WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

reply to post by plube


I don't really understand why you use those two examples as rule. You already admit the plane was smaller and the speed lower. Also the amount of fuel should be much lower. The apartment building was much smaller, and did not have to support a massive weight above impact point. And besides, they are different buildings. Just because one or two buildings behave in a certain way, doesn't mean all do. That is just flawed logic. This whole line of reasoning is flawed, see this page. It just doesn't prove anything.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What many people kinda over look i think is that the WTC were built to possibly take multiple hits from the same planes. And Concrete floors collapsing would make one one huge noise not multiple bursts in my mind.

i can't believe that people still believe it was a bunch of morons saudi's who did this. First of all its IMPOSSIBLE for huge buildings such as wtc to collapse like that. they are built to last even if planes crash into them. and also what about the third building ? HELLO? wake the # up

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


SPOT ON!, VitriolAndAngst.

You're absolutely right but unfortunately you might as well be preaching to the choir. The "Reality Defense Shield" once employed filters all incoming messages but if it does start to weaken, the "Shouting Obscenities and Insults Backup Shield" kicks in. We see it everyday, post after post, and I personally have finally learned not to waste time trying to get through these defenses.

It's really helpful to discuss theories with an aim of determining their strengths and weaknesses. It's practical and productive.

Trying to stifle discussion because you're violently opposed to the theory is extremely unhealthy.

Keep up the good work!

JJ

Originally posted by tmpxvx
i can't believe that people still believe it was a bunch of morons saudi's who did this. First of all its IMPOSSIBLE for huge buildings such as wtc to collapse like that. they are built to last even if planes crash into them. and also what about the third building ? HELLO? wake the # up

People will wake up when CDers start backing up their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. So far, no CDers have done this, otherwise we would've known about it already (and please don't go all Conspiracy Theorist on me and say "Well you see, the media is in on it too"). Steel can be weakened, hence why steel structures are fireproofed. For some reason CDers fail to understand this. The plane hit the building and in addition to causing a fire, structural damage, damaging the sprinkler system, removed the fireproofing from said damaged structures (same with building 7 but with debris). Fireproofing doesn't work when it's separated from the structures. For some reason the CDers who know the building was fireproofed also fail to understand this. What CDers also don't understand is that explosives are very audible in controlled demolitions, not to mention visible prior to implosion. There were no sequential flashes or bangs prior to the collapse of the twin towers or building 7. Any bangs heard or flashes seen either occurred during the collapse, or prior to the collapse, but in numbers for too small to conclude controlled demolition. Face it, the whole idea of controlled demolition is nothing than it looking like it's a controlled demolition, which is no different than the Apollo Moon Landing footage looking fake, or the world around looking like it was designed by a creator. That's problem with CDers: They focus too much on what something looks like, instead of collecting facts to back up their claims.

reply to post by smurfy

Originally posted by smurfy
WT7 was hit by rubble, but not a 'plane. The trouble is that it is okay to theorise about WT7, but not about the twin towers.

Sorry smurfy but I don't understand your comment here. Why is it NOT okay to theorise about the twin towers? As far as I'm concerned, everyone's entitled to theorise until the cows come home. I think it's a healthy occupation as long as you're doing it with an open mind and with the goal of increasing knowledge.

I probably just missed the point. Wouldn't be the first time.

reply to post by plube


" ... there is a fireman still in the pic...the clean up effort did not require firemen to be present. "

You can't be serious . You're kidding , right ?

For starters , how many days/weeks were the firefighters on scene putting water on the debris field ?

How long were firefighters on scene as part of rescue/recovery ?

Do you honestly believe that debris removal would not have been a major requirement for rescue/recovery operations ?

Do you honestly believe that the firefighters would have just 'packed up and called it a day' after the brunt of the fires were contained ?

And , why the attitude ? I was civil in my post to you but , you come back at me with such a contemptuous attitude .

I too , have extensive experience in the field . Construction and demolition . For you to claim that the cuts would not be made like that , is misunderstanding on your part .

I have personally made those type of cuts MYSELF , when deconstructing buildings .

