Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

1-uhhh, yes I have, you do have a short memory don't you?

2-OK prove to me a deflagration could have caused that damage.

3-Your argument has always been that explosions in the basement were caused by jet fuel running down elevator shafts and igniting.

4-But deflagrations have no explosive blast wave

5-to destroy anything as solid as a 50 ton press (that weighs 500lbs).

6-I don't have to show you anything, I know this from personal experience and knowledge of basic physics.

7- because a deflagration is not an explosion.


1- *Snip* You haven't proven a damn thing. You haven't introduced any evidence at all. The only thing you're relying on is personal incredulity.

2- I gave you a calc that accounted for the door quote. Start from there, and tell me why it is wrong. Then we'll have a place to start from.

3- *Snip*. I was argueing with Griff, before you ever arrived, that they were deflagrations, not explosions. And that deflagrations couldn't account for enough explosive force to be the sole reason for the ext columns ending up 500' away, the OT. I also argued with him, for several posts, that explosives weren't necessary to destroy the marble and/or granite panels in the lobby.

4- correct, they don't have a blast wave that is equivalent to high explosives. However, they do have a lower pressure wave that can still do damage. Typically 2-3 psi vs 40psi for high explosives. Then it takes math to determine if there is force behind it. I've done this math. You have avoided it, citing your expertise - without demonstration - of physics that proves you right. IOW, an argument from incredulity, *Snip*

5- ah, finally an answer. Where does Peccaro say it was destroyed? He says it was gone. It is a false assertion to say that this means it was destroyed. To the contrary, he repeatedly says he found rubble everywhere.

6- see number 4. This is because you have no idea how to make any calcs at all. Your claim of competence in physics *Snip* until you can demonstrate otherwise.

7- explosions are a troofer's claim, not mine. Therefore, you have constructed a strawman. Try again.

*Snip*

MOD Note: Review This Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected



[edit on 1/11/2009 by semperfortis]




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
7- explosions are a troofer's claim, not mine. Therefore, you have constructed a strawman. Try again.

That's funny, Seymour. I thought that there were witnesses who reported explosions inside the towers. Maybe I was wrong? Please correct me if I was. Did any witnesses report explosions inside the towers?



Really, you need to quit lying if you want to debate anything. Although it DOES show to any lurkers out there just what kind of delusional trolls troofers really are....

Lurkers can see who has failed to substantiate their claims in this thread. I agree with you there.

The last time I called someone a liar, I was fined 500 points and warned by a moderator. I've never done it again. I learnt my lesson. I guess that you're lucky to get away with it. We'll see how long your luck lasts, hey?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- *Snip*. I was argueing with Griff, before you ever arrived, that they were deflagrations, not explosions. And that deflagrations couldn't account for enough explosive force to be the sole reason for the ext columns ending up 500' away, the OT. I also argued with him, for several posts, that explosives weren't necessary to destroy the marble and/or granite panels in the lobby.


Bolding by me. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing that the jet fuel deflagrations/explosions were the sole reason for the exterior columns landing those distances? Again, please don't place words in my mouth.


4- correct, they don't have a blast wave that is equivalent to high explosives. However, they do have a lower pressure wave that can still do damage. Typically 2-3 psi vs 40psi for high explosives.


Do you not agree that something, falling straight down (vertical) during a collapse or even already on an arching trajectory from moments, is hit with a 2-3 psi wave would now have an added horizontal component? Or 40 psi for high explosives or even a thermobaric going off?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here are a few more FREE videos out of hundreds, dealing with the top-down demolition of the WTC Towers and the ordinary demolition of WTC7. Dozens of CIT and P4T videos are also freely available, dealing with the false 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



Rapid ejection of debris on the northwest corner of the tower.
Regular speed & 50% slow motion.



A newly released high resolution edited video of the South Tower, North Tower, and WTC 7 demolitions. Larger video versions located here. Patience required; this high resolution video takes a long time to load. A high quality DivX version can be downloaded from the right side of the YouTube video and viewed with a DivX player. It looks real good and you will have your own copy for posterity.



