Proof Positive: WTC-Controlled Demolition

I didnt mean to make that a one line post, but I think I got my point across. Sorry mods.

Originally posted by indierockalien
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Hey can I read that? I never heard that before... BUT... for one thing, the people who cleared away the rubble, which almost all was shipped away to some secret location never to be seen again, were probably not thinking about searching for blast caps or other demo debris. They were thinking about clearing away debris and getting to bodies and people who may still have been trapped under the rubble. I don't think anyone who was there at the scene was really thinking about conspiracies at that point, so maybe there were plenty of blast caps, but maybe the people who moved the debris away (most likely) weren't demo experts, so if they had seen blast caps and whatnot, prolly thought it was part of the building's wiring, and never even gave it a second thought.

And to be honest, your source will probably be biased, but I'm not really a big "9/11 truther", so I'll take a look at what you got and take it into account.

I just know what I saw, and my senses tell me that it was all very very fishy.

I didn't really ever pay attention to the specific "evidence" brought forth by the truthers and their movies (which I'm not bashing the Truthers because I'm on their same page)... but I more or less just re-watched all the footage from that day, saw the pictures of the pentagon from that day, remembered building 7's fall, saw all the things the government did before and after 9/11, and my common sense could no longer agree with the official version of the story.



[edit on 28-10-2007 by indierockalien]

It was not shipped away to a secret location, it was shipped a few miles away where it was processed by hand as workers sifted through the debris to find body parts and clues. This all being documented on film as well. Where do you get this notion that it was shipped to a secret location??

And they spent a lot of time just looking for bodies, so that claim as well is untrue. You can hear about the search efforts from the rescue workers as they talk about the recovery process of bodies. And explosives leave tell tale signs that are unmistakable.

And more importantly, your claim that any source not part of the 9/11 woo movement is biased pretty much says it all. In other words you won't accept any source that doesn't claim 9/11 was an inside job. And that isn't being biased? That means you aren't looking for truth, you are simply looking for an inside job and won't accept any facts that say otherwise. Yes, let's ignore scientists and experts because they aren't telling us what these conspiracy sites, who are a majority of the time caught lying are saying.

Originally posted by indierockalien
No, but I know that some of them have consulted with demo experts. I know that I myself met a structural engineer who's friend is a demo expert whilst I was down in florida over the summer, and he said that both him and his friend knew right away that something was very very wrong, and he went into great depth about how steel buildings behave, and how damaged buildings should behave, and his friend had taught him about the demo trade and he was explaining in depth about thermate and the likes, and I really wish I would've brought my tape recorder with, because what he said was golden... and this was a guy from England, and the dude was loaded because his hotel room was like a friggin mansion... so obviously, he's quite good at what he does, and I trusted his opinion.

How about posting their claims on here. I trust the many demo experts who have explained exactly why it could not possibly have been a demolition. So what are the names of these guys, what are their exact credentials? There have been plenty of people on the Woo movement claiming to be demo experts only to turn out to be things like special FX guys who use explosives in movie stunts, etc. What company does your friend work for? Why doesn't he speak out or publish a paper? Why not blow the lid off the whole thing?

Well there's those that say yay, and there's those that say nay, and they both have sci4entific evidence, and everyone disagrees, and you can't really trust the facts from either side because even the truthers have agendas and reputations to maintain (but so do the official story mongerers, which they have even more of a reputation to uphold because for some of them, it means serious charges)... so I dunno what to tell you, man. I'll admit, I'm no scientist, but I can't trust the scientists when they are all still arguing about it. I can only trust my feelings, my common sense on WHAT I SAW.

And what I saw was impossible, I know it in my heart it was impossible, if we're sticking to anywhere near the official story of the collapse and such.
I didn't believe the "truth movement" for two years from when I first heard about it... but faced with the reality of the situation, the footage, the memories of that day... it just didn't add up. Before, I just couldn't see how anyone would think this stuff... but now, I can't imagine how you couldn't! You must still be in denial, man. That's okay, dude. You're no worse for wear than I am. Either way, we're all in this ride together.

Originally posted by snoopy
What company does your friend work for? Why doesn't he speak out or publish a paper? Why not blow the lid off the whole thing?

They have and tried. But certain people in the public (look at yourself) still won't believe it. How about you do some research on demolitions.

because he'd be facing ridicule and the loss of his cushy job if he did speak out. He's got a wife and two kids, and I understand his fear. I don't have a photographic memory. I don't even remember his name, but I was hanging out and fishing with him and his family the whole week. I will prolly remember it with time.

