Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

Originally posted by ihatescifi
Well, I was in the proccess of writing a post about how only this one camera hear the explosions but I found this:

www.terrorize.dk...

Gunfire like explosion sounds...

Now THAT one sounds like it's been tampered with. Can't be sure, but it sounds a little fishy.

Originally posted by Loengard
Now, read this twice; this man is a professor. I would assume that title has some meaning to most of you. Not anyone gets to be a professor, and you especially don't get to be one by sitting on your arse all day, and; a professor doesn't risk his title, his reputation, and his career by putting out a paper which is not based on facts and hence could be open for discussion.

I believe that the qualifications of Steven Jones has been thoroughly discussed in other threads.

However, Loengard, I would like to point you to the following, if I may.

www.bloggernacle.org...

Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members. Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

In the academic world, such a statement is as scathing a condemnation as possible.

I'm in the proccess of collecting videos. It ain't easy though, I usued to watch them with the sound off y'know, and the screams of the people bring the whole event flooding back.

Anyway I don't know if that video has been tampered with, however if you watch it you can see the floors 'poppin' out' at least twice clearly. This happens around 1 second before each explosion sound so... I really don't know. I'll post back when I've found anything else.

EDIT:

www.terrorize.dk...

I think that video rules out any credibility terrorize.dk ever had

[edit on 14-12-2005 by ihatescifi]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
However, Loengard, I would like to point you to the following, if I may.

www.bloggernacle.org...

In the academic world, such a statement is as scathing a condemnation as possible.

I don't think it's quite as simple as you make out:

www.newsnet.byu.edu...

Aside from anyone's respective opinion on Jones' stance, it certainly has put a firecracker in the hornet's nest.

[edit on 2005-12-14 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by ihatescifi
www.terrorize.dk...

I think that video rules out any credibility terrorize.dk ever had

Why? They didn't make the video. That video is everywhere on the Net.

[edit on 2005-12-14 by wecomeinpeace]

Fair point, but it does mean using terrorize.dk as a source is unreliable because it hosts such videos that appear to be fabricated. If one video is fabricated then whats to stop the rest being horse manure. But then again for all I know that could be untampered with footage. However I will try to find alternative sources and will probably be posting a report on the evidence for and against whether bombs were used later this week.

I'm downloading this 911_Eyewitness right now...looking forward to checking it out!

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
If you were a fence-sitter in regards to whether or not WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition before, you won't be after you watch this video from 911EyeWitness, by Rick Siegel.

This video includes multiple explosions recorded on video from directly across the river just before the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 AND just before the collapse of WTC Building 7. It also includes news broadcasts recorded live and unedited on the day as the events were occurring - reports of explosions at the bases of the buildings, a FEMA official admitting on tape that FEMA arrived to deal with the disaster ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, a military helicopter close to the explosion at the Pentagon, and more.

You can find the Torrent file for the full video (679Mb) here: Click to go there.

If you don't have the Torrent software, do a google search for "torrent client" and go to the first link that comes up, you can download it from there.

An absolute must see.

[edit on 2005-12-8 by wecomeinpeace]

I'd like to download it, but the website design for finding things is the absolute worst. I gave up, and I've been on the web since 1990.

Hey zappafan1, scroll through the first few pages. There's a direct link to an .avi file that you can download and it'll save you a lot of hassle.

Or, alternately, I'll be putting it up on Limewire later for folks to grab.

/ not gonna do BitTorrent.

I've done a little video that comares WTC to controlled demo if you want to watch it.

www.digitalwonderland.co.uk...

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

The chunk of debris which landed on the Winter Garden weighs in the vicinity of 3500Kg (7700lbs) and it was flung 180m (600ft) away on a horizontal trajectory. I've calculated the energy required to accomplish this feet in the past and it is mind-boggling.

How about this portion of the buildng which was knocked out by the impact of the plane?

not only did the force of the impact rip it out of the building, but it wound up several blocks away?

Maybe that's because the plane was flying laterally, Howard, and not falling vertically.

Kind of a stupid comparison, isn't it?

not really. How much energy was left in that wheel when it knocked out the wall?

the energy to cause a piece of steel to fly out horzontally could have easily come from the torsional streses put on it as the building collapsed.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
not really. How much energy was left in that wheel when it knocked out the wall?

An amount that would be totally irrelevant, unless you fancy comparing the lateral forces being of a jet crashing laterally, to the lateral forces of a building collapsing vertically.

Does not compute.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask...

the energy to cause a piece of steel to fly out horzontally could have easily come from the torsional streses put on it as the building collapsed.

Prove it.

And not just any "piece of steel." A 7700-pound piece of steel. Ejected about 600 feet laterally. From "torsional streses [sic]"...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove it.

You first. Maybe you can ask WCIP to help since he made the initial claim that you are repeating.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The chunk of debris which landed on the Winter Garden weighs in the vicinity of 3500Kg (7700lbs) and it was flung 180m (600ft) away on a horizontal trajectory. I've calculated the energy required to accomplish this feet in the past and it is mind-boggling.

Where is your data on this?

Where are your calculations?

Here is an overview of the debris pattern adjacent to the Winter Garden.



Were all of those exterior column trees blasted outward by explosives?

One of the common claims made by the CD believers is that the building “fell into its own footprint.” Yet clearly, by that photograph above, and the damage to the adjacent buildings, this was not so.

You can not have it both ways.

Which is it?

