New video of all three towers

reply to post by benoni

---

Concrete turns into dust when the pressure becomes too great for it to handle. Maybe you should pour some concrete and talk to the lab testers that take specimens of concrete from every jobsite in the nation to make sure it will withstand a certain amount of PSI for whatever it is that its being used for.

I think its fair to say that majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists think they are right because of amateur videos on youtube and womenless men living in their mother's basement who think they know all about demolishing a building, how concrete is used in building skyscrapers, how steel reinforcement is used, etc.

I'm sticking with whoever said if it was a controlled demolition, the taxpayers should get a refund because those footings are still left standing at the base. Terrible job. Your all up in the night...

So? The 47 story tall building still did not fall across the street on top of WTC6 did it? Nor did WTC7 even fall in the street between WTC6 and itself, did it? So even with that apparent lean to the south near the end of the video; the building still fell straight down in a near perfect demolition. Correct?

reply to post by SPreston

---

No, not correct.

Try looking at the pictures of the pile left behind. The "outside" (away from the towers) wall was draped over the top of the pile indicating that the building continued its tilt as it fell....far from being a straight down collapse.

reply to post by SPreston

---

No, it did not fall "straight down".
If it did, the roof would be on top of the pile.
What was found on top of the pile? The north face.
How can you say something fell straight down, and then end up having
one whole face laying on top of it? That would mean that the building was tilting to one side and continued to tilt, even though it was falling "down" but with a pronounced lean. Towards the end of the collapse you see the entire top of the WTC7 tilting over almost 30 degrees.

Also looky here:


It would appear that the debris is well across the street. Not very "footprint-y" is it? And what is with the north face side laying on top of the debris?

And here:



We see debris and the north face on top of the pile, and if you look closely, you can even see the east side of the building laying on top of the pile to the left. And the rest of the debris spreads across the street towards the top of the picture.
So not only do these photos disprove the notion that the tower fell "straight down" and "in its foot print" because if anything, it did the exact opposite. No exterior walls would be laying on top of the pile and it wouldnt lean over so far.

The reason why it didn't crush the building across the street is a little more trickier to explain but understanding the design of WTC7 helps. When the collapse initiated, it did start to fall relatively straight down (with exception to the lean that eyewitnesses noticed before collapse). The allows for the height of the building to decrease substantially. This would be a result of the transfer trusses and large wide open space found at the base of WTC7. This open area would allow for it collapse down but, once it starts to collapse on the remaining columns that were over the transfer trusses, they don't let go as quickly, and the building starts to tip moreso. The initial lean was enough that when it stopped moving down, there was enough lateral movement from the initial tilt to allow it to fall over in the way it did.

Now this is not take into account the probability that the WTC7 in fact came apart in sections and what we take as the "global collapse" part is in actuality the final collapse of the shell (exterior) of the building falling over after the insides have already collapsed. This would account for why there was an 18 second event recorded on the seismic graphs during the collapse of WTC7 and the explanation of why the penthouse fell in first. However, no evidence shows anything with explosives.

Well yeah, they are new. But any video would be new.

I just think they are no where near the quality of video I would use as "evidence" of anything. The video's smack of being spliced together, at least to me.

And Happy New Year back at ya :-)

reply to post by GenRadek

---

Thanks for posting those pics. I have a hard time looking at them though.

Everytime I look at pics from 9/11, I get angry.

Angry at the terrorists who did it.

Angry at OBL and his buddies.

Angry at the nutjobs who say that it never happened.

Angry at the others who say that "we" did it.

