Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

a reply to: NWOwned

That video has been debunked. For an example, listen to what he says at time line 4:48. Now, take a look at this photo.

Photo: Horseshoe Steel

That photo alone debunks that segment of the video. Now, go to time line 0:36 and you will notice that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower which effectively debunks the claim the building collapsed at free fall speed.

Now, head to time line 5:18 to 6:00 and listen to what is being presented, but let's take a trip over to NIST to see what it said about the temperature levels.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

www.nist.gov...

In other words, that video is spewing false information.

a reply to: skyeagle409

What does Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Gordon Duff, have to do with the seismic graphs that we are discussing?

These people have nothing to do with anything you and I are talking about.

To be fair, I do find the science credible in many cases with A&E and there is some that I do disagree with. I have not seen such a level of personal, charator assassination against a group of good scientist any where in the world like this except when it comes to 911.

Actually, I'll take that back, I have seen it with the Global warming science.

You keep talking about how bad all these A&E scientist are yet I have not seen their work debunked on ATS, why is that?

Now, I believe we can all agree, there is credible seismic data that proves there were explosions in the WTC, before and during the collapse.

a reply to: Informer1958

What does Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Gordon Duff, have to do with the seismic graphs that we are discussing?

Actually, nothing, but where's the demolition spikes in the WTC seismic data? I do not see any demolition spikes in regard to the seismic data. I see spikes for the collapse and impacts, but none for demolition explosions, which would have been evident proceeding the collapse of the WTC buildings, but there are no such spikes depicted on the WTC seismic data.

a reply to: Informer1958

You keep talking about how bad all these A&E scientist are yet I have not seen their work debunked on ATS, why is that?

Have you ever wondered why "AE911 Truth" has been challenged by other 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Have you ever wondered why associates have been jumping off the bandwagon of "AE911 Truth?"

Let's take a look here.

Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Actually, nothing, but where's the demolition spikes in the WTC seismic data? I do not see any demolition spikes in regard to the seismic data. I see spikes for the collapse and impacts, but none for demolition explosions, which would have been evident proceeding the collapse of the WTC buildings, but there are no such spikes depicted on the WTC seismic data.

Read what LaBTop wrote under each seismic graft, he explains the graft in simple terms. I can see the grafts clearly and it shows huge recordings of seismic data of both towers as they are coming down.

North Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

South Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

This is the first North Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :

This is the second, South Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismographs :

Not only does he prove it, he shows the seismographs of each plane that struck the WTC. The other grafts he shows clearly shows the seismic data of the explosions.

Your claim is there is no seismic data.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Have you ever wondered why "AE911 Truth" has been challenged by other 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Have you ever wondered why associates have been jumping off the bandwagon of "AE911 Truth?"

But yet I have never seen anyone debunk their science, I have read all the negative opinions from many websites, but most of these negative comments are coming mostly from websites that support the OS narratives, what would you expect.

originally posted by: Informer1958
But yet I have never seen anyone debunk their science,

That is simply because the do not post any science, just opinions.

Care to show some science they have posted?

a reply to: hellobruce

That is simply because the do not post any science, just opinions.

Care to show some science they have posted?

www1.ae911truth.org...

There are so many that I can not post all of them, however you can go to this link that I have provided for you. and read them.

I would expect it will take you a week to read all of them.

Some info for consideration re defining a collapse zone around a building considered at risk of falling:

From www.firehouse.com...

• A collapse zone is defined as the area around the perimeter of a structure that could contain debris if the building collapsed. This area is often defined by establishing a perimeter at a distance from the building that is equal to 1.5 times the height of the structure.

It's not opinion, it's procedure learned the hard way over time.

1.5 x 1400' = 2100' radius

WTC7 was 47? stories tall (~550') so it required a zone of radius about 800' to be cleared which took hours to accomplish in city as densely populated as NYC.

I find it interesting that there were counter terrorist professionals on the day who believed that one reason they waited up to an hour before blowing the buildings was to maximize the killing of first responders, which apparently is a very common tactic of the suspected groups who carry out the more sophisticated bombing attacks in the middle east.

