POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

This is the image that I'm talking about. Interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
But, you might say that proves there wasn't explosives. Well, I say they only needed a few upper floors to be destroyed with explosives and the basement (remember the molten steel in the basement) and the "pancake" effect would work. Now this is telling because the core columns would still stand after all the debris (forces) is gone unless the bases were ALREADY sheered in half before the buildings came crashing down. The only thing I can think of that would have sheered the core columns at the base is explosives.

Am I making any sense or just babbling?

No, you are making perfect sense. I would add in the need to sever the core columns at key floors in the structure, since the available potential energy of one cap would not be enough to destroy the structure entirely down to the very pavement, particularly considering the caps were completely destroyed by less than half way down each collapse, and also considering the added resistance provided by the increasingly strong structure underneath the closer to the ground the collapse came. Since analogies seem to be so popular lately, consider a 5Kg bag of sand dropped on a milk carton, then consider 5Kg of loose sand dropped on it. Once the caps were no longer rigid, single structures, the crushing energy was largely unconcentrated and deflected.

Here is a picture of the Penzer Building which was demolished in exactly that fashion, cutting the core columns at key points and letting each section of the building hammer the rest to the ground.




Note that the Penzer Building demolition was performed by Controlled Demolition Inc., the same company which was contracted to clean-up the wreckage of the WTC disaster, the same company which claims to be able to demolish all components of a building to fit the length of debris transport vehicles as was the case with the WTC collapses, and the same company which was contracted to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after the feds failed to blow it up completely the first time.

Also note that the Penzer Building demolition did not proceed as smoothly as planned, the crushing action of the descending caps sending debris mushrooming out onto buildings nearby, just like the WTC towers.

Hmmm...

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by Indy
Take those same ten bags and drop them at one time from ten feet above the ground onto the table and see what happens. The table will get smashed. Of course the more weight that is falling the more damage it can do. Each floor that joins the fall adds to its ability to destroy on the way down.

What you are missing is your bags are obviously heavier than the table so yes it will collapse.
It's not the same as a small portion of a building falling on itself!

As the floors collapse you should have ever more resistance from lower floors, that didn't happen on 9-11. All the floors fell as if there was no resistance from floors bellow them.

If it fell as they said it did you would end up with a large portion of the building still standing although extremely damaged. There is no way it would have collapsed down to it's foundations. As the top came down and met resistance from the bottom you would have had lateral movement in all directions, objects falling take the least path of reisistance.
For an object to be completely destroyed by a falling object, the falling object has to have more mass than what it's falling on. If they are of the same or simular weight (as in WTC) the falling object will hit equal resistance and be deflected somewhat. It will cause extreme damage but it will not be totaly crushed into dust.
As the top is also meeting the same resistance it too will be extremely damaged taking away some of the the force and power it started with.
So if the falling object has now lost momentum from resistance how can it continue down the rest of the building? It should have stopped somewhere before it reached the ground, leaving the lower part of the building still standing.
Probably not explained very well but simple physics. Think about it.

If there was some unseen force pushing down the top, or some unseen force taking away the resistance of lower floors, then yea\s the building would collapse to the ground. I wonder what took away the resistance

wecomeinpeace.

what we need is a video of a tower demolished in the way the WTC1 and 2 were. ie exploding outward.
unlike the wtrc7 whcih just sunk into the ground like most controlled demos.

do you have a video of that Penzer Building collapsing by any chance?
i need to find one that looks like the wtc to be convinced.

at the moment im still not sure how they destroyed them, unless it was a massive set of sequentialy timed explosives

Originally posted by AdamJ
do you have a video of that Penzer Building collapsing by any chance?

No, I don't. Info on that demolition is hard to come by actually. It is curiously (suspiciously?) not listed on Controlled Demolition Inc's site, but you can find references to their demolition of that building if you really dig. If you find anything, please let me know! Or just post it!

what we need is a video of a tower demolished in the way the WTC1 and 2 were. ie exploding outward. unlike the wtrc7 whcih just sunk into the ground like most controlled demos.

I think that will be a wild goose chase, because a) the demolition of the WTC towers would have been done in a manner to make it appear to be a natural collapse to the casual observer, and b) there were no concerns about collateral damage to other structures. Legitimate demolitions are not burdened by the first concern, and are burdened by the second. Hence, you will not find a legally contracted demolition done in exactly the same manner as the WTC towers. Furthermore no buildings of that size have ever been (legitimately) demolished.