WTC Victim Gartenberg Live On ABC; Core was blown from the inside out

Trapped on the 86th floor of WTC1 by blocked fire doors, Mr James M Gartenberg (age - 36) was just 8 floors below where the aircraft struck. Mr Gartenberg was on the east side of the North Tower facing the East River and the aircraft struck on the northeast side of the North Tower. The core must have blown towards Mr Gartenberg else how could he have seen it? The inner glass was blown out on the 86th floor, but not the outer glass according to Mr Gartenberg. Therefore the heavy core blowing out was almost at right angle to the direction of the aircraft inertia. Eight floors lower and the heavy core blowing out can only be explained by planted demolition charges. Jet fuel burning could not possibly exert that much force 8 floors below the impact zone.




Jim: . . . . part of the core of the building is blown out . . .

. . . . . . .

Female anchor: What time did you get to work?

Jim: I got to work around 8 o'clock this morning, and . . I think this happened about 8:45.

Female anchor: It did. Describe what you felt.

Jim: I felt .. eh .. I felt . . just the whole build .. I heard a noise, felt the building shake, saw glass blown out.
The glass on my floor was blown out from the inside of the building out; rather than the exterior windows being blown out.

Female anchor: What were you

Jim: the glass fully shattered with the core of the building .. ehh .. and the interior core, ehh part of the building collapsed.

Female anchor: SILENCE
Male anchor: SILENCE

Jim: hello


Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses, previously interviewed in 2001 by the Center for Military History, prove beyond any doubt that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex. The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY does not allow for the aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex or anywhere near the Naval Annex.

Part 1

Google Video Link


Part 2

Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

David S Chandler

The wave of horizontal mass ejection moving down the face of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to move faster than heavy debris falling through air nearby.




More evidence that the WTC1 blast wave was running far ahead of the actual collapse wave.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

posted by ANOK
Why are people even still hanging on to the silly notion that jet fuel flowed down elevator shafts?

What is the point of this argument? We have already shown that jet fuel would not have caused the damage to the lobby and basement. So the amount of fuel, or whether there was any at all, is irrelevant.

So what if fuel did flow down elevator shafts? It still doesn't explain how the lobby and basement were damaged.

The debunkers have already admitted it was an explosion that caused the damage, you've all been saying that all along, problem is you wanted the jet fuel to have been the catalyst for that explosion.
But unfortunately jet fuel doesn't explode in open air.

So why is the jet fuel so important to you? It doesn't answer the question of explosions in the basement/lobby? I know, you don't have anything else, but you don't want to question the 'official story' you just want everyone else to fall for it like you did.



No debunkers or pseudoskeptics or government loyalists any longer insisting that jet fuel flowing down the elevator shafts caused the explosions in the basement and lobby levels?

"But unfortunately jet fuel doesn't explode in open air."

So what then did cause those massive explosions? Magic? Truck bombs? Sewer gas?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
The Brits badly screw up another one. Should have hired the 9-11 perps to do a demolition right. Those balconies would have been hurled 600 feet in every direction, most everything else pulverized, and any remaining evidence quickly shipped to China.

Well at least the people living on the top floors won't have as many flights of stairs to climb.




Hmmm. . . . . . . .

They might need to get some sticky thingies to keep their dinnerware on the tables.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
A very revealing photo showing how the 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in almost every direction at the WTC by the top-down explosive forces. Also note how the core columns and aluminum cladding are scattered.



Source



Edit: To see the hi-rez photo, copy the address from the source into an address line on a new page.



[edit on 6/10/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

posted by Pilgrum
There *could* have been things exploding in there


posted by tezzajw
That's all I wanted you to state, Pilgrum. Thanks.

You admit that there could have been explosions inside the towers.

It doesn't matter how round-about you think that my proof was, it was able to show that explosions could have occured inside the towers.


After the top 13 floors of WTC 1 crushed-up, the remaining 97 floors allegedly crushed down one floor at a time, somehow pulverizing each floor and its contents and concrete floor to fine dust. WTC 1 allegedly one floor at a time developed the energy through gravity alone, to hurl 4 ton sections of steel and multi-ton larger sections 600 feet away onto other buildings. BS. A steel-framed building is built to support the floors above with highly redundant strength built in.

Regardless, all that cascading effect would take lots and lots of time, as connections were broken and succeeding floors were crushed. On the North Tower, starting at the 97th floor a crush time of one second per floor would take 97 seconds for the 97th floor to reach ground level. One second (say one thousand and one) is a mighty fast timespan, to crush a 44,100 square foot floor area and pulverize all it's contents and its concrete floor into fine dust.

