Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by ebe51
No offense intended but just because someone is a structural engineer doesn't make them an expert on how a build might have collapsed.

Very true. That's why I posted to not just take my word for it. But, Albie asked, so I answered.

The point here is don't be so quick to say it couldn't have fell without the need for Controlled demo.

Trust me. My decision that it was controlled in some way wasn't a quick one.

Did you have the chance to read the link I posted before to what other engineers with PM wrote on the collapse?

No I haven't. But, I have read most of their stuff before from people posting it on here. I'm still not convinced. Sorry. But, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Originally posted by ebe51
So what if just airplanes is the truth, I have yet to see anything convincing otherwise?

Please read this and tell me how planes, office fires, jet fuel or gravity can cause this.

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by albie
Stand on it's own? With tonnes of rubble falling on it?

Oh don't be silly, I was talking about the structure itself not during the collapse.

But having said that what rubble was falling on the central core?

Please review your 'pancaking' floors theory and then tell me what rubble would have bought down the central columns, thanx.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ebe51
So what if just airplanes is the truth, I have yet to see anything convincing otherwise?

Please read this and tell me how planes, office fires, jet fuel or gravity can cause this.

www.fema.gov...

Ok, I just go finsh reading the sample one info....

What I'm looking that points toward CD?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by Griff

The point here is don't be so quick to say it couldn't have fell without the need for Controlled demo.

Trust me. My decision that it was controlled in some way wasn't a quick one.

And that, is the big problem with a lot of the stuff thrown around here(and on the internet in general). A lot of people seem to insist that just posting a video or two will convince everyone that it was a CD, when such a large claim needs serious thought and some proper reasoning in it, rather than a quick, "it looks like it is CD, therefore it must be".

Hence I don't really go against what you say, Griff (and many others), since I know you will have put decent thought into it, and as such your points are quite hard to disprove. I seem to remember you giving a really good description of why the NIST explanation doesn't make total sense a few months ago, and that shows that you did proper research beforehand.

This is the problem with the video subject of this thread. We've all seen plenty of videos of so called explosive charges and squibs, what we really need is proper disproving of NIST and anyone else, not youtube videos if we or anyone else is ever going to expose anything with this. While youtube may convince some or even many, unless concrete scientific proof is made for CD or any other 9/11 theory for that matter, the rest of the world will never agree.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ebe51
So what if just airplanes is the truth, I have yet to see anything convincing otherwise?

Please read this and tell me how planes, office fires, jet fuel or gravity can cause this.

www.fema.gov...

look on this page of the report...

www.popularmechanics.com...

the section on the melting metal show that temps could have reached 1500 degF which in line with the Fema report.

Also notice the picture a few sections down which shows a snap shot at the moment the building started to fall. The top part of the build did not come straight down, but at a slight angle.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by albie
"A structure that supposedly globally failed because of office fires that could not have possibly got hot enough?"

Oh god, you're one of them who can't understand the difference between steel melting and steel losing it's strength.

Do you people still exist?

Wow I warranted two separate replies to one post, I must be special...

For the building to collapse globally to the ground ALL the steel would have had to fail at the same time. The steel would have had to heat up uniformly and very quickly. Even if the building was completely engulfed in fire it would still not be enough temperature, or time, to cause global failure. We now this from simple science and precedence from working with steel for a few years in similar situations (i.g. other buildings and machinery made from steel that's subjected to heat such as a stove or gas fire).

Yes steel will lose it's strength under extreme temperature but you obviously haven't really looked into how fires and steel work, and to put that claim into context.
For one the steel would act as a heat sink so all the heat would be spread along the length of steel thus cooling it. The fires were on just a few floors, what heated up the steel on the 90 odd floors bellow the impact point of the aircraft? The building was designed to carry 5x it's own weight, so a little math tells me if the steel lost half it's load carrying ability it would still hold 2.5x it's weight. But it would have been impossible for office fires on a few floors to cause 110 floors of steel to lose half it's strength, even with the jet fuel and damage. Jet fuel only burns at around 300dc in open air, hardly a high temperature. Office fires at max will burn around 800dc, and no open air fire is ever going burn at 100% efficiency, so temps were predictably a lot lower than that. Grey smoke turning black indicates a cooling fire, unless of course a different fuel was suddenly added to the mix (highly unlikely). Do me a favour go look what temps NIST found on the steel and then tell me if that's hot enough to cause failure.

In 1975 there was a fire on 6 floors that lasted for 6 hours, no global collapse, no condemning of the building due to column weakening...

BTW It sounds like you use 9-11myths for your research, maybe you should look in other places...

reply to post by apex


Thanks for the kind words.



I agree with the end of your post also.

Originally posted by ebe51
Also notice the picture a few sections down which shows a snap shot at the moment the building started to fall. The top part of the build did not come straight down, but at a slight angle.

Which is also a problem for a "gravity" driven collapse.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by ANOK

You don't have to be a structural engineer to understand how simple physics works in the real world.

Ah but you do need some knowlegde of structural engineering, and a bit of thought to realise that the parts of the structure are interconnected, and that buildings are designed to share the load of the structure evenly down through to the foundations.

