911 WTC collapse

Originally posted by Lanotom
Pull back. Is that what Silverstein said? No!

He said "pull it" and then we watched the building collapse.

We are looking for the term "pull it". It and back are two different words.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
CPYKOmega, perhaps you missed the thread where the definition of the term pull was discussed as it is used by fire fighters. I'm not going to dig it up again, so . . .

It's not important what Silverstein said, since it is hearsay anyway. it's what the fire chief said to him. Do you have any direct proof that the fire chief said that they were going to "pull it?"

What the firechief said and what Silverstien said are two different things.

There is still the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were present in this building.

If you have ever witnessed a building implosion first hand, you would realize that there is no way that the sounds of the charges would not have been heard and recorded.

Produce the sounds of those charges going off, and I will consider your theory, else, everything is pure speculation based on a hearsay statement.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Produce the sounds of those charges going off, and I will consider your theory, else, everything is pure speculation based on a hearsay statement.

Here's proof of the explosions from firefighters.

www.nbvfd3.org...

More firefighter audio.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

This from a reporter.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


As you very well know thrermite was used so the sound would not be as pronounced from the outside as it would from inside.

For those that are not familiar with thermite reaction please view
en.wikipedia.org...

And this
www.physics911.net...





[edit on 6-7-2005 by Lanotom]

The Fox news channel had their special on Sunday 9/11/05. During that program, there was a clip with the reporter, darn I forget his name, but he was all over T.V. with the Katrina Storm, stated they had just heard a loud explosion, and he was not refering to the planes.

I have had the belief since the day it happened it was rigged to fall. This was my immediate belief when I saw them fall on T.V. I hold to the theory that some how our government was involved. It does sound a bit looney, but I see it as fact.

The more I read into it, the more I am sure this was an orchestrated plan that is still being played out.

Taking up the Twin Towers, and the explanation on the Discovery Channel of how they fell, I feel that these educated gurus' think common sense is dead.

If, as every sane person believes the Towers were brought down by airplanes, why did the 2nd tower fall 1st? Given that the bulk of its energy source left out the side of the building in a ball of fire? Also note when watching the tower fall, that as it started to lean in the direction of where the plane hit, it corrected itself to fall perpendicular to the ground. Simple common sense says if you knock out a corner of a structure, reguardless of its initial design, gravity willl force that weak side to fall 1st, and continue to fall in that direction without correction.

In a metallurgical investigation, in order for the structure to fall evenly, a unified heat source would be needed to weaken the support members evenly to a point that they would become elastic, unable to support the above weight. At a precise moment the energy of the above weight would fall evenly and continue to the ground. This is not possible with the fuel that was present. Some members may have weakend, but not all of them to give the pancake fall that we witnessed. Without all members being close to the same measure of elasticity, the building would have not fallen evenly, nor to the ground.

If bringing a building down of this size was as easy as igniting Kerosene on a floor with some weight above it, why do engineers go to school to study physics and load bearing technologies to do precise demolition work?

It was controlled demolition, we will not have the luxury of proving this though because none of the debris remains, it was controlled and gotten rid of quickly, so no analysis could be performed by outside sources to detect the presence of explosives, nor to do the metallurgical analysis of the grain structure of the beams to detect any non-uniformitys to the molecular make up of the steel.

Actually quite a bit of debris remains. They're using a good chunk of it to build a new warship, and there is more debris that hadn't been cut up or sold for scrap. A lot was sent out to people to build memorials, and for other uses.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It's not important what Silverstein said, since it is hearsay anyway. it's what the fire chief said to him. Do you have any direct proof that the fire chief said that they were going to "pull it?"

What the firechief said and what Silverstien said are two different things.

Actually, Silverstein is the one who said it:

"You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

As for pull out... pull what out? As far as I've known, there were no figherfighters in the building.

Not to mention the time period given in the quote. The way it was put, the decision was made, and it happened.

Any real investigator would tell you that listen to how things are phrased is a good tell sign into what the person is really saying. Is it definite? No.

He only makes himself further untrustworthy by refusing to even define what he meant.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually quite a bit of debris remains. They're using a good chunk of it to build a new warship, and there is more debris that hadn't been cut up or sold for scrap. A lot was sent out to people to build memorials, and for other uses.

And here's some facts about the steel:
911research.wtc7.net...

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage."

"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything." - Mayor Bloomberg

"During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, One hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fishkills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation."

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study, "Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."

And yes, some pieces are being used for memorials.

www.structuremag.org...

The link isn't working Howard.

As a researcher of 9/11, I would love to take a look at it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If you have ever witnessed a building implosion first hand, you would realize that there is no way that the sounds of the charges would not have been heard and recorded.

Here you go Howard:

workspace.web-lab.be...

Shroomery, all that I heard in that video was a tremendous roar as if a building was collapsing.

There were no sharp distinctive reports like you would hear if wave after wave of demo charges were being blown.

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If you have ever witnessed a building implosion first hand, you would realize that there is no way that the sounds of the charges would not have been heard and recorded.

Here you go Howard:

workspace.web-lab.be...

Omg.. look at the squibs at +- 6 secs, there are 2 of them, 1 right and 1 left, this video i awsome never seen it before.
Good material for the demolition theory!!

It had the perfect signature of an implosion of both towers.

Originally posted by SkyChild_5
It had the perfect signature of an implosion of both towers.

Have you ever witnessed an implosion first hand?

Yeah, SkyChild. You ever seen an implosion?

Everyone knows that only gravity-driven collapses fall down perfectly symmetrically, with a disappearances of momentum and squibs to boot.

