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.

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Just thought i would interject something here:



You support and promote an alternative theory, not me. The burden of proof lies entirely with you, not me.

...

It is not enough to speculate or make claims, you and you alone must prove these claims. Do not try to insult me again nor try to belittle anybody who doesn't believe you.

...

I don't need to back up anybodies claims nor do I need to prove to you exactly what happened.

...

Stop acting so childish when people question your theories and start acting like an adult and back them up.


Well, Do i NEED to say anything more? If I am accused of murder, I have to provide proof of innocence while you do not need to provide anything? That makes a lot of sense...

At any rate, why do people believe that the government cannot pull off complex operations? Why does everyone think that this had to be some simple attack? The government is more than capable of carrying out complex operations if it wants to. We have plenty of special operations forces in our country. And if the government cant get the job done, than it certainly has the money to hire the job out to private individuals.

And at any rate, im not a big proponent of the explosives theory, as it does have weak spots. Simply trying to point out the whole bogus complexity issue and the idea that only the defense must provide proof, and not the plantiff.

I am of the belief that the government can let things happen when they want them to. They let pearl harbor happen. The Gulf of Tulkin incident has been disputed. Its the same with the WTC towers in my opinion. Get the population behind you with an engineered attack, or let an attack that you knew was coming be carried out.




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


you have NO IDEA what it takes to bring down a building especially one of that scale.




So you are saying it would take a lot of explosives to take this building down, yet it would be more likely to you that jetfuel, burning office equipment,desks (Some metal and some wood),chairs(metal, cloth and wood), filing cabinets,ceiling tiles and papers did?

As far as recruiting the right people would go, well there are people in this world that would consider watching the death of 3000 people, the destruction of 3 mammoth buildings and the sheer carnage that resulted, probably like a trip to disneyland. Who would have access to information on "just the right person for the job" in a situation like this? Imagine someone just like you with an interest in explosives , with the right ideals ,, morals,thoughts on how America should be, the right dedication to their government or leaders, and the same aspirations as the ringleaders...it would not be hard to find someone to work with, and keep silent for the cause. Especially if the outcome was something they looked forward to, benefitted from or enjoyed.

For something of such proportions, investigations were rushed and access to evidence limited. You would think that more effort would have been placed on keeping evidence available for a longer period of time, instead of being sold for scrap metal. I think local police departments hold on to evidence a lot longer then our government did and this was something larger then just a mere burglary case.

I don't see why you would say that people were crazy for questioning things. Holes in the ground, holes in the Pentagon,metal pulverised while bodies and passports survive, mismatched engine parts, Tarps covering things from public view, confiscated tapes, mismatched dates,gag orders, buildings collapsing in on themselves, cryptic messages sent thru Instant messaging programs, israeli spies....while I don't agree with a lot of the ideas floating around out there, I do say something is definitly not right with all this. It is not the peoples faults that all these ideas are out there, its the governments fault for not keeping us informed and included on the evidence and findings.


Pie





[edit on 6-5-2006 by ThePieMaN]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

What is "reinforced steel?"

What the heck are you two sock puppets talking about?

The core columns win the tower were not concrete, the only concrete in the core area was the floor slab. In fact there was proportionately less concrete in the core then the tenant area due to all of the elevators and utility shafts.


Wrong.

And I would call "sockpuppet" a derrogatory name which is strictly against the rules.


Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.


Get 'im mods!



The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.

Source





posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Thank you bsbray11 for taking over Stateofgrace's "campaign".

You quite clearly served him and I back everything that you have said 100%.

You got my "way above" vote for that.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Steady now, Trip Jacket, you almost said something logical there, never mind, I'm sure you will make up for it in the future.

Did I actually miss something while I was kipping or did you guys actually come up with some sort of logical thesis?

A logical thesis as described in one of my earlier posts as oppose to wishful thinking, wild speculation and logical fallacy.

Did you actually explain why?

1. No flashes of explosions were seen.
2. No sounds of multiple explosive devices were recorded.
3. The Towers did not split.
4. The cloud dust was generated from the top.
5. The collapse started at the top and not the bottom.
6. The collapse started at the precise point the planes hit.
7. Was it Termite, traditional explosives, or a combination of the two that was used?
8. Why the Towers didn't collapse into their own footprint.

