New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

Originally posted by Valhall
I watched intently right up until they said the towers fell in 10 seconds and then showed the seismograph.

Just another notch in what appears to be an endless string of crap. It looks like if these people (and I use that word all encompassing for the myriad of groups and individuals who have done this same thing so far) are going to put in the time, money and effort to do something like this, they'd at least fully research before slapping together a mish-mash of videos and talking bullcrap over the picture.

*sigh*

BUT, I'll continue to give each one of them a try until some one gets it right.

Valhall, i saw that, and mentioned it, but it is not only that particular point. Apparently whoever put this video together want people to believe that because a firefighter said there were only two isolated fires in floor 78, and that it should be possible to put them out, that that was all that was needed to "put out all the fires in the building"...... If i remember correctly they also claimed that the fire burned black because of lack of oxygen, or lack of things to burn?..... WTF?.... Jet fuel will burn black and give that sort of smoke, and even though supposedly most of the jet fuel did burn up in the initial blast after the crash, there was still burning fuel in there.

I really don't understand why so many people are claiming this is a good video when they are making exagerations and blatantly lying...

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Gools
I hope you watched the whole video.

Whether or not it was 10 seconds, or 14 or even 16 seconds, the towers fell at almost freefall speed encountering no resistance all the way down.
.............

There is a big difference between "10 seconds, or 14 or even 16"... and i am sorry to to tell you this but claiming that "nomatter the time the towers fell at almost freefall" is an ignorant claim which does not help the discussion at all. But then you say that being in your job in a room full of scientists "you all knew there was something wrong"... and that somehow proves your point?

Let's say there were scientists in a room where you were at, and one or two mentioned there was something wrong with what they were looking at. Does that statement would specifically equates to "the government was behind it, there were explosives all over the towers which was a controlled demolition job, etc, etc, etc"?...

Or is it possible that some people saw one of the buildings falling, or both and realized that's too much of a coincidence for the two towers being hit by two planes? Or maybe even something else which was passing through the mind of the people you were with?....

Originally posted by Valhall
...........
1. Not understanding why the collapse took place at all.

There was a large hole in the buildings produced by the plane crash, the towers did stay standing after the crash, and the fire weakened enough of the remaining standing columns to start the buckling effect.

I am certain that the collapse of tower 1 was aided by the small earthquake, and pressure waves, which were created from the falling debris of the second tower, yes even such a small earthquake can weaken even more such structures when they are as compromised as tower 1 was after the plane crashed into it and it also had fires inside the structure.

Originally posted by Valhall
2. Why it didn't stop at some point.

It did stop, there were around 300 (?) feet of rubble or so. i can't remember exactly the height of the rubble.

The problem with such tall structures collpasing, is that once a collapse starts there is not enough strength in the lower floors to stop the falling debris. With each floor which collapses more weight is being added to the falling debris, decreasing the resistance, and the time it takes to collapse each floor below.

Originally posted by Valhall
3. Thinking there was explosive help in the collapse of these buildings.

Why is that you need to think this?

Valhall, if there were explosives in any of the towers, the seismic stations would have captured strong longitudinal waves ( P waves) among the transverse waves ( S waves) instead of just transverse (S) waves.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Valhall, i saw that, and mentioned it, but it is not only that particular point. Apparently whoever put this video together want people to believe that because a firefighter said there were only two isolated fires in floor 78, and that it should be possible to put them out, that that was all that was needed to "put out all the fires in the building"...... If i remember correctly they also claimed that the fire burned black because of lack of oxygen, or lack of things to burn?..... WTF?.... Jet fuel will burn black and give that sort of smoke, and even though supposedly most of the jet fuel did burn up in the initial blast after the crash, there was still burning fuel in there.

Sorry buddy but you have no idea what you are talking about. That Firefighter was the point man for the scene size up. You dont make mistakes like stating you need two hose lines to put it out, especially if it is a fuel fire!!! You would say, we need a master stream with foam, or we need a two 2 and a half inch lines with foam packs. He is not going to shove a fuel fire through that high rise with just water lines. We are always specific if we need special tools. Stating two hose line defaults to mean two 1 and a half inch lines, or something else would have been requested. We use 1 and a half inch lines on house fires that are under control. We use 2 and a half inch lines if it is getting out of hand becuase of the property damage they cause. We use master streams for the really big wherehouse/ fuel fires.

What that point man stated was that the fire was not very hot.


