire. Nor does it move laterally frame to frame, which suggests it isn't a part of the plane (and neither would a piece of a plane expand like a cloud of course), but it may, again, be something caused by the impact itself non-squib related.

What's more is that this is the South Tower. The South Tower was hit at quite an angle and the jet damage more than one face of the building, so I wouldn't be surprised if that thing is related to the plane jarring inwards towards the other side that it damaged. Either that, or a squib, but it doesn't catch on fire and it isn't moving laterally.

It looked like it caught fire on the page wth the other pics on it. It looks like it's part of the fireball that gets ejected from the side of the building on that page. It could be jetfuel, mixed with debris from the building, and shredded parts of plane. There's actually a lot of lightweight parts of the plane that would fly around before settling to the ground.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's not a BLU-96 or any other type of FAE. I can't tell what it is, but there's no way that's any sort of FAE. Even a small FAE would have decimated the building, and blown it apart immediately.

noted, i never said it was a genuine FAE, but it the first thing i thought of. FAE rely on a correct mixture of air and fuel, enrich the mixture too much and it will burn, not explode, even though the required devices would be rather similar, altough slightly readjusted.

1200x1600 pixels
photo in one of the
threads here,
Click to enlarge.

This is a direct link to the above image :
img512.imageshack.us...

From this one, I enlarged about the same frame in a 100% zoom, that's 1 on 1 :

This is a direct link to the above image :
img372.imageshack.us...

Then I enlarged a 200% zoom of the falling pieces, that's 2 on 1 :

This is a direct link to the above image :
img360.imageshack.us...

To me, it -still- looks like the ends of those beams are burning and smoking.

I also see in the original photo a strange dark square wall standing left of that corner spire, with a wall of smoke attached to it.
I also vaguely see a part of the right corner of the core columns shimmer through the smoke, standing to the right of that dark wall, a bit under it.
And I see a band of white smoke pouring out at the bottom of the still standing corner spire, just in front of the left top of WTC 7, as if thermite is burning it's path through the beams, and smoking.
However, I know how much very bright white light a thermite burning emits, so I start wondering if it is burning thermite at all down there, or if it is only the remnants of already used thermite, which is only left smoking and glowing.

Don't know what to think of it, but the pancaking-theory was probably abandoned because of this photo.
That same heli must have made many more photos from this event, the collapse of WTC 1.
Where are they ?

NOTE: I got the first photo from a website which had a theory that the whole original photo was photoshopped into the blue region, so as to mask the fact that the real original photo had a brownish tint in the smoke, which would be an indication that some sort of neuclear device would have been used.
Your guess as good as mine about that. I have no clue, untill I'm sure to have the real original, unaltered photo.

that in fact is the jackpot question.

Just thought I'd ask for some clarifying here.

Labtop do you believe that the demolition was done with tons of explosives and thermite?

Why would you need both?

If only thermite was used, then do you concede that the seismic record shows only the collapse?

If both, why go to the trouble of planes, thermite and demo charges?

Perhaps you missed a post of mine somewhere (you see, I miss it also already), where I contemplated about an additional device which MUST have been used, or otherwise tens of men for weeks/months, or hundreds of men for days, would have been dragging explosive packages around in those towers.
That is still not out of the question, since Bush's brothers security firm had the contract for the Tower security, and that contract ended exactly on 9/11, which is a bit too far stretched for my imagination as being just a coincidence, these people show a tendency to totally ignore any secrecy, many times.
And I posted this link already :
www.saunalahti.fi...
where a "military expert" from Finland quite simple explains how the installation of all explosives could have been done.

I am contemplating about a vibration device, something in the very low Herz range, attached to the collumns in one of the basements of both towers, or aimed up in the elevator shafts, which could have broken the bolts and welds of at least the collumns.
The outside walls would have been taken care of by C-4 or whatever.
Such a vibrational device would fit in the smooth collapse picture.

Or some sort of 4th generation nuclear device.
Which would be the only device which could explain the extremely long heat retention times (weeks) for those hotspots found in the basements of all 3 towers.

There must be such a device, which is already used multiple times, just look at the extraordinary explosion characteristics of the Oklahoma City bombing, the first '97 WTC bombing in the basement, the Egyptian Red Sea resort hotel bombing, the Jakarta hotels and Bali bombings, they all showed hugh bites taken out from the buildings and were all upwards, conical shaped explosions.
I addressed a lot of it in this thread of mine :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be assured that the US military has closely worked together with the Israeli military in the underground labs at Dimona in Israel's Negev desert, for many decades now.
They have together worked there on the 4th and 5th generation nuclear weapons, which they signed not to proliferate in the US or elsewhere, but they did. The Israelis never signed anything and still don't answer any nuclear questions.
Pakistan is suddenly a "friend" of the US, guess how many US nuclear scientists work in their labs? And are free to develop what they want.