After all my champagne is just like yours, isn't it? After all aren’t we just after the truth. Or are you maybe after only your own version of the truth?

The Truth is absolute, my friend, it has no political affiliation, no alliance and absolutely gives no quarter to wild claims and speculation.

So what is it really you seek, the truth and facts or are you willing to for go it for the sake of wishful thinking?

The choice, my friend, is yours.


[edit on 6-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Ok. I am going to try to answer some questions here being the least biased possible:



1. No flashes of explosions were seen.



I assume your are correct, no flashes on explosions were seen that I've heard of.
However in many tapes, one can notice a bright flash right before the collapse on the precise point the planes were hit.

Whether it was a result of explosives is a matter of debate.



2. No sounds of multiple explosives devices were recorded.


Explosions were recorded by : A private camera on the other side of the river
and the Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. www.americanfreepress.net...

Whether the explosions truly came from explosives is a matter of debate.




3. The Towers did not split.



Correct, they did not split. Not from the top at least.



4. The cloud dust was generated from the top.



Yes it was as a result from the 757 impact and burning jet fuel I would assume.




5. The collapse started at the top and not the bottom.



Yes it did.



6. The collapse started at the precise point the planes hit.



Yes it did.




7. Was it Termite, traditional explosives, or a combination of the two that was used?



Conspiracists beleive it was thermite.




8. Why the Towers didn't collapse into their own footprint.



No the towers did not collapse on their own footprint, however one could argue that for the dimensions of that specific structure the collapse was relatively clean.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


but ok, lets talk about said heat...do you REALLY think that the "explosives" would have survived the heat for almost an hour before detonating? i have, with my own eyes, seen C4 lit on fire and used as fuel for a campfire. i warmed myself around said fire. fire wont make it go BOOM alone...
tnt is much the same way in that after an hour in that fire it would have been consumed by the heat alone.

so you really think you could recruit enough people to carry this out covertly huh? wow, what ever happened to you to get you to lose such faith in humanity. let me just point out, not everyone who works for the govt is a cold unfeeling sadist. sorry to ruin your delusions on that one, but its true. some people in govt are actually pretty decent human beings.



As far as the explosives (if they were used) surviving the heat, well the lower floors and basement areas were not subject to the heat of the strike area, so that really shouldn't make a difference. Also wouldn't you say that if in fact this were intentional that the planes strike area would be calculated to not be in the area of the explosives?

I would be curious as to what you thought of the seismic readings recorded during the event.

8:46:26 a.m. EDT [1240 UTC] Aircraft impact - north tower Magnitude 0.9
9:02:54 a.m. EDT [1302 UTC] Aircraft impact - south tower Magnitude 0.7
9:59:04 a.m. EDT [1359 UTC] Collapse - south tower Magnitude 2.1
10:28:31 a.m. EDT [1428 UTC] Collapse - north tower Magnitude 2.3

Now if you notice the time of the first seismic reading it does not hash with the exact collapse time of the building. It was about 6minute prior to it. In the film done by Richard Siegel which was taken in realtime across the river in Hoboken (www.911eyewitness.com)you can see smoke coming from the base of the first tower and the sound of the explosion before the tower collapses. The foundations of Manhattan Island is mostly Bedrock Foundation. For the seismic readings to be 2.x it must have been something hefty. I have only ever experienced one earthquake living here in Brooklyn-Queens area for the past 45 years and it registered at about the same level. I felt the ground shake as well as the house. This occurred around Jan of 2001 and it measured roughly 2.4

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.

10:28 a.m.: The World Trade Center's north tower collapses from the top down as if it were being peeled apart, releasing a tremendous cloud of debris and smoke.

10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble (this figure taken from 911 research.wtc7.com for the accurate seconds)

Would the building beginning to collapse create such powerful seismic activity? Would explosives have the ability to create such seismic activity? It couldn't be that we had not one earthquake but 2 at almost the same times as the buildings collapsing. Thanks for the replies BTW.


Pie



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Stateofgrace:

All of your points were already addressed perfectly by bsbray11.

As for the flashes.....

