Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The following website has a photo of the exterior primary load bearing supports used at the upper levels at the impact areas of WTC 1 and 2. Quite a bit different than the other photo:

911research.wtc7.net...

Those supports are closely spaced together.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the kind thoughts, i appreciate it. in honesty i cant really disagree with anything you said specifically as a lot of it comes down to perception. you may see something i dont or interpret something we both saw differently than i do.

but you said one thing i couldnt agree with more if i tried:

Originally posted by Insolubrious
If you had all the variables for the device used then it would all make perfect sense I am sure but we don't have those variables, we can only make educated guesses and deduction of the scenario.


and that is sooooo true. im sure you noticed in that other thread i sent you that ALL i calculated was to cut the core. nothing else. once i had done those calcs i felt id already made my point so i didnt bother to go plan out and calculate doing the whole job.

but, the rest of the story so to speak about the line i quoted from you is that it works both ways.

i cant read 5 posts without someone talking about some law of physics this or that and IMO most of the people (not all certainly but most) saying this are oversimplifying. i dont think classic physics could possibly explain what happened and it would likely take a supercomputer running chaos theory a year to model it out (assuming of course said supercomputer wasnt busy playing chess lol)

of course that goes for the OCT side as well...if nist cant explain it with 1000s X more data then we have, how are any of us going to come up with a likely scenario for how those buildings fell? i mean these discussions are great excersises in critical thinking for all of us but thre will come a point when we'll ALL have to admit we're no closer than we were 6 years ago.

and i wont even rant about NIST too much...i honestly think it went something like this:
"well bob, wtf do you think happened?"
"hell i dunno joe, but we gotta tell em something....."

so thanks again insol, mostly for being one of the few that seem to be left that are here to discuss and not get into pissing contests and flame wars.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The following website has a photo of the exterior primary load bearing supports used at the upper levels at the impact areas of WTC 1 and 2. Quite a bit different than the other photo:

911research.wtc7.net...

Those supports are closely spaced together.



That's a very fair point, so please check out my most recent thread about how the impact zones may of been sabotaged.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i dont think classic physics could possibly explain what happened and it would likely take a supercomputer running chaos theory a year to model it out (assuming of course said supercomputer wasnt busy playing chess lol)

of course that goes for the OCT side as well...if nist cant explain it with 1000s X more data then we have, how are any of us going to come up with a likely scenario for how those buildings fell?


well, let me be like jesus, here(for CHRISTMAS!), and give you a parable.

the americans spent one million dollars developing a pen that would write in zero gravity.
the russians used a pencil.


the most complicated answer is not always best. in fact, it is rarely best. (when talking about SCIENCE, that is, and not about mass human sociology/politics).



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


so i guess what i meant by oversimplified was that most people arent taking all of the variables into account, and who can blame them, we dont even know what we dont know so we simply dont HAVE all of the variables, but that doesnt make them any less important.

and i loved the parable, its funny because its true



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The following website has a photo of the exterior primary load bearing supports used at the upper levels at the impact areas of WTC 1 and 2. Quite a bit different than the other photo:


Orion you need to be more specific about what you think are these 'exterior load bearing supports'.

You keep posting links saying this has a pic of the 'exterior load bearing supports', but when I look I can't figure out which pic you are referring to.
Please post the exact pic and if you could mark these supports you are talking about?

All I see is pics of the building with outer mesh structure and the central core, and as per engineering and structural logic the central core is the main load bearing structure. You see it holds up the weigh while the outer walls flex in the wind, if it was the other way around the building wouldn't flex.

Think about it. The outer walls move a lot further than the central core when the building flexes, right? Agreed? So what would be the point of having it do two jobs, because it would have to flex, right? So why not have the central columns take most of the vertical load, seeing as it doesn't move as much when the building flexes, and leave the outer walls to just take mostly the lateral loads? (By default it is going to take some of the vertical load). That makes engineering logic.

Also putting concrete around a structure that flexes is a bad idea, think about that one...



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Also putting concrete around a structure that flexes is a bad idea, think about that one...


wasnt removing the majority of the concrete what allowed them to be built so tall in the first place? cut the concrete and the structure is light enough to go taller no?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so i guess what i meant by oversimplified was that most people arent taking all of the variables into account


You don't have to if there's a demonstrable and verifiable problem with only one of them.

This could be the "x-component" of the momentum of the ejected debris as the towers collapsed. For example, ~80% of the mass landing outside of the footprints means an average of ~80% of the mass of each "floor" division of the building was ejected with a horizontal momentum component all during the collapse. That, in turn, means that only an average of ~20% of the mass of each floor was actually going downwards, ultimately.

It doesn't really matter where how much mass was and when, because the further more mass goes down, the less and less likely it is to end up outside of the footprint without more and more significant amounts of energy being applied to it to increase its acceleration to the appropriate value before it just hits the ground and comes to a halt. For example, you would have to apply a LOT of energy to a perimeter column on the ground floor to send it out 30 feet laterally from the base, compared to a perimeter column 50 floors higher, because the perimeter column 50 floors higher would have a lesser acceleration as it slowly moved horizontally outwards 30 feet.

So, trying to keep all of the mass until the very last second doesn't work, either, if it comes across anyone's mind to suggest it as a problem. I also assume the 20% of the mass that wasn't ejected actually went straight down and transferred all of its energy like it would have to, but I don't know that it actually would. The geometry of the building itself would probably prevent anywhere near a 100% efficient transfer of shock load straight down, even on the individual trusses.


So the question becomes, could 20% of the total PE that was released destroy almost 100% of a tower's welds and connections, an entire structure? The initial amount of PE that was released in the first place was equivalent to masses only small fractions of the entire buildings anyway, and made of the exact same materials. For WTC1, about 13 floors "fell" onto the 97 below, and never slowed down the whole time we could see it. This stuff is why I think the towers were demolished. In terms of basic physics concepts, this stuff makes NO SENSE otherwise.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Do we even need proof, i mean every person who know what controlled demoltions look like say it was controlled.

To me there is no doubt that those buildings were rigged. No skycraper is able to collapse that fast without explosives. You need bombs to do that.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
...wasnt removing the majority of the concrete what allowed them to be built so tall in the first place? cut the concrete and the structure is light enough to go taller no?


That's what I understand, that and saving floor space...



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
All three WTC buildings that 'collapsed' on 9/11 were surely CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS!!!!!!!



ca.youtube.com...





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join