WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

Adding a log !! for People that believes in the Fuel Melting Steel Party...


Well with that intense Heat would these people be Engulfed in flames ! or are they like Super humans like Johnny blaze !! ? Johny Storm ? Yeah from this view there some people walking around in over 3,000 degree
flames let alone the plane inpact..



Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower


911 EyeWitness Preview of Hoboken - Edna Cintron - WMD - Fires out

Google Video Link

koan for Edna and other peope wave through the impact ?
( note turn off sound annoying )

Closeups of the Plane Shape Hole and Edna Cintron waving. Standing 93 stories in the air looking out over Manhattan as she tirelessly waved for rescue during the last hour of her life. I've made enlargements from a variety of footage from Dias que marcaron al mundo (BBC Horizon - Fall Of The World Trade Center-Not cropped) and 11 Septembre Dans Les Tours Jumelles (Inside The Twin towers-FR2) which were never televised in America. the originals I worked with can be found thewebfairy.com... Edna is not alone, tho the others aren't as easy to see, or as persistant. There is some spiritual dimension to Edna's last hour that deserves mythic status for being true and real in a world where so little is either one.

Google Video Link

Articles

Woman Waving From
WTC 1 Impact Area
whatreallyhappened.com...

Wtc1 On Fire Waving People
wn.com...

reply to post by plube


I guess what I am missing in your post is proof. Give me proof that shows it is not possible that the collapsing building could damage the inner core enough in order for it to collapse also. It were massive steel beams and columns falling on it with an enormous weight. This doesn't shout "Impossible" to me at all. On the contrary, I would expect massive damage. To me that is common sense.

Originally posted by Wolfenz
Adding a log !! for People that believes in the Fuel Melting Steel Party...

Which people would that be? And are the present in this thread? If not, why are you posting this?

reply to post by -PLB-


i have been doing nothing but giving you Educated probabilities....but you are choosing to ignore them...but that is ok....Proof ....NOT a SINGLE steel structure has come down due to fire...the buildings were constructed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from planes. the STEEL core cannot collapse on itself....the towers were surrounded by a intensely thick STEEL mesh to protect the inner core.

Those are facts....so your choice now...you choose to ignore the facts...now i ask you to give me proof that they came down from the planes Impact and from fires that could not even melt the aluminium cladding.

Or i guess i am being unreasonable.

reply to post by -PLB-


wow have you even bothered to check the vids out...in his log.

thank you wolf once again for your input ....The whole point is that the towers did not come down due to fire...and the vids do help with that analysis.

you have not added anything to this thread PLB and that is a shame......but others have added valuble points...yes even NEF has even if it is in the negative and against my opinions but still added valid points.

i do appreciate opposing opinions....they are valuble to all discussions

but i am not going to respond to yours anymore PLB...which i am sure you will take that as meaning you are right...and you go ahead and believe that...i will continue with value added opinion even if it is not always right but i am willing to accept when i am wrong...or see when there are logical opposing viewpoints.

Do i agree with the NIST version of what happened.....NO CHANCE.

reply to post by plube


Possibilities yes, but I never said it is impossible to do with explosives. I am asking for proof the central core can't possibly be damaged to the point of collapse as result of the collapse of the rest of the building. That is what you are claiming.

And you answer that no steel building has ever collapsed like that. That is not what I was asking. Every time I ask something specific I get nothing. I am sorry but you make no convincing argument. I am not some gullible fool who swallows everything a self proclaimed expert says. I need to see an explanation why it is not possible that a massive amount of steel beams and columns falling on the central core could not damage it enough. If possible supported with some solid maths, but as a start some sort of theory would be nice. Just a "No its impossible" isn't gonna cut it.

reply to post by plube


Sorry, but thats the kind of sarcastic crap that kills off any sensible 9/11 discussion, drags the idea of 9/11 truth into the gutter and ensures that the subject will never, ever, be taken seriously in the mainstream.

Its like a child throwing their toys out of a pram.

You make proclamations about this stuff, and expect everyone to agree with you, and then you lose the ability to rationally debate a subject when they don't.

9/11 Truth is DEAD because of that attitude.

There will never be 9/11 truth as long as such attitudes continue to occur. Its a total waste of time even trying to discuss the issues.

to all that don't believe it could be possible to be a inside job

Ever watch the movie thief ? 1981 James Caan ? the Bank safe cracking scene ?


( right at the 8:33 min mark ) you see this this was in 1981 in 1990 when i was in a Vocational School
a company cant remember who they were They Did a demonstration of something new that is similar that what you see of the the Thermal Lance in the Movie Thief but extremely smaller the Radius size of a BIC Pen and any length you want this Lance like , would cut any metal even stone !! and does a better job then the Thermal Lance you ignite it like a flare acts like a non gas mig and a current of a 12 VOLT Battery No lie would keep it flowing something like a Flare that Cuts this type of Lance can be even used underwater now my point is ! could it be possible that this of months or years of planning
using this method of the Center Core Beams and rods even the bolts them selves Weaken but it takes skill
& knowledge of a Demolitionist and Sign of Unfamiliar faced Construction Workers new Overnight maintenance employees etc.. in a city that Never Sleeps ? has anyone checked ?