Well they clearly WERE visible as demonstrated in videos here:


Do The Flashes Seen In This WTC-2 Collapse Video Indicate The Detonation Of Cutting Charges?



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
By the way Stateofgrace....

I don't appreciate your patronizing tone while repeatedly calling me "friend".

Clearly you are not my friend.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Stateofgrace:

All of your points were already addressed perfectly by bsbray11.

As for the flashes.....

Well they clearly WERE visible as demonstrated in videos here:


Do The Flashes Seen In This WTC-2 Collapse Video Indicate The Detonation Of Cutting Charges?


Ripped Jacket what are you talking about.? Are you simply making this up as you go along, hoping that eventually you will hit the tuned note?

First let me address your most impressive video you put forward. I'm sorry did I miss it all? Did I blink at the wrong time, maybe I didn't quite sit at the right angle to my commuter. I don't know what it was but the blindingly obvious flashes of explosions you have offered up didn't quite sink in. Could you offer up another source, you know, one that actually shows what you are talking about, rather than just a random
Video.

As for your admiration of your buddy bsbray11 . Of course he supports you. He has proved the entire scientific community wrong. Excuse me did he actually address the differences? Emmmm no.

Let’s just offer up loads and loads of conjecture, speculation and wild fantasy in the hope it will grab the attention of like minded people.
You and your buddy have failed at every opportunity to offer up anything close to prove that these Towers were brought down by anything other than a dreadful terrorist act.

You have failed to produce evidence, a coherent thesis and any form of logical argument.

You have failed to address all the scientific facts, which are now accepted as reality, you have failed to address a single point I have put you to.

So, are you really seeking the truth? Do you really want it? Or would you prefer to live in a make believe world. A world that doesn't involve 19 individuals so full of hate for us all that they would hijack four planes and slam three of them into building full of innocent people, killing thousands.

I tell you something my friend; I really wish I could join your world, stick my head in the sand and hope it will all go away.

Of course you have proved me wrong; of course I am just a simple naïve sacrificial sheep who doesn't know any better. Rather my world of reality, than yours of simple makes belief. In your world there are no bad guys other than us.

Maybe, just maybe you should look around you, there really are people out there that are so extreme they will scarifies their own lifes to kill us...

Gee I just saw Santa arriving early, must get off.

BTW we are not friends and I am patronising you, I don't like you, I don't like the way you distort the truth, I don't like the way you jump on any opportunity you see, to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy.
So my friend I will continue to patronise you, mock and expose you for the shallow minded individual you are.

Sorry did I insult you? Sorry my friend.


[edit on 6-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Wait a minute are you not contradicting the thermite theory? Thermite does not explode it burns. I actually asked for video evidence of the flashes from explosions, not squibs.
Since you have now chosen to champion this campaign, maybe you can explain exactly what type of explosive was used to cause the squibs. Was it thermite or tradition explosives? Think carefully as one answer may contradict another claim you are making.


Just dropping my two cents here - as I was watching some footage today, I noticed strange flashes before the collapse of one of the towers. Detonation flashes? I don't know, but they seemed very strange to me. At first, I thought it had something to do with the camera or maybe sunlight reflection, but I checked different videos. Check some of the footage in different angles:

video.google.com...

(The above clip reminds me of the video presented in this thread of the skycraper being detonated.)

youtube.com...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

Please don't blink, you have to be really looking to catch them. At first, I thought I was seeing things, but after repeating the videos over and over, I knew my eyes weren't kidding. What do you think, guys?

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Zeta_101]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Zeta_101]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok pie, went and watched that 911eyewitness video.

can you explain why the time codes they gave for the "explosions" dont jive with the "seismic" readings? and didnt someone say that the seismic data had pretty much been debunked?

and as to the "flashes" one see when wtc1 falls...there were still active fires in the building..things fall on top of it...yeah, its gonna flash.

again, you can recreate this at home..get a ladder, a concrete block and build a small campfire, climb the ladder and drop the brick on it, watch what happens to your fire. same thing

sorry. still no demo in my mind. but there are some that will dismiss me, after all what do i know, i mean ive only set off real explosives before. guess that wouldnt give my opinion any more credibility than anyone elses in this particular matter.

