You must think I'm a fool...

Originally posted by Griff
The picture of the woman standing in the entry hole made by the plane really negates the above statements. If the whole floor caught on fire at once, how did she survive and how could she be standing there?

1. Fire spreads
2. Just because the area where she was standing wasn't buring at the time doesn't mean it wasn't structurally weak.
3. How did she get there? Who knows. Do you know?
4. Are you saying that this isn't catching fire all at once?





Then what would you call it?

"Rove world" means that on 9/11 basic physics were not in play and Carl Rove physics took over.

I have asked this many times before and still haven't gotten a reply. If you can show me where any other building withstood the type of damage the WTC did and survived, please show me.

What basice physics were not in play?
Gravity sure was.

I guess the former head of Star Wars is just an actor huh? He doesn't know ANYTHING about physics and engineering. I bet his credentials are a heck of a lot better to study this than yours are.

lol
Please show me where he's actually studied this stuff?
Please show me any evidence that he presented to support his views?
I could care less what he says if he doesn't provide any evidence to back up what he says.
I could say the sky is green. Does that make it green?

(he's also running for congress as a Democrat, meaning he has an agenda. What do you think he's going to say about the Bush admin?)

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
The top floors did not disintegrate. This is silly even if you support the controlled demolition theory,

I've been spelling disintegrated wrong. But anyway, you're assuming I mean something that I don't.

dis·in·te·grate (dĭs-ĭn'tĭ-grāt') pronunciation

v., -grat·ed, -grat·ing, -grates.

v.intr.

1. To become reduced to components, fragments, or particles.

Source.

If you're suggesting that the top floors remained intact, I'd like to see where they landed at Ground Zero. I don't recall noticing them there earlier.

but since you don’t understand the difference between static or dynamic loads anyway, of course it wouldn’t be possible

I know the difference, but you're not taking everything into account.

If you think a dynamic load automatically overcomes something stationary just because it's dynamic, then why can't I drop a penny and have it reach the center of the Earth? What you're saying is no explanation in the least for the Towers' collapses.

(A) You don't specify what this force would have been, or, more importantly, the amount of force that would've been required for global collapse. Keep in mind lots of energy is lost to heat, powderizing concrete (huge loss of energy right there), etc.

So you’re now saying the only way that concrete got pulverised was by explosives, please follow this through and explain how and why this same pulverisation would not occur due to pan caking.

As a matter of fact, no, I did not say this. Reread what I said, and your response. You totally change subjects and put words in my mouth.

I said you didn't specify the forces that would have been involved (in regards to what I was originally referencing). I then said that powderizing concrete would require a great amount of energy, which would come out of the "budget," if you will, of the amount of energy available from the falling floors. So, you're both diverting the subject, and putting words in my mouth.

(B) You don't specify what integrity loss would have been required for a single floor to collapse

I don’t need to state anything as I believe the floor collapsed due to massive and catastrophic structure failure due to the plane crash, the ensuring fires or a combination of both. I do not need to prove this, the majority of the scientific world as already proved it for me. If you disagree with it put forward an alternative explanation

If you don't agree with me, put forth an alternative explanation. Wouldn't it be wonderful if science worked like this (because it doesn't)?

You say something, so therefore it's true unless proven otherwise. So then I can say something, and therefore it's true unless proven otherwise. Otherwise it'd be whoever says something first is the one that's correct.

You're either going to have to back up what you're saying with evidence, or else accept that what you're suggesting is no more credible than what I am. It goes both ways, buddy.

(C) You don't explain how this resulted in global collapse, especially the way I just laid it out for you.

You have laid out nothing at all, other than speculation and slender grasp of physics and science.

So then we're even, right?

What I'd like to do here is mainly show that the official theories don't hold up. I'm not going to try to provide lots of evidence directly proving demolition. I'm just going to show that the collapse as we observed it from fire and impact damage alone would not be possible. From there, you can think what you will.

So, again, along those lines, I'm asking you for proof of your case, or else it's no more credible than anything else, and we'll have to resort to looking for alternate explanations.

It's pretty cowardly, and backwards, to suggest you're being scientific and then refuse to substantiate your claims.

No it was not. The vast majority of debris was lost to the sides of the collapse. Watch a video, and look at pics from the air of Ground Zero. Most of the debris is scattered all over Ground Zero, as it landed from being launched outwards from the falling towers. Mass falling to the sides does not add weight to the falling mass.

NO IT WAS NOT. This is not true at all the building collapsed straight down and inside their own foot print... Again you are contradicting the controlled demolition theory which is actually based around the fact that the building came straight down.”The buildings fell straight down, rather like a controlled demotion”.

Let me clear this up.

