RARE 911 WTC VIDEO - Multiple Explosions Heard Before and During Collapse.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: samkent

No, I'm not basing this on a hunch. I base it on the perspective of architects on my architectural and mechanical CAD advisory committee. The floors falling did not meet any resistance. That's a physical impossibility. Even if each floor could only hold it's own weight, it has no bearing on the resistance given on the bottom floors whose supports were not compromised. Simply put, if the floors were meeting any kind of resistance, it definitely wouldn't have collapsed in 30seconds.

In their silly thoughts, the weight of the towers increased TEN FOLD! What with the awesome power of jetfuel that holds for up to an hour after its gone, leading to a global collapse which not only burst out the supports but somehow PERFECTLY ground the entire building into a fine dust on the way down!!

Oh wait 10% of the steel was still left for us too see, not so perfect after all !!

The weight of the towers somehow INCREASES as it starts falling thus disregarding the conservation of momentum theory!!

I can see it clearly in the minds of these, and most people had this happen to them to somehow accept what they saw, I recall trying to figure it out myself, never was satisfied.

I would love to see explanations for the towers blowing away in the wind without the use of explosives or other means is justified, but that has never took place!!!

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: WeRpeons

The architects who are on my advisory committee have been working in the field for at least 5 years or more.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Architects design the basic features and flow of buildings.
Structural Engineers Design the requirements for said building to stand strong.

Architects DO NOT investigate building collapses.
So your "advisory committee" DO NOT have the skill set to make an accurate determination of any building collapse.

That's been the problem with Richard Gage and his webbie cohorts.
Most of them do not have the skills needed.

So what qualifications and what title for steel buildings collapsing exist in the officialdom arena ??

Why would you listen to them ?? Who DOES have the skills needed, controlled demolition ??? the Military ???

No Scientific facts or attempted simulations support anything that is concluded to have happened, so why bother believing in theories ??

Why are stupid theories without a beginning and an end propped up with religious beliefs all you need ??

a reply to: Rocker2013

Can you please explain how the marvelous pancake collapse theory explains the disintegration of the core columns and why the seismic data from the time of the collapse does not reflect the impact of a collapsing skyscraper?

originally posted by: Hohuwah
a reply to: Rocker2013

Can you please explain how the marvelous pancake collapse theory explains the disintegration of the core columns and why the seismic data from the time of the collapse does not reflect the impact of a collapsing skyscraper?

Thing is that the building didn't 'pancake'. WTC 2 tilted almost right over, it slid off the core and then free fell between the core and the outer walls. There was no resistance really the core was pushed off its center and the outer shell wall peeled out.

Sort of like this radio (below)tower which stood as tall as wtc. The wtc had a tower core and a outer shell that held the core and the core held the walls with light floor trusses that didn't support the weight of the building. So during collapse the upper portion of the building ripped through the floor trusses while pushing off the core.




This is the closet video to how the towers collapsed that I have seen

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't know this guys story, but I do know body language very well. The man is lying.. about what I don't know. I'm not finished watching yet as I have to rewind and watch many parts numerous times so as not to be bias and to make sure I'm analyzing properly.

The guy has defensive posture.
He's suddenly an expert in something outside of his field.
He says "as it was explained to me."

I just can't accept this so called testimony as anything serious.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
a reply to: peacenotgreed

Thing is the flash could be glass, the façade blowing in the wind but it is interesting that it is way above the collapse area. I see the flash too, I wont discount it, but chose to not focus on it yet.

Is this the same flash?

This flash occurs way below the initial collapse and is nowhere near the one in the video you just posted. A window flashing? Really? I'm sorry, by that's even worse than fuse boxes exploding.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Fundamental physics? Where is the delay when upper floors are striking lower floors? The fall has to be significantly impeded by the lower impacted mass! It's called the "conservation of momentum" which is a fundamental law of physics!

So because you cannot see it happening, it's not happening?
You're relying on audio, unable to see what is actually happening to the internal structure of the building behind the facade and the resulting plume of debris.
This is a massive building in an area of dense construction, you cannot seriously claim to be of scientific mind and then claim that because you cannot see the floors collapsing means they're not, or that you can possibly base the reality of what is happening inside that building on the sound echoing from every other building around it.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
If the pancake theory can even be plausible, how do you explain the 3rd building that wasn't even constructed in the same manner as the trade towers? I guess the pancake theory can be applied to that building too?

I don't know about Building 7, I haven't claimed that this was a pancake collapse either. What I do know is that it's incredibly unlikely and completely implausible that explosives were used in any of these buildings, and no matter how much you want to claim that they were there is absolutely no evidence for it, not in the videos, not in the audio, not in the statements taken out of context by people there experiencing it first-hand.

Prove it, and if you cant then the scenario which actually explains everything clearly and scientifically has to be taken as the right one - until you can offer EVIDENCE to the contrary.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
You also say 10 floors suddenly collapse. So every girder support on each floor coincidently sheared at the same time? I can now say you're deliberately trying to justify the pancake theory

.

You do understand that one join point cannot hold the weight of an entire floor requiring all join points to be intact, right?
Now you're deliberately looking for any excuse to deny reality.

If you have floor supported by 100 join points around the center and outer ring, and 50% of those fail, the FLOOR WILL COLLAPSE.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this, I really don't, you're deliberately rejecting physics and reality in desperation.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
As far as why I come to this conclusion...I teach architectural and mechanical CAD. I have local architects who sit on my advisory board. We've discussed the collapse at length. Everyone of these architects didn't buy the pancake theory. The upper floors simply did not meet any resistance. I don't claim to be an authority on this, but when architects don't agree, it raises a red flag.