[edit on 10-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by Griff
..........
We are not arguing about seismic stations, distance and such. We are arguing because you stated that the whole video is bunk because of 1 error. Well, if that is true, then the "official" story is also bunk for the same error. Understand?....I doubt it.

In fact I mentioned more than "one error" just at the start of the video, and yes, everything is being discussed. As to the reason why the NIST report would say the towers fell in 10 seconds, my guess is that scientists compiled all the data they could find, but they didn't put the report together, someone else did and whoever this person/people were, they did not understand the data given by the seismic stations. Either that or whoever was the scientist who put the data together misrepresented the seismic data. I am not certain how they came at that conclusion, but it was an error however they, or he/she made it.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Sorry buddy but you have no idea what you are talking about. That Firefighter was the point man for the scene size up. You dont make mistakes like stating you need two hose lines to put it out, especially if it is a fuel fire!!! You would say, we need a master stream with foam, or we need a two 2 and a half inch lines with foam packs. He is not going to shove a fuel fire through that high rise with just water lines. We are always specific if we need special tools. Stating two hose line defaults to mean two 1 and a half inch lines, or something else would have been requested. We use 1 and a half inch lines on house fires that are under control. We use 2 and a half inch lines if it is getting out of hand becuase of the property damage they cause. We use master streams for the really big wherehouse/ fuel fires.

What that point man stated was that the fire was not very hot.

Sorry buddy but "there were several floors which were on fire".....that is the point i am trying to make... the firefighter saw two fires in floor 78...not all the fires... In the video they make it appear as if "there was only the two fires in floor 78" in the statement made about 7 minutes into the video, which is wrong and an outright lie.

Are you going to tell me that firefighters now have x-ray vision too and they can see exactly where there are fires in a skyscrapper with just their regular equipment?....

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
................
You dont make mistakes like stating you need two hose lines to put it out, especially if it is a fuel fire!!!
................

Really?.... i guess there has never been a firefighter who died because he/she made a mistake, or mistakes, "sizing up the extend of a fire" and the extend of the structural damage in a building.....

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Jet fuel will burn black and give that sort of smoke, and even though supposedly most of the jet fuel did burn up in the initial blast after the crash, there was still burning fuel in there.

Jet fuel is no different than any other hydrocarbon when it comes to burning and smoke color, and all of that. It only burns black when the fire is making inefficient use of its fuel. Otherwise, it burns a lighter color, as it did right after the impacts. The color is dependent upon the amount of soot, or uncombusted hydrocarbons, which represent unused chemical energy.

Black smoke = inefficient fire.

I really don't understand why so many people are claiming this is a good video when they are making exagerations and blatantly lying...

You have pointed out two pieces of false information in the video, that most here will agree with regardless of what we personally believe happened to the Towers.

How can you say that they're purposefully exaggerating and "blatantly lying" when they make hundreds of suggestions and claims in that video, and you only find fallacy with two?

Even if you found five or six questionable items that we could all agree upon, that's still a decent video in my opinion just from the sheer amount of misinformation everywhere regarding those collapses.

It did stop, there were around 300 (?) feet of rubble or so. i can't remember exactly the height of the rubble.

That is WAYYYY off.



That's WTC2's "rubble pile". WTC1 in the background, but its pile was larger because the bottom-most portion of its core structure didn't actually collapse.

And here's a hint: the floors were 12.5 feet each. The tree columns near the base ended before floor 10, and neither rubble pile exceeded those floors at any single point, even including the standing core remains of WTC1. Your numbers are not only off, but impossible to fit with available photographic evidence.

There was a large hole in the buildings produced by the plane crash, the towers did stay standing after the crash, and the fire weakened enough of the remaining standing columns to start the buckling effect. ... The problem with such tall structures collpasing, is that once a collapse starts there is not enough strength in the lower floors to stop the falling debris. ... Valhall, if there were explosives in any of the towers, the seismic stations would have captured strong longitudinal waves ( P waves) among the transverse waves ( S waves) instead of just transverse (S) waves.

You provide support for none of these statements. Everyone who believes the Towers' collapses were fishy rejects those claims, and unless you want us to ignore you, you should back those kinds of statements up with something other than your opinion stated as fact.

There is no evidence of a critical number of buckled columns or anything equivalent to overcome the safety factors of the perimeter columns. All of the mass below the falling floors would have provided much resistance because it consisted of hundreds of thousands of tons of solidly welded material. And the slices in the core columns were diagonal, not lateral.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Sorry buddy but "there were several floors which were on fire".....that is the point i am trying to make... the firefighter saw two fires in floor 78...not all the fires... In the video they make it appear as if "there was only the two fires in floor 78" in the statement made about 7 minutes into the video, which is wrong and an outright lie.