2nd part

reply to post by plube


So if I do not post something that supports your theory I am not adding? It seems to me that asking questions, especially ones that are hard to answer, is adding significantly. The point of my posts is to encourage you to show what part of the original explanation is wrong and why, not to be "right". But if you, or anyone else, refuse to do that, I will also not reject the official explanation as a viable one, or even the most probable one.

This is a quote from www.civil.northwestern.edu... Just the beginning! They then back it all up with math and diagrams and explanations of every little detail. You had to have not looked at it to call it false.

Review of Causes of WTC Collapse
Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely
not have led to overall collapse (Bažant and Zhou 2002a; NIST
2005). As generally accepted by the community of specialists in
structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a
few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the
failure scenario was as follows:
1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed,
and many more were significantly deflected. This
caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the
load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
for some of them.
2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped,
many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed
by annealing studies of steel debris (NIST 2005) [the
structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength
already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C (NIST 2005);
and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above
450°C (e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299), especially in the columns
overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right
after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s
analysis did not depend on that].
3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced
viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter
columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of
these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory
out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential
thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution
also diminished buckling strength.
4. The combination of seven effects—(1) Overstress of some
columns due to initial load redistribution; (2) overheating
due to loss of steel insulation; (3) drastic lowering of yield
limit and creep threshold by heat; (4) lateral deflections of
many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor
trusses; (5) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane
stiffness of sagging floors; (6) multistory bowing of some
columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude
less than it is for one-story buckling); and (7) local plastic
buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of
columns (Fig. 1(b)). As a result, the upper part of the tower
fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height,
impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive
collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper
part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that
could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing
in the lower part of the tower.
In broad terms, this scenario was proposed by Bažant (2001),
and Bažant and Zhou (2002a,b) on the basis of simplified analysis
relying solely on energy considerations. Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at
NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column
buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s
(2002a) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.
The elastically calculated stresses caused by impact of the
upper part of tower onto the lower part were found to be 31 times
greater than the design stresses (note a misprint in Eq. 2 of Bažant
and Zhou 2002a: A should be the combined cross section area of
all columns, which means that Eq. 1, rather than 2, is decisive).
Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South
tower was seen to tilt significantly (and of the North tower
mildly). Some wondered why the tilting (Fig. 1(d)) did not continue,
so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a
falling tree [see Fig. 4 of Bažant and Zhou (2002b]. However,
such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal
reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would
have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at
least 10.3X (Bažant and Zhou 2002b).
The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4X larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account
(Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that
during the progressive collapse of underlying stories [Figs. 1(d)
and 2] the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater
than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and
Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the
tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through
the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that
this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive
collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous.
The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without
any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have
been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration
of a free fall from the tower top.
Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that
the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone.
However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics
beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could
nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for
learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding
(and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives).
Its formulation is the main objective of what follows.

Just more proof!! Thanks OP!

Also, I have a question:

After the towers fell, was there any remainders of the planes that had crashed?

The reason I ask is because I heard that the planes were holograms.....Just curious.

Originally posted by berrygurrl
After the towers fell, was there any remainders of the planes that had crashed?

The reason I ask is because I heard that the planes were holograms.....Just curious.

There were many plane parts from both planes that hit the towers. You can go to the following link and check out alot of images:

Link to images of WTC plane parts.

And all the hologram, CGI, DEW, pod, tv fakery crap is all disinformation.

reply to post by neformore


not at all Nef i have through out this thread provided PLB with plausible answers to all his Questions...what kills threads like this is when people provide evidence ...which will never be clear cut but at least is evidence and others contribute nothing...just sayiing it does not make sense...or the proverbial prove it...but they do NOTHING to prove the opposite. Then people like yourself which i was showing some respect to,Which i now lose all respect with a jump in comment to come to the defense of a zero contributor ..... it i hard to give absolute proof that a core of a STEEL frame building would not collapse in on itself since it has NEVER happen to steel structure in the past. the core would bend and twist not just drop on itself...but you say your a civil Engineer.....and If you believe that...then i would be suprised since it has never happenned before(i will clarify) DUE TO FIRE.

But experience and education does seem to count for anything....and i can get videos and evidence from many sources which will conclude the same thing but it will all be denied just as when i counter anyone it will get denied...and this site is to deny ignorance.....suprise.

your a civil Engineer and i am a structural Engineer...so you please say to me from one professional to Another....when have you EVER seen a solid steel core just come straight down on itself...SHOW ME other than the RULE of 9/11 that you so proudly point to.

evey bit of STEEL below where the impact and the FIRE took place would not have been comprimised...so please do not insult the designers and architects of these fabulous buildings.

reply to post by Varemia


wow you did not listen....that whole document is based on a NIST computer simulation of what POSSIBLY occured...i gave you a counter by PROFESSIONAL Engineers on that whole document on why the core makes all the difference in the said senario your quoting AND NIST will not even provide the exact data sets to independant Engineers to test the THEORY....so you keep quoting it verm.