The truth is right there in those pics.

reply to post by GenRadek

---

One more thing. You can very clearly see that the debris from WTC 7 is actually leaning against another building. Not sure which building that is, but if that is a "controlled demolition" then they flubbed it.

reply to post by lunarminer

---

Says you. Prior to 9/11 no skyscrapers that tall had ever been demolished explosively. Smaller skyscrapers that have been demolished with explosives also cause damage to surrounding buildings, which is why they wouldn't be allowed in dense cities like Manhattan where property is very valuable. So a building of that size, coming down completely to the ground at free-fall and also managing to have at least 95% of its mass still entirely within its footprint (and SOME of it fell over onto all four surrounding streets, as could be reasonably expected, so the leaning was not that pronounced in any one direction) -- that is an excellent controlled demolition.

reply to post by bsbray11

---

Except we know from seismic and video that the collapse of WTC 7 was not a "free fall" event. It took a minimum of 18 seconds for the collapse from the video and seismic records. And thats just the collapse portion that was large enough to register on the seismograph. Who knows just exactly when the interior structure started collapsing.

yes, it does. if they had used the right bolts and not the cheaper ones, the titanic would NOT have sunked, at least not that quick, which would have resulted in lesser loss of life, maybe none. this was proven in the documentary that i saw years ago, were the researcer tested the different bolts under pressure which corresponded with the pressure from the iceberg.
ofcourse the experts and other people was under the impression that it was unsinable, and it most likely would have been, if the right were used

but this is off topic, sorry

reply to post by bsbray11

---

How was it controlled? There were no seismographic indications of high explosives and no witnesses or evidence of high explosive detonations. The firemen said that the building was leaning and that the front face had severe damage. Fires burned for seven hours, unabated. After the fire crews left, it stood for quite a while before falling.

The evidence says that a fatally damaged building collapsed.

I suppose you also think the sky is not usually blue, but some number of trivial shades of colors that are not quite "blue." Would you jump onto someone for calling the sky blue?




What you can see of the roof line collapsing (symmetrically, with all 4 corners dropping simultaneously, btw -- small triviality I know) is right at 9.8m/s^2 to within a small enough margin of error that it could easily be on the dot and still fit the analysis. I know because I have seen several different analyses and have even done one to see for myself, thank you, and NIST is the latest to have done the same thing and even admit that at least a 2.5 second period of time was a total free-fall, which they could not match with computer simulations.



The largest seismic event occurred before the global collapse. NIST attributed this event (Penthouse collapse) with the failure of a single column. To demonstrate to you that you have no idea what you are looking at when you see the seismic data, I could ask why a single column failing would create a seismic signal so much greater than that of the rest of the entire building free-falling to the ground, but I doubt you would wonder for very long before coming up with the first excuse to stop thinking.



I know. There were "secondary explosions" after both towers collapsed, up until WTC7 collapsed. These are the explosions that you hear in some videos, that news anchors talked about, and that even registered as significant events on FEMA's seismic charts that they published.

Don't get me confused, I know there is a way to make a building free-fall to the ground, not even losing so much time as for drag from the air. But it isn't by setting it on fire and then throwing some columns into the face of it, unfortunately.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by bsbray11]

You can't honestly tell me you know that.



Lots of reports of explosions and very destructive blasts coming from the basements, but you guys always explain them away with something else without ever proving (or debunking) anything.



Obviously not the whole thing, until it was about halfway into its global collapse. Craig Bartmer was a NYPD officer who was at WTC7 when it collapsed, and he witnessed explosions ripping out of the ground floor right in his face. Look up the interview with him on YouTube for a different opinion of that building's state prior to collapse, and why it collapsed. He was there too.



You mean the face on the South? There was also damage to the SW corner that spanned about 18 floors, but it was well-photographed and everyone agrees it was a superficial amount of damage. There was damage on the South face that reportedly spanned about as many floors, but we have no clear photographs of it and everyone only tries speculating as to the worst it could have possibly been and if that would be enough to possibly cause a failure. NIST's latest report admits that it was ultimately fire that "must have" caused WTC7 to collapse and not impact damages.



Yawn. I could post much more severe high-rise fires, even from the relatively tiny 8- or 9-story WTC4, 5 and 6.



While there were people out there actually saying that the building was going to be taken down, remember.



A building certainly came down. "Fatally damaged" has been hotly debated from the start.

Another thing for the Truthers to contemplate. If the conspiracy is so obvious then it should be a simple matter to produce evidence. And no I do not mean grainy videos. Actual physical evidence.

All the "evidence" I have seen on internet forums is not evidence at all. Rather it is theory and conjecture, citing the lack of confounding evidence as proof.

