It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Entirely refutable. Let me start off by saying that I am currently pursuing a degree in chemical engineering, and that we are not to be mistaken with structural engineers. We, as chemical engineers, are NOT to be considered authorities on the subject of building collapses or how to bring one down with the use of explosives. That is an entirely different field of science to ours.

Now, on to what you are stating. It has not been brought down by explosives of any kind. Firstly the theory which you bring up involving nuclear weapons sounds completely outlandish to me -not simply by the arguments you bring up but for a more obvious one; the fallout caused by such an explosion, even if only a very minor one, would surely be detected as tens of thousands of people investigated the rubble. Not to mention the effect it has on normal living organisms, which would undoubtedly not go unnoticed by the inhabitants of NYC.

Secondly, any sort of energy or laser weapon of sorts - I don't know exactly what you are implying here, but considering modern day technology I feel that it would be physically impossible to produce one strong enough to bring down the WTC or melt columns. You would have to install a device inside the WTC that is as large as a particle accelerator many, many meters in length. Not to mention the energy supply it would need; it'd be impossible to get such a thing up there.

These two being the obvious ones. Instead of going over all scenarios of controlled demolition, I'll explain how the planes brought down the twin towers, perfectly within the laws of nature.

The Structure and airline impact

Analyzing the collapse of the twin towers, it's best to start at how the building was constructed; it was a hollow, lightweight perimiter tube, built this way to withstand hurricanes and other strong winds. Inside this perimeter tube was a core - housing elevators, stairwells etc. Important to note is that this core only supported the gravity load of the building; the lateral loads (winds and the like) would be carried by the exterior of the building. This means that the lateral loads which the building was subject to would not be transferred to the core; not that the core itself carries the entire gravity load of the building.

Web joists (the floor trusses) connected this core to the perimeter columns of each tower. Concrete slabs would be poured over these joists to form the floors.


(image depicting the design; the inner tubes being the core carrying the lateral load, surrounded by floor trusses and perimeter columns.)

The design allowed for the structure to easily shift it's own weight from one column to the next. If a couple columns would be removed, the weight would simply shift onto those adjacent to the removed ones; as long as the structure remained largely intact.

When the planes impacted in the WTC, it was because of this design that it would still stand afterwards. The towers itself were designed to withstand a much more dangerous force, being a hurricane. The plane impact created less lateral load than would be needed to make it collapse. However, the impact did destroy several perimeter columns, weakening the entire system - but not enough to be fatal.

The real danger of the impact however, was the fact that the jet had only recently lifted off and carried thousands upon thousands of liters of jet fuel within itself; comprising nearly 1/3rd of the weight of the entire aircraft. The fire caused by this impact would later be the cause of the collapse.


(another image depicting the design, the closely spaced perimeter columns with an internal lift core)

The fire and the "molten steel"

As the jet fuel was released into the building, it caused the area of impact to catch fire. What is important to note here is that the jet fuel could not have possibly burned hot enough to melt steel, this is because the fire in the building is a so-called diffuse flame. A diffuse flame is a flame in which the oxidant and the fuel are not mixed before ignition; but rather, flow togheter in an uncontrolled manner.

To explain to you what this means, let's take for example a burner used in a chemistry lab.


(image depicting a chemistry lab burner)

In this burner, the fuel and oxidant are mixed togheter before ignition, as you can see. By adding more or less air, the flame produced by igniting the gas as it exits the barrel, burns hotter or colder. To get the hottest flame possible, you mix the gas and air in near optimal quantities also called stoichiometric quantitites. This is a pre-mixed flame, which burns hotter than a diffuse flame.

In a jet engine, there is also another component that allows for higher temperatures than simply pre-mixed flame, a combustion chamber .


(image depicting a jet engine diagram)

In the combustion chamber, the fuel and oxidant are ignited, but the combustion products cannot expand in this chamber. This causes them to exit the nozzle at incredible speed, also causing the flame to burn extremely hot. As it exits the nozzle, this creates the forward thrust for the aircraft.

In the WTC, the jet fuel was all over the place and the oxidant wasn't supplied in a controlled manner - thus making it a diffuse flame. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, which allows for the large quantities of smoke and makes it burn at a relatively low temperature. Using air as oxidant, being a fuel rich flame, it could not have burned above 1000 degrees celsius, while the melting point of steel is around 1350 degrees.