The buildings fell "straight down" in that they didn't lean to any side as they fell. All the debris was ejected laterally, and the centers of gravity were still in the footprints of the buildings.

Most of the actual debris, however, was ejected outside of the footprints. Otherwise you'd have stacks of steel within the footprints. It didn't happen that way.


external image
external image
external image

So...

This is not true at all the building collapsed straight down and inside their own foot print...

...is wrong. The great majority of material was ejected outwards. This requires eyes and a brain but I can't break it down any simpler than just telling you to go look at pictures of both Ground Zero and the collapse.

The external supports were flung away as the building collapsed, but the weight and mass inside collapsed straight down.

Any photographic evidence to support the majority of mass resting within the footprints? There are plenty of pics of GZ online if you want to check for me. Or yourself.

I take you are referring to the massive cloud of dust that was generated during the collapse. So you jump to the massive conclusion it was pulverised concrete?

Among other materials. Show me large pieces of the concrete slabs between floors. I've never seen one. Only a cloud of dust that engulfed Manhattan and was visible from space.

And what deflection? what exactly got deflected?

Falling debris that wasn't intact (broken up building -- it doesn't have the same effect as a falling intact building). See above images.

Mod Edit: Image Location.

[edit on 6/4/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

(he's also running for congress as a Democrat, meaning he has an agenda. What do you think he's going to say about the Bush admin?)

Oh, I forgot. Once you start to run for congress your crdedentials go to bunk. My bad. By the way, I'd say yes he has studied this....if not, why would he be in scholars for 9/11 truth?

Also, those pictures of the fire ball....how long did that last and also where exactly again did it blow up? Hint: since we can see it in the pictures, it would be OUTSIDE the building.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Hillarious and typical bsbray

You people claim you're searching for the "truth" but you're really not. You're only looking for stuff that supports your conspiricies and theories. Expert opinion? Eh, who needs experts when you have actors! Actors and people who create anti-government conspiricy websites surely know more than engineers and experts right?

Nice change of tone. Half logical, to mocking.

And then more links to websites selling the official story, and more mocking.

1. The buildings started collapsing at the point of impact. Which means these explosives had to survive the fires and explosion of the airplanes.
2. It means that whoever put the explosives there had to know exactly where the planes would enter. That's not humanly possible.

It's possible with something like Home Run. Others have posted more on this aspect. All I know is that flight can be automated in Boeings.

3. It also means that this is the very first time explosives were placed at the top of a building to make it collapse.

Depends. The explosives wouldn't have been all the way at the top. There have been demolitions from above the bases of buildings, halfway up, etc.; it's just a matter of what order the charges go off. I don't think it's too complicated of a concept. You can rig the charges in a building to go off in whatever order you'd like. This would be the first cases I've known of where buildings were demolished backwards, because that'd be pretty counter-intuitive unless your objective was something other than just straightforward demolition. In this case, that other objective would be making it look somewhat natural.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. Fire spreads

And it did. Which is makes it that much less plausible that the fires had enough time in any one section of a building to sufficiently heat the steel before moving on and dying out there.

2. Just because the area where she was standing wasn't buring at the time doesn't mean it wasn't structurally weak.

Structurally weak from the plane impact obviously, but any sufficiently heated steel would've been glowing in broad daylight. Steel starts giving off photons when it's heated to a little over 400 C. There would've had to have been higher temperatures to much weaken the structure, because it doesn't get critical until heating of around 600 C, which glows brighter (there are color charts online). And there was no glowing at all before collapse.

4. Are you saying that this isn't catching fire all at once?

No; those are what are called "explosions." Or "fireballs." Or things like that. Even the NIST Report (or even photographs) will tell/show you that the fires spread across floors over time. The initial impacts didn't immediately cause fire across whole floors.

Bybray,

Ok I see where we are going with this thread absolutely nowhere. I won’t
offer up a post whereby I quote, you quote me, I disagree, and you disagree. Threads simply become confusing and everybody get lost in what they ere actually trying to state

I will though try to offer up a response to what you have said, point for point.If I miss anything, it is not that I am avoiding anything, it’s simply because I don’t feel it is relevant or it has already been addressed.

Ok the penny reaching the centre of the earth theory, come on mate, are you seriously putting this forward as an argument and that a penny is in anyway compatible to the massive weight that was above the damaged areas of the towers.

As you know at ground zero there was very little in the way of anything that was left intact, did I say other wise?. I didn’t I said that the massive primary dynamic weight was intact as it hurtled down, it was gaining in mass. I did not say that there would have been no distortion, nor that any if it’s mass was ejected sideways. It is common sense also that some of the mass that was being hit was ejected sideways and that not all this matter was being added to the dynamic weight.

So much mass was ejected from the towers when they fell that this much damaged was caused.