To be honest, I personally am about as concerned about proving the con-dem of the WTC1&2 towers these days as Dubya is about Osama Bin Laden. That is, "I'm not really concerned about (it)". I think that the implosion of WTC7 is the inside job 'smoking gun' that simply cannot be refuted by anyone with a reasonable mind and without a vested interest in the cover-up (*nods to Howard*). After four years, if these murderers are ever going to be exposed, we need to latch on to the things that are beyond debate. Anyway, that's just my own personal perspective at this juncture.



[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]

I tell a lie. After a bit of checking, it turns out the building is not called the "Penzer Building". That appears to be a moniker given to the building (which is actually called the "500 Wood Street Building") because of a "sports mural painted on the southwest wall of the structure by the late Judy Penzer, an artist, who perished in the crash of TWA Flight 800."

Here is the link:
500 Wood Street Building

It also turns out that the reports I'd read of debris mushrooming out were incorrect. My apologies.

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]

ANOK... you are trying to complicate something that is actually very simple. The supports on x floor were soft and damage from the crash. They were no longer able to support the weight of the floors above them. So they buckled. The floors above came crashing down in the 1st good floor below foor x. The force of the impact crumbled the supports on that good floor sending it plus the stuff from above down on to the next good floor below that. The process repeated itself all the way down.

Even if there was an "explosion" that set off the collapse it would have done the exact same thing that you saw happen because of melted steel. Is it ok to believe that explosives blew out a floor causing the tower to come down but something logical and obvious like weakend floors because of a jet crash and fire couldn't happen?

As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. This is completely pointless.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I tell a lie. After a bit of checking, it turns out the building is not called the "Penzer Building". That appears to be a moniker given to the building (which is actually called the "500 Wood Street Building") because of a "sports mural painted on the southwest wall of the structure by the late Judy Penzer, an artist, who perished in the crash of TWA Flight 800."

Here is the link:
500 Wood Street Building

It also turns out that the reports I'd read of debris mushrooming out were incorrect. My apologies.

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]

Interesting ya mention TWA Flight 800; as even Richard Clarke eludes to that being a coverup.

Ok I just wan tto say three important things:

1. Can it be proven that the fireball explosions and "squibs" clearly seen in the WTC 1 and 2 videos are from the 'pancake' and the supposed leaked fuel that supposedly ran down the elevator shafts?

2. Let's say William Rodriguez(the 20 year WTC employee), and the survivors of the sublevel blasts are telling the truth. How could there have been explosions in the sublevels, if the official story is planes brought down the WTC?

3. Why are the WTC7 demolition naysayers so willing to use one quote by a firefighter saying there was a gaping hole in the building, yet throw out the ocean of eye witness statements from many firefighters, triage workers, police, journalists, workers, etc.?

I also want to say that the Silverstein "pull it" comments still remain a curiosity; in the cadence, tone and manner in which he says. I've seen on video police telling people to get back, that the building is going to fall.
Ive seen video of some guy with a video camera aiming his camera at the WTC7 right when it was about to fall. Triage workers saying that by 1pm they were saying it was going to come down. Does the diesel fire tanks tory hold true? WTC7 footage wise is such a clear indication of demoliton...from the perfect true freefall nature, to the crim/kink, to the perfect fall onto the footprint, to everything else. I for one would like to see more photos/footage of WTC 7 in the hour before it collapsed.

To me I'm not about proving one side...I would like to see evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt points to either it being demolition or
from fire. I am convinced a plane really did hit the Pentagon, so some of these things IMHO are provable online.

There is no somking gun with an event like this. That looks like a demolition to me. But the official story can always change to accomodate it
The key 9/11 story is that Al_Qaeda terrorists flew planes into wtc1&2 and destroyed them.
Thats all 9/11 is for most people.
We are already at the point where they admit the dont even know who some of the hijackers were. But that doesnt bother anybody.
All thats left now is what happened to the aircraft and passangers and whether there were explosives in wtc 1 and 2. Which there is some evidence for.
I think wtc7 could have been blown up by a space aliens and people would just shrug it off as a side issue.

Originally posted by Indy
ANOK... you are trying to complicate something that is actually very simple.

As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. This is completely pointless.

The melted steel theory has been argued over and over on this board.

The steel DID NOT get hot enought to melt!! I won't go over why here, do a search on other 9-11 threads.
The building were designed to withstand planes impacts.

And how did lower floors that weren't damaged by plane or fire become weak enough that upper (weakened) floors were able to go right through them, turning them in to dust as they did.

And even if the lower floors were weakened it still wouldn't collapse in a neat downward pancake style. At least not 3 buildings in the same day, including one (7) that WAS NOT hit by a plane. SO how do explain building 7 with your, plane impact and fire theory?

And you think this discusion is over? It won't be over until ALL questions are answered. Quit trying to de-rail the thread, and go back to sleep if you're not interested in getting to the truth.