Now that we know that the steel could not possibly have molten, I am often linked towards a picture which people believe is molten steel.


(picture depicting 'molten steel')

First, the place from which this material is falling down coincides with the place where the airliner itself crashed. The plane contains another material which can melt in a similar manner to steel, being aluminium. It also makes sense, because the melting point of aluminium is considerably lower than that of steel. Being at 660 degrees celcius, an intensity at which the fire could have burned quite easily - as most residential fires burn at around 5-700 degrees celcius. Instead of being silvery though, it glows orange as it's falling down.

This is because the molten aluminium has probably mixed with all sorts of organic materials that were already present in the WTC (think the entire interior, the carpet, the furniture and so on). All of which, glow orange in the same way that wood does in a fireplace - explaining the colour of the aluminium as it is falling down.

Furthermore, the assumption that it could have been a controlled demolition and at the same time have molten metal coming down at only one particular spot of the building, does not make sense. For multipile reasons; the building is still standing. It would not make sense for the one responsible for the alleged controlled demolition, to wire one explosive seperately and detonate it without detonating the rest of the explosives, like in a proper controlled demolition - having everything come down at the same time.

Also, planting controlled demolitions in the WTC sufficient to bring the entire building down, would have taken many months. The tower walls itself, would have to be opened to plant explosives and many hundreds of people would have to be involved in this elaborate process; all without the tens of thousands of employees that worked in the WTC noticing. Most implausibly of all; that they all never speak a word of it ever again.

Continuing, if explosives or materials were used that could melt metal, much more molten metal should have been seen in the debris. There are only very few pictures of what is allegedly molten metal, not at all as much as you would expect considering how much steel there was inside the twin towers. Would the contractor who placed the explosives have placed only a few that would melt steel throughout this entire building? That, too, sounds very improbable.

A last point that should be made, is that in controlled demolitions, if a building is supposed to come down, the contractors cut through about 70-90% of the beam before planting any explosive, making it so that the explosive only has to break a small bit of steel. Thus decreasing the amount of explosives needed, and ensuring a building comes falling down.

So then, if there were no explosives, how did the twin towers collapse the way it did?

The collapse

Right back to where we left off; the fire caused by the airline impact. Although it could not melt steel, it certainly posed a danger to the stability of the building. That is because prolonged exposure to fire causes the steel to soften, and lose as much as half of it's strength at the melting point of aluminium, but even a loss of 50% would be insufficient to cause the collapse.

The fire in the WTC, due to being confined and fueled by jet fuel, must have been more severe than your typical office fire. Furthermore, the temperature along the joists could have varied considerably, as the conditions of the fire at one point can vary wildly from that of another in the same building. Due to this temperature difference along the joists from one location to another, distortions are produced in the slender structural steel which caused the buckling failure.

Several exterior columns were removed by the airline impact, but the WTC could, and did, survive this initial attack on it's structure. The ensueing fire however, caused for steel components to fail. The fatal weak point for the building were the web joists connecting the perimeter to the core of the building. Perhaps the joists itself collapsed, or the angle clips connecting them to the core and perimeter.


(image depicting the web joists connected by angle clips to the core and perimeter)

Each floor in the WTC was designed to be able to carry an approximate load of 1,200 - 1,300 tonnes beyond it's own weight. As the most heavily damaged section of the twin towers gave way and starting falling, this mass of tens of thousands of tonnes came crashing down on the angle clips connecting each lower floor from the perimeter to the core. Gaining momentum as it fell on top of each next floor. As these floors were only capable of carrying the static load of each floor above itself, once it turned into a dynamic load, the collapse would only speed up with each following floor.

This all happened at an approximate speed of 200 km/h, taking ten seconds to collapse completely. Would it be at free fall, this process would've taken eight seconds in total.

Many believe that it could not have crashed down in a near completely horizontal fashion, but this is false. The towers are not completely solid; they are, for the most part, air; which allows for the building to implode. Secondly, there was no lateral load present. The impact of the airplane was accounted for by the structure of the building, and did not affect it's collapse.

Lastly, the speed of the collapse made it impossible for the falling building to attain any significant lateral velocity as it collapsed, thus ensuring the only way it could possibly collapse; straight down.

I hope this puts an end to the debate as to wether the twin towers came down in any other way than simply because of the airline impact.

