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.
), and none of their masses were 95% air. 
