World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: jaffo

I'm extremely disappointed that you have been allowed to spam this site with idiocy for days now. Bravo, mods. Bravo.

Don't be a killjoy!

Show me your evidence for the OT and I'm the first one to stop scrutinizing the matter. Honestly.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruI doubt anyone will ever have their mind changed by Internet debate. It's an echo chamber. We seek opinions that verify ours and ignore those that don't. So that's what we have here.

I'm not ignoring you at all, rest assured. I'm simply enjoying a very pleasant discussion in which you and a number of others try to convince me that I'm wrong. I might be - you might be - we both might be. We both have surreal theories that we both think are quite plausible. I don't swear, yell or whatever, nor do you, nor do the remaining partners in our discussion. I'm enjoying all this

I'm extremely disappointed that you have been allowed to spam this site with idiocy for days now. Bravo, mods. Bravo.

I`m extremely disappointed in your continued effort to get a member banned off a thread.
I`ve been really enjoying the discussion on this thread and I`m certain there`s more beside`s me.
ForteanOrg has been a big part of the discussion and is doing pretty well in answering what`s been thrown at him.

If he`s upsetting you so much.....just don`t read his posts.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ForteanOrg

So, perhaps..

Just curious... would it produce heat with roughly 2600°C? Friction on atomic level... hmm...

It creates movement of molecules and yes, some heat. But the Toldya ray does not literally melt the beam - it weakens only a small part of the structures it attacks. It employs two techniques to destroy the material - with surprisingly little energy. It uses the resonance frequency of the materials it attacks to create micro-movement - a bit like pushing a swing - and it selectively disrupts the bounds between molecules. It is somewhat comparable with the effect of bending a material over and over again - you probably used the old twist and bend technique to snap a wire. Well, the Toldya is much more refined: twisting a wire to break it actually is quite inefficient, where the Toldya has been designed to work with as little energy as possible and it is targeted very carefully.

The Toldya does on a microscale what you saw on the macroscale when the Twin Towers collapsed: the buildings may look solid to you - but they are mostly air and so if you pull out a limited set of beams, the buildings will collapse. Likewise, any material is simply mostly nothing and if the balance between molecules is distorted this likewise results in a collapse.

Most of the collapses occur immediately but - again, as we saw with the Twin Towers - some occur later. The main reason to haul away the steel as fast as we did was - and this is the weirdest thing and totally surprising when you hear it for the first time - that the delayed microcollapses are 'contageous'. When affected materials touch non-affected materials, it may happen - and sometimes happens weeks, months or even years later - that the NON-AFFECTED materials suffer from microcollapses too. And even worse: such non-affected materials are now affected materials - and may spread the effect. The effect wears off, but if part of an affected material ends up in a critical component - say a space shuttle - a microcollapse occurs that might result in a disaster.

(Delayed) 'microcollapses' result in bends, twists, holes, hastened onset of rust - and the peculiair thing about them is that they sometimes stop just as spontaneously as they began but may also start again at any given moment. Once a material has been affected it is quite difficult to predict when and if it will fail. The process is difficult to stop, even melting the metals seems not to help. But as said, it wears off eventually and in the end it's a bit like rust: it happens but you can live with it.

Toldya works best with stiff, dense materials, like metals. It also works quite well with concrete (as we saw).

Of course - I'm certain of all this. But of course - I can't prove it. You simply have to believe me.



(I might publish a book)

originally posted by: jaffoI'm extremely disappointed that you have been allowed to spam this site with idiocy for days now. Bravo, mods. Bravo.

Dear man, if one looks at what is being said / written on this site one is tempted to label a lot of things here 'idiocy'. But even when you swim in a sea of nonsense, you may eventually stumble on the island of wisdom. In this thread we've been exchanging opinions, have thrown around some theories, tried to find explanations (and all of you failed miserably, of course, as the only truth is that is was an alien ray, told ya

Brighten up and if you really think that I'm full of it, either ignore me or point out the flaws in my reasoning.

If you want science - go to NIST. If you want explanations - welcome here!

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

either ignore me or point out the flaws in my reasoning.

You started your space ray story in order to explain why large sections of core columns turned to dust.

Now you are saying the Toldya ray does not literally melt the beam - it weakens only a small part of the structures it attacks.

Could this contradiction be considered a flaw in your reasoning ?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

If you want science - go to NIST. If you want explanations - welcome here!

Your explanations are not even up to the level of pseudoscience.
Perhaps a bedtime fairy tale.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: ForteanOrg

If you want science - go to NIST. If you want explanations - welcome here!

Your explanations are not even up to the level of pseudoscience.
Perhaps a bedtime fairy tale.