Typically you have the primary event/explosion to attract the rescue services to a location, then they detonate a much larger secondary payload when the first responders arrive at the scene. In the case of the towers, the planes would of been the primary event to attract the rescue workers, and bringing down the towers being the secondary event to kill and injure as many of those first responders as they could. Logically one would assume they would of needed to wait to give them some time to draw them into the higher levels of the buildings, and someone could of monitored the radios to track the firefighters progress.

originally posted by: Insolubrious
I find it interesting that there were counter terrorist professionals on the day who believed that one reason they waited up to an hour before blowing the buildings

Care to name these "counter terrorist professionals" who said the building was blown?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: NWOwned

That video has been debunked. For an example, listen to what he says at time line 4:48. Now, take a look at this photo.

Photo: Horseshoe Steel

That photo alone debunks that segment of the video. Now, go to time line 0:36 and you will notice that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower which effectively debunks the claim the building collapsed at free fall speed.

Now, head to time line 5:18 to 6:00 and listen to what is being presented, but let's take a trip over to NIST to see what it said about the temperature levels.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

www.nist.gov...

In other words, that video is spewing false information.

Yeah that horseshoe is interesting... And the 'meteorite' too, I'd like to sort it all out, you're all welcome to come along with me!

Let us begin.

Right with the bent beam.

I can see for instance, some iron worker guy say something like: "Steel is like plastic it's not all the same. A plastic knife or spoon will bend under pressure but a plastic record will crack and shatter. Steel is like that too. The steel they make buildings out of is the bending under great pressure kind. If that horseshoe was a core piece firmly attached and the other end had a floor stuck to it going over and down then even that could bend it. There is no need even for heat."

Now you yourself may not agree with that but this is the 9/11 forum and you and I both know someone would voice this very opinion!

Next we move on to heat. But it comes in two classes. The first is Pure Fire. Meaning, fire, and fire alone plus pressure-tension caused the bend. The steel heated up (due only to fire) then bent under the pressure.

The next option is Fire Plus. There was fire, maybe hot enough to weaken steel maybe not, that's the first thing, for we don't know where the bent beam was located? Right? We're just assuming the bent beam was due to heat and the heat was caused by fire right?

You have a bent beam and office fires you jump to conclusion fire heated steel... Right? It assumption not proof. Where was the beam when it was straight? Was it near fire long enough to soften 6" steel? Is it not also possible that in addition to fire there may have been a source of heat present that was more than just fire? It's possible. Fire plus covers this possibility.

So I see the beam as 1. No Fire. 2. Fire Only. 3. Fire Plus.

The point I'm trying to make with this example is how each option can even seem correct but really only one is.

But which one is it?

Fascinating.

But you have to admit it is a leap to like heat from fire only bending that beam because:

1. You don't know if THAT beam was even subjected to fire, and
2. There are other types of potential heat sources that could've been also present.
3. Maybe pressure-tension alone bent it.

a reply to: Insolubrious

Typically you have the primary event/explosion to attract the rescue services to a location, then they detonate a much larger secondary payload when the first responders arrive at the scene. In the case of the towers, the planes would of been the primary event to attract the rescue workers, and bringing down the towers being the secondary event to kill and injure as many of those first responders as they could.

Your thinking doesn't match the events that day.
After the first building was hit, the second was evacuated.
First responders were still climbing the stairs of the first building.
9:58 the second building collapses.
Exactly 30 minutes later the first building collapses.
No dispute on these basic facts.

Now why allow 30 minutes for first responders to get out of the first building?
If your goal is to kill as many first responders as possible, you blow it without warning.
If your goal is to kill as many people as possible, you blow the building when the plane hits.

The hard facts are the first building stayed up for 102 minutes.
The second only 55 minutes. About half as long as the first.

That's a long time to allow scared people and first responders to stumble over demolition evidence.
Even if they didn't make it out they could have radioed or cell phoned what they saw.
There's even a audio of a man on the phone as the collapse starts. No demo sounds.

originally posted by: samkent
The hard facts are the first building stayed up for 102 minutes.
The second only 55 minutes. About half as long as the first.

That's a long time to allow scared people and first responders to stumble over demolition evidence.
Even if they didn't make it out they could have radioed or cell phoned what they saw.
There's even a audio of a man on the phone as the collapse starts. No demo sounds.

