Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Just the fact that there even is a " Pilots for 911 truth " shatters the OS.
Not just in my opinion, but absolutely.

Good job NAM
And everyone who participated here in has to admit that.
Against all odds.

randyvs
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Just the fact that there even is a " Pilots for 911 truth " shatters the OS.
Not just in my opinion, but absolutely.

Good job NAM

And everyone who participated here in has to admit that.
Against all odds.

edit on 7-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Sorry but it proves NOTHING about the collapse of the towers!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

NewAgeMan

As you say, they do not address the nature of the destruction of the twin towers, you're right about that.

However, once it's shown that the "collapse" of the towers was no "collapse" at all, what it proves is that the premise and basis of this entire thread, the OP, and the title of the thread, is a valid explanation, no matter what the implications or how painful and difficult they may be to even begin to grasp or fathom.

And as to the destruction of the twin towers and building 7, if we cannot believe and accept what our own eyes can plainly see is an explosive demolition and have to make an appeal to expert opinion, then there are over 2000 courageous registered professional architects and engineers for whom the "collapse" hypothesis just doesn't pass muster.

www.ae911truth.org...

You must understand that the whole premise and basis of the explanatory hypothesis offered in this thread is founded on the physical evidence and proof that the twin towers did not really "collapse" but came down as a result of a high precision engineered CD (controlled demolition), commencing at around the areas of plane impact (where the upgrades and renovations by Turner Construction also just so happened to take place), and then progressing in an explosively ejecting debris wave all the way down the remaining structure to within 4-6 seconds of the time it would take for any freely dropped object from the height of the building to hit the ground when dropped through nothing but air alone, with the difference between a fall through air, and a "collapse" through steel or the path of maximal resistance, is only about maybe 4-6 seconds, which, because we're comparing a drop through nothing (but) air and one through steel, leaves only that difference of time within which every single weld, bolt and joint, all along the remaining structure, to break apart.

Furthermore, we've shown extensive first hand eyewitness testimony, not just of large bangs but of massive explosions take place at the scene, many if not most of which took place in other areas of the building far removed from the impact areas, in some cases blowing firefighters right off their feet.

We've also shown the presence in the dust of tiny drops (spherules) of what must have been molten steel erquiring temperatures by far exceeding those of jet fuel and/or office fires. To complete that part of the physical evidence proving the presence of explosives, we will then also take a look at evidence proving that active thermite was also present, along with evidence of super-high temperatures within the debris field itself.

Then perhaps we'll revisit the first hand eyewitness testimony evidence that the black boxes were indeed located and recovered by the FBI and whisked away never to be heard of again with the Bush Administration lying to a 9/11 Commission headed up by their friend Philip D. Zelikow, who we can show guided the very "national policy" which helped to generate the event and conspiracy/HOAX as "the New Pearl Harbor" of the 21st century.

Lastly, we'll retrace our steps and take another closer look at the miraculous, indestructible hijacker passport found several blocks away from the north tower, and determine, if it were even possible for the passport to escape the building, and the firey crash, intact and unscathed, if a relatively weighty passport could ride the wind for that distance.

So as far as the evidence we've been presenting here in this thread, we're almost done, unless we want to move to the Pentagon and take a much closer look at the alleged Pentagon plane pilot, Hani Hanjour, who was considered by the 9/11 commission to be the 19's most highly trained and capable pilot, which in and of itself might open up a few eyes as to the nature of the Big Lie sold to us by the Zelikow or Bush Administration led (not "independent") 9/11 Commission Report, which, aside from the NIST Report on the "collapse" of the twin towers and buildnig 7, is the ONLY official story (narrative) of the event itself as history, where if one really wants to examine in more detail and depth the real history surrounding 9/11, they are better served to comb through the "truther" website 911 History Commons, since the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report are not a trustworthy source in terms of what really happened on that tragic day that "changed history" and neither do they serve a course and a cause of history capable of serving a just cause capable of honoring the loving memory of the many victims of 9/11, including at some level in the fullness of time and history, ourselves to the degree that we swallowed the Big Lie.


Best Regards,

NAM

double post

reply to post by NewAgeMan

As you say, they do not address the nature of the destruction of the twin towers, you're right about that.

Pilots for 911 truth address aviation issues. Why would they address architectural issues?

Architects for 911 truth is the place to look. Who ever complains Pilots do not address "collapse" issues is adding nothing to the debate.

NewAgeMan
then there are over 2000 courageous registered professional architects and engineers for whom the "collapse" hypothesis just doesn't pass muster.

And we have all seen the quality of their "research"!

the physical evidence and proof that the twin towers did not really "collapse" but came down as a result of a high precision engineered CD (controlled demolition)

Except there is no evidence for a CD at all -
how were the tonnes of explosives smuggled into the buildings past the bomb sniffing dogs?
Why did no one notice the tonnes of explosives in the buildings, the holes punched in the walls, the km of wiring needed etc?
Why did no one hear any explosions before the start of collapse?
Why is there no evidence of explosions before the start of collapse?

we will then also take a look at evidence proving that active thermite was also present,

Why could they not publish their "research" in a peer reviewed journal, why did they need to publish it in a "you give us money, we will publish any crap you want us to" journal?