Regards,

Max.






edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: clarifying the size of the particle accelerator as small variants exist

edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: editing for gravity load




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max1009
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Entirely refutable. Let me start off by saying that I am currently pursuing a degree in chemical engineering, and that we are not to be mistaken with structural engineers. We, as chemical engineers, are NOT to be considered authorities on the subject of building collapses or how to bring one down with the use of explosives. That is an entirely different field of science to ours.


This intellectual compartmentalization is hilarious.

The conservation of momentum is too difficult for chemical engineers too understand? They can't comprehend that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weight of ALL LEVELS above? Therefore they don't understand that the structural engineers had to figure out how much steel to put where to make the building stand up even though the Empire State Building was finished in 1931?

The transistor wasn't invented until 1947. Have chemical engineers heard of computers?

More pretense that simple stuff is difficult.

Do chemical engineers have to take physics courses involving Newtonian physics? They did when I was taking electrical engineering. But the intellectual barriers must be maintained. ROFL

But trying to explain all the phenomenon of 9/11 is absurd when so much is unknown. Better to just deal with the Grade School Physics and explain what could not happen. Even chemical engineers should be able to cope with that that.


Analyzing the collapse of the twin towers, it's best to start at how the building was constructed; it was a hollow, lightweight perimiter tube, built this way to withstand hurricanes and other strong winds. Inside this perimeter tube was a core; designed to support the weight of the entire tower - housing elevators, stairwells etc. Important to note is that this core only supported the gravity load of the building; the lateral loads (winds and the like) would be carried by the exterior of the building.


You also do not even know about the structure of the building. The NIST admits in their NCSTAR1 report that the core supported 53% of the buildings weight at the B6 basement level and the perimeter columns supported 47%. The weight of the perimeter columns from the 9th floor to the top of a tower was 27,000 TONS. Is that light weight? More like 5% of the total weight of the structure.

So NINE YEARS of endless debating and people don't even check the simple stuff about the subject. Most sources that mention it say it was a 50/50 split between the core and the perimeter. But no you tell us the core supported the entire weight. JEEZ!

psik
edit on 14-2-2011 by psikeyhackr because: ADD PARAGRAPH



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

This intellectual compartmentalization is hilarious.

The conservation of momentum is too difficult for chemical engineers too understand? They can't comprehend that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weight of ALL LEVELS above? Therefore they don't understand that the structural engineers had to figure out how much steel to put where to make the building stand up even though the Empire State Building was finished in 1931?

The transistor wasn't invented until 1947. Have chemical engineers heard of computers?

More pretense that simple stuff is difficult.

Do chemical engineers have to take physics courses involving Newtonian physics? They did when I was taking electrical engineering. But the intellectual barriers must be maintained. ROFL



That part of my post was more or less referring to the introduction of the original post, which states

"I have long doubted that it
could have been done by thermite and conventional explosives, which
has been strengthened by recent collaborative research with a chemical
engineer."

I don't think a chemical engineer would know much about how exactly you would bring down a building using explosives. Construction in general does not concern us at all, and I'm not going to pretend I know how exactly you would go about bringing down a massive building like the twin towers using explosives.
edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: misquote

edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: tidying up the post



Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You also do not even know about the structure of the building. The NIST admits in their NCSTAR1 report that the core supported 53% of the buildings weight at the B6 basement level and the perimeter columns supported 47%. The weight of the perimeter columns from the 9th floor to the top of a tower was 27,000 TONS. Is that light weight? More like 5% of the total weight of the structure.

So NINE YEARS of endless debating and people don't even check the simple stuff about the subject. Most sources that mention it say it was a 50/50 split between the core and the perimeter. But no you tell us the core supported the entire weight. JEEZ!


Misread my own source and I'll edit it in. Actually it was meant to clarify that the core does not carry lateral load; this is what the perimeter does, not that the core carries the entire gravity load of the building.

edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: quote

edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: clarification



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The conservation of momentum is too difficult for chemical engineers too understand? They can't comprehend that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weight of ALL LEVELS above?

No, they understand that each and every section of a building DOES NOT act as foundation for everything above it. They understand the concept of transfer loads.

Therefore they don't understand that the structural engineers had to figure out how much steel to put where to make the building stand up even though the Empire State Building was finished in 1931?