I do have some experience with engineering but I still say it's not necessary to understand simple physics.

I don't understand your point here, you are right but how does that explain global failure? I said the core columns were a structure in themselves which means YES they were all interconnected, which makes global collapse harder not easier.

So.....supposing you have a steel truss floor connected to the central core, and the weight above exceeds the floors design limits. Whats going to happen at the point the floor was supported off the inner concrete core? Is it going to shear off completely with no resistance or is it likely to damage the core when its ripped off?

What inner concrete core? You need to look at how the building was designed before you will understand how it collapsed.
Where did the 'extra weight' come from? The floors themselves didn't hold up the floors above them, the core structure did. If the floors failed at the spandrel plates what bought the core columns down? If the floors were shearing off from the columns then what resistance are you talking about? The floors didn't sit on top of columns, they hung off the sides, so if the the plates that held them failed they would slide down the columns, which also sounds as silly as global failure from fires.
Were not talking about 'damaging' the central core, it was totally and completely globally collapsed.
Where did the floor pans go btw? Can you find them in the rubble?

And if that floor spans out all ways from the core isn't it likely that the damage caused by the structral elements failing at their point of connection to the core could be sufficient to cause the central core to collapse, as in effect its being sheared off at floor level?

No, think about it...

You would need to look very very closely at the core construction and how the floors were supported before you make any proclamations that it would have been unaffected.

I have, you obviously haven't, i.e. concrete core...

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ebe51
Also notice the picture a few sections down which shows a snap shot at the moment the building started to fall. The top part of the build did not come straight down, but at a slight angle.

Which is also a problem for a "gravity" driven collapse.

how's that? it show which side gave away first........
Never mind i don't feel like debating 911 anymore it doesn't matter, people are going to believe whatever they want to, facts or no facts.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by ebe51
Everything we see in the videos and pics show events going on the impacted floored. We don't see explosions on the lower floors.

Ok wait -- if the planes impact, explosives are supposed to go off on lower floors? Explain to me the necessity of this.

I'm sure if everybody keeps thinking of different ideas and ways someone will come up with some elaborate way in which control demo might could have happen

Yes, and that's actually what any engineer of the events would have done. He would have done exactly that. Intentionally.

Airplanes hitting the building can and do explain everything, and there no need for explosives.

Maybe to you, not for me.

reply to post by Griff


I read the PDF you linked to from FEMA. Very interesting indeed. Everything so far is pointing to an incredible amount of heat, much greater then one would expect to see and has not been fully explained. The molten steel that many were reporting, the hot spots etc.

Also, I recall the day or so after 9/11 there were very large thunder storms that hit NEW YORK CITY, with rain falling all night. Even after that and all the water thrown at the site the fires continued to burn and smolder for such a long time.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ok wait -- if the planes impact, explosives are supposed to go off on lower floors? Explain to me the necessity of this.

becuase the fire, which was GOING to happen, MOST LIKELY would have damaged some or all of the ordinance packages. C4 (and most any other rdx based explosives) will burn, when they do their "bang" is much lower so the guys that would have theoretically planned this wouldnt be certain that their packages would cut the steel.

plus theres the chance that the wires/detcord hooked to the devices would have been damaged meaning at the very least those individual charges wouldnt go off, or more likely (since they MOST LIKELY would have used a ring main setup, especially if they were military) none of them would go, so then you have unexploded ordinance which would leave evidence behind for someone who's "not in on it" to find.

AND as griff pointed out in a different thread, blowing the core columns a few floors down would still most likely cause the failure at the damaged floor as it would be the weakest area. (am i remembering this correctly griff?) so, put yer packages a few floors down to give the pilot some leeway in his attack and yer set. theoretically.

I'm sure if everybody keeps thinking of different ideas and ways someone will come up with some elaborate way in which control demo might could have happen

Yes, and that's actually what any engineer of the events would have done. He would have done exactly that. Intentionally.

well it pains me to type this, but ive said it before...it would be POSSIBLE to set this up, covertly. given the manpower anything is possible.

but, its a matter of logistics. each column needs 4 charges. X47. Xfloors you wanna blow. thats just for the core, nothing else. then theres the wires/detcord etc.

what id be most interested to know is if anyone that saw these "work crews" noticed a bunch of ropes. (almost seems easiest to rappel down the central shafts to place the charges vs ripping out all that drywall, doing it that way you could easily hit 3/4 of the faces of each column, probably all 4 if the drywall wasnt RIGHT up against the core columns...and they likely wouldnt have been. probably on some kind of stud which would make a space between the drywall and the column which could easily have a hold drilled in it. easy being relative of course as anyone who's ever rappelled knows.)


BUT, just cuz ill concede its possible, doesnt mean i find it probable.

Originally posted by Damocles
but, its a matter of logistics. each column needs 4 charges. X47. Xfloors you wanna blow. thats just for the core, nothing else. then theres the wires/detcord etc.