But explanations nevertheless

And again: by saying that my aunt is my uncle..

Of course it could be considered a flaw in my reasoning.

Likewise, saying that the buildings in New York collapsed because only a small part of their structure was weakened might be considered flawed reasoning.

a reply to: waypastvne

Now you are saying the Toldya ray does not literally melt the beam

Funny. I've actually thought about that myself after I laughed my ass off. He does write marvellous tales, doesn't he?

Well... The abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” could've added proof to his theory but that was never the intention. It's pretty simple: the Toldya (lol) has to remain invisible evidence-wise to match the Nist-report equivalently.

This is a dance on the thin line line between fat cats and fiction, as far away from the facts as possible of course... Niscience if you like. Fictional evidence is everything and changes in the report part of the process, a highly creative analogy on many levels.

Niscience, I just told ya. And it's frigging brilliant!

originally posted by: PublicOpinionFunny. I've actually thought about that myself after I laughed my ass off. He does write marvellous tales, doesn't he?

Well, either I'm very creative - or I'm simply reporting what I know to be true.

The abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” could've added proof to his theory

Hutchkinson actually also stumbled on Toldya accidentally. He is a messy experimenter: somewhat like a beer brewer that forgot to jot down his recipe. He found himself with the most excellent beer - unable to reproduce it. He ended up with a fairly good beer every now and then, but never with the fine brew he once had.

But the effect is very real. In some storms it seems to happen naturally but totally at random, resulting in bizarre intertwinings of seemingly incompatible materials (e.g. wood ends up piercing steel). Y'all heard about the Philadelphia experiment, didn't you? Well, it really happened though not exactly like it was described in the books.

In those days (1942-1943) the allies used a primitive form of radar. As they knew the Germans had radar too they tried to invent a method to make their ships "invisible" - not for the human eye, but for radar. The idea was actually quite simple: instead of trying to be invisible you'd do the opposite and "blind" the enemy radar using a very intense microwave signal.

They had another brilliant idea: instead of using some antenna, why not use the entire ship? And so they did. But a terrible accident happened: the microwave generator was activated accidentally while the men were still on the ship. By sheer coincidence the frequencies used - there were various oscillators - resulted in effects similar of those reproduced by Hutchkinson and used in the Toldya. Part of the ship collapsed due to microcollapses. Part of it bend and twisted. The ship actually sunk. And the 'incompatible materials' were partially human beings, a terrible mess. Some survived and suffered from weird after effects. Some could not cope with the terrible things they had witnessed and ended in an asylum. The story you are being told is actually partially true and it was not 'spun' - it simply leaked via a buddy of one of the unfortunate sailors aboard that ship.

But another thing happened that day. The same effect that changed / ended the lives of so many marines that day was observed by our former alien friends. Imagine their surprise when they saw this "wow" signal coming from Earth: the people of Earth clearly had discovered something like Toldya. This was alarming: the earth people might soon discover - or perhaps already had discovered - the physics that would allow faster than light communication and interstellar travel. Now, suddenly, these fairly agressive beings might show up on their doorstep. Something had to be done. And was done.

But - wait - I'm telling y'all way to much.

Buy the book, and read more!

This is a dance on the thin line line between fat cats and fiction, as far away from the facts as possible of course... Niscience if you like. Fictional evidence is everything and changes in the report part of the process, a highly creative analogy on many levels.

Niscience, I just told ya. And it's frigging brilliant!

But before some of you rupture an artery from laughing - I still haven't had any answers why the 'upper block' managed to start a leftward motion that suddenly halted. I fully understand that my honourable opponents think that the lower 80+ floors either provided neglible or no resitance and IFF they provided a counterforce, it was applied evenly. Even then: the upper "block" started a leftward motion and Newton#1 dictates that it continues that motion (even while falling down). Unless an opposing force is applied to it.

So, any takers?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

They say it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled....

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: PublicOpinionFunny. I've actually thought about that myself after I laughed my ass off. He does write marvellous tales, doesn't he?

Well, either I'm very creative - or I'm simply reporting what I know to be true.

The abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” could've added proof to his theory

Hutchkinson actually also stumbled on Toldya accidentally. He is a messy experimenter: somewhat like a beer brewer that forgot to jot down his recipe. He found himself with the most excellent beer - unable to reproduce it. He ended up with a fairly good beer every now and then, but never with the fine brew he once had.

But the effect is very real. In some storms it seems to happen naturally but totally at random, resulting in bizarre intertwinings of seemingly incompatible materials (e.g. wood ends up piercing steel). Y'all heard about the Philadelphia experiment, didn't you? Well, it really happened though not exactly like it was described in the books.