Are you going to tell me that firefighters now have x-ray vision too and they can see exactly where there are fires in a skyscrapper with just their regular equipment?....

Yes actually we have equipment that when you point it at something it will tell you the temperature. How do you think we tell if a fire has been extinguished behind a wall? These cameras are very sensitive and very accurate. So yes it is very easy to see exactly where not ony all the fire is, but how spots like smoldering ash. Seing fire behind was is easy.

The question you asked about firefighters dying was just wrong. What is your problem? We die in apperatus accidents on the way to a scenes than we do on the scene itself.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Yes actually we have equipment that when you point it at something it will tell you the temperature. How do you think we tell if a fire has been extinguished behind a wall? These cameras are very sensitive and very accurate. So yes it is very easy to see exactly where not ony all the fire is, but how spots like smoldering ash. Seing fire behind was is easy.

Can I get some specs on this equipment? Just for the future arguement against the "he was only on the 78th floor" arguement. Thanks.

[edit on 10/11/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Jet fuel is no different than any other hydrocarbon when it comes to burning and smoke color, and all of that. It only burns black when the fire is making inefficient use of its fuel. Otherwise, it burns a lighter color, as it did right after the impacts. The color is dependent upon the amount of soot, or uncombusted hydrocarbons, which represent unused chemical energy.

Black smoke = inefficient fire.

You are trying to twist something which is partially true to suit your argument. Whether a fire produces smoke, depends greatly on the products being burnt in the fire, and what chemicals are present in the fuel.

Everytime there is smoke, black, white, bluish, it means those particles which became smoke were not burned as fuel, true, but certain fuels will always leave smoke when they are burnt, such as hydrocarbons.

The only way to produce a fire from hydrocarbons without smoke, is to burn all organic chemicals in the fuel, and in most fires the temperatures are not high enough to burn all the chemicals present in the hydrocarbon, which is why you get black smoke.

Another interesting fact is that hydrocarbons produce twice the heat per pound than the heat produced by cellulose products.

Anyways, the following image is from the 2005 Hertfordshire oil storage terminal fire.



That storage facility had a capacity of 273 million litres of fuel, although it was never full. That fire lasted for two days.

You can find some information about it here.
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an image of the smoke in WTC1

Originally posted by bsbray11
That is WAYYYY off.

As i said, i couldn't remember the height of the rubble.... I didn't make it a fact...which is why I put the question mark....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Muaddib----

There was a large hole in the buildings produced by the plane crash, the towers did stay standing after the crash, and the fire weakened enough of the remaining standing columns to start the buckling effect. ... The problem with such tall structures collpasing, is that once a collapse starts there is not enough strength in the lower floors to stop the falling debris. ... Valhall, if there were explosives in any of the towers, the seismic stations would have captured strong longitudinal waves ( P waves) among the transverse waves ( S waves) instead of just transverse (S) waves.

You provide support for none of these statements. Everyone who believes the Towers' collapses were fishy rejects those claims, and unless you want us to ignore you, you should back those kinds of statements up with something other than your opinion stated as fact.

I dind't know you could command members to "ignore others".....

BTW, several times we have discussed this, other members and myself have provided the evidence to back up the statements I made.

Anyways...tell me...didn't the towers remain standing after the planes crashed into them?...

I guess the planes did not punch big holes into the buildings either...

Oh wait, there were no fires to weaken enough of the remaining columns to precipitate the collapse....right?...

bsray...when you have 12-18 floors or so collapsing on top of other floors, the floors below will give in, they won't stand the sudden pressure. As each floor collapses beneath the debris, more mass is added to the collapsing debris, making it easier for the mass of debris to destroy the floors below.

As for the statement on the P waves, it is common knowledge that explosions do cause P waves, and not S waves. P waves are the fastest waves, and they are produced during explosions, or large earthquakes.

The crash of the planes produced P waves, but the explosions were close to the 80-90 floors, seismic stations might have captured the P waves from the planes crashing into the towers, but the signal was probably weak, any explosive devices in the lower floors would have been captured by the seismic stations, but all we see are S waves being produced from the collapsing debris. BTW, P waves in the air are soundwaves.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no evidence of a critical number of buckled columns or anything equivalent to overcome the safety factors of the perimeter columns. All of the mass below the falling floors would have provided much resistance because it consisted of hundreds of thousands of tons of solidly welded material. And the slices in the core columns were diagonal, not lateral.