The following buildings were partially or completely destroyed in the attack:

One World Trade Center (north tower)
Two World Trade Center (south tower)
Four World Trade Center
Five World Trade Center
Six World Trade Center
Seven World Trade Center
The Marriott Hotel
One Liberty Plaza
Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church

The following buildings suffered major damage:
The Millennium Hilton Hotel
One World Financial Center
Two World Financial Center
Three World Financial Center
The Federal Building
Banker's Trust Building

www.glasssteelandstone.com...

I have never heard of a controlled demolition of a skyscraper cause anywhere near this amount of damage to other buildings before, but nevertheless.

It was clear and is obvious that in an uncontrolled collapse that material would be ejected, the list above bears testament to this.

Since there was absolutely no recorded mass being ejected from anywhere else as they fell other than at the point of collapse and as the towers collapsed, it would be reasonable to assume, even if there was secondary explosions that any matter that was ejected from the towers came from the point of collapse and the subsequent points of the fall. I can assume this because all the video footages shows no splitting of the towers and anything being ejected from anywhere on the towers other than at the point of collapse and as this collapse continued downwards. Therefore would it not also be safe to assume that if an explosion caused this mater to be ejected sideways that only one explosion caused it

It is clear from the video evidence that no mass was ejected out of the building anywhere below the collapse. There are only two options here, this mass was ejected as a result of an uncontrolled, rapid collapse or an single explosion caused this mater to be ejected out. Bearing in mind the surrounding buildings that were damaged and the fact that each tower weighted 500,000 ton, it is pretty reasonable to assume that a lot of this was flung out sideways I will not speculate, but you can speculate if you wish as to how much matter from the towers were flung out to cause this damage. But while you do please think about this, say it was 1/5th i.e., 100,000 tons can you imagine how much explosives would have been required to do this?. If the figure goes up then so does the amount of explosives. If this figure goes down then it does not account for the material that caused this damage to the other buildings. If you speculate that half of each building was ejected sideways, and then 250,000 ton fell to ground, the rest if you are correct is ejected sideways by explosives.

Which ever way you cut the theory that only explosions could have caused matter from the towers to be flung sideways, it simply does not cut the mustard.

To eject matter sideways on such a massive scale using explosives, sorry mate I just don’t see it. An explosion on this scale would surely have been visual and everything single person on the planet would have seen it. It simply didn’t happen.

You have asserted that over and over that matter was ejected outside the footprint and the only way it could have happened was through explosions, like I said an explosion on this scale would have been seen.

As for the material that remained inside the foot print, is it also not reasonable and sensible to believe that there would have been a lot of it. Bearing in mind that the upper floor where the collapse started would have dropped over 1000 feet at least ( point of collapse not the top of the building), can you honestly imagine that this would remain intact when it finally hit the ground. No of course no, it would simply disintegrate and become part of whatever rubble that was there.

I think I have stated my case, at this moment and don’t really think anything will be gained by continuing this debate. It will not progress forward as I know even as you read this, you will simply not accept that anything else other than explosives were used to bring down the towers and I simply have seen no proof that explosives were used , so I will retire.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Ok the penny reaching the centre of the earth theory, come on mate, are you seriously putting this forward as an argument and that a penny is in anyway compatible to the massive weight that was above the damaged areas of the towers.

Yes. It's an exaggeration, but yes. The top 13 floors were MUCH lighter than the lower block of 97.

I didn’t I said that the massive primary dynamic weight was intact as it hurtled down, it was gaining in mass.

If most of the mass was being ejected outwardly, then the amount of mass falling within the footprint wouldn't really be increasing. I don't think it would matter even if most of the mass was falling straight down, but it wasn't anyway so it doesn't matter.

It was clear and is obvious that in an uncontrolled collapse that material would be ejected, the list above bears testament to this.

I don't think it would really be possible to have a top-down, floor-by-floor collapse that wouldn't do that, without setting up an implosion, which you would have no chance of covering up.

I think the WTC Towers would be the biggest buildings ever demolished, too. Usually buildings of comparable size are deconstructed because of the inherent risks in blowing them up. Demolishing buildings of that size to begin with is dangerous.

To eject matter sideways on such a massive scale using explosives, sorry mate I just don’t see it. An explosion on this scale would surely have been visual and everything single person on the planet would have seen it. It simply didn’t happen.

Look up videos of demo charges and you'll see that they don't really show up anyway, and yet the ejections look the exact same as they did from the tower collapses. There are explanations for the larger ejections, but they're technical and I'm not prepared to present the information.

If you're going to suggest that torsion could eject such matter and explosives could not, then why not just assume that torsion did do that? Some people think that only key floors were blown and the towers were let to fall on their own from these points. I don't really believe this but it's a route.