Engineers and designers only needed to determine that the materials were sufficient to carry the loads of the building.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
And yet, nobody caught these huge BOOMS on video. Imagine that.

And yet, nobody caught these flashes going all around the building on video. Imagine that.

And thus you'd rather ignore numerous witness' testimonies based on your denial and ignorance? Just because they weren't caught on video makes the witness testimony moot? How many murderers have been convicted on witness testimony with no murder weapon produced?

Some of the huge booms were recorded in "9/11 Eyewitness" from 2 miles away with firefighter testimony corroborating the video:





Originally posted by FDNY343
This is a very unique collapse in that it has never happened before.

There's nothing "unique" about a fire-induced collapse. Either it will show signs of being a fire-induced collapse, or it won't. And the evidence shows that WTC did not exhibit the characteristics of a fire-induced collapse. I'm starting to question the claims of you even being a firefighter with your lack of knowledge of firefighting.



Originally posted by FDNY343
So, you think that the fires in the WTC were "oxygen starved"? Please elaborate on this.

Was somebody pumping pure oxygen into the fires? Then the fires didn't come close to max temperature.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Steel fails in fires.

Is that so? Then tell everyone why controlled demolition companies don't use fire to bring steel-structured buildings down.Or even call a controlled demolition company and ask them why they don't use fire and listen to them tell you how impossible it is.

Yes, there will be a localized, partial collapse in the fire zone. No, absolutely not will there be a full and complete collapse to the ground of any steel-structured highrise, ever. Every trained firefighter will know this most basic information. Unless certain firefighters are not properly trained and only volunteers on some small-town department.




Originally posted by FDNY343
Again, his claim was that he heard a boom BEFORE the plane hit. This is a problem for you that you cannot resolve.

It's not a problem. That boom that was heard in the basement destroyed a machine shop, parking garage, a 300-pound fire door, and heavily damaged the lobby. This sounds more like a problem you can't resolve as you have to admit explosives did the heavy damage seen in the basement levels and the lobby.



Originally posted by FDNY343
And how did they come to that conclusion? By sight? Can you identify a molten metal substance by sight alone? I certianly can't. Maybe you can?

So, you are again calling these trained and experienced firefighters liars? Go tell them they don't know what they're talking about. I want to hear their response.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by FDNY343
And yet, nobody caught these huge BOOMS on video. Imagine that.

And yet, nobody caught these flashes going all around the building on video. Imagine that.

And thus you'd rather ignore numerous witness' testimonies based on your denial and ignorance? Just because they weren't caught on video makes the witness testimony moot? How many murderers have been convicted on witness testimony with no murder weapon produced?

Some of the huge booms were recorded in "9/11 Eyewitness" from 2 miles away with firefighter testimony corroborating the video:





While I haven't really extensively researched the occurence of booms as the twin towers fell down, I distinctly remember from multipile documentaries that every once in a while falling debris and especially falling people would create enourmously loud bangs once they hit the pavement.

That the booms aren't documented on video makes it all very sceptical though, you have to admit, there were quite a few people carrying around cameras or using them right at the moment of the twin tower collapse. If it was a controlled demolition, they must have recorded it.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Is that so? Then tell everyone why controlled demolition companies don't use fire to bring steel-structured buildings down.Or even call a controlled demolition company and ask them why they don't use fire and listen to them tell you how impossible it is.


Actually, worked with quite a few demolition companies, trust me there is nothing they would love to do more than set fire to the thing, let it burn and collapse. Gets rid of all the organic matter without any handling or disposal costs, reveals all the metals for salvage and breaks up all the other solids like concrete for easier handling and disposal. Its just that most municipalities are a little nervous about just starting buildings on fire and letting them burn, sometimes makes the neighbors a little nervous.

In conclusion, pretty silly argument.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
does anyone know if any tests that were done at the site had recorded or listed any of certain minerals that should have not been found there?

Any links?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max1009
It has not been brought down by explosives of any kind.

I'll stop you right there. Just because you make this claim, doesn't mean it's true. Just because NIST makes the claim, doesn't mean it's true. NIST used guesses and calculations to theorize how the buildings collapsed. Absolutely none of their calculations are factual, or can be taken as such. It says so right at the beginning of the NIST report.

Numerous firefighters saw flashes going "up, down and around" the towers as they were collapsing, and there were popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes. Numerous first responders, by-standers, and survivors also heard timed, synchronous booms as the towers were collapsing.