Demolitions, on the other hand, look totally natural, and fall in whatever ways gravity leads them, apparently, with no mysterious explosions or apparent disappearances of momentum.

This thread mimics what I see in real life.

There are those that think there was something strange in the 911 towers and WTC 7 collapse.

I find some that argue it was just simply a natural accident.

Most that say it was simply natural, also say they do not belive the government told the whole truth. To them I say, then you also are a doubter of what really happened.

I found this research paper that has some good references to follow. It is written by someone who does not seem to be a conspiricy nut such as myself, but by someone who has questions and would like some specific answers.

The more information I find, the more concrete my belief that something very wrong happened on 911. It was not just airplanes and terrorists that brought down these buildings. As long as this topic is kept alive, we may find some small pieces of truth.

www.physics.byu.edu...

For every fact, someone has a anti-fact that contradicts it. Perhaps, if you step away from the emotional beliefs you have, and view the falls from a common sense stance, you might find that some things dont seem logical. If one is to believe there is nothing wrong with the way the buildings fell, or the investigation was done, then there will forever be a wall between all who see the strangeness of the event.

Why don't you just post on one of the many threads debunking Steven Jones that are running right now?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why don't you just post on one of the many threads debunking Steven Jones that are running right now?

Don't exist. Closest to it is the thread you created to try to discredit him. Big difference between trying to discredit and trying to debunk.



In a metallurgical investigation, in order for the structure to fall evenly, a unified heat source would be needed to weaken the support members evenly to a point that they would become elastic, unable to support the above weight.

In the interests of accurate debate it should be pointed out that the term elastic is not used in the above quote correctly.

As it pertains to engineering the modulus of elasticity of a material defines its ability to maintain its dimensional stability once acted upon by another force. (For those interested do a search on Young's Modulus).

Glass is known to be highly elastic because of its ability to return to its original position when acted upon by another force. For instance, place a finger on the center of your front window then apply a moderate amount of pressure. The light reflection or reflection of your room will bend somewhat with the pressure. Release. The glass returns to its original position, thus glass is highly
elastic.

Take a rubber band and measure it on a ruler using only enough stretch to take out its slack. Now hyper-stretch the same rubber band to its elastic limit. Once again measure the elastic using the ruler. You’ll note that the rubber band is now longer than it was prior to hyper-stretching it.

Rubber has a low level of elasticity.

Apart from your claim that the term "elastic" was falsely used above, which is absolutely correct, and the initial description of the modus of elasticity, you are talking complete and utter bs. "FEMA", eh? fitting...

Young's modulus E describes how much energy is required for the deformation of an elastic material and is as such stored within the deformation. If you claim rubber had a low level of elasticity, I suspect you looked at E for several materials and found it to have a very low value - well guess what: That says it doesn't require a lot of energy to deform rubber, who would've thought?

[edit]

wikipedia: elastic The elasticity of a solid is inversely proportional to the strength of the material - see Hooke's law. If the material is isotropic, its strength is characterized by the modulus of elasticity.

Maybe next time attempt at least the slightest research on the topic before you spew grand phrases.




[edit on 4-1-2006 by Lumos]

Apart from your claim that the term "elastic" was falsely used above, which is absolutely correct, and the initial description of the modus of elasticity, you are talking complete and utter bs. "FEMA", eh? fitting...

I stated: As it pertains to engineering the modulus of elasticity of a material defines its ability to maintain its dimensional stability once acted upon by another force.

You sighted: "The elasticity of a solid is inversely proportional to the strength of the material - see Hooke's law." Yes, this defines Hooke's law.

If the material is *isotropic* (isotropic means omni-directionally consistent), its strength is characterized by the modulus of elasticity."

Why you'd use an example of two *different* meanings for two different things is beyond me. If you pulled them from some place on the Internet I suggest you go back and read the material over again. In such a case you'll discover that the writer is using one after the other to highlight the difference between *two different things.*

". . . you are talking complete and utter bs. "FEMA", eh? fitting..."

Please provide an example, not a loosely worded accusation. My comment was made through one of the things I do for a living - I teach/instruct/facilitate the curriculum on the constutents of firefighting. This also includes structural integrity, fire origin and analysis, along with engineering as it pertains to structural analysis and failure. I am also a working Captain firefighter so I not only teach, I actaully fight fire.

While you are presenting your evidence that what I am saying is complete and utters bs, please explain what you mean by: FEMA, eh? fitting . . ."

And, please tell me how this statement applies?

"Maybe next time attempt at least the slightest research on the topic before you spew grand phrases.

Hey, no need to further reemphasize my point.

FEMA Why you'd use an example of two *different* meanings for two different things is beyond me.

What? You falsely equated "modus of elasticity" to elasticity itself, that's the only problem here. Your long list of credentials doesn't impress me, especially when your actions don't seem to back it up.

FEMA

FEMA Please provide an example, not a loosely worded accusation.

Glass is known to be highly elastic because of its ability to return to its original position when acted upon by another force. [...] Rubber has a low level of elasticity.

That enough? Let's review: "The elasticity of a solid is inversely proportional to the strength of the material - see Hooke's law. If the material is isotropic, its strength is characterized by the modulus of elasticity."

Do you want to argue whether metals are isotropic or not, or can we skip that part? If the elasticity of a solid is inversely proportional to the strength of the material (as stated by Hooke's law), and glass is very elastic while rubber is not (as stated by yourself), then rubber must be a much stronger material than glass...

Do you really want to stand by that?

[edit]

As far as your credentials go, you "teach/instruct/facilitate the curriculum on the constutents of firefighting"? "facilitate" the curriculum? "constutents"? Yeah, right...







[edit on 4-1-2006 by Lumos]