If you truly understand the process , then you wouldn't make such wild claims such as that type of cut would cause it to slide off .

The bottom section of that angle would be the last cut that is made . Cutting the other three sides first allows the beam to lean and then tilt and then fall in the direction of the angle . Once it has fallen , the final cut will be made across the bottom . Don't even try to BS me on this one . Been there and done that way too many times for you to come here and tell me that I'm wrong .

And what part of the link with the pictures of the ironworker making those cuts , did you not understand ? I mean , there it is , PLAIN AS DAY , an ironworker in a sky-lift , using a torch to make those angled cuts .

But then , you turn around and tell me this is not the case .

Please explain yourself .

sites.google.com...

There it is again . IRONWORKER MAKING ANGLED CUT AS PART OF THE CLEANUP PROCESS .

[edit on 8-9-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 8-9-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by plube


plube - I've been following your contributions to this thread and want you to know that I am glad to see your common sense backed up by knowledge and experience approach. You've also helped clear up any misgivings about the angled cuts. As most photos aren't date/time stamped, it was impossible to be sure that someone hadn't been out cutting beams. Your statement about using square cuts for demolition makes perfect sense and fits with the photos I've seen showing beams loaded onto trucks for removal. There were several photos at www.drjudywood.com (yes, the beam weapon theorist) but having spent 45 minutes trawling the site, I couldn't find them. However, I bumped into photos that I'd forgotten about and some that I hadn't seen before since the site is a bit of a maze.

Despite the wacky theory, this www.drjudywood.com has some of the best photos around and they've highlighted details that my eye would have missed.

People make a big deal about WTC 7 and rightly so but just overlook the telltale evidence from WTC 4, 5 and 6 that to me speak volumes. However, I'll work that into a new post once I've done a bit more research.

OK back to work!

reply to post by JohnJasper


Here we go , one more time . Just in case you still have any misgivings about the origin of the angled cuts .

Please note the ironworker USING A TORCH TO MAKE THE ANGLED CUTS .

sites.google.com...

reply to post by technical difficulties


There were actually 2 witnesses inside WTC 7 that heard and knocked over by explosions even before the twin towers collapsed.

Dwaine Deets has started a website outlining 7 important questions regarding the collapse of WTC 7. Link below.

Dwaine Deets is currently retired after 37 years with NASA, where he worked as an aeronautical engineer and flight director for Aerospace Projects.




[edit on 8-9-2010 by Skyline74]

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Skyline74]

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
Maybe you'll notice that when they collapse (EVEN WITHOUT WINDOWS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL), a lot of sound happens as well as almost explosive noises. NO EXPLOSIVES.

Explain this away, you so-called truther.

Varemia - nice find! Having "proved" that a building can collapse into dust by taking out a few floors, it was bound to be used by the industry sooner or later.

Apologies if someone has already pointed this out but both buildings appeared to be made of something other than steel. This might be important but I'm no expert.

Another key problem is obvious from the photo below. Notice how, unlike the french demolitions, the top of the building is not falling straight down on the lower floors?

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by Varemia

 

Originally posted by Varemia
Maybe you'll notice that when they collapse (EVEN WITHOUT WINDOWS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL), a lot of sound happens as well as almost explosive noises. NO EXPLOSIVES.

Explain this away, you so-called truther.

Varemia - nice find! Having "proved" that a building can collapse into dust by taking out a few floors, it was bound to be used by the industry sooner or later.

Apologies if someone has already pointed this out but both buildings appeared to be made of something other than steel. This might be important but I'm no expert.

Another key problem is obvious from the photo below. Notice how, unlike the french demolitions, the top of the building is not falling straight down on the lower floors?

Yes, those are slight problems. However, there is a pdf linked in the videos that explains the physics behind why the Trade Towers still fell.

No amount of math and physics will convince a conspiracy theorist, but it's always worth a try.

reply to post by okbmd

Originally posted by okbmd
Here we go , one more time . Just in case you still have any misgivings about the origin of the angled cuts .