And finally, the towers exhibited dozens of ejections of dust/debris:





And before you regurgitate the same ol' pre-programmed response that it could be air being pushed out, show us another building collapse the exhibits air being pushed out that is not from a controlled demolition.

In fact, show us all a fire-induced collapse that exhibits the signs of controlled demolitions, but aren't controlled demolitions. Show us a fire-induced collapse the exhibits flashes, timed/synchronous booms, and ejections of dust/debris.

Show us another fire-induced collapse that can cause a building to fall straight down with zero resistance:




With the right timing and delays, any building can be taken down with explosives:





Originally posted by Max1009
the theory which you bring up involving nuclear weapons sounds completely outlandish to me

It sounds outlandish to the entire 9/11 truth movement also. Nowhere in the truth movement is this rubbish supported.



Originally posted by Max1009
The fire caused by this impact would later be the cause of the collapse.

You should choose your words carefully. I think you mean "alleged" cause of collapse. NIST used guesses and calculations to theorize about how the buildings collapsed. The very beginning of the NIST report even states that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used as evidence in a court of law.

Suffice it to say, there are plenty of scientists and engineers who beg to differ on this point. Especially when fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse before, ever.



Originally posted by Max1009
like in a proper controlled demolition

These weren't "proper" demolitions. Not even close.



Originally posted by Max1009
Also, planting controlled demolitions in the WTC sufficient to bring the entire building down, would have taken many months.

Yes, or more slowly over a several-year period.



Originally posted by Max1009
The tower walls itself, would have to be opened to plant explosives

Negative. Most of the key places that would've needed explosives resided in the cores, out of site of the public, and easily accessible without the need to remove walls.

Look at the white smoke coming off the ends of these core columns:





Originally posted by Max1009
if a building is supposed to come down, the contractors cut through about 70-90% of the beam before planting any explosive, making it so that the explosive only has to break a small bit of steel. Thus decreasing the amount of explosives needed, and ensuring a building comes falling down.

You forgot to add why they do this. So, let me explain. They do this so that they can make a building fall a certain way and in a certain manner to protect life and property, i.e., other buildings around the demolition.

The towers, again, were not "proper" or conventional demolitions by any means. Life and property were not a concern and thus the pre-demolition preparations were not needed.



Originally posted by Max1009
I hope this puts an end to the debate as to wether the twin towers came down in any other way than simply because of the airline impact.

I can assure you, there will never, ever be an end to the debate on whether the WTC collapsed due to fire or controlled demolitions.

Demo companies use explosives on steel structures for a reason. It's not possible to completely collapse any steel-structured highrise by the simple use of fires. If steel-structured highrises could be made to collapse straight down by simple office fires, then this technique would've been implemented years ago. Do you have any idea how much money and time CD companies could save if all they had to do was set fires in a steel-structured highries and watch it fall completely, and fully to the ground? It's not possible, that's why they don't use fire.

Furthermore, every piece of evidence points to controlled demolitions: flashes going up, down and around the towers with popping or exploding sounds, timed/synchronous booms, and ejections of dust/debris, all of which have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, and none of which have ever been seen in fire-induced collapses.

Sorry, but you're trusting the official theory and trying to make others trust it with you will fall on deaf ears. Because every piece of evidence suggests otherwise.

As a man of science, you should know that the scientific method dictates that something be repeatable before you have a working hypothesis. Steel-structured highrises collapsing from fire is not and has not been repeatable, nor is there any other known fire-induced collapse that exhibits all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but not actually be a controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazz10
does anyone know if any tests that were done at the site had recorded or listed any of certain minerals that should have not been found there?

Any links?


Huh? Minerals? Like what - I am dying to know. Do you mean minerals or elements? I think you mean elements like sodium or gallium.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max1009
I distinctly remember from multipile documentaries that every once in a while falling debris and especially falling people would create enourmously loud bangs once they hit the pavement.

Yeah, but not recordable from 2 miles away.



Originally posted by Max1009
That the booms aren't documented on video makes it all very sceptical though, you have to admit,

Not true. Most of the cameras used likely could not record the frequency of the booms. Not to mention that almost every video from close-up has had the sound drowned out by loud city noise and the loud roar of the buildings collapsing.