The US government has used every trick in their books of deception to circumvent the oh so honest treaties they signed to not further develop nuclear weapons, especially not the mini nukes and shape-charged nukes.

They only never understood the desperation of a nation like Israel, which used the US cooperation to fit in their own plans to "pacify" the Middle East, to at last get rid of a threat hanging above their heads for generations to come, if they did not neutralize all their Arab enemies.

That's why The Arab-Israeli problem is the real problem here, as long as that is not solved, both parties will only want the others dead.

of this link, and then tell me who you think is responsible for not stopping 9/11 :

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

if you have any time left, try to read all the next pages, and you will become sick from the endless clues, to the deliberate terrorist investigation blocks your Administration has set up for a decade already before 9/11.

It is not only this administration, all of them since JFK's murder were crooked.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Labtop do you believe that the demolition was done with tons of explosives and thermite?

Why would you need both?

It could be that enough thermite was used to soften the columns till they were gooey, and then displacement charges were used to knock them off center. In such a scenario, the charges would also not need to be anywhere near as big as would be required to sever hard steel columns. This technique would probably be necessary for the four massive corner columns of the core. This was a very, very strong building, the redundancy of the structure was excessive, meaning there would be a chance that the larger columns and assemblies may hold even after a good dose of thermite. Displacement charges were perhaps a fail-safe step, just in case some of the columns only softened.

[edit on 2005-11-30 by wecomeinpeace]

On Thermite And Molten Steel.


I found those heat maps interesting. However if anything they are proof against molten steel being in the wreckage.

As WCIP pointed out there were hotspots of almost 1400 degrees Farenheit.

However the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees farenheit. So those maps actually prove that there is no molten steel present on those sites.

education.jlab.org...

Thermite however burns at up to 4500 degrees farenheit. All those heat maps used to disprove high temperature fires, also discount the idea of thermite.

en.wikipedia.org...


Labtop. There is no evidence of nukes, and just speculating on devices that may or may not exist is not proof of anything.

BTW my personal crazy theory is that a bum opened a bottle, got three wishes and wished it down . Either that or santa clause.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
On Thermite And Molten Steel.

I found those heat maps interesting. However if anything they are proof against molten steel being in the wreckage.

As WCIP pointed out there were hotspots of almost 1400 degrees Farenheit.

However the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees farenheit. So those maps actually prove that there is no molten steel present on those sites.

Okay, a few points:

1. Those thermal signatures were recorded on the 16th of September, a full 5 days worth of cooling time after the collapses.

2. The thermal signatures reflect the heat near the top of the pile. The 72 feet height of debris piled in the basement reduces the thermal radiation reaching the spectrometer, and he data was not calibrated to varying depths. Thus the temperatures underneath the pile are much higher than those recored by the thermal imaging.

3. The rescue/cleanup crews were spraying water onto and into "the pile" constantly for those 5 days since the collapses, aiding enormously in the cooling process.

4. Heat loss due to radiation and conduction decreases in geometric proportion to temperature decrease, meaning the heat lost would be greatest in those first few days. With a constant surface area, the rate of heat lost purely via radiation at 2000C is about 10 times the rate of heat lost at 1000C. (ref. Stefan-Boltzmann Law)

5. The temperature you reference is the exothermic product of the reaction, not necessarily the temperature of the byproducts themselves. Heat and temperature, although related, are in fact two different things. Much of the heat energy is lost to the air, and in work done melting the material it contacts (in this case the steel of the columns).

6. The temperatures produced by the thermite reaction can vary depending on the oxidizing agent used, ambient temperature, and the pack density of the mix.

Here is the source for the thermal readings: pubs.usgs.gov...

I have yet to see any valid explanation, other than an aluminothermic reaction, for both the enormous temperatures and for the presence of the molten metal.


[edit on 2005-12-2 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
..
However the melting point of steel is 2500 degrees farenheit. So those maps actually prove that there is no molten steel present on those sites.

education.jlab.org...

Thermite however burns at up to 4500 degrees farenheit. All those heat maps used to disprove high temperature fires, also discount the idea of thermite.
...

molten metal was found.

really there's no point in valuing thermal images higher than physical evidence, is there?

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Long Lance]