But NIST and the seismic records officially claim 10 seconds and 9 seconds for the near-freefall collapse of WTC 1. Where do you think the missing 87 seconds plus 9 seconds approximate free-fall time disappeared to? How could 97 floors of welded and bolted steel and concrete, crush and pulverize into fine dust while hurling 4 ton pieces of outer wall sections 600 feet away from the tower, in a mere 10 seconds?

And since all that 110 story steel frame is welded and bolted together, and it was going to fail anyway, why didn't it fail at the bottom also and crush upwards from the bottom?



As each floor was pulverized and the alleged crush wave moved downward, there would be less and less total weight on the bottom floors. So why did the bottom floors wait until it was their turn before crushing and pulverizing? Why didn't they crush and pulverize into dust right at the very beginning of the collapse? Very suspicious isn't it?



WTC 7 allegedly crushed from the bottom up. Why did the towers (except for the top 30 floors on WTC2 and the top 13 floors on WTC 1) crush from the top down? What made them different? Why didn't they just stop crushing when they got down to floors undamaged by heat or fire or aircraft impact? Why did floors wait until there was less mass and load on them, before they decided to crush and pulverize into fine dust?





[edit on 7/19/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
way to be preston keep up the good work.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

After the top 13 floors of WTC 1 crushed-up, the remaining 97 floors allegedly crushed down one floor at a time, somehow pulverizing each floor and its contents and concrete floor to fine dust. WTC 1 allegedly one floor at a time developed the energy through gravity alone, to hurl 4 ton sections of steel and multi-ton larger sections 600 feet away onto other buildings. BS. A steel-framed building is built to support the floors above with highly redundant strength built in.

Regardless, all that cascading effect would take lots and lots of time, as connections were broken and succeeding floors were crushed. On the North Tower, starting at the 97th floor a crush time of one second per floor would take 97 seconds for the 97th floor to reach ground level. One second (say one thousand and one) is a mighty fast timespan, to crush a 44,100 square foot floor area and pulverize all it's contents and its concrete floor into fine dust.

But NIST and the seismic records officially claim 10 seconds and 9 seconds for the near-freefall collapse of WTC 1. Where do you think the missing 87 seconds plus 9 seconds approximate free-fall time disappeared to? How could 97 floors of welded and bolted steel and concrete, crush and pulverize into fine dust while hurling 4 ton pieces of outer wall sections 600 feet away from the tower, in a mere 10 seconds?

And since all that 110 story steel frame is welded and bolted together, and it was going to fail anyway, why didn't it fail at the bottom also and crush upwards from the bottom?

As each floor was pulverized and the alleged crush wave moved downward, there would be less and less total weight on the bottom floors. So why did the bottom floors wait until it was their turn before crushing and pulverizing? Why didn't they crush and pulverize into dust right at the very beginning of the collapse? Very suspicious isn't it?

[edit on 7/19/09 by SPreston]


Its quite amazing how you argue about CD, and yet when you talk about how WTC1 and 2 were designed, you have no clue what you are talking about. I thought by now, after 8 years of your "investigating" you would hav known that the WTC towers were not your average steel framed highrises. They were tube-in-tube designes, totally different from a steel frame. A steel framed building has a skeleton frame of vertical steel beams and horizontal steel I-beams, constructed in a rectangular grid to support the floors, roofs, and walls of the building.
www.answers.com...

Now then, the WTC Twin Towers were NOT, I repeat, NOT, steel framed. They were "tube-in-tube" design. Why is this a big deal? You move all the interior vertical columns and put them outside on the perimeter as a larger tube, and the larger, main columns inside in a smaller tube. There were no I-beams supporting the floors. The floors were connected by light steel trusses. One end of the truss was connected to the core area, the other, connected to the exterior columns. The exterior columns were not solid 110 floor columns, but made up of sections of 10x30ft trees, of three columns, 30ft high each, connected together in a sort of "tree". They were bolted together on the ends. What is the point of a tube-in-tube design? You have much large floor space, than in a steel framed building. The building is also more flexible. There were no vertical beams anywhere between the core and the exterior columns. Hence, tube-in-tube.

Also, the collapse times were not 8 and 10 seconds. From NIST:


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

wtc.nist.gov...
Did you pay close attention to the bold words? Elapsed time for the FIRST exterior panels to strike the ground. Not collapse of the building. These were the first debris pieces to hit the ground. The whole tower has not yet collapsed at this point SPreston. Another bit of disinfo spread by you busted.