I'd like to add to this - and add another issue - if the building's were demolished, why wait until later, as there will be much larger chance of a video giving it away? For example, if WTC1 had gone down with the impact of AA11, we would have exactly one video to watch of it, and the chances of us looking at that one video and getting any decent evidence would be extremely low.
In such a scenario there would then be a lot of attention on the towers as the second plane comes in, but no where near the amount of videos there were nearly an hour later when WTC2 did go down.

Also, would there not have been a chance of demolition equipment being thrown clear by the aircraft impacts? The effort required to subtly rig the WTC for demolition and have no one know would be like the effort required to go to the Moon.

a reply to: apex

Also, would there not have been a chance of demolition equipment being thrown clear by the aircraft impacts? The effort required to subtly rig the WTC for demolition and have no one know would be like the effort required to go to the Moon.

In the conspiracy world nothing goes wrong.
No one screws up his job.
All the charges go off.
None are dislodged by the aircraft.
No one sees the prep work.
No one talks.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce

That is simply because the do not post any science, just opinions.

Care to show some science they have posted?

www1.ae911truth.org...

There are so many that I can not post all of them, however you can go to this link that I have provided for you. and read them.

I would expect it will take you a week to read all of them.

Thanks for the link. Still no science but a lot of opinion. Some pretend science by Jones, et al., that is inconclusive at best and generally nonsensical. In general, most of the characters in the link couldn't find their butts with both hands if they were on fire. They all wanted a demolition conspiracy and all they had were the videos/seismographs/I-heard-a-loud-boom witnesses, etc., so they forced the issue. Science requires hard evidence and there is none. The physical collapses were the easy target that they went after instead of any real conspiracy such as the coverup of incompetent political appointees heading the agencies or the coverup of shoddy construction and bribed inspectors that, if discovered, would have serious liability consequences for the city in the billions. See posts by S.O.
If you consider who would be liable for collapse of shoddily constructed buildings purportedly inspected by city inspectors and ask who actually was responsible for clearing the site and had control of the materials, including what was sampled and what wasn't, you may see a different aspect. A&E and similar organizations fell for the plan and stay focused on physical conspiracies. They are an unwitting part of the conspiracy and are necessary to the plotters success by deflecting attention to a losing concept. Do you think they are being fed by those who wish to keep it that way? You may not realize it, but an op like this is so complex that it could only happen in a "Mission Impossible" movie. I have written military op plans and this one would have invited disaster with so many ways to turn into a Charlie Foxtrot that it would have been bound to be discovered. There are just too many moving parts for no gain. If the towers had remained standing, like twin swords of Damocles, the costs and danger for removal or repair would have been astronomical.
There was no WTC demolition other than that caused by two large aircraft hitting the biggest buildings. The Pentagon was not hit by a missile because the extent of damage was far too great to be caused by a missile and the type of damage was not consistent with any cruise missile.
A&E has been sucked into the plot and just don't realize it.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: NWOwned

Now, take a look at this photo.

Photo: Horseshoe Steel


In other words, that video is spewing false information.

If it is true that Tower 1 stood for 102 minutes and Tower 2 for 55, then what you are saying is that 6" thick Steel box column melted and bent into the shape of a horseshoe in either 102 or 55 minutes respectively, from jet fuel induced office fires?

Is that correct?

originally posted by: NWOwned
6" thick Steel box column melted

What makes you think it melted? There is zero evidence for steel melting on 9/11...

and bent into the shape of a horseshoe

A building falling on it may bend it, don't you think?

a reply to: hellobruce

You know I was just about to change melted to weakened but you beat me to it.

Ok WEAKENED a 6" thick steel box column in either 102 or 55 minutes, .... from jet fuel induced office fires etc.

originally posted by: NWOwned
Ok WEAKENED a 6" thick steel box column in either 102 or 55 minutes, .... from jet fuel induced office fires etc.

You do not think tens of thousands of tonnes of material falling on it would bend a bit of metal?

twisting the bars when hot. Officers should be instructed that bars simply bent may be used again, but if when red hot they are twisted out of line they cannot be used again. Pile the ties into shape for a bonfire, put the rails across and when red hot in the middle, let a man at each end twist the bar so that its surface becomes spiral.

Men twisting railway by hand, after a wood fire!

en.wikipedia.org...'s_neckties