Why would all that be needed if you can just set fire to the offices on a few floors?

reply to post by ANOK


dont forget the slamming a jet into the building bit seems that was a pretty key part of the equation that day...

though honestly, im suprised thats the bit you keyed in on...after all i did spend most of that post explaining that it COULD be done afterall.

i still just dont see it lol

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by ANOK
What inner concrete core?

You know, I have no idea where the word "concrete" came from in what I wrote. I'm puzzling through it and can't figure it out, because I've looked at the structure so many times. I am, however, an engineer and I was specifying materials yesterday, so please forgive me. Take the word "concrete" out and read it again in context.

You need to look at how the building was designed before you will understand how it collapsed.

I have

Where did the 'extra weight' come from?

Now, you said you understood physics, but then you ask this. The structure didn't gain weight. The upper floors gained inertia when the initial failures occurred and started to move downwards at 9.81m/s per second, which is gravitational accelleration.

The floors themselves didn't hold up the floors above them, the core structure did.

Yes, but the core structure wasn't independant of the floors, was it?

If the floors failed at the spandrel plates what bought the core coluns down?

The floor spans were bolted to a channel that was welded onto the core columns on the interior side, were they not? . Imagine the weight of the upper floors, having started moving, now coming down on the floor below - whats going to happen at the point where the floor connects to the core?

If the floors were shearing off from the columns then what resistance are you talking about?

The intact structure offers resistance to the collapse, up until the point it fails.

The floors didn't sit on top of columns, they hung off the sides, so if the the plates that held them failed they would slide down the columns, which also sounds as silly as global failure from fires.

See my point above.

Were not talking about 'damaging' the central core, it was totally and completely globally collapsed.

Which is perfectly possible if the core structure buckled and/or was snapped by the force of the upper floors collapsing onto the points where the flooring connected onto the core, is it not?

Where did the floor pans go btw? Can you find them in the rubble?

Well, I didn't search the rubble. Where the floor pans ended up is kind of irrelevant to the action of the collapse, but I will venture to say that the force of the impact from the upper floors falling would have negated any structural integrity they offered.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by albie
Stand on it's own? With tonnes of rubble falling on it?

Oh don't be silly, I was talking about the structure itself not during the collapse.

But having said that what rubble was falling on the central core?

Please review your 'pancaking' floors theory and then tell me what rubble would have bought down the central columns, thanx.

Erm, the top several floors. Didn't you see the video? The top floors fell in one big chunk, with a portion of the central column inside it, it bent over and then fell down inside the structure.

Tonnes of it.

Did you not see the video? With the planes and the flames and the running people?

You know, 9/11.

The top floors didn't just turn into powder and then put no force at all on the central column. The very act of the central column weakening and being pulled to one side by the top floors slumping over is going to seriously compromise it's strength. Then the top floors, with the top central coloumn inside it, falls right onto the rest of the central column.

People say the central core was built to hold 5 times the weight. But what do they mean by that?

Did each indvidual floor have the power to carry 5 times? That would be ridiculous. As a standing structure the whole thing can carry 5 times. As a structure that's got it's top floors, a massive chunk of the building, toppling over and falling into the building...no. each floor has to take the weight of that falling block of floors.

Each individual floor was not deisgned to have that much put upon it, at speed. And as each floor gives way, it adds to the weight. The force of all that weight adding up and and adding up.

That's the problem with you guys. You see "built to carry 5 times the weight" and you don't really think that through to the actual circumstance that occured.

Conspiracy theory is BUILT on these misunderstandings.

reply to post by albie


Good theory, and one I've heard often. I'd like a sound, scientific, explanation to all of this.

Again, I don't see this possibility of this NOT being a CD, but if you can explain how many levels fell upon themselves with a "domino" effect, then you have my attention. However, I still don't see conclusive evidence of a CD (the videos don't offer that "flash" effect on EACH floor), but to insinuate that this was a natural collapse is naive to say the least.

So I guess I'm mixed up.

A CD has ALOT of explosives, we didnt see those on 9/11. I Think thermite could be a suspect, but that is almost too obvious for the govmnt to produce. Its so simple, but even thermite couldn't have offered such a perfect blast.

The only debunkers left are those with the "jertfuel" burning theory. Continue to debunk this simple fact, and you will get noticed.

Originally posted by SantaClaus
reply to post by albie

 

Good theory, and one I've heard often. I'd like a sound, scientific, explanation to all of this.

Again, I don't see this possibility of this NOT being a CD, but if you can explain how many levels fell upon themselves with a "domino" effect, then you have my attention. However, I still don't see conclusive evidence of a CD (the videos don't offer that "flash" effect on EACH floor), but to insinuate that this was a natural collapse is naive to say the least.

So I guess I'm mixed up.

A CD has ALOT of explosives, we didnt see those on 9/11. I Think thermite could be a suspect, but that is almost too obvious for the govmnt to produce. Its so simple, but even thermite couldn't have offered such a perfect blast.

The only debunkers left are those with the "jertfuel" burning theory. Continue to debunk this simple fact, and you will get noticed.

Go back and read some of my post on this thread. It's been explained and I also linked to article by Popular mechanics which also explains all these myths. The information is out there just have to look for it. Take the time read the article it explains most everything.