well the times of the seismic readings I didn't get from that video. I took those readings from Columbia University www.agu.org...

and the descriptions with the time frames were taken from CNN.com

Damocles Im not trying to give you a hard time. I appreciate the answers. I posted that video link because of the clarity and view of the event as it unfolded. There was also the sound of the "explosion" that was definitly audible at around the same time as the seismic reading, which was what caught my attention. This whole thing has a lot of meaning for me. Growing up seeing those towers being built and then to see them fall in such a way , then to see evidence basically pushed out the door as it was really is aggravating. The Police evidence rooms here probably have stuff stored from 10 years ago and here something so immense is sold to China as scrap. Its just unbelievable. It makes it seem like something is being hidden.


Pie




[edit on 7-5-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
If you want to keep posting those questions like they haven't been answered, I can keep posting my response as if I haven't posted it yet. I don't even think you even tried to really contradict anything specific in the post, but suggested I was just insulting you and said you were withdrawing to bed.

If you're now demanding proof of demolition, then you've changed your question. Even if you don't accept all the oddities like the collapse rates, reported explosions and squibs and molten steel and etc. as evidence, there's still no more evidence for the official story than there is for demolition. Did you catch that? If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong and prove that those collapses happened from fire and impact damage alone. And I am still going to be on the defensive here. I'm waiting for the government to give me a logical response as to why and how those towers fell. If you want to back up the government, then you can help them explain it to me. But until then, it's process of elimination for me as to what actually made those buildings collapse, and it isn't a hard deduction.

Everything I've seen suggests to me that more energy was exerted by those collapses than would've been "natural" to the system. That leads to the obvious suggestion of extra energy. And pondering where on Earth that would've came from, especially when thinking of buildings collapsing, explosives come to mind rather quickly. And again, that's totally ignoring all the oddities that are regularly pseudo-debunked, that would also happen to strengthen the demo argument just by coincidence.


Originally posted by
and as to the "flashes" one see when wtc1 falls...there were still active fires in the building..things fall on top of it...yeah, its gonna flash.


If we're looking at the same flashes, then we're looking at very bright, white flashes. If you're going to assert that hydrocarbon fires can do that, then you're going to have to post some videos or something.

You're also looking for fire on the wrong floors. The fires didn't span very many floors in any of the WTC skyscrapers.


And thanks for posting the stuff on concrete cores, Jack. I don't think it's really necessary info for the movement, because I think it would tend to scare off people that aren't so inclined to believe in an intentional bureaucratic cover-up, but it would definitely blow NIST out of the water no contest if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It would probably have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, too, and even then you can probably imagine how many people would still cling to the steel pancake bs regardless.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

there's still no more evidence for the official story than there is for demolition


Bsbray11 has a point. The 9/11 commission report promised to answer these questions (questions doubting the official story) but they have answered nothing of such sort in their report. We conspiracists have some indicating evidence that the collapse was from a controlled demolition while "the other side" has provided nothing to counter the conspiracists. Ok lets say the building wasn't collapsed demolition: Molten hot steel lying on what once was the basement? ...... Sheared support beams like if they were butter to a some type of Giant holding a knife? ....... Where did all that come from?........ Not to mention Guliani's effort to try to get rid of all of the debris afterwards (which were immediately shipped to China). One year later scientists discovered toxic material in the Hudson River beleived to have been originated from military explosives (cordite, thermite...etc.)
At least 6 of the hijackers have been found alive after 9/11.
All of these factors point to a controlled demolition and a set up. It's pretty hard to change your mind after all the evidence suggesting this - and nothing done by officials to answer these questions.



If the U.S. wants to come clean, they have to step up and provide some type of valid and logical counter-evidence. That's the only way many of us are going to become convinced that it was Osama and not the Government.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you want to keep posting those questions like they haven't been answered, I can keep posting my response as if I haven't posted it yet. I don't even think you even tried to really contradict anything specific in the post, but suggested I was just insulting you and said you were withdrawing to bed.