Please note the ironworker USING A TORCH TO MAKE THE ANGLED CUTS .

sites.google.com...

Sorry. Not being obtuse but I cannot see the ironworker (assuming you mean the guy on the cherry picker) actually doing anything at that moment. It's hard to tell which way he's facing but other than the fact that he's there and there's smoke and there is a partially angle-cut beam in the vicinity, I'm hard pressed to draw any strong conclusions from this photo.

Having said that, your explanation sounds plausible even if it doesn't make sense to me why he'd be making that cut.

reply to post by JohnJasper


Fair enough , you are entitled to your opinion without me forcing mine onto you .

But , it is obvious to me that the ironworker is making that cut .

He is at the beam with the cut in it .
There is smoke , indicative of a flame .
There are torch hoses running up into the sky-lift .
A torch head is visible , as he holds it out over the rail of the lift .
A substitute torch head is visible , leaning upright in the corner of the lift .

All of this indicates to me that he is indeed making that cut .

reply to post by -PLB-


So just believing that three steel structures fell in such a fashion is not flawed .....man....how silliy is that....what i am showiing is that things are not as they seem...DUH i know the differnce between incidences....but for me to belive that steel structure behave in a totally irrational fashion is completely beyond common sense.

reply to post by okbmd

Sorry m8 i have a huge problem with that image as it does not show anything other than the aluminium cladding being cut away to expose the steel underneath. but there is something interesting there....why is there a cut in the steel which does not penetrate the smaller cross member.

plus if you look at the cross diagonal cut in the ACTUAL steel there is nothing neat or tidy about the cut.

I have used many cutting torches to cut steel and it is difficult to get really neat straight cuts using a cutting torch.

and that picture just shows it in plain sight....so thanks for that.

reply to post by plube


You are not really making sense. There is tons and tons of evidence that those towers fell in such a fashion, so it isn't a matter of belief. The matter under discussion is what caused the collapse in such a fashion. Then you claim that it could not have been the planes and to support this claim you come with two other examples where a plane crashed into a building which did not collapse

I am saying that that specific line of reasoning is flawed. It only proves that buildings seem to react differently when a plane crashes into them, depending on the type, speed, and load of the plane, the size, material, construction method and point of impact of the building. Even the difference between the two examples you come with are huge, including the resulting damage to the buildings.

If you fail to see this flaw in your logic, then I don't see how you can come to a sensible conclusion.

reply to post by JohnJasper


It is very important as there is no way that you could possibly take that approach with a steel structure as it would not collapse on itself....when a steel structure is demolished the most cost effect way is by heavy machinery taking it down from top down....Or you would used explosives to cut the steel framework in the proper places ....and you can't just do it on the bottom floors you have to segment the entire structure in order to control the collapse.

You can simply search youtube for a video where the demolition workers tell they are cutting the columns. I don't see how this could be evidence for a conspiracy to anyone.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by -PLB-


IT is very simple for me to come to that conclusion....it is a STEEL structure....hit by an ALUMINIUM plane...NIST has not said it is the plane that brought the buildings down....it was the FIRE.....The fires was not even hot enought to melt the ALUMINIUM cladding so how could one ever conclude that it had enough heat to melt the steel.

I showed a pic of where...now listen carfully....WHERE an ATOMIC bomb left metal whole....and that metal was not even close to the grade used in the twin towers.

I am sorry that you are so willing to believe the OS.

now the plane that hit the empire state building was a b-25 bomber.....it was 15tons
It hit on the 79th floor of the building....so there are still 23 floors on top.

there was a fire ....so i think it is a fairly relevant example...maybe not perfect...but definately relevant.

now i dont know why i try to explain these possibilities when all you personally do in not show anything to support your side. Please start to show how you explain what you think.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f53b8c328e1c.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b05e9170dc94.jpg[/atsimg]

i have been looking at things through knowledge...my own profession and through common sense.

One tower fell approximately 1hr after it got struck...that is not enough time to cause such a failure from fire.
But,like i say why do you not start to show some reasonable evidence to support why these buildings should have come down in the fashion they did.