Have you ever contemplated the difficulty in effecting such a conspiracy and not leaving any physical evidence?

reply to post by bsbray11

---

You said “Craig Bartmer was a NYPD officer who was at WTC7 when it collapsed, and he witnessed explosions ripping out of the ground floor right in his face.”
It might surprise you to know that HE demolition noise is quite different from the noise of falling beams and compressed air blowing out windows. I’m sure Craig heard things going bang and saw stuff flying but he wasn’t a demolitions expert, was he? The set up time and amount of explosives necessary to drop a 40+ story building are much greater than many would have you believe. Even using shaped cutter charges, they would have to be really big to chop the verticals of that building. This isn’t an old railroad bridge. You’d also have to chop a lot of horizontals and then you’d have to boot the whole thing sideways a couple of feet to get it to fall. This would take lots of explosives for an uncut, un-cabled building, and a big team with a lot of time to set them. The blasting would be obvious and Craig would have really heard some noise. Please don’t say it was prewired and precut months in advance because aside from being really dangerous, it would have been impossible to hide. You probably secretly know this, but can’t accept it because you like conspiracies and need a little group hate of the government. The same government that everyone berates for being completely incompetent was clever enough to come up with a Rube Goldberg plan, execute it flawlessly, and completely cover it up. Then those geniuses left evidence laying around for armchair detectives to discover based on videos shot at the scene.
Simple plans are the best plans and the simple plan was to fly big airplanes into the two biggest targets as low on the buildings as possible and then sit back and wait. Nothing good could possibly come of it and nothing good did come of it.
If there was any conspiracy to 911, it was a conspiracy of those who flew the planes into the WTC towers. What many conspiracists fail to realize is that fuel laden commercial aircraft flown by suicidal maniacs are the most dangerous non-nuclear cruise missiles in the world and need no extra explosives, missiles, lasers, plasma generators, or thermite cutters. They are not obvious threats until they are in a terminal flight path. They can hide in the clutter. You can’t jam their guidance systems. They can play doggo and sound confused on the net or claim emergencies as reason for their maneuvers. No military pilot would hesitate to lock up on a foreign attack platform and shoot it down, but a US passenger aircraft with a bad radio or one that has declared an emergency is a different story.

It was the airplanes that did the job. Nothing else was needed.

That is a 47 story building and it is only halfway across the street. The WTC was a deliberate destruction of property, with almost 3000 innocent people and firemen trapped inside. They obviously were not trying to minimize damage; but regardless WTC7 was a good classic demolition with the known damage to the south side fron the 8000 pound exterior wall sections hurled into WTC7 from the explosions in WTC1, preventing a perfect demolition. The buildings on each side of WTC7 were barely damaged by the falling 47 story building.

Which airplane did the job on WTC7? Flight 93? It never got there did it?

So something else was needed on WTC7 wasn't it?

reply to post by SPreston

---

Yes, Preston. The WTC did the job on #7.

Try this out. Big airplanes cause towers to fall. Big pieces of Towers land on WTC #7. Damaged WTC#7 catches on fire and burns for seven hours or so. Then it collapses.

Nothing else needed.

Seems your wasting your time preston...although i am sure there are many on here who appreciate your efforts.

They've drunk the Koolaid, or are on the payroll....

it can be nothing else mate...pure disinfo...

Well, they actually ask him if he thought it was part of the building collapsing, and he said no, that he knew what a bomb going off looked and sounded like when he saw one. This is all in the interview, which is on YouTube, like I said, so don't take my word for it.

Not even having viewed this guy's testimony, you're already changing what he said to fit what you believe when the guy's testimony is 100% as legitimate as any you could name. The firefighters who saw the building "leaning" were also not structural engineers or experienced with skyscraper collapses at all and could have had no idea how much damage was done to that building or if it would have fallen because of it. So what's the difference? Why pick apart my witnesses and make excuses, but not your own? You're not very objective.

I never said conventional devices did it. I never said what did it. I was actually never paid to investigate. The rest of your post being mostly just statements of your opinion, not really much else to respond to.