Two arguments that are nothing more than disinfo, by you, have been busted. SPreston, stop with it already. You go after everyone else that actually has a valid argument agianst the conspiracy nonsense, and label them shills, disinfo agents, govt loyalists, and yet here you are spreading disinfo and shilling away for the conspiracy which day by day is getting weaker and weaker. When nonsense that has been debunked ages ago is being brought back up as new "proof" and "evidence" we can tell you have nothing.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


These sections could have just as easily been pinched. Pressure from above could cause them to store kinetic energy and as the debris fell away it was released with a spring type effect. since the pressure came from above and the lower floors still offered resistance it could cause the wall panels to fly a bit upwards.

Try it with a very tight spring. Press it down and inwards then release it. It will fly up and out. I am no scientist or engineer so it is possible the stuctural steel would not bend like I envision, but a couple of foot bend would probably be enough to force this type of ejection.

I don't think everything was quite kosher about 9/11, but I do not view this as proof of any kind.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by djeminy
 


These sections could have just as easily been pinched. Pressure from above could cause them to store kinetic energy and as the debris fell away it was released with a spring type effect. since the pressure came from above and the lower floors still offered resistance it could cause the wall panels to fly a bit upwards.


Problem is there was no resistance, as the collapse was too fast, and consistent, for there to have been any resistance. Even if there was resistance the facade mesh pieces would not act like springs.

A 'spring' is designed to return to its original shape after pressure on it is released. A steel column is not designed that way, and so it's not a good assumption to believe it would act the same way as a 'spring' would. If there was enough pressure to bend those huge sections of facade 'mesh' they would have probably stayed bent, not spring back to their original shape. You can try this yourself if you can get hold of some construction steel and a press. The piece will bend but not spring back to it's original shape.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Problem is there was no resistance, as the collapse was too fast


How fast should it have fallen then?

Troofers make this claim all the time, and yet when asked, they don't have the answer.

What an illogical claim to make then - troofers have no answer to that, and yet remain convinced that they're right.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


It's not possible to say how fast it should have fell, the only thing we can do is observe the collapse wave and the fact that it was constant in it's speed, which indicates lack of resistance.

If there was any discernible resistance it would be very obvious as the collapse would have slowed as it progressed, no resistance no slowing, resistance lots of slowing. The only way to keep a collapse moving through the path of most resistance is to take away that resistance. Simple physics.

Do you understand now? And I'm not a 'truther', please don't stereotype me, I have my own intellect to work from not some organized 'group think'. I don't need anyone to tell me how to think, or form my opinion for me.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Here is more proof of explosions:

At 1:29:00 of this video, there is a distint scene where a man covers his
ears, "shrieks", and turns around in an instant. They are standing very
far away from the North tower at this time, however the intensity of the
explosion creates this reaction:

wedemandtransparency.com...

Be patient, it takes a while to buffer when you slide the marker to the
1:29:00 point. I suggest letting the video begin from the start and then
pulling the time marker over.

You may also see other video testimony around 1:25 and forward.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
OK one more time for the kids at home.

It is very possible that the force of the building pushing down could have laterally ejected the pieces of steel. Lets all take a moment to drink that in.


Now lets look at the model of collapse that we were given by NIST; global failure. It IS NOT possible under this model, there would need to be much resistance below those huge pieces of steel to force them out laterally. Global failure does not allow for this.

So this phenomenon is possible, but not possible under the results of the current investigation, which means we need a new one.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The NIST model is a joke. Any GL supporting the NIST model needs a head shake.

How can you support a model which uses ZERO as the thermal conductivity factor?

How can you support a model which does NOT agree with the floor testing
(which was overloaded and over temperature AND STILL DID NOT FAIL)?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You catch more flies with honey than vinegar good sir. We are both saying the same thing, I'm just trying to present it in a light so that someone who has read the NIST report will have to agree or admit it was wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Agree. I was reinforcing your point; hopefully I did not come across as
contradicting you.

One other thing to notice in the video link in my previous post:

By the time the witness turns his head, and the camera points to the
north tower (half a second?), the top of the tower is gone and there is
a huge ball of dust.

Tell me gravity can do all that damage in half a second and make a dust
cloud that large? NOT ENOUGH ENERGY AVAILABLE BY GRAVITY ALONE!





top topics
 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join