Just more made up 9/11 conspiracy nonsense - which is why this thread is in the hoax forum!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


YOU don't understand the LOADS that the structure was under at the time or the DYNAMIC LOAD imposed on the lower structure as it fell I will give you an example which may help.

Lets look at a 10kg object falling the the height of a WTC floor approx 4mts

Use this link Impact Calculator

Impact energy just before it touches the floor below 392J of energy.

The next part is the hardest as the structure below DIDN'T/COULDN'T resit the load lets work it out if it just manage to.

The floor trusses were supported on cleats (angle iron) welded at the core side to a channel welded to the core columns and also to the wall columns.

Truss image below
911review.org...

There are images showing cleats sheared off so the weld failed and some of the top part of the cleat sheared off.

This cleat was about 1" (25.4mm) thick lest say that stops our dropping load just at the point it's about to shear so 25.4mm or 0.0254 mtr put that in the calculator above.


That gives a figure of 15433 n now dived that by 9.81 to convert to kg and that is 1573kg or 1.5 tons of impact energy.

The floors FAILED as the falling load hit them so that's why I made the assumption if they did stop they didn't so whats your take on that.

This is just to illustrate the HUGE loads generated in such a situation we can NEVER know the exact details of the impact events we can only see the result.

In fact here is a link to calculations of force on a driver in a crash.

Force on driver in a car crash

DON'T drive to close eh!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You really should just admit defeat. It would look so much better for you.
You are the one who has no idea as per the strength of the risers.
Cognitive dissonnance.

Sorry but it proves NOTHING about the collapse of the towers!!!

Sorry but it proves NOTHING about the collapse of the towers!!!

Sorry but as I said, it shatters the OS.

wmd_2008
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

YOU don't understand the LOADS that the structure was under at the time or the DYNAMIC LOAD imposed on the lower structure as it fell I will give you an example which may help.

Lets look at a 10kg object falling the the height of a WTC floor approx 4mts

Use this link Impact Calculator

Impact energy just before it touches the floor below 392J of energy.

The next part is the hardest as the structure below DIDN'T/COULDN'T resit the load lets work it out if it just manage to.

The floor trusses were supported on cleats (angle iron) welded at the core side to a channel welded to the core columns and also to the wall columns.

Truss image below
911review.org...

There are images showing cleats sheared off so the weld failed and some of the top part of the cleat sheared off.

This cleat was about 1" (25.4mm) thick lest say that stops our dropping load just at the point it's about to shear so 25.4mm or 0.0254 mtr put that in the calculator above.


That gives a figure of 15433 n now dived that by 9.81 to convert to kg and that is 1573kg or 1.5 tons of impact energy.

The floors FAILED as the falling load hit them so that's why I made the assumption if they did stop they didn't so whats your take on that.

This is just to illustrate the HUGE loads generated in such a situation we can NEVER know the exact details of the impact events we can only see the result.

In fact here is a link to calculations of force on a driver in a crash.

Force on driver in a car crash

DON'T drive to close eh!!!

You have ignored my question twice now in this thread. Here is the third version. What kind of seismic reading would you expect when this huge load hits the ground?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Absent the use of explosives (or the foot of God), where is that top block that you claim crushed the remaining structure to within about 4-6 SECONDS of absolute freefall in nothing but air?





Edit to add: Since we're talking about a drop commencing at around the impact area, that would shave a second or two off the time difference (between a fall through air vs. steel structure), leaving perhaps only about three seconds, max, within which all the breakage would have to occur. One, two, three.

You must understand that the whole premise and basis of the explanatory hypothesis offered in this thread is founded on the physical evidence and proof that the twin towers did not really "collapse" but came down as a result of a high precision engineered CD (controlled demolition), commencing at around the areas of plane impact (where the upgrades and renovations by Turner Construction also just so happened to take place), and then progressing in an explosively ejecting debris wave all the way down the remaining structure (without any loss of momentum) to within 4-6 seconds of the time it would take for any freely dropped object from the height of the building to hit the ground when dropped through nothing but air alone, where the difference between a fall through air, and a "collapse" through steel or the path of maximal resistance, is only about maybe 4-6 seconds, and which, therefore, because we're comparing a drop through absolutely nothing (but air) on the one hand, and one through steel (path of maximal resistance), on the other, leaves only that difference of time, for every single weld, bolt and joint, all along the remaining structure, to break apart.

Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (along the direction of the force vector)




Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Dear wmd_2008,

President Barack Obama's administration has been a HUGE disappointment in their continuity of Bush/Cheney policy, but the real "WMD" didn't surface in 2008, and may be found, historically, looking back in hindsight, under his (and Cheney's) desk, so to speak.. and it's not funny, in the least.

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You really should just admit defeat. It would look so much better for you.
You are the one who has no idea as per the strength of the risers.
Cognitive dissonnance.