In those days (1942-1943) the allies used a primitive form of radar. As they knew the Germans had radar too they tried to invent a method to make their ships "invisible" - not for the human eye, but for radar. The idea was actually quite simple: instead of trying to be invisible you'd do the opposite and "blind" the enemy radar using a very intense microwave signal.

They had another brilliant idea: instead of using some antenna, why not use the entire ship? And so they did. But a terrible accident happened: the microwave generator was activated accidentally while the men were still on the ship. By sheer coincidence the frequencies used - there were various oscillators - resulted in effects similar of those reproduced by Hutchkinson and used in the Toldya. Part of the ship collapsed due to microcollapses. Part of it bend and twisted. The ship actually sunk. And the 'incompatible materials' were partially human beings, a terrible mess. Some survived and suffered from weird after effects. Some could not cope with the terrible things they had witnessed and ended in an asylum. The story you are being told is actually partially true and it was not 'spun' - it simply leaked via a buddy of one of the unfortunate sailors aboard that ship.

But another thing happened that day. The same effect that changed / ended the lives of so many marines that day was observed by our former alien friends. Imagine their surprise when they saw this "wow" signal coming from Earth: the people of Earth clearly had discovered something like Toldya. This was alarming: the earth people might soon discover - or perhaps already had discovered - the physics that would allow faster than light communication and interstellar travel. Now, suddenly, these fairly agressive beings might show up on their doorstep. Something had to be done. And was done.

But - wait - I'm telling y'all way to much.

Buy the book, and read more!

This is a dance on the thin line line between fat cats and fiction, as far away from the facts as possible of course... Niscience if you like. Fictional evidence is everything and changes in the report part of the process, a highly creative analogy on many levels.

Niscience, I just told ya. And it's frigging brilliant!

But before some of you rupture an artery from laughing - I still haven't had any answers why the 'upper block' managed to start a leftward motion that suddenly halted. I fully understand that my honourable opponents think that the lower 80+ floors either provided neglible or no resitance and IFF they provided a counterforce, it was applied evenly. Even then: the upper "block" started a leftward motion and Newton#1 dictates that it continues that motion (even while falling down). Unless an opposing force is applied to it.

So, any takers?

I told you this already. Perhaps the columns and beams at the opposite side were still resisting. The main force is vertical not horizontal at 10°. The building wants to travel vertically down. Not across. No magic involved. Simple physics.

originally posted by: scottyirnbruI told you this already.

You indeed did not provide any explanation and did so repeatedly

Perhaps

.. perhaps not ..

the columns and beams at the opposite side were still resisting.

So, the very same colums that collapsed and started that leftward motion somehow started resisting again?

The main force is vertical not horizontal at 10°.

Indeed - given that the lower floors do not provide a significant, upward force. But if they do, the tower would not have collapsed as fast as it did. And if they don't, I'd expect the leftward movement to continue - inertia, Newton #1 and all that. But no, the "block" simply stopped toppling over while 'falling down' - what kind of magic causes that?

Alien ray. Told ya.

The building wants to travel vertically down. Not across. No magic involved. Simple physics.

You keep repeating that my aunt is my uncle but I still haven't found a beard on her.

We agree that the building (mostly) fell down. Mostly, because a lot of the dust actually was driven UP first and only then came down. But we did not see cancellatio of gravity, I agree. The very same gravity, combined with Newton #1 (inertia) should have done two things: the top (the block) should have fallen down and the block should have continued its leftward motion.

Simple physics.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruI told you this already.

You indeed did not provide any explanation and did so repeatedly

Perhaps

.. perhaps not ..

the columns and beams at the opposite side were still resisting.

So, the very same colums that collapsed and started that leftward motion somehow started resisting again?

The main force is vertical not horizontal at 10°.

Indeed - given that the lower floors do not provide a significant, upward force. But if they do, the tower would not have collapsed as fast as it did. And if they don't, I'd expect the leftward movement to continue - inertia, Newton #1 and all that. But no, the "block" simply stopped toppling over while 'falling down' - what kind of magic causes that?

Alien ray. Told ya.

The building wants to travel vertically down. Not across. No magic involved. Simple physics.

You keep repeating that my aunt is my uncle but I still haven't found a beard on her.

We agree that the building (mostly) fell down. Mostly, because a lot of the dust actually was driven UP first and only then came down. But we did not see cancellatio of gravity, I agree. The very same gravity, combined with Newton #1 (inertia) should have done two things: the top (the block) should have fallen down and the block should have continued its leftward motion.