Are you seriously willing to discount numerous first responders, by-standers, and survivors that heard the timed/synchronous booms, all because you can't hear it in the videos? Really?

There are a whole lot of people in prison for crimes that were based in good part by witness testimony, all without even needing a murder weapon or even in some cases, a body.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Furthermore, every piece of evidence points to controlled demolitions: flashes going up, down and around the towers with popping or exploding sounds, timed/synchronous booms, and ejections of dust/debris, all of which have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, and none of which have ever been seen in fire-induced collapses.

Sorry, but you're trusting the official theory and trying to make others trust it with you will fall on deaf ears. Because every piece of evidence suggests otherwise.

As a man of science, you should know that the scientific method dictates that something be repeatable before you have a working hypothesis. Steel-structured highrises collapsing from fire is not and has not been repeatable, nor is there any other known fire-induced collapse that exhibits all of the signs of controlled demolitions, but not actually be a controlled demolition.


I really can't see the flashes going up and down the building and the booms being confirmed only through word of mouth as seeming factual. There were lots of cameras aimed directly at the WTC from all angles, none of which recorded any flashes going up and down - this being much more important than simply the audio recording because it would provide very important visual evidence.

Also, the picture which you linked with the booms previously, besides the fact that it was never recorded, states that it was all in about a 2 minute timeframe, while the actual collapse was only 10 seconds in length. I don't see it as likely for demolitions to be set up to explode in such a wide timeframe. The WTC did not have massive weight differences that would need seperately timed explosives in order for the building to come down vertically.

Furthermore, I believe that you undoubtedly understand the WTC collapse is a very special case. It's not merely the fire that caused the collapse, the importance of the impact itself in the collapse should not be trivialized; multipile columns were completely destroyed upon impact, and the first floor that gave way had atleast 10 additional floors right on top of it, making the falling block absolutely massive in weight.
edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: tidying up the post



Originally posted by _BoneZ_ Not true. Most of the cameras used likely could not record the frequency of the booms. Not to mention that almost every video from close-up has had the sound drowned out by loud city noise and the loud roar of the buildings collapsing.


How is that likely? Cameras can record any sort of boom from a JDAM impact, a tank shell hitting a building, A-10s strafing, small arms fire, even large ammunition caches brought to explosion. Not to mention the shockwaves produced by the large explosions. Varying from cameras used by reporters to simple handhelds used by soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I doubt an explosion in the twin towers would be so radically different it'd be outside the recordable range. If the cameras couldn't record it it's probably safe to say the frequency would be outside that of human hearing aswell.
edit on 14-2-2011 by Max1009 because: quote



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And before you regurgitate the same ol' pre-programmed response that it could be air being pushed out, show us another building collapse the exhibits air being pushed out that is not from a controlled demolition.


Uhhh......BoneZ? If that's supposed to be an explosion, why is it only in one spot on the building? And why just a few spots? How is it that the other side of the building collapses without there being an 'explosion' to see?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Max1009
Also, planting controlled demolitions in the WTC sufficient to bring the entire building down, would have taken many months.

Yes, or more slowly over a several-year period.


Uhhh....BoneZ? You do realise that explosives have a finite useful life-span? A best-before date if you will? So how many years are you positing such a patient wire-up would take to do the entirety of both buildings?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Max1009
I distinctly remember from multipile documentaries that every once in a while falling debris and especially falling people would create enourmously loud bangs once they hit the pavement.

Yeah, but not recordable from 2 miles away.


Then how was it that the sound of the impact of UA175 was captured from a greater distance than that? That was a one-off airplane (or hologram depending who's talking).How does the crash of a 20-odd ton plane make a recordable noise and the multiple 'explosions' necessary to bring a huge office building not?

Is this the remarkable hushaboom technology I've heard so much about?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Max1009
That the booms aren't documented on video makes it all very sceptical though, you have to admit,

Not true. Most of the cameras used likely could not record the frequency of the booms.


Do you actually believe the stuff you post? How on Earth is it that the multiple explosions used to bring down buildings in acknowledged controlled demolitions are eminently discernible by the self same type of cameras (both professional and consumer grade) yet somehow the explosions here emit unspecified frequencies making them unrecordable? Hate to break it to you but the microphones on even the most basic camcorder have quite sufficient frequency response to pick up any such sounds if they were there to be recorded. And just so you don't try to move the goalposts, the recording formats are likewise up to the task.