Actually, the evidence would be the collapse itself, which did happen. Any explosives planted in the lower floors, which quite a few people around here have claimed were in the towers and are necessary for a "demolition job", would have been recorded by the seismic stations, but they were not.

If you put a load of lets say 10 tons, on a structure that can witstand 20 tons, the structure will of course hold the weight, but if you take that load and you drop it on the structure, the sudden pressure from the load will buckle the structure

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Yes actually we have equipment that when you point it at something it will tell you the temperature. How do you think we tell if a fire has been extinguished behind a wall? These cameras are very sensitive and very accurate. So yes it is very easy to see exactly where not ony all the fire is, but how spots like smoldering ash. Seing fire behind was is easy.

If that firefighter had that equipment he would have mentioned it, since he didn't he was just looking at those fires in that floor without whatever equipment you were talking about.

BTW, could you tell us what is the name of this equipment you are mentioning?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
The question you asked about firefighters dying was just wrong. What is your problem? We die in apperatus accidents on the way to a scenes than we do on the scene itself.

I have no problem, you claimed that firefighters don't make mistakes, but the fact is that unfortunately firefighters, as any other human, have died because they have underestimated a fire, or the extend of damaged in a structure.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The only way to produce a fire from hydrocarbons without smoke

I was talking about light smoke, not no smoke.

Lighter smoke was present earlier during the fires. Then it turned darker. I don't know why this is so complicated for you guys. No other fuels were added after the impacts. Just jet fuel and the office supplies.

Again, the smoke went from indicating more efficient fires, to indicating less efficient fires. I'm not saying there should have been no smoke or any nonsense like that.

That storage facility had a capacity of 273 million litres of fuel, although it was never full. That fire lasted for two days.

The smoke was black in that case from being too fuel-rich.

Unless you're arguing that there was less fuel at the WTC, and then all of a sudden there was a total excess of it, then this is totally non-applicable.

As i said, i couldn't remember the height of the rubble.... I didn't make it a fact...which is why I put the question mark....

Your whole response was also nulled, as the Towers did collapse totally, to the bases, without stopping, or even slowing down, even as most of the mass was (obviously, look at the pic) ejected out of the footprints.

I dind't know you could command members to "ignore others".....

I don't have to. It happens on its own. A lot of us here are actually interested in good info, and when you post unsupported garbage over and over, take a wild guess as to what happens.

BTW, several times we have discussed this, other members and myself have provided the evidence to back up the statements I made.

I have never seen it or else I would have changed my position by now.

Anyways...tell me...didn't the towers remain standing after the planes crashed into them?...

I guess the planes did not punch big holes into the buildings either...

Big in terms of people, yes. Big in terms of the building itself, no. FEMA and NIST have both gone over this in their reports if you ever care to look at them. The impacts knocked out and/or damaged a clear minority of columns in the impacted floors.

Oh wait, there were no fires to weaken enough of the remaining columns to precipitate the collapse....right?...

No ones saying there were no fires. It's just that hydrocarbon fires have never presented the threat of global collapse to any building in the history of the world. Buildings have suffered enormous fires and still stood without problems. The WTC Towers were standing fine after the impacts, and had a lot of support that would have had to have been further destroyed. The chances of fire doing that are slim and none, based on history as well as metallurgy.

bsray...when you have 12-18 floors or so collapsing on top of other floors, the floors below will give in, they won't stand the sudden pressure. As each floor collapses beneath the debris, more mass is added to the collapsing debris, making it easier for the mass of debris to destroy the floors below.

Didn't happen, or else all of the floors would have been laying at the bottoms of the buildings in a huge pile, wouldn't they? This article shows in greater depth why the idea you just presented is horribly off.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no evidence of a critical number of buckled columns or anything equivalent to overcome the safety factors of the perimeter columns.

Actually, the evidence would be the collapse itself, which did happen.

No offense, but you have absolutely no sense of logic here.

The fact that the Towers collapsed can apparently be used to provide evidence for ANY collapse theory by your logic.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I was talking about light smoke, not no smoke.

Lighter smoke was present earlier during the fires. Then it turned darker. I don't know why this is so complicated for you guys. No other fuels were added after the impacts. Just jet fuel and the office supplies.

Again, the smoke went from indicating more efficient fires, to indicating less efficient fires. I'm not saying there should have been no smoke or any nonsense like that.

