Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

Part Two shows something like preparatory charges going off, like pop,pop,pop,poppop pop pop etc, just before the main collapse charges go of and global collapse starts.
It's at 3:30 / 9:58, and at the left of the screen, in the audio window, you can clearly see those whiter dots spreading upwards, since the audio analysis runs downwards.
Then the global collapse follows.

Remember that sounds needed a few seconds to pass over the Hudson River, so the audio stays behind the video all the time! Speed of sound is approx. 333 meter per second, and Rick stood about 1200 meters away.

".... There was no desintegration of ANYTHING...some materials such as plaster, cement, other insulation materials, and at least some paint was reduced to dust as each floor collapsed into others, and then collapsed with the floor below, and then with the floor below, so on, and so for... This would be similar to taking some of the already dry paint from one of your walls and crushing it with your hands and grinding it. that's essentially what happened to these materials... "

Check www.drjudywood.com... for a large compilation of photos describing and detailing the "dustification" of the Twin Towers.




Caption: Figure 2. "The Snowball." A minute before this photo was taken from the southeast of the WTC complex, WTC2 (110 stories) would have been towering over Bankers Trust (40 stories). Bankers Trust (BT) is the black building across the street from WTC2, and is between WTC2 and the camera. The building in the distance is WTC7 (47 stories).
The whitish mass of debris is round like a "snowball" and appears to be about all that is left of the upper 2/3 of WTC2. The lower 1/3 appears to still be intact and little material with little material having fallen below the snowball. This implies that the "snowball" phenomena has been progressing down the building faster than free-falling objects would travel in air.

Essentially no material has fallen below the snowball. There is no building above the snowball. Nearly 2/3 of the building is missing. It is hard to believe that the snowball is large enough to contain all of the missing material. Where did it go?




Caption: Figure 3. "The Bubbler." This view of WTC1 (from the northeast) looks like a "bubbler" of dust. This does not look like a "collapse." Material is being launched upward and outward. The whitish material arcs over and begins to fall downward while the southern portion (away from the camera) appears to shoot straight up.

****

Those buildings sure look "disintegrated" to me. A steel frame building turns to dust as it is falling. It looks more like an eruption than a collapse, and that is what I can't understand at all.

"...there was a debris pile 7 story high together with the bent, and broken steel, and there was a crater of about 20-30 feet deep from all this debris falling down 1,362 feet. "

Here is a photo taken at the base of WTC1. You can tell you are at ground level because of the intact ambulance in the background. That is definitely NOT a 7 story high debris pile. Where is the 1,000,000 tons of debris which should have fallen straight down according to the "pancake" theory?







Caption: Figure 33. The remains of WTC2 are in the foreground. Immediately behind WTC2 is where WTC3 (Marriott Hotel) once stood. Where did it go? In the background (upper-left) the World Financial Center (WFC) buildings have blown-out windows and other damage. The remains of WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the remains of WTC1.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Okay... remember that your plane 'trickle down' theory is incompatible with the WTC 7 collapse.

The diesel and potential explosives inside WTC 7 that you have highlighted are not a sufficient explanation for why the tower collapsed as seen in the footage.

Also, the damage seen in the photos is not that bad.

It is debatable whether that damage was worse than towers 1 and 2.

Even if it was worse, the building should not have come straight down.

The pictures in your link showed that all or most of the damage was on one side of the building.

How did that damage translate to the total, systematic, and symmetrical near free fall acceleration towards the earth?

Can you not understand that buildings just don't collapse straight into their own footprint like that?!

If anything, since one side was compromised, the building should have toppled over sideways(towards the damaged side) --- with all of the uncompromised structure sticking together in one piece!

For the building to come straight down makes no sense!

What happened to all of the steel columns? What happened to all of the pristine structure?

None of the central columns were compromised in WTC 7 - the 'back bone' was incredibly intact.

Even if your 'basement bomb' theory was correct, this 'back bone' would still be intact!

A bomb in the basement cannot explode the steel and concrete stories above!

You are kidding right?... They collapsed when SEVERAL FLOORS which had several tons of debris fell on top of other floors, which added more debris, hence more weight and which caused the underlying floors to have less, and less resistance as more and more weight was added from each collapsed floor...

This statement is not true for WTC 7, and IMO, not very conclusive for WTC 1 or 2 either.

1. It doesn't work for WTC 7 because you can plainly see in the video that there was no 'pancake-ing'. Several of the top floors are falling at the same rate - staying the same distance apart relatively as when the building was standing.