Simple physics.

Sigh. Not the same columns. The columns at the opposite side. The columns at your imaginary hinge point. The opposite side to the direction it is canted.

What you expect and reality are clearly 2 different things. There is no reason for the building to carry on that movement. Load is acting vertically downwards courtesy of gravity. The building slightly canted then gravity took over and the building moved in the direction that the load is acting. Vertically down. I don't understand why you think this is some form of wizardry. It's not.

I don't know what you are on about with dust going up. It's irrelevant.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

The sounds heard in the video are the result of structural failure, not from demolition explosions. Firefighters indicated structural noises from within WTC 7 that had nothing to do with explosives. Check it out.

WTC 7

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.

Hayden: Yeah. ... Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

debunking911.com...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Well... The abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” could've added proof to his theory but that was never the intention. It's pretty simple: the Toldya (lol) has to remain invisible evidence-wise to match the Nist-report equivalently.

The spherical particles are the result of welding operations during construction and during the clean-up process as crews used high temp wands and torches to cut steel columns.

The silicates you are speaking of are common and can also be found in fly ash at power stations.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

But I thought the laws of physics were suspended on that day?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Sigh. Not the same columns. The columns at the opposite side. The columns at your imaginary hinge point. The opposite side to the direction it is canted.

I am referring to the structure to the "left" (referring to the picture I posted before). The structure that caved in, making the "block" topple. This creates a downward and leftward motion. If the left side of the building caved in, it can hardly resist at the same time. However, the columns at the right still DID stand. And resisted, otherwise the "block" would not have moved to the left at all. So, even if they only resisted slightly more / longer - the toppling should have continued, aided by inertia (Newton #1). But that did not happen. Why not?

What you expect and reality are clearly 2 different things.

Of course, why else would we discuss this still after 14 years? Of course I did not expect a solid steel and concrete buidling to collapse like it did. Of course I'd expect the top to continue its leftward motion - it started that motion allright, we can clearly see it - but it suddenly stopped this movement. The only way I can explain it is that an external force was applied.

There is no reason for the building to carry on that movement.

So, Newton's first law suddenly does not apply anymore? You know, this one "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force"?

Or don't you agree that the top of the building WAS moving to the left?

Is this an optical illusion then:



.. ?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Sigh. Not the same columns. The columns at the opposite side. The columns at your imaginary hinge point. The opposite side to the direction it is canted.

I am referring to the structure to the "left" (referring to the picture I posted before). The structure that caved in, making the "block" topple. This creates a downward and leftward motion. If the left side of the building caved in, it can hardly resist at the same time. However, the columns at the right still DID stand. And resisted, otherwise the "block" would not have moved to the left at all. So, even if they only resisted slightly more / longer - the toppling should have continued, aided by inertia (Newton #1). But that did not happen. Why not?

What you expect and reality are clearly 2 different things.

Of course, why else would we discuss this still after 14 years? Of course I did not expect a solid steel and concrete buidling to collapse like it did. Of course I'd expect the top to continue its leftward motion - it started that motion allright, we can clearly see it - but it suddenly stopped this movement. The only way I can explain it is that an external force was applied.

There is no reason for the building to carry on that movement.

So, Newton's first law suddenly does not apply anymore? You know, this one "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force"?

Or don't you agree that the top of the building WAS moving to the left?

Is this an optical illusion then:

.. ?

Ok. This is my last post on this so take it or leave it. 1st law. Motion unless force. The force acting upon the object is gravity. That is the main force at work here. Gravity works vertically. Wanna work out what that is? Use newtons 2nd. Force = mass x acceleration. The main force on this object isn't some mystical finger pushing it left. It's gravity. Pushing it down. You're ignoring gravity, resistance from existing columns, friction that would prevent the object sliding, and deformation of the object and the tower. You're also ignoring the giant fact that the floor slabs are failing inside which is about to start ripping the building inwards the whole way down.

So take it or leave it. There isn't mysticism involved. There isn't explosives involved. There isn't an alien ray or an abandonment of physics. There was a plane crash, resulting in damage, exacerbated by fires. A structural failure leading to a progressive internal collapse and total global collapse. Just because you don't see it doesn't make this wrong or you right. We live in an evidence based rational world. You need to explain within the parameters of our existence or your theories are gibberish. Irrelevant waffle that sadly does more harm to the side of the conspiracist than benefits. It's not personal, you're just wrong.

originally posted by: scottyirnbruOk. This is my last post on this

Oh dear .. a remarkable feat: we see your calm voice of reason and scientific knowledge silenced by .. a fool, who accomplishes that feat by merely applying logic and some simple basic laws of physics! I'm enchanted!

so take it or leave it. 1st law. Motion unless force.