There was both, light and black smoke. The color of the smoke also depends from which side of the towers you were looking at the fires. If you look at the following video, you see both dark and light smoke coming out of tower two, but a lot more white smoke comes out of this tower, probably the plane crashing into this tower had less fuel than the other one. Then when the second plane crashes into tower 1 you see in the initial blast a lot of black smoke which combines with the smoke of tower 2. The fire from that point forward is a lot darker, and yes, more fuel was added because the second plane hit tower one right after the big black cloud of smoke came out of tower 1 from the plane impact..

Here is a link to the video.

www.revver.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

The smoke was black in that case from being too fuel-rich.

Unless you're arguing that there was less fuel at the WTC, and then all of a sudden there was a total excess of it, then this is totally non-applicable.

Well, you obviously don't remember that after the first plane crashed in tower 2, there was another plane which crashed into tower 1...so yes, more fuel was added. You can see the increase of black smoke right after the plane crashes on tower 1 and the black smoke unites with the white/black smoke of tower 2.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Your whole response was also nulled, as the Towers did collapse totally, to the bases, without stopping, or even slowing down, even as most of the mass was (obviously, look at the pic) ejected out of the footprints.

No it wasn't, you would like to claim so, but the point is that the collpase did stop and left at least 50 feet of rubble.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Didn't happen, or else all of the floors would have been laying at the bottoms of the buildings in a huge pile, wouldn't they?

Again with your claims that the dust was most of the mass of the building?... You can't see the mass of debris falling because the dust, fireproofing, and concrete that was pulverize by the weight is covering the towers as it collpases.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no evidence of a critical number of buckled columns or anything equivalent to overcome the safety factors of the perimeter columns.

What there is no evidence of is any explosive charges being set off at the towers, which makes the collapse of the towers being caused by the structure being weakened by the plane crash, and the subsequent fires weakening more enough of the remaining columns to precipitate the collapse.

Originally posted by bsbray11
No offense, but you have absolutely no sense of logic here.

There is a lot more sense in that than your claims such as "most of the debris can be seen flying away from the towers"...when you can see "most of the debris" because of the dust, fireproofing and the parts of concrete which were pulverized during the collapse.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have never seen it or else I would have changed my position by now.

You never change your opinion, even after being shown you are wrong.

But now i guess you are going to claim that we have never discussed this same topic too...

Anyways, here is a graph of the seismic event of 9/11, there are others and i will see if I can find a proper link for them.



In that graph it can be seen that the impacts of the planes did produce P waves, later on what we see are the S waves and even surface waves from the towers collapsing.


Well, in the above graph you can't really see surface waves, but in the following one which is a close up of the graph you can see a couple of surface waves ( there are two surface waves, rayleigh and love waves), you can see a couple of love waves (a type of surface wave), which are the two spike downwards before the large S waves in the upper left corner of the graph.

The only P waves seen in those graphs are from the plane impacts. If there were explosives planted we would see more P waves, instead of S waves and surface waves after the P waves caused by the plane impacts.



[edit on 12-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
There was both, light and black smoke.

I know this is going to be hard for you to drop without watching a really long, boring video, but the general trend was smoke going from grayish, to black. It isn't that hard to miss. Again, this isn't that complicated.

Well, you obviously don't remember that after the first plane crashed in tower 2, there was another plane which crashed into tower 1...so yes, more fuel was added.

Makes no sense. Either you are wrong in that Tower 2 was hit first (it wasn't), or else you apparently think that two planes hit building one. And if you're just wrong on which was hit first, then you argument makes no sense anyway unless fuel from one building can feed fires in another. Each building is a separate case. This is so stupid that I'm responding to crap like this.

You can see the increase of black smoke right after the plane crashes on tower 1 and the black smoke unites with the white/black smoke of tower 2.

You can also see apparent blasts in WTC1 when WTC2 was hit.

(You do have your events confused. WTC1 was hit first.)

Originally posted by bsbray11
No it wasn't, you would like to claim so, but the point is that the collpase did stop and left at least 50 feet of rubble.

Prove it.

Again, each floor is 12.5 feet. WTC2's debris doesn't even look like it went past the lobby floors. WTC1's was bigger because, again, core structure at the bottom didn't fail and was still standing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Again with your claims that the dust was most of the mass of the building?...

Show me where I have claimed this.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no evidence of a critical number of buckled columns or anything equivalent to overcome the safety factors of the perimeter columns.