Sorry but it proves NOTHING about the collapse of the towers!!!

Sorry but it proves NOTHING about the collapse of the towers!!!

Sorry but as I said, it shatters the OS.

edit on 7-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

30+ years in construction first job in a DESIGN/DRAWING OFFICE OF A STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company
on site testing of STRUCTURAL components to help STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, yes I know nothing about the subject

It was a tube in tube design, floors could fall internally due to this design and they did !!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008



But the tube in a tube design, as you call it, is the problem with the pancaking explanation. The outer tube pancaking would not bring down the steel core. The inner tube, or core, should have remained standing for some time, at least long enough to have been seen after the floors collapsed around it. Are you suggesting the inner tube, which contained stairs and elevator shafts, collapsed at the same rate as the pancaking outer concrete floors?

Another problem I have is with all the dust we see. It defies explanation to be coming just from pancaking slabs of concrete and steel.

toidiem
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

But the tube in a tube design, as you call it, is the problem with the pancaking explanation. The outer tube pancaking would not bring down the steel core. The inner tube, or core, should have remained standing for some time, at least long enough to have been seen after the floors collapsed around it. Are you suggesting the inner tube, which contained stairs and elevator shafts, collapsed at the same rate as the pancaking outer concrete floors?

Another problem I have is with all the dust we see. It defies explanation to be coming just from pancaking slabs of concrete and steel.

edit on 8-12-2013 by toidiem because: punctuation

The OUTER walls didn't pancake have you actually watched the videos?

Look at the impact points and what happened withe the towers.

South Tower hit second fell first BECAUSE the load above the impact point was greater also it was hit off centre on the elevation the aircraft impacted, and started to drop in that area of the tower .

www.debunking911.com...

The North Tower hit first fell second BECCAUSE load above impact area was lower, it has hit almost dead centre on the elevation the plane hit and it dropped almost exactly vertical.

The dust ONE more time for people who jumped to the wrong conclusion, it contained all the dust from items of construction that would produce it.

SHEETROCK, SPRAYED ON FIRE PROTECT, PAINT, CEILING TILES, CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS also amongst that would be smoke, glass etc. There was THOUSANDS of m2 of sheetrock,fire protection and paint alone.

Here is a picture of the sprayed on fire protection

cdn.historycommons.org...

Imagine how much dust that produces when crushed.

The outer walls peeled away in the collapse part of the core survived (the spire video) tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel were falling DYNAMIC loads far exceed static loads that's what the ordinary man on the street seems to have difficulty understanding.

NewAgeMan
where is that top block that you claim crushed the remaining structure to within about 4-6 SECONDS of

Where did I say top block ?

reply to post by wmd_2008

It was a tube in tube design, floors could fall internally due to this design and they did !!!!

You are completely 100% wrong and just gave yourself away. The structure has nothing to do
with tubes. Except for the curtain wall. Which is the outer facade capture for the glass.
So blow that smoke somewhere else. You don't even know what you're talking about.
I know exactly how buildings go up pard. Been there, done that.

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

It was a tube in tube design, floors could fall internally due to this design and they did !!!!

You are completely 100% wrong and just gave yourself away. The structure has nothing to do
with tubes. Except for the curtain wall. Which is the outer facade capture for the glass.
So blow that smoke somewhere else. You don't even know what you're talking about.
I know exactly how buildings go up pard. Been there, done that.

SERIOUSLY your the one without a clue the core was the INNER TUBE the WALLS THE OUTER TUBE hence tube in tube design.

Here read up on it and do more research before you embarrass your again!!!!

Tube (structures) and variations

reply to post by wmd_2008


That's quite simply a reference not used in the field and has
nothing to do with any of risers or columns being tubular pal
that's just silly if you think it does. No tubes.lol

It even says this in your link or one of the many I've looked
at " That the gravity load is shared by the core columns."

reply to post by randyvs


Really? You wouldn't call the inner core a tube? Or the outer core a tube?

That looks like an inner tube and an outer tube to me. The inner core being one, the outer walls being the other.

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

That's quite simply a reference not used in the field and has
nothing to do with any of risers or columns being tubular pal
that's just silly if you think it does. No tubes.lol

I never said it had anything to do with columns its about design it is steel tube within a steel tube and CAN also refer to concrete'

One Shell Plaza was the tallest building west of the Mississippi River and the tallest reinforced concrete structure in the world. It is the first all-lightweight concrete building and one of the first tube-in-tube structures ever built.

In bold the important words just for YOU!

Also here just for you

Structural System Categorization for Tall Buildings Completed 1961–2010

From the link.

Framed Tube (system of rigid frames)
- Bundled Tube (combination of framed tubes)
- Tube in Tube (central and peripheral framed tubes)

So why don't you just let people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about do the posting!

reply to post by wmd_2008


We possibly have another misunderstanding then. As long as you aren't
saying the columns were tubular in design and detail. Because I know
damn well their not.

And your nose has no business in this part of the discussion Zaph.
So don't try. You'll just get spanked again.