Then every "architect" you have discussed this with is an imbecile and should not be working in that field.

The floors of the WTC 1 and 2 were supported in place by join points in the middle of the floor and to the outer facade of the structure of the building. They were each designed to hold ONLY THEIR OWN WEIGHT.

So, when you have an impact on the structure weakening just one floor, all the floors above it are now resting their weight on the floors below, and NOT ON THE OUTER SUPPORTING WALL.

If you have one floor only able to support itself suddenly having to support the weight of ten floors above it, it will fail. It then falls to the floor below, which of course cannot support that weight either. It's an exponential addition of weight to floors only able to support themselves, and it results in EXACTLY what we saw.

If your so-called "architect" friends cannot understand that a floor designed to support itself will collapse under the weight of ten floors DROPPING ONTO IT then they are incapable of calling themselves architects.

The building was designed to withstand a 747 impact, for one, and it was designed to withstand losing half of its structural columns at ground level without falling over. That is half of the columns all on one side, not every other all the way around.


So while you have some good points, they really don't apply. The engineers a ready Co ered it when they designed it.

The policeman said it best outside of Building 7. "Keep your eye on that building. That building is about to blow up."

a reply to: RobinB022

The guy has defensive posture.

Wouldn't you if you were called a conspirator in this situation?

He knows what he saw, and what he said and why, but of course everyone else knows more about his situation than he does...that alone is a reason enough to be defensive.

but I do know body language very well.

So you are professionally trained in what body language tells us, and where did you learn this trade?

Everyone that believes this is a big conspiracy that the US is involved says they know body language...so saying you do isn't really a plus.

* * * ATTENTION ALL * * *

Please tone down the aggression and attacks. Discuss the topic in a civilized manner.

Remember that the 9/11 forum rules are more strict than the rest of the board.

(3) Your Account Will Be Terminated for Any Infraction:

You will receive an immediate account termination for all T&C infractions other than large quotes and off-topic posts. Unless, of course, in the opinion of our staff, your repeated off-topic (or large quotes) are an attempt at disrupting the forum.

Example: calling any ATS member a shill will result in an account termination.
All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

The building was designed to withstand a 747 impact,

Where did you get that nonsense from? The WTC was designed 2 years before the first 747 was even ordered....

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Believe it or not some of us actually are trained in reading nonverbal communication.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

The building was designed to withstand a 747 impact, for one,

Actually a 727. Much smaller.
Likely at a slower speed too.
But I have never heard the design spec for speed.

and it was designed to withstand losing half of its structural columns at ground level without falling over.

Never heard that one at all.

So while you have some good points, they really don't apply. The engineers a ready Co ered it when they designed it.

But did they design it for . . .
Plane impact
Severed columns
Fire from thousands of gallons of jet fuel
all at the same time?

I wonder if the designer ever showed the math he used to determine the building could withstand a 727 impact ?

Actually a 727. Much smaller.

a reply to: samkent

In reality a 707 - the 767 which building are about 15% bigger

As for speed - assumption was for low and slow

Have heard actually did calculations for plane travelling at up to 500 mph

Design specs for building said could resist lateral impact force of 17 million pounds

Aircraft impact would generate 13 million foot pounds

IIRC the book CITY IN THE SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center references these calculations

a reply to: firerescue

In reality a 707 -

I stand corrected.
Thank you

I had forgotten about the 707 being before the 727.

Some people are making the same fundamental mistake that gets made repeatedly in this forum. Steel does not need to melt. It loses 50% of its strength in the first 500°c. By 900°c it will have less than 90% of its original design strength. It will still look like a column. It will just have all the resistance to loading of marshmallows. A candle can burn at 1000°c. If we wish to use facts let's stick with some that actually appear in text books.

If we want to use some guess work shall we use that on this question? Let's take a pitch at how many people needed to know for 9/11 to be an inside job.
We need demolition experts, we need planners, gonna need some engineers, some at the fire and police who have later lied, the airlines, the financiers, some hr people cos how else would you hire them, some people in the media, every single member of the nist committee. There must be hundreds of others who I've forgotten, does anyone wish to add to my list then give me their ball park figure?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Everyone that believes this is a big conspiracy that the US is involved says they know body language...so saying you do isn't really a plus.

I'm not experienced because of this conspiracy, and it actually has nothing to do with it. However I do have over three decades of experience in the field-regardless of the conspiracy or theory we are discussing. No doubt in my mind as to my conclusions.. but I can't say what the man is lying about-or being defensive about (I don't know him), and it could be anything. May have nothing to do with what he's even discussing in the video. It could be as simple as him knowing others that are viewing the video heard differing thoughts from him (that would be bothersome enough).

Nevermind

a reply to: Shadow Herder

At least we've exposed how useless demo teams really are!
When the same results were easily achieved with two planes
and some office fires on these two behemoths and TC7? They
should all be out of business, rendered obsolete. Hell one terrorist
running thru the front door of both buildings on fire could of done
it.

a reply to: randyvs

At least we've exposed how useless demo teams really are!
When the same results were easily achieved with two planes
and some office fires on these two behemoths and TC7? They
should all be out of business, rendered obsolete. Hell one terrorist
running thru the front door of both buildings on fire could of done

Let's ask one of the world's top demolition expert, whose team of experts were at ground zero, to see what he says.

Brent Blanchard: Demolition expert whose team of experts were on site

We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites.

Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.

This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...