Indeed, that's what we're discussing.

The force acting upon the object is gravity.

That's ONE of the forces. But the 80 floors below the point of impact also applied a (counter)force.

That is the main force at work here. Gravity works vertically.

Agreed.

Wanna work out what that is? Use newtons 2nd. Force = mass x acceleration. The main force on this object isn't some mystical finger pushing it left. It's gravity. Pushing it down.

I do not, nor did ever, deny the existence of gravitational pull. We agree: the main force that works on this structure is gravity. But you keep avoiding the issue at hand: the cancellation of inertia, Newtow #1, an impossiibility - but yet, it happened.

You also did not respond to any of my assumptions. A simple yes or no suffices, and follow the logic, if you manage to disagree with me, please point out to me where my logic is flawed. If you can't, I can only observe that your knowledge of physics is incomplete at best.

So ..

• do we agree that the building toppled?
  
• Do we agree that the upper 20 floors toppled together at the same time?
  
• Do we agree that you can see a clear leftward motion of the upper block?
  
• Do we agree that Newton #1 dictates that that motion should have continued unless some force worked against it?
  
• Do we agree that the motion did NOT continue?
  
• Do we agree that gravity only pulls downward?
  
• Do we agree that to cancel out the leftward motion, a force either had to be applied on the LEFT side (from below), or applied to the RIGHT side (from atop)?
  

If we agree on all of this - than we have established (using quite simple logic and only laws of nature that are known and generally accepted) that there was something strange going on. If the "right" side of the building collapsed faster than the left side (= a force applied to the bottom left side) the next question is how that is possible as it is simple to see that the main mass of the top was above the LEFT side?

You're ignoring gravity, resistance from existing columns, friction that would prevent the object sliding, and deformation of the object and the tower.

Actually, no, I'm not: I have never said that gravity did not work (it worked fine, thank you). I did not say gravity pulled to the left or right - that's what YOU imply when you say that gravitional pull cancels inertia. I assume that it works as it always does: as a force directed toward the centre of the earth (roughly), so yes, the top should have come down, but it also should have continued its leftward motion, and that's what you seem to deny, hence: do you doubt Newton #1?? Do you deny such simple physics? If so, I agree to disagree!

I am fully aware of the existing columns, the differences between density of columns, exoskeleton and floors - it is YOU that keeps pretending these floors, columns and exoskeletons roughly provided the same (minute) resitance over the entire width of the building - I was the one strongly DOUBTING that.

You keep telling me things I already know - and mostly do not disapprove of. Mostly, because when you started to tell me that gravity suddenly pulls harder at the right side of the building than it does at the left side I DID (and do) disagree. I am the one DEFENDING Newton #1, I am the one DEFENDING gravitational pull, you are the one that, simply because "you say so" expects me to believe that these simple laws of physics suddenly stopped working.

You're also ignoring the giant fact that the floor slabs are failing inside which is about to start ripping the building inwards the whole way down.

I have no proof of that at all - I have proof that the entire top of the building was still intact when it started to topple. My proof is the picture I posted: I do not see any caving in of the exoskeleton there, the entire structure neatly topples over towards the left - you are assuming things.

So take it or leave it. There isn't mysticism involved. There isn't explosives involved.

Mysticism has never been part of my equasion, it's simple cold hard facts. I did not suggest that explosives were used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2; they were used in WTC7. So, I strongly suspect you're merely trying to discredit me by putting words in my mouth - not by attacking my facts.

There isn't an alien ray or an abandonment of physics. There was a plane crash, resulting in damage, exacerbated by fires. A structural failure leading to a progressive internal collapse and total global collapse.

And that's exactly what you were meant to believe. But alas, Newton gets in the way..

You need to explain within the parameters of our existence or your theories are gibberish. Irrelevant waffle that sadly does more harm to the side of the conspiracist than benefits. It's not personal, you're just wrong.

That's you waving the "your aunt is your uncle" flag waving there again.

Indeed: you need to explain withing the parameters of our existence too. You fail to do that. If I ask simple questions like "what caused the inertia to be cancelled out" you come with nonsensical stories about gravitational pull - that cleary then is supposed to pull stronger at the right side of the building, or else the toppling would have continued.

For now, cold simple and hard applied science suggests that inertia was cancelled out by some force. That force indeed existed: it was applied by the building at the left side. Yes, that was the part that caved in, but still: the force it's remains applied were still big enough to cancel inertia. How come? Well, because the RIGHT side of the building was cracked up and dustified by..

the alien ray. Told ya.