It will not sway people in know...as we have looked at it and it fails in some valuble FACTS...the tops of the buildings DISINTEGRATED before they collpased onto the lower parts of the building...negating the acountability for the mas in their Equations...but if you bothered to read the othersides of the story from link i provided you might see that. the tops of both towers went to dust beofre the collapse...strange that is...but heck we will just IGNORE the obvious and just go with that...but tell you what verm...i will get some time and i will colate some of the counters to your piece and we will see what happens.....ok. you dont have to post the whole thing to make yourself feel better ....i went to your link read the PDF which i stated...and not only that posted a link that counters that exact THEORY.

but not enough for you is it Verm....you have to post the text which i am sure is against T&C but Nef would know better than that...i will leave that bit to the professional.

reply to post by Wolfenz

Good lord, using Edna Cintron as evidence are we?

You do realise she jumped as well, right?

Why would she do that, if the fires weren't raging behind her, making it unbearably hot?

reply to post by roboe


But just to make EVERYONE happy i will do a Verm

Analysis:

The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact would meet resistance from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase. We shall firstly examine this incremental time period.

Bazant/Zhou [1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase.

1/ The elastic phase shows a linear relationship between load and deflection up to the elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and the deflection at the elastic limit for steel is generally 0.2% of the initial length.
2/ The shortening phase allows for the same failure load to be applied until the vertical deformation reaches 3% at which point the column begins to form buckle points.
3/ The third phase shows a rapid decrease in the load requirement to continue deformation, this load necessarily being less than the failure load. This phase lasts until the total vertical deformation equals the original length. In other words the column is bent in two.


To shorten the columns of the first impacted storey by 3%, sufficient to complete the plastic shortening phase, a distance of about 0.111 metres, and allowing a constant speed of 8.5 metres per second, would take a minimum of 0.013 seconds.
The speed of the propagation wave through a medium is given by the general formula for wave propagation

SOURCE

now please read...and there are many others...and that...but i am sure i will be damned for it...is also some proof for PLB...and might be an interesting read for Nef.

so please....since when throughout this thread have i not been backing up what i say....i will credit Verm ...least they are trying to provide good material.

so keep your attacks coming at me....I on a regular basis have to state my views in meetings and do Quite well cores do not just collapse on themselves without assistance....not from top down but bottom up.

Oh yea with math and everything

This was a reply to VARM not to Roboe...i appoligise Roboe.

This is for your benifit verm....Detailed analysis...and i hope you enjoy this too Nef...and to say i am not providing you with easy to understand simple explainations to why progressive collapse is not a probable cause for the way the buildings came down.

source

So i am sure i am being somewhat helpful even through all this negativity....but let keeps up the good work people.....i just want answers...i dont want to be baffled with the same BS the OS has been spewing out...so lets deny this Ignorance...it is not going to help.

reply to post by plube


I am just wondering, do you think of this along the way or is this part of a thought out and documented theory? Are you serious about the top floors being disintegrated before collapse? How do you explain that all videos show the top section being intact during the beginning of the collapse? And what technology can disintegrate steel beams and column? And lastly, why was the top section disintegrated before collapse? For what purpose?

reply to post by plube



In the very frames they show here you clearly see that most of the top section remained intact during impact. Of course the lower part of the top section, the part that impacted with the lower section, had an equal probability to collapse as the lower section. That is because of the weight above it. Just like when two cars crash frontally, they will both be damaged.

But in any case, the individual floors of the top section collapsing does not disintegrate the steel beams and column, it only compress them to a solid package.

And the article is extremely biased. The writer begins with the conclusion, explosions were used, and then tries every trick in his hat to support that. Reversed science.

Originally posted by plube
the tops of the buildings DISINTEGRATED before they collpased onto the lower parts of the building...negating the acountability for the mas in their Equations...

You are kidding us with this statement, right?

Where did the mass go?

A lack of structural integrity does not equal a lack of mass. The weights of the individual elements are still there, falling downwards with gravity acting upon them. The total weight of the falling steel structure has not changed.

And while the concrete poured into the floor trusses may have pulversied, it has not lost any of its weight, as gravity is still acting on the pieces at 9.81m/s2.

Very loose fines caused by the break up will form dust that is dispersed by the pressure of air escaping out through the collapsing structure, and that may affect a tiny percentage of the mass moving downwards, but that is all.

The top floors of the towers did not just disappear. They fell downwards.

A 5000 tonne structure bolted together still weighs 5000 tonnes if it is in pieces - and yet you make the above statement and claim to be a structural engineer?