You're pulling an unsupportable assertion out your back passage hoping nobody'll call you on it.

Consider yourself called. Prove your assertion or retract it.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max1009
I really can't see the flashes going up and down the building and the booms being confirmed only through word of mouth as seeming factual.

I'm sorry that you would ignore numerous witnesses to this very important testimony because you can't "see" it as being factual. That's one of the main reasons why you believe the things you do.

If only one witness had seen the flashes, I would tend to agree. If only one witness had heard the timed/synchronous booms, I would agree. But numerous firefighters saw the flashes, and even more witnesses heard the timed booms. When different witnesses corroborate each other, then we have alot of credibility that builds up. Add on top of that the ejections and the way the buildings collapsed, and you have a full-blown controlled demolition.



Originally posted by Max1009



Once you listen to their testimony, I doubt you'll be ignoring the importance of what they have to say. If you continue to ignore their testimony, it just proves you are one of the many close-minded "scientists" running around this rock.






There were lots of cameras aimed directly at the WTC from all angles, none of which recorded any flashes going up and down

The firefighters said they were low-level flashes. Here, I'll post some of their testimony:


Captain Karin Deshore, commander of the FDNY‟s Emergency Medical Services

"Somewhere around the middle of the [North Tower], there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building...So here these explosions are getting bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally explodes, still unaware that the other building had collapsed, I‟m going in the water.”


Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q.: "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

"No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too."


We have several first responders reporting flashes in the lower and middle levels, nowhere near the impact zones, and all as the collapses have begun.


As far as this image is concerned:



Those were pre-collapse explosions heard 2 miles away happening over a 3-minute period and corroborated by firefighters:



Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. We then realized the building started to come down."

When Craig Carlsen was specifically asked if he had heard any explosions when the north tower collapsed, he had this to say:

"You did hear the explosions. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it."


He says "about" ten, but there were actually 9, recorded by Rick Seigel and presented in "9/11 Eyewitness" from almost 2 miles away:




Part 1: video.google.com...#
Part 2: video.google.com...#
Part 3: video.google.com...#



Originally posted by Max1009
I don't see it as likely for demolitions to be set up to explode in such a wide timeframe.

It doesn't matter if you can see whether some of the pre-collapse explosives were detonated over a several-minute time frame. We have audio, video, and witness testimony to the pre-collapse detonations. What more could you possibly need?

And for the (at least) third time in this thread, these were not "proper" or conventional demolitions. Do you think whoever set this up wanted it to look more like controlled demolition or less? They made it look as the least amount as possible like a controlled demolition. Just enough for people such as yourself to question those of us that can see the facts as facts.



Originally posted by Max1009
the importance of the impact itself in the collapse should not be trivialized; multipile columns were completely destroyed upon impact

Maybe for those that don't completely understand physics, the way the towers were constructed, and the way planes are constructed.

The planes did minimal damage to the towers. 33 perimeter columns were damaged or severed and 6-10 core columns were severed per tower. 10 core columns being in the north tower due to the impact of the plane being in the middle. The south tower had less structural damage due to the plane hitting at an angle and the bulk of the second plane missing most of the core:





By NIST's own original numbers of 33 perimeter and 6-10 core columns being damaged or severed, that's only 15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged by the plane impacts. That means 85% of the structure in the impact zones and 100% of the structure above and below were all intact.

NIST has since changed their numbers (changed their story) to include a few more core columns to the mix, but that only raises the damage to the structure in the impact zones to 16%-17%. Still, not very significant damage to the structure.

The only parts of a plane that could even damage the massive fortress that was the core are the landing gear and engines. That doesn't leave very many core columns damaged.



Originally posted by Max1009
making the falling block absolutely massive in weight.

And making that falling block fall onto a much large block with four times more mass and weight. And how many floors did it take before the top falling block was disintegrated? Not even half the tower, which means the collapse should have stopped, but it didn't Explosives were being detonated on the way down to remove resistance and allow the building to keep collapsing.



Originally posted by Max1009
If the cameras couldn't record it it's probably safe to say the frequency would be outside that of human hearing aswell.

Again, most of the cameras that were close to the WTC during collapse had their sound drowned out by the massive roar of the buildings collapsing.