If you're now demanding proof of demolition, then you've changed your question. Even if you don't accept all the oddities like the collapse rates, reported explosions and squibs and molten steel and etc. as evidence, there's still no more evidence for the official story than there is for demolition. Did you catch that? If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong and prove that those collapses happened from fire and impact damage alone. And I am still going to be on the defensive here. I'm waiting for the government to give me a logical response as to why and how those towers fell. If you want to back up the government, then you can help them explain it to me. But until then, it's process of elimination for me as to what actually made those buildings collapse, and it isn't a hard deduction.

Everything I've seen suggests to me that more energy was exerted by those collapses than would've been "natural" to the system. That leads to the obvious suggestion of extra energy. And pondering where on Earth that would've came from, especially when thinking of buildings collapsing, explosives come to mind rather quickly. And again, that's totally ignoring all the oddities that are regularly pseudo-debunked, that would also happen to strengthen the demo argument just by coincidence.


I keep posting the same questions because you keep posting the same answers. Listen bsbray11, you are clearly a reasonably intelligent guy who as done a great deal of research on this subject so I won’t insult you nor will suggest you are living in a fantasy world. I genuinely belief you think what you are proposing is right and as such I won’t insult you, in same way I did the Mad Hatter.

Since I accept your intelligence can you not see what you are proposing?

Let me lay this out for you, the answers to my questions have gone from the absurd to total avoidance. So ok I won’t ask them again.

You know I know everybody knows the explosive flashes in any of the Towers were not recorded. You say they were, as do other members of this forum, fine ok. Take a look at the videos that have been offered up to support this, I have. All I see is grainy pictures from shaky camera. Take at look below the points of impact. There are no flashes at all, as recorded in the actual demolition video. To over come this others say well it must be thremite then but that then contradicts the sounds of explosions since thermite is an incendiary device.

You have said many people heard explosions and they were, recorded. I have no doubt whatsoever people heard explosions, no doubt at all it sounded like explosions. Two planes had just slammed into the Towers and they were on fire, what do you think it would sound like? As they collapsed what do you think it would sound like?

You say they fell too quickly as point of prove to you case. I have read many reports that say the collapse time was perfectly in keeping with a progressive collapse ( global or pancake). Here read this.

www.911myths.com...

His report makes perfect sense; his report takes into account all the facts, very single variable and come up with total collapse time of the Towers. They are in perfect keeping with what was observed.

You talk about the Towers as they were only one structure; there were two of them they collapsed differently. Think about it for a moment. WTC 2 was hit second but collapsed first why? Because it was hit lower, the plane hit WTC 2 on the 80th floor, it hit on the 92 to 96th floors of WTC 1.
The Towers had 110 floors so the weight above the damaged floor in WTC 1 was some 18 to 20 floors. In WTC 2 the weight above was some 30 floors, nearly double wouldn’t you say?
Look at the times it took for them to collapse. WTC 2 stayed standing for approx half the time WTC 1 to collapse.
WTC 2 collapsed faster than WTC 1 why? Because it was hit lower.

Think about what you are suggesting, I have said they had 110 floors, just picture this for a moment, for example WTC 2. Above the crash site was some 30 floors, that nearly a quarter of the building for goodness sake. It weighed some 500, 000 tons. So the weight now sitting above a plane crash site was what? Some 125,000 tons.

Jesus, pal it was a miracle it didn’t collapse immediately.

Some people suggest they fell two fast, what? Where does anybody think this weight was going to when it started moving? Down mate, straight down, gaining weight as it went. By the time this weight in WTC 2 had worked its way down to the 50th floor it would have been close to 250,000 tons. Nothing was every going to stop it. It was a monstrous weight and the only thing that stopped it was the ground, ground zero.

How does a controlled demolition fit in with any of this? It doesn’t. it is the piece of the jigsaw that will not fit in, no matter which way you turn it .

I’ve ranted enough, I know you won’t see it the way I see it. I know I can’t convince you how off the wall your theories are.

By the way I don’t back your Government; I’m not even from America. I don’t support this official theory that you want to use a some sort of fish to slap me in the face with.

I support one thing. The Truth.


[edit on 7-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
All I see is grainy pictures from shaky camera. Take at look below the points of impact. There are no flashes at all, as recorded in the actual demolition video. To over come this others say well it must be thremite then but that then contradicts the sounds of explosions since thermite is an incendiary device.