What there is no evidence of is any explosive charges being set off at the towers,

Does not logically follow as a response.

There is a lot more sense in that than your claims such as "most of the debris can be seen flying away from the towers"...when you can see "most of the debris" because of the dust, fireproofing and the parts of concrete which were pulverized during the collapse.

Actually, I was basing that claim on two things:

1) Almost all of the mass DID end up outside of the footprints of each building after collapse.

2) There was hardly anything IN the footprints.

I'll leave you to look at the photos, I'm not going to argue with things you force yourself not to see for the sake of argument. And also, I'm going to put you on ignore for wasting my time.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Valhall
...........
1. Not understanding why the collapse took place at all.

There was a large hole in the buildings produced by the plane crash, the towers did stay standing after the crash, and the fire weakened enough of the remaining standing columns to start the buckling effect.

I am certain that the collapse of tower 1 was aided by the small earthquake, and pressure waves, which were created from the falling debris of the second tower, yes even such a small earthquake can weaken even more such structures when they are as compromised as tower 1 was after the plane crashed into it and it also had fires inside the structure.

I am glad you are sure of this. I am not.

Originally posted by Valhall
2. Why it didn't stop at some point.

It did stop, there were around 300 (?) feet of rubble or so. i can't remember exactly the height of the rubble.

I wasn't referring to how high the rubble stacked.

The problem with such tall structures collpasing, is that once a collapse starts there is not enough strength in the lower floors to stop the falling debris. With each floor which collapses more weight is being added to the falling debris, decreasing the resistance, and the time it takes to collapse each floor below.

Apparently you're talking about some type of collapse in which the weight of the entire top lands on a single floor. If you are, you're talking about something the NIST doesn't hold to. Get with them, see if they buy your collapse mode and let me know. Then this statement will make sense. NIST says the collapse was a partial floor on floor collapse due to sagging floor trusses that resulted in shearing of the outer perimeter floor connections, so they aren't even saying the whole floor weight. That eliminates your argument.

Originally posted by Valhall
3. Thinking there was explosive help in the collapse of these buildings.

Why is that you need to think this?

Excuse me? Where did I say I need to do anything? You are apparently sure of how everything went. I'm not. Live with that fact.

Valhall, if there were explosives in any of the towers, the seismic stations would have captured strong longitudinal waves ( P waves) among the transverse waves ( S waves) instead of just transverse (S) waves.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Once again, you seem sure of that. I'm not.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I know this is going to be hard for you to drop without watching a really long, boring video, but the general trend was smoke going from grayish, to black. It isn't that hard to miss. Again, this isn't that complicated.

I did, and I provided a video of the 911 attacks.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Makes no sense. Either you are wrong in that Tower 2 was hit first (it wasn't), or else you apparently think that two planes hit building one. And if you're just wrong on which was hit first, then you argument makes no sense anyway unless fuel from one building can feed fires in another. Each building is a separate case. This is so stupid that I'm responding to crap like this

You are right in that tower 1 was hit first and then tower two, was hit. I am not saying fuel from one building fed the fires of the other building, but the smoke from both towers didn't separete, in fact they merged, which is the reason why there was more black smoke after tower 2 was hit.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can also see apparent blasts in WTC1 when WTC2 was hit.

Where? You would see P waves in the seismic recordings, a bomb/blast leaves a certain signature and it would be easy to see.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove it.

The towers fell....

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me where I have claimed this.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does not logically follow as a response.

Or so you claim.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually, I was basing that claim on two things:

1) Almost all of the mass DID end up outside of the footprints of each building after collapse.

2) There was hardly anything IN the footprints.

I'll respond to this later on.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'll leave you to look at the photos, I'm not going to argue with things you force yourself not to see for the sake of argument. And also, I'm going to put you on ignore for wasting my time.

The claims of "controlled demolition" is what is wasting everyone's time.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The only way to produce a fire from hydrocarbons without smoke, is to burn all organic chemicals in the fuel, and in most fires the temperatures are not high enough to burn all the chemicals present in the hydrocarbon, which is why you get black smoke.

Bolded by me. So, we have black smoke....which you say is indicative of a fire that doesn't have high enough heat to burn organics. Correct so far? But this same fire can lower the strength of steel? What temperature do organics burn at again? What temperature does it take to lessen the strength of steel significant enough for failure? Seems to me like you can't have it both ways. Thanks for rienforcing what BsBray11 has been trying to tell you.

black smoke=cooler fire

white/clear smoke=high temperature fire.