[edit on 19/11/2005 by ANOK]

there was molten metals reported to be in the basements of the WTC buildings from the supposed thermite explosives.
And we do have these photos taken by NASA 4 days later showing hot spots in the foot prints of the buildings..






[edit on 19/11/2005 by Sauron]

I think that the physics professor has an issue of percieved credibility. just becuase the fact that he studied physics does not mean he does not understand engineering. Physics is the foundation for all engineering sciences. Yo can ask anybody you know who even has a batchelors degree in physics and they can probably tell you in rudimentary terms where the greatest load stresses are in a building.
This man is a frikking genius. give him some slack.

Man...thats about the most telling smoking gun picture ever....thanks Sauron. Did anyone notice the hot spots at Building 7. Same as there are in Buildings 1 & 2. Hmmm...no hot spots inthe other buildings....even though remember building 6 was supposed to have a fire blast in it? Doesn't make sense unless you factor in thermite explosions.

Now the case IS closed.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

Thanks for posting that Sauron.

It might also be handy to post some info quantifying the temperatures indicated by the thermal imaging there.

Below, the WTC rubble pile, dated Oct10 2001...still smoking.





[edit on 2005-11-19 by wecomeinpeace]

Here's the temperature data for the hotspots (C and F temps added by me):




(source)

Originally posted by Sauron
there was molten metals reported to be in the basements of the WTC buildings from the supposed thermite explosives.
And we do have these photos taken by NASA 4 days later showing hot spots in the foot prints of the buildings..
[edit on 19/11/2005 by Sauron]

Yes I know about the melted steel. In fact I bought up the thermite posibilty on an old 9-11 thread.
My point was the fires didn't melt the steel as Indy was claiming. So it had to have been done by some other means i.e. thermite.

[edit on 19/11/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

But when you look at the sequence:



It can also be explained by the air being forced out on the level of collapse, which happens to be where the damage is... Funny how that big plane crashing in didn't disrupt these 'explosives' even in the highly damaged areas... And without severing any wires either. And they just happened to fly them into the right place too!

As the arrow points out you can see the same effect from the area also on fire. You will also notice that smoke is already coming from the 'squib' areas and what else would you expect it to do when the top of the building collapses in like that?

Now watch this controlled demolition:

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Notice the bright flashes and the delay between them, the smoke rising out and the bigger delay followed then by the collapse.
Not the collapse followed by 'squibs' or what I like to call 'air being forced out by the top of the big building suddenly crashing down' that actually occured in the WTC incident.


[edit on 19-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

nvm

[edit on 2005-11-20 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by Indy

As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. This is completely pointless.

And there-in lies the problem: people giving in and accepting what they should clearly know is wrong.

Let's just look at the one piece that doesn't fit your neat little scenario - WTC 7.

This building came down FOR NO APPARENT REASON! It's foolishness to sit there and say that what was clearly an controlled demolition was the result of what happend on 911. WTC7 was not hit by a plane! WTC7 had pockets of fire that were not extensive! Simply put, WTC7 was the exception to the rule that before 911 NO BUILDING EVER FELL BECAUSE OF FIRE!

Absolute stupidity abounds! We shall never get to the bottom of this as long as we insist that what happened on 911 was in some way explainable. It was not explainable because the (laughable) 911 commission couldn't give any answers either. The people that were charged with finding out what happened actually couldn't! Sound familliar? How about the Warren Commission as a comparison? They defied the laws of physics then too. Magic Bullet theory.

you people who don't question the official story are morons.

Originally posted by scienceguy94
I think that the physics professor has an issue of percieved credibility. just becuase the fact that he studied physics does not mean he does not understand engineering. Physics is the foundation for all engineering sciences. Yo can ask anybody you know who even has a batchelors degree in physics and they can probably tell you in rudimentary terms where the greatest load stresses are in a building.
This man is a frikking genius. give him some slack.

I sent an e-mail inquiry to Dr. Wood Miller, the chairperson of the civil and environmental engineering department of BYU (Structural engineering falls under the Civil engineering curriculum)

My e-mail to him:

Dear Professor Miller:



I would like to know if you are familiar with the latest paper by Profesor Steven Jones of BYU entitled: “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”

www.physics.byu.edu...



Has any member of the engineering department collaborated with Jones on this paper?



What is the position of the Engineering department on the accuracy and validity of the claims made by Jones in this paper?



Thank you in advance for your consideration,

His reply:

No one in the department officially collaborated with Jones on his paper, although several are very familiar with it, have talked with him about it, and have mentioned to him other articles about this topic which they are aware of.

I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims.

Dr. Miller

Need I say more?