Did the building fall into its own footprint or did debris fall outward and hit the adjacent buildings?

Make up your mind.

Yes. I agree. The two arguments contradict each other.

- The debris flew so far out they would need explosives to propel them.
- The building fell in it's own footprints.

Either its blows outwards or dosen't, makes your mind up.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
One of the common claims made by the CD believers is that the building “fell into its own footprint.” Yet clearly, by that photograph above, and the damage to the adjacent buildings, this was not so.

You can not have it both ways.

Which is it?

Did the building fall into its own footprint or did debris fall outward and hit the adjacent buildings?

Make up your mind.

Who exactly are you addressing here? Are you speaking in general, or to me specifically? Where have I ever stated that the buildings fell into their own footprints? I've stated that the buildings fell in a symmetrical fashion, but I never stated that they fell into their own footprints. I can only assume that you are confused as to the difference between the two terms, or you're back to your old tactic of trying to put words in other people's mouths.

But on the footprint question, they should have fallen into their footprints according to your hero, Mr Thomas Eagar and his pancake waffle domino zipper theory. The floors were either pancaking on top of each other, or they were being blown out in amazing horizontal trajectories for 600+ feet in all directions.

So which is it?

Make up your mind.

[edit on 2005-12-16 by wecomeinpeace]

All Eager talks about is the initiation of the collapse. Just because the building would not have toppled like a tree, doesn’t mean that debris would not have been strewn about the base of the structure.

A buckling failure, like that which was clearly illustrated in the photographs shortly before the collapse would have produced tremendous lateral stresses on the individual column trees as the collapse propagated downward.

Take a yardstick, stand it upright and push down on the top end until it begins to buckle in the middle. What happens when it breaks? Do the pieces shoot across the room, or do the fall in a neat little pile at your feet?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
All Eager talks about is the initiation of the collapse. Just because the building would not have toppled like a tree, doesn’t mean that debris would not have been strewn about the base of the structure.

"Strewn" is an interesting way to describe debris weighing thousands of tons rocketing out horizontally for 600 feet.

Eagar states:

www.tms.org...
However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
[...]
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.
[...]
Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
[...]
www.pbs.org...
Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds.

Seems he's clearly implying the buildings imploded down on themselves, rather than exploding and mushrooming out on horizontal trajectories all over Manhattan like they did. Have you forgotten that it was Eagar who invented the "pancake hypothesis"? His follow-up and much-guffawed-at "zipper" theory also stated that the trusses "unzipped" on each floor as the floor above collapsed on it, continuing in that pattern all the way down. He has since removed that theory from circulation after NIST publicly de-pantsed him. In the above quoted text, he also reiterates the "near free-fall collapse" times. Is Eagar a 9-11 skeptic now? If Eagar spoke to a physicist, he would be told that this is impossible in accordance with conservation of momentum and given the expected resistance of the structure beneath, unless that resistance was reduced or negated somehow. Eagar should stick to his area of expertise which is material stresses, and leave the physics to others.

By the way, Eagar also states:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.

Eagar says the columns bowed outwards. NIST says they bowed inwards. Eagar says the trusses failed, NIST says the columns failed. Eagar says under 10 seconds (0.78s over free-fall) for the collapses, NIST says 12 seconds or more. You personally advocate both Eagar and NIST's stances and infallibility all over these fora, despite their radically different views. So which is it? Make up your mind. It seems you will support anything which supports the official story, regardless of the actual content or any inherent contradictions. If Barney the Dinosaur came up with his own flapjack theory as to why the towers fell under gravity alone, you'd be telling us he's a genius.

A buckling failure, like that which was clearly illustrated in the photographs shortly before the collapse would have produced tremendous lateral stresses on the individual column trees as the collapse propagated downward.

Are you talking about the pre-collapse buckling, or the mechanical action of the collapse itself. They are unrelated, unless you're suggesting a massive build up of Bugs Bunny-style rumbling tension, and then a pa-toing! slingshot action as the columns gave way at the moment of collapse and spat out into the sky. Amusing.

And on the subject of your buckling columns, funny how the truss connections were strong enough to pull an entire building face-worth of columns inward, but they were simultaneously so weak that just "zippered" off simultaneously all around the structures and at the core connection, causing the building to collapse. They were either incredibly strong, or incredibly weak. Which is it? Make up your mind.

Also NIST didn't account for thermal expansion of the truss assemblies with their ridiculous computer projected 1000+C fires (which are NOT supported in ANY way by the actual physical evidence), which expansion more than negates any projected tensile pulling forces from the trusses acting on the perimeter columns, as was further stated by the UK's Arup Fire Engineering - an institution which, unlike NIST, is not in the employ of the US government.

Take a yardstick, stand it upright and push down on the top end until it begins to buckle in the middle. What happens when it breaks? Do the pieces shoot across the room, or do the fall in a neat little pile at your feet?

Take a ruler, hang half of it over the edge of the table, put a coin on the table side, slap your hand down on the hanging side. What happens to the coin? Does it drop down with the ruler or does it fly across the room? But hey, this has absolutely zero to do with the collapse of the WTC towers, just like your quaint analogy. When you want to start talking about steel-framed, multi-component skyscrapers again, let us know.


[edit on 2005-12-16 by wecomeinpeace]

So what is Thomas Eagar's theory on the collapse of WTC7? Is it pancakes, zippers, dominoes, pop-tarts...or yard sticks maybe?