I've already suggested use of at least two types of explosives. Thermite to initiate the collapses, some sort of high explosive after that for separating at least the perimeter columns from the trusses.


You have said many people heard explosions and they were, recorded. I have no doubt whatsoever people heard explosions, no doubt at all it sounded like explosions. Two planes had just slammed into the Towers and they were on fire, what do you think it would sound like? As they collapsed what do you think it would sound like?


Fine, but:


Originally posted by bsbray11
Then why do you take issue with the lack of sound coming from the collapses?


If you agree that masses of sound were coming from those buildings, then why do you keep asking why no explosions were recorded? The sound of waves of high explosives going off floor-by-floor would not produce distinct sounds, but a roar like the one that was described. I've already admitted that this is neither proof of, or against, explosives. Can you not do the same?


You say they fell too quickly as point of prove to you case. I have read many reports that say the collapse time was perfectly in keeping with a progressive collapse ( global or pancake).


My problem isn't so much that they fell too quickly as it is they didn't even slow down. And this is against the fact that most of the mass was being lost off the side; it was NOT accumulating floor by floor, and the floors were getting progressively stronger.

But just the same, there are also reports out there that show that the total collapse time should've taken at least 90-some seconds or so if each floor went from 0 to the maximum speed it could accelerate to before hitting the ground. If just reading something qualifies it as true then you have a problem now.

Btw, the only skyscrapers in history to suffer "progressive collapse" were the WTC skyscrapers. That's not really a precedent for progressive collapse when the issue at hand is those towers. That's just another example of circular logic.


His report makes perfect sense; his report takes into account all the facts, very single variable and come up with total collapse time of the Towers. They are in perfect keeping with what was observed.


That's Greening's paper; it's been discussed here before, and no it isn't "in perfect keeping with what was observed." He assumes the mass of each floor dropped directly onto the floor below it and continued at the same speed. The floors may have continued at the same speed, but he doesn't tell us why that should have happened, and at any rate the mass of each floor did NOT drop directly onto the floor below. Most of the mass was ejected outwards and landed outside of the footprints of the buildings.


Look at the times it took for them to collapse. WTC 2 stayed standing for approx half the time WTC 1 to collapse.
WTC 2 collapsed faster than WTC 1 why? Because it was hit lower.


And this is evidence of a natural collapse?

Trust me, if WTC1 fell first, you would be saying it was because it was hit first.


Jesus, pal it was a miracle it didn’t collapse immediately.


It was hardly any miracle. I guess you could convince yourself that it was when you're throwing around arbitrary numbers, though.

Assuming 125,000 tons is the right figure, what's the relation of that number to the loads the lower floors could handle? How many of the columns were knocked out by the impacts (hint: a small minority)? Etc.

Just because 125,000 is a dazzling number, doesn't mean that it was a miracle that the buildings did not immediately collapse. And of course unless you believe it was a miracle, then what I'm saying must be true enough, because the building didn't fall immediately, no matter how you look at it. Figure out how much each floor could handle via the few figures provided by the NIST report and you'll see that it wasn't exactly a miracle.


Some people suggest they fell two fast, what? Where does anybody think this weight was going to when it started moving? Down mate, straight down, gaining weight as it went.


Not really gaining any weight considering as much as 80% was being flung off to the sides. And yes, some was going straight down, into more steel and concrete that resisted the fall every inch of the way (or should have, I should say).


By the time this weight in WTC 2 had worked its way down to the 50th floor it would have been close to 250,000 tons.


Assuming it all fell straight down within the footprint, maybe, as Greening did. But that's not accurate, is it?






How does a controlled demolition fit in with any of this? It doesn’t. it is the piece of the jigsaw that will not fit in, no matter which way you turn it .


I could easily fit it in: the fires were not hot enough to sufficient weaken the steel, so thermite knocked out the initial columns to fail, and everything you just describe happened exactly the way you said it afterwards. And what's convincing enough about this is that you honestly have no evidence to support the notion that the fires sufficiently weakened the steel anyway. So that could stand every bit as easily as NIST's assertions.