2. I don't think it works for 1 & 2, because you can't clearly discern that the top sections of the towers were intact in one piece, partly because of the huge explosive clouds of dust and debris that enveloped the collapse. This means that there is no evidence for 'more weight' being symetrically and wholly applied to the floors beneath. Much of the weight was ejected outwards from the vertical footprint boundary - outside of the collapse zone. Interesting to note, is that the top section of tower 2 was tilted during part of the collapse - which happens when the mass encounters resistance in its path, and thus it 'seeks' the path of least resistance(like open air instead of concrete and steel). Since it 'straightened out' after that, we must infer that there was similar resistance inside the vertical footprint boundary as there was in the open air to the side of the tower. Which, incidentally, is impossible unless the resistance from the steel and concrete in the massive, intact building was removed somehow to allow the tilted section to keep coming straight down into the footprint instead of continue on its tilted trajectory outside of the footprint boundary.

Your theory is as physically impossible as this video(which illustrates well how much INTACT STRUCTURE was still SOLID after the impact - yet the animator ignores this obvious fact in their animation of 'the collapse'(aka demolition)):


And the real thing:



Where did all the dust come from? Would pancake theory really do that? I personally can't imagine where it came from if not explosives.

... It is not "beyond the capabilities of a jetliner, and the trickle down effect to have caused the buildings to collapse at the speed they did...

It is for WTC 7.

STOP TWISTING WHAT I AM SAYING.... LEARN TO READ... I said because of more weight THERE WAS LESS AND LESS RESISTANCE...

No.. more weight does not equal less resistance either. More weight just means more kinetic energy. The building does not put up less resistance just because there is more weight coming down upon it. It puts up the same resistance, it just gets compromised quicker by the increased force of the kinetic mass. However, this is not what we see at all in the videos. The buildings are exploded and gone - there was no resistance at all except for the brief period when the top of tower 2 was tilting to the side.




This is a good clip to help you adjust:



This source goes through the simple equations(click link for the full article and links to footnotes and further resources).

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But maybe not? I have yet to be convinced back to the side of the Official Story...

Awaiting that day with great anticipation.

reply to post by benoni


" What are you on about???? "

The question is ... what are YOU on about ? Since when did asking legitimate questions in a debate become off-limits ?

"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air."

Exactly. It. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

And it not only happened inexplicably One time, not Two times, but THREE times in one day.

Does not compute in a reality based world.

reply to post by Crimelab

And the amazing thing is that millions go a long with it,, unbelievable to me!

The official collapse timing is not "10 seconds", that is a cherrypicked number from a summary. You can time the collapses yourself and discover they last much longer, the lower bound is 14-15s.

It's about time this hits the General American Media in some way

reply to post by exponent

The official collapse timing is not "10 seconds", that is a cherrypicked number from a summary. You can time the collapses yourself and discover they last much longer, the lower bound is 14-15s.

So should I be scared that MIT has totally missed the boat on this one?!

Tilting
occurred in the upper portion (Figure 3), which was immediately followed by a total collapse
top down in about 10-12 seconds.

MIT.edu pdf

And what about the 9-11 Commission?

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.

9-11Commission.gov

Originally posted by beebs
So should I be scared that MIT has totally missed the boat on this one?!

...
And what about the 9-11 Commission?

Nope, you shouldn't be scared, you should just research the actual values and use those.

The videos are available for you to make your own inspection, both of those figures are not accurate enough to use in place of actual measurements. Why don't you pick a video, and we'll both time from first movement below the collapse zone, to the the point at which we lose track of the collapse front, and we'll calculate the acceleration, and therefore the collapse time.

Just to save you time, this has already been done (by me and many others, several years ago). The values are 2/3g acceleration for WTC2 and 3/4g for WTC1. These may have been revised since but as far as I know they are still the most accurate we have.

reply to post by exponent


So wait... are you admitting that The Commission and MIT are not using accurate data?

How about we consider building 7:



I recommend watching it on a larger screen than the embed.

And when do we start counting, when the central columns are blown out and the penthouse caves in?

Or do we start when the top corner moves from its static position?

edit to add:

The values are 2/3g acceleration for WTC2 and 3/4g for WTC1. These may have been revised since but as far as I know they are still the most accurate we have.

That isn't very accurate.

From 911review.com...

"Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. "


First, the seismic readings give the best length readings on the "collapses", and they are recorded as 10 and 8 seconds. Free-fall speeds.

Second, why didn't 1,000,000 tons of debris cause more seismic "noise" (i am not a scientist, not idea what the technical term is) when it hit the ground? What are the spikes recorded at the beginning of the "collapses"?


"A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall. "


Sounds like something that needs explaining. Did your ultra-accurate timings even look at the seismic data, or you based it solely on youtube data?

I disagree with some of the conclusions on that page, and I think it is a selective reading of the evidence on both sides, which is another reason to add to the long list for a thorough re-examination of all the evidence.