Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


That's simple, an isolated fired burned for a couple hours causing the total failure of main support columns causing implosion and free fall of the entire building.

Originally posted by Chordz
Building 7 could have collapsed in this manner only if the main support columns AND perimeter columns were cut or compromised, it simply can't happen any other way. Imagine if buildings would collapse like all three towers did every time a fire broke out.

That's why you take into account the debris damage. It cut all water, the fire wasn't even attempted to be fought, and parts of the perimeter were taken out. Remember the southwest corner chunk that was missing? And then the fireman testimony of a massive gash taken out of the south side of the building, and then the uncontrolled fires that failed ONE major part, making the floor cave in, the weight smashed down, broke more columns, and badda boom, the whole building comes down.

reply to post by Varemia


Nothing in an office environment could burn any where near the melting point of steel, that fire could burn for weeks and do nothing!

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

Nothing in an office environment could burn any where near the melting point of steel, that fire could burn for weeks and do nothing!

Not when the building was damaged the way it was, and it took many hours to come down. It didn't even come down all at once. Only one part failed, remember?

Stop making assertions that you have no support for!

en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.

Originally posted by AndrewJay
en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.

This is not relevant right now. I'm talking about the collapse themselves, not whether or not the government orchestrated the attacks. I could care less about whether the government planned or allowed the event to happen. But the towers didn't collapse with the help of explosives.

reply to post by Varemia


Have you even seen the video? You can't be serious.

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

Have you even seen the video? You can't be serious.

Watch the video again, with my annotations throughout:

"The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area.


Just saying that its happened before and theres no reason not to think it didnt or couldnt happen again. Keep an open mind.

reply to post by Varemia


A 67 is basically a hollow tube with strength coming from the keel beam and wing spars, that's about it. They did not take down the twin towers.

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

A 67 is basically a hollow tube with strenght coming from the keel beam and wing spars, that's about it. They did not take down the twin towers.

Not by itself! Jeesh, does everything have to be explained piece by piece so that it makes sense?

Metal container going 500 miles per hour hits metal frame. Metal container breaks apart after hitting the frame and tears a hole in the frame (remember the big hole?). The metal container happens to have a lot of fuel that exploded on impact, starting multiple fires and thrusting office equipment, etc. to the sides or out broken windows. The fires burn around many broken or twisted columns and the heat is uneven, because parts of the building have regular fire, and parts are being burned with the aid of jet fuel. Eventually, chunks of the plane begin to melt from the heat, and the molten aluminum causes more heat and other chemical reactions with the environment it is in. Finally, the plasticizing columns can take no more, and the building comes down.

reply to post by Varemia


The problem is that happened twice on the same day with the exact results with different impact speeds, heights and angles.

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

The problem is that happened twice on the same day with the exact results with different impact speeds, heights and angles.

Which stands to reason that it was an effect that the builders had not anticipated when the towers were constructed. They factored in impact damage and heat tolerance, but not multiple heat levels at once along with impact damage. The fact that the towers took varying lengths of time to collapse should attest to that.

The two Firefighters sitting down in the video have been seen on other 9/11 videos, but like I said before I have NEVER seen the full version and I've watched almost every video about 9/11 made since 2002....and that includes "video fakery" videos..

I never heard these firemen speaking about "secondary explosions" and "third" ones. The blast they are describing obviously made an impression on them and obviously contributed to the lobby being blown out/caved in.

If someone can point us to where these Firemen's testimony (as described in this video) is in the 9/11 Commission Report, please do so.

Otherwise you have an important story being omitted.

If it took an FOIA request to get this video, who filmed it? What authority did they give Government to maintain rights to it? Was it filmed by a Government employee or private party? was it to be as 'evidence' and was it labeled as such?

These are questions I would be asking.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

The problem is that happened twice on the same day with the exact results with different impact speeds, heights and angles.

Which stands to reason that it was an effect that the builders had not anticipated when the towers were constructed. They factored in impact damage and heat tolerance, but not multiple heat levels at once along with impact damage. The fact that the towers took varying lengths of time to collapse should attest to that.

Even in the case of weakened steel from fire, as you say, would you expect no resistance and free fall?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Chordz
reply to post by Varemia

 

The problem is that happened twice on the same day with the exact results with different impact speeds, heights and angles.

Which stands to reason that it was an effect that the builders had not anticipated when the towers were constructed. They factored in impact damage and heat tolerance, but not multiple heat levels at once along with impact damage. The fact that the towers took varying lengths of time to collapse should attest to that.

I think you're greatly underestimating the strength of these, or any steel buildings. They were built on the principle of redundant reinforcement. They were built to withstand impacts from not just one 707 impact, but multiple.

What I see from your logic, is the assumption that these buildings are built to only support their own weight with a bit left over. The actual reality is that they were built to withstand their own weight multiple times over. Building 7 had some damage to one corner, and a few small fires. I saw you referencing "thermal expansion" of the main columns - but I've seen no evidence of such asymmetric heat distribution among heat-conducting steel columns. It's all pure speculation, and based on poor logic at that.

Originally posted by Son of WillWhat I see from your logic, is the assumption that these buildings are built to only support their own weight with a bit left over. The actual reality is that they were built to withstand their own weight multiple times over. Building 7 had some damage to one corner, and a few small fires. I saw you referencing "thermal expansion" of the main columns - but I've seen no evidence of such asymmetric heat distribution among heat-conducting steel columns. It's all pure speculation, and based on poor logic at that.

I get it from this site:
www.tms.org...

It is put together by Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, so these fellows know what they're talking about, eh?

Originally posted by ChordzEven in the case of weakened steel from fire, as you say, would you expect no resistance and free fall?

It is technically not "no" resistance, as I have seen videos that accurately place the fall speed a few seconds slower than free-fall, but yes, I would expect this from buildings of this design. I've seen concrete buildings fall at the same speed when taken down from the top, and the steel structure would essentially act the same under similar forces. The main difference is that instead of the building made of concrete that implodes on itself, the steel ejects in chunks and twists itself like mad on the way down. It's not so much no resistance, as the resistance finding an easier way to relieve itself.

reply to post by Varemia


Well i tried not to enter the fray on this thread to much...but VERM your a fool as you talk to people like they dont know anything ...yet your an expert on all things...GET A GRIP.

once again your just like ALFIE...you spew rubbish.

It is important to note that that although Eagar is a Professor in the MIT Department of Materials Science, his specific concentration is not in structural analysis or failure analysis, subjects which would give him true expertise in collapse analysis, but in the field of metallurgy and specifically the properties of exotic welding alloys. His novel theories of the properties of tall buildings being dependent not on their proportions but on absolute size, i.e. that a tall slender object greater than a certain size will lose the ability to topple over and can only fail by telescoping into itself, have never been expressed by any actual structural engineer to my knowledge and are provably false. His assertion that the top of the building cannot be pushed far enough to move the center of gravity outside of the building's footprint is irrelevant to the realities of an actual collapse, since it imagines a situation in which the top of an intact tower is pushed to one side to initiate the collapse. This is an odd hypothetical, since it imagines a tower that is not attached to the ground being tipped over by a lateral force. But even so he gets the distance wrong, since the actual center of gravity was near the middle floors of the tower - the top would have to have moved at least twice as far for the middle floors to move the required 104 feet.

Read this as it proves how smart your Thomas is and what his fild of expertise is....it is not in demolition or even structural Engineering.

so please verm.....just as Alfie...you really do need to go and learn to look....by the way...i am a structural Engineer...but i am getting tired of coming into 9/11 threads and finding the same FOUR debunkers talking like s*it to people.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74ded816bb2d.jpg[/atsimg]