Snoopy I posted this on another thread, and I posted it directly to you, and now I see you in this thread asking the same question on demo's.

View these pics I post about 5 mintues ago in the other thread for you specificly.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My mind is made up about the destruction of those towers and the very real conspiracy that exists behind it. I trust myself because things are making a lot more sense than they used to stuck in the narrow minded patriotic yada yada yada scientific and so forth reasons that still keeps people debating about this issue. You cannot trust scientists on either side. They both are probably stretching their findings (one side much more than the other, obviously) to fit better with their agendas... and maybe some aren't, either. Maybe some just haven't had access to the tools required to be able to prove their theories conclusively on both sides... and I would imagine all the scientists working for real truth are the ones getting the most cuts in funding, so.... I think science is whatever the person financing it deems it to be nowadays.

Indierockalien, and others I take it must have overlooked my post explaining how the towers collapsed. Allow me to repost and I'd like to hear your response in regards to this Indierockalien as you originally posed the comment:

Scientists FOR the official story are obviously downplaying the temperature at which steel melts AND they are upgrading the temperature at which jetfuel and normal carbon-based fires burn at. And now, that will all become the norm in the education system, and people will all be taught the science that can prove the official 9/11 story.

The temperature did not melt the steel beams. The heat was simply hot enough and long enough that it weakened the beams causing them to sag and finally give way to all the weight they could no longer support.

Does anybody here deny that steel can be forged and shaped when subjected to high temperatures without having to be melted?

Now the architect and engineer did explain in the documentary that the steel beams are covered in fire resistant material and this is one of the only things that actually kept the towers from not collapsing sooner. They reveal a lot of information about the integrity of the building both the good and bad.

I encourage you to read this before replying:

Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation

Originally posted by zarlaan
b]Does anybody here deny that steel can be forged and shaped when subjected to high temperatures without having to be melted?

I'm not the one you directed your post to but...

I agree completely with that observation, it's true.
But why didn't the floors "stack" onto each other, wouldn't there be, and I'm roughly guessing here, a small structure of floors gathered at the base of ground zero. Floors falling on floors and stacking themselves on one another. No, just debris.

But why didn't the floors "stack" onto each other, wouldn't there be, and I'm roughly guessing here, a small structure of floors gathered at the base of ground zero. Floors falling on floors and stacking themselves on one another. No, just debris.

Again.. please just read the page I linked. It will answer your question.

Edited to add link again...

www.tms.org...



[edit on 28-10-2007 by zarlaan]

It did not answer what I asked.

Plus, wouldn't the fuel have evaporated in the explosion?

Edit, mispell.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

Then you didn't read the website. Here I'll post an animation for you if you're not going to bother reading the text.

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by zarlaan



From USAToday? Why don't I just ask Bush what happened?

And I did read your text, why don't you post where it answers my question.


[edit on 28-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

Ok I'll make this even more simple for ya

You won't even have to click a link to read the text from the website which was published in JOM magazine.

THE DESIGN

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and,

continued post from above

hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

The clean-up of the World Trade Center will take many months. After all, 1,000,000 t of rubble will require 20,000 to 30,000 truckloads to haul away the material. The asbestos fire insulation makes the task hazardous for those working nearby. Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel is fully recyclable and represents only one day’s production of the U.S. steel industry. Separation of the stone and concrete is a common matter for modern steel shredders. The land-filling of 700,000 t of concrete and stone rubble is more problematic. However, the volume is equivalent to six football fields, 6–9 m deep, so it is manageable.

First, you posted a diagram from USAToday, I know the article was on JOM in your previous post to USAToday, do you want me to show you that????

Still don't see an answer to my question as to why the floors wouldn't have stacked themselves. Maybe someone could help me, and I'm being honest, I can see your devoted to your search, but honestly I don't see an answer to my question.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

And look, don't post the entire thing because you ASSUME i'm not reading it. You know what, I'm not going to bother with this.

I asked you a simple question and to post that specific answer from the post. Is that too hard to understand?

Actually no, it's not that hard I did post the specific answer from the post. But, if you like I'll condense it more out of hesitation that the rest of the facts will be over looked by others....

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area.

www.tms.org...


I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything towards you, believe me please. I'm just trying to understand what it is you don't see in the quote not answering your question?

A simple and crude way you can demonstrate the floors pancaking in domino fashion is build a house of cards with mainly triangular support for each floor you go up on the cards. The supports buckle and the floor from above drops down unto the one below starting the chain reaction.


[edit on 28-10-2007 by zarlaan]

[edit on 28-10-2007 by zarlaan]

Respected. Still not quite sure but respected.