WTC 1 diagonal damage during collapse

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If you look to the right of that there is a strange flash on the corner of the building that seems to be related to it.

a reply to: sg1642


I'm sorry, I'm unable to see exactly what you mean regarding diagonal movement or damage.

However, what is very easily seen from that photo is that the damage done is not at all consistent with the NIST explanation of office fires burning on 10 floors or so.

In that picture, something is exploding.

a reply to: Salander

Look at the red line then watch the video and watch closely to where the red line is pointing to them. It's blurry but it seems that the windows are blowing out diagonally from top left to bottom center right of the building.

Damaged windows from WTC 2 debris. Seems to fit the angle. The argument to that of course is what would cause there to be powdered concrete and dust so far down in the first place but then again I wasn't in the towers so I don't know what state those floors were in. Can't say I have been in a falling skyscraper either so who knows. Think that explains the strange angle though.

Edit. Actually the 100 and something floor building that just fell down next door explains that quite easily.

a reply to: Deaf Alien


If you are suggesting that there were explosives inside the building, I agree completely.

So would Jim Gartenberg, who died there that day. Before he died and while the phones were still working, he called his wife from his office on the 86th floor of the North tower, and reported that the core of the building where the elevators were was exploding from the inside out.

a reply to: Salander

If demolition charges were cutting at the core, how would they have enough power to cut steel, but not blow the exterior windows out from the force of the pressure wave or resultant shrapnel. Why didn't the detonations harm Gartenberg's hearing or his body. No shrapnel do to demolitions was ever found from the injured, with human remains, ruble, street, cars, nor nearby buildings.

You used to believe in nukes used at the WTC? How would you get that idea from Gartenberg?

If thermite was in action, why was there no reports of molten metal?

Blown out is a general term used to explain how tires fail to how cars and earthquakes cause walls to collapse.

There is no reference to time, so it is credible to say the explosions were from the fuel vapor cloud exploding as it found its way down the blown out section of core from the jet impact as the flame front moved through the elevator shafts. Vapor explosions are very dangerous and powerful.

If you want to give credibility to implosion by explosives, you need to state what explosives were used, how they were deployed, the timing sequenced used, and the physical evidence that indicates that demolitions were used.

Or you still going to just state you don't know all the facts? You just know, despite contrary video evidence, that it couldn't be inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling. You get to dismiss inward bowing without having enough evidence to put forth another theory?


www.metabunk.org...


Funny that you just showed up to rant about NIST without actually citing the posted video to create a credible argument to support your inconsistent and vague theories. Nukes? Conventional Explosives? Thermite?

a reply to: neutronflux

I was not involved in the demolition, so I cannot answer your questions. It does not matter how or why the perps did it, what matters is that the NIST explanation cannot hold water, it cannot withstand even superficial scrutiny.

The claim that burning office furnishings on the 80th floor
caused the damage observed is preposterous, that is what matters.

As Gage points out, the lateral ejection of material, some for hundreds of feet like at AMEX building, means that office fires on just a few floors could not be the cause. That the entire building came down at near free fall rates supports Gage's claim. That molten iron remained for about 3 months supports that rather obvious observation.

a reply to: Salander
Let's start like this.....


Like how you completely ignore logical questions that break the CD theories. And you counter with impossible molten steel for three months BS. Your credibility just tanked.

One, no report of sparks or molten metal from the WTC phone calls.

Two, no visible molten metal or sparks in the video posted at the start of this thread. Yet there were pools of molten steel at the WTC?

Three, how would steel stay molten for three months?

Three, A: you use to attribute it to nuclear devices. Which is a false conclusion.

Three, B: there was never any evidence or recorded data the pile was ever hot enough to promote molten steel.

Three C, I don't care what process, there is no logical reason the pile would support molten steel for three months. Thermite reacts in an inert atmosphere, so even the false theory of thermite is not an explanation. The thermite would have been consumed all at the time of collapse.

Three D, molten steel reacts violently when sprayed with water. Water was used liberally to keep the smoldering material in check, keep the the heat down, and to keep the smoldering material from catching fire.

Three E, there was enough heat and smoldering/burning material that could produce red hot steel. And combinations of plastics, ash, and embers. Items that were mistaken for molten steel.


The claim I back was the fires were hot enough for the floor trusses to loose up to 60 percent of their strength. They drooped. Once they started to cool, they contracted, pulling and buckling the outer vertical columns.

Ever see a ball bounce. If it was impossible for the falling mass of the Towers to collide and cause ejection, then it would be impossible to drop a steel ball bearing to have it bounce up into the air after hitting a concrete floor.

a reply to: Salander

I would think after 15 years plus, you could produce a whole litany of examples to bolster your claims concerning the NIST reports on WTC 1 and 2, cite the examples as they were second nature, cite the page number of each example, and produce a logical argument for your stance on each example.

All you have are claims of molten steel after three months with no evidence, no data, and no reports of violent reactions from the spraying of WTC debris to back up the claims? Claims made by a grand total of three people? And I think it's been shown out of the three, one person said they were misquoted?