And even so, it doesn't even matter. Too many witnesses heard the timed booms and I'm not going to dismiss their testimony based on the irrelevance of the cameras not recording the sounds. Again, many people have been convicted on witness testimony along with other evidence without any audio, video, or physical evidence.

Here's a video I made with just a few of the many witnesses talking about the detonations, including a construction worker that helped build one of the WTC buildings:





posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ, I am sure you have seen this video of the landmark implosion before but I think it bears repeating :-

www.youtube.com...

I believe it was taken from a helicopter and you can hear the engine loudly and clearly. Nonetheless, the rythmic sharp detonations from the building , and the flashes, are completely unmistakeable. Can you direct me to any footage of the Towers that looks even remotely like this ?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Uhhh....BoneZ? You do realise that explosives have a finite useful life-span? A best-before date if you will? So how many years are you positing such a patient wire-up would take to do the entirety of both buildings?


SEMTEX


“Think of a car tire,” Pulicar says. “Put it in a field for twenty years. What do you think happens to it?” Maybe it’s a bit brittle, maybe a bit weather-worn, but it’s still a tire. And stored correctly, not in a field exposed to the elements, it will still hold air two decades down the line. A car tire is made from rubber, polymers, curatives, anti-degradents and carbon black. Semtex is made from variations of those same things, only with explosive instead of carbon.

When asked how many years he thought Semtex would remain effective, Pulicar replied, “Sixty, 70, 80...150, maybe 200 years, maybe more. No one knows.”
Ivo Varga, Explosia’s senior technologist, agrees.

So, those hundreds of tons in Qaddafi’s warehouse? The stacks of red bricks in IRA basements? Chunks of death stored in the outposts of South American guerillas? Their efficacy will not change in the forseeable future, even as the political clashes surrounding them do. Semtex will not automatically degrade. It will not become inert. It has no measured lifespan, no expiration date.



Today, Semtex is sold in two flavors: red bricks of Semtex 1A and white sheets of Semtex 10SE. The first is used mostly for blasting operations – destruction, underwater operations, and cutting metals – while Semtex 10SE is primarily used for hardening metals. Imagine an old-fashioned metal smith using a large hammer to temper the blade of a sword made white-hot in a fire. Semtex 10SE is the hammer, only rather than strengthening a medieval weapon, modern smiths detonate it around the casings of torpedoes and other containers which need to withstand extreme amounts of pressure and shock.

edit on 14-2-2011 by Dogdish because: giving credit where due



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max1009
Misread my own source and I'll edit it in. Actually it was meant to clarify that the core does not carry lateral load; this is what the perimeter does, not that the core carries the entire gravity load of the building.


I say that is rubbish too but you never see it explained anywhere. The perimeter columns and spandrels were like a flat 2 dimensional matrix. Except at the corners they could have swayed in and out freely. But the floor assemblies would move in and out with them and push against the CORE COLUMNS.

The CORE COLUMNS were connected by HORIZONTAL BEAMS but information about those BEAMS has been disappeared as much as possible and their existence is minimized. I say the rigidity of that building came from the 3D grid of steel in the CORE. The perimeter columns and the glass they held took the immediate impact of the wind but they are not what gave the building the strength to withstand the wind. That was THE CORE. The force was transferred through the floor assemblies from the perimeter to THE CORE. And we can't find out the tons of steel that were on each level of the core.

psik



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uhhh......BoneZ? If that's supposed to be an explosion, why is it only in one spot on the building?

There were dozens of ejections in both collapses. Some of those ejections even happened some 60-floors below the collapse wave.



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
How does the crash of a 20-odd ton plane make a recordable noise and the multiple 'explosions' necessary to bring a huge office building not?

There were explosives that were detonated with the timing of the plane impact. The explosions happened in the basement levels and very near the top. In the "9/11 Eyewitness" videos I posted above, you can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions booming.



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Consider yourself called. Prove your assertion or retract it.

I don't have to retract it because the witness testimony proves all we need to know. It's getting very old that you and other trusters are discounting or just flat-out calling first responders and other witnesses liars because you don't want to believe the implications of what they're reporting.

Suffice it to say, a simple Google search will tell you all you need to know about microphones, video recording, and how certain microphones are better than others when it comes to frequency response.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The CORE COLUMNS were connected by HORIZONTAL BEAMS

Not just horizontally. The core columns were connected horizontally, vertically, and in some places diagonally. The cores were fortresses and nearly indestructible.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join