See? Not so hard to do. But I think there was more to it than that nonetheless.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Just a follow on from Damocles’s who you all seem to be ignoring. This guy works with explosives, it is his job. Yet you once again dismiss anybody who may be in the slightest qualified to talk about such matter.

Am I qualified at all? Actually yes I am a qualified engineer. I have a Degree in Engineering and as such a will now explain in layman’s terms what the demo guys are failing to grasp.

I wish to explain two simple scientific principles.

1. The difference between a static and a dynamic load.
2. The difference between a working load and maximum safe load.

1. To describe the difference between a static load and dynamic load simply go out into your garden and pick a sizable rock. Maybes something that weighs 20lbs and place it on top of your head. It will hurt and will be heavy.

Now get a mate to climb a ladder and drop this load onto you head. Chances are your skull would get shoved in, because it has been hit by a dynamic load. (Remember WTC 2, some 125,000 tons?)

2. Take the same rock and gather together some sticks to try and support it. For this exercise let’s get 10. Placing the rock on top of the ten sticks means that each stick is now supporting 2 lbs. (20/10=2). This is the working load.

So let’s add in a safety factor, let’s allow for each stick to be able to support double that. So the ten sticks now have a combined safe working load of 40lbs and they will easily support the 20lb rock. Each stick can support 4lbs; this is the maximum safe load.

Ok take five of these sticks away; the rock will stay where it is. But the weight of it has now been redistributed onto the remaining supports. So the five remaining supports are now working at their maximum working load. (4lbs).

Simply remove one more stick and what do you think would happen?

The planes, the fires, did not have to take out all the supports; they just had to take out enough for the static load above to become dynamic.

The rest is history.

I will address your post later since we posted almost simultaneously.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
bsbray11

From here on it is simply academic what any of us belief. It is totally beside the point. I could quote you sentence by sentence but I won’t.

You have accepted the following. (Sorry have you?)

1. The Towers collapsed from the top.
2. The Towers started to collapse at the point of impact.
3. The towers collapsed in different time scales.
4. The cloud of dust was generated from the top as the collapse occurred.
5. The Towers did not collapse from the bottom up, but the top down.
6. There were no visible signs of explosive devices.
7. There was no recorded audio of explosives.
8. The Towers did not collapse into their own foot print (you said 80% of the Towers were ejected sideways).
9. The Towers offered up resistance to the massive dynamic load
10. The Towers were not solid, but actually 95% air.
11. The damage by the planes was a massive factor in the collapse of the Towers.
12. The resultant fire may or may not have contributed to the collapse.
13. WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1
14. WTC 2 was hit after WTC 1
15. WTC 2 was hit lower than WTC 1
16. WTC 2 collapsed faster tan WTC 1.
17. Static and dynamic loads are not the same.
18. Working loads and maximum safe loads are not the same.

What you won’t accept.

1. All of the above.

As I have said I will not insult you, nor patronise you but isn’t it possible you are going down the wrong road?

For me, I simply rest my case; I don’t need NIST, FEMA, or anybody else to back me up. Simple logic and a slender grasp of physics is enough.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

You have accepted the following. (Sorry have you?)
[...]
What you won’t accept.

1. All of the above.


I'm not clear on exactly what that was for (if you're suggesting I don't believe any of the things in the first list then you're just being asinine, plain and simple, otherwise: wtf), but I'll comment on the ones I really don't agree with.

The ones I don't address I'm perfectly ok with. And I think you were a little redundant with #'s 1 and 5.


6. There were no visible signs of explosive devices.


Disagree.


7. There was no recorded audio of explosives.


Disagree; there are some booms on 9/11 Eyewitness just before WTC1 goes down.


8. The Towers did not collapse into their own foot print (you said 80% of the Towers were ejected sideways).


Technically, this is right, but you totally miss the point. Your own point. And you miss it.

The buildings still fell straight down like demos would. Centers of gravity: still in the footprints.


9. The Towers offered up resistance to the massive dynamic load


They were supposed to have; I didn't see it.


10. The Towers were not solid, but actually 95% air.


The towers were solid (
), and none of their masses were 95% air.

That is a load of bullcrap if I've ever read it and it would really help a lot of your cases if you dropped it, because I see this all the time and I'm sure you guys are thinking of the open area within the buildings and not the buildings' masses, which would be the more relevant figure here.


11. The damage by the planes was a massive factor in the collapse of the Towers.


No, not even by official accounts. Less than 15% of the perimeter columns in the affected regions severed in either building, and some similarly small figure of core columns in all likelihood (not like anybody actually went in to check).

Seeing as how these buildings were built to stand with up to an equivalent of 75% of the total columns severed on any given floor, >15% of the columns knocked out by impacts is only 1/5 of that. So if all of the severed perimeter columns were on one floor, that would still only be 1/5 of the total damage that floor would have to take before it would fail according to NIST.


12. The resultant fire may or may not have contributed to the collapse.


The fires obviously would have by your logic or else the towers would have collapsed immediately.


17. Static and dynamic loads are not the same.


No one has even been doing analyses considering different loads, so I don't even know why you're bringing these up. Gonna give us some calcs or something? Because we've tried in the past, and we're missing critical figures from the construction drawings. Hell, we don't really even know how much the towers really weighed, because there are different figures out there. Or are you just trying to throw around jargon here?


18. Working loads and maximum safe loads are not the same.


I don't consider work loads, as if we were doing any real problem-solving work here anyway.


Most, if not all of those, you should've already had my opinion on because I'm pretty sure I've stated them in the posts on this thread already. But just in case you aren't really reading them, there you go.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Ok you seem to agree with most of my points, so lets look (again) at what you disagree with.

You disagree with the fact explosives neither were not recorded visually or the sounds of them were not recorded, Ok fine, what can I says? How many videos do you want me post showing no explosives, zero, zilch. How many videos can I possibly post that do not show a single flash of an explosion?
If you honestly belief that by coming on the net and viewing a few videos you have spotted something that the entire investigation teams at NIST and FEMA missed. Ok, you are entitled to believe this.

Let’s just look at NIST by the way,

Here are the lead investigators

wtc.nist.gov...

Here are all their publications.

wtc.nist.gov...

And here is their home page, saying they took 3 years to conduct a building and fire safety investigation.

wtc.nist.gov...

Yet despite all this, you have spotted on the net a video which you say shows explosions. So who do you expect me to believe?

Ok you said I missed the point about the expulsion of the material. Sorry I thought I made my point very clear. Let me clarify it for you. The expulsion of all the debris was caused by the massive weight above collapsing onto it. Unless of course you belief all this debris was flung to the side of the now more or less tons and tons of invisible explosives.

You say you didn’t notice the buildings offering up any residence, maybe you was too busy looking for your magical explosives. Have another look, it is pretty clear they were resisting the force from above, or it is to me anyways.

You now say the Towers were solid, ok fine, kind of like a tree trunk maybe ?. Strange that, wonder how people managed to work and move around in such a solid structure. Maybe by magic.

Ok you now are disagreeing with the damage the planes caused and the damage by the fires. For a start had you read my very simple explanation showing the differnce between working loads and maximum safe loads, you would have now figured out I did not say that at all. Clearly you haven’t. So once again let me take the time to clarify exactly what I said. The damage from the planes and the resultant fires did not have to take out all the supports to cause this catastrophic collapse. They just had to take out enough for the above load to become dynamic.

Of course I am just throwing around random jarden. It’s actually called using common sense and logic.

You know bsbray11 in the real world there really is such a thing a stupid question. This is a question that has been repeated answered but continues to be asked despite
perfectly sensible answers. Many people have taken the trouble to try and answer your questions but you continue to ask them regardless. Ok fine, feel free. The answers to your questions are not going to change overnight, simply because you reword them.

I have even gone to the trouble of trying to explain to you what Logical Fallacy is, incase you forgot here it is again.

"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid."

I have simply lost count of the flaws in you argument that renders them invalid but you continue to argue them anyway. So feel free I will simply withdraw now. I have rested my case; I have tried to explain in a reasonable and sensible manner what I believe. I simply withdraw from this debate out of sheer the frustration of having to repeat myself over and over again. Before I go I will post this. I posted it before, not quite sure if was here but never the less have a chew on it.

I will have to post below as it will simply make this post too long, hence the double post, but please keep reading.



[edit on 8-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join