The biggest, most conspicuous problem, that you still aren't really even thinking about as far as I can tell, is how the collapse speed would not change even when most debris is ejected and the top floors, the "driving mass," disintegrate and fall over the sides, and even when the columns are becoming thicker and stronger all the way down, with no free-fall breaks to allow acceleration.

You have asserted that over and over that matter was ejected outside the footprint and the only way it could have happened was through explosions, like I said an explosion on this scale would have been seen.

Show me where I've suggested to you that explosives caused those ejections.

As for the material that remained inside the foot print, is it also not reasonable and sensible to believe that there would have been a lot of it. Bearing in mind that the upper floor where the collapse started would have dropped over 1000 feet at least ( point of collapse not the top of the building), can you honestly imagine that this would remain intact when it finally hit the ground. No of course no, it would simply disintegrate and become part of whatever rubble that was there.

Then the center of gravity would not have been within the footprints (assuming the top floors were a majorty of the mass -- but they weren't even close). Everything was spread radially around the towers, pretty evenly in all directions.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Delirious
What I want to know, as with the NORAD question, if there were no pre-planted explosives in the buildings why were firefighters pulled out because there were explosives in the building? Then you have firefighters and civilians explaining how they heard multiple explosions before the building went down.

Where did you hear firefighters were pulled out because of explosives?
How would they even know there's explosives?

The "explosions" people heard was the building collapsing. You think buildings collapse quietly?
Trees falling or snapping are loud so you can imagine what a building would have sounded like.

Something else that has bothered me is, how can buildings all over the world completely burn, I mean completely burn for days on end and not collapse, while WTC collapsed from an isolated fire in its mid sections? What kind of since does that make?

lol
This was no ordinary fire.
This was a fire as a result of an explosion.
The explosions were a result of planes crashing into the buildings.
If you can show me a case where that has happened before I'd love to see it.

I dont think Bush was fully behind it, but definatly a part of it. He took the role of war president with the most minimal prompting that its asurd to think that he wasnt prepared for it.

What are you talking about?
What did he do that any president wouldn't have done?

After 9/11 the great war president goes after the country that has the least ties to 9/11.

We went after Al Q and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Again, what are you talking about?

video.google.com...

What do you mean how would they know? You do realize firefighters are trained to identify explosive devices right? That said you do know that in the process of looking for survivors of a serious disasters firefighters are obligated to search stairwells in front and behind steps at the base, as well as every fairly large nook and cranny that a person could hide in right? Now you do know that when explosive devices are found with-in a building that they firefighters are pulled out right?

The sound of a building falling, and the sound of several demolition type explosives are different. Have you ever took the time to compare the two? I doubt it. Several charges placed in a building can be individually heard as they go off, a building falling makes too much noise to notice other things happening inside the building. Why would anyone make up hearing several explosion BEFORE the building fell?


Im aware that it was an explosion, doesnt change the fact that the building supposedly fell due to the fire melting the steel beams. An explosion doesnt produce a significant ammount of energy in heat, most damage done from an explosion is do to the percussion of it (ie: shapnel, air pressure ect) so the explosion wouldnt have anything to do with the beams melting. The fact is that small fires, even if they had spread to 4 or 5 floors would not have melted the beams. Buildings made of far inferior technologies have survived week long fires and stood so dont give me any # about some office fires melting the beams with in a few hours.

What did the president do that another one wouldnt have? Well lets start with attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attack, while claiming they did. How about the fact that Instead of sending up jets to take care of the problem he did nothing? Afterwards he conveniantly signs a peice of paper that takes away a majority of the rights that we have left. Theres a few.

Yes we attacked afgahnastan after 9/11 but you do realize that when we attacked Iraq it was also after 9/11 right? And you do know that Bush used 9/11 + Terrorism to do it right? And that there was no connection found between Hussein and Alquada right?

lol lol lol olollol just for good measure.

But since you seem to have all the answers, why didnt the sprinklers in building 7 go off? There were only a few office fires there, so why werent they put out by the fire system?

Larry Silverstein admitted that the building was demoed so now lets think about that. Larry hired a bunch of crazy ass, suicidal demo guys to run into a building, plant explosives in the right spots, tweek everything right for the demo, and run back out to pull the building in the pressence of all that chaos, right? Some how I find that hard to beleive. The only other thing that is possible is that the explosives were pre-planted, and if they were in 7, why not in the north and south towers?

video.google.com...

Im sorry but there is no way that fire destroyed all of the modern steel buildings. Explosion or not, it makes no since.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Delirious]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Delirious]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Delirious]

Delirious.

No one is claiming that the steel melted anymore. The claim is that the steel was heated enough to loose integrity. At around 600C, steel looses around half of it's strength. Although NIST didn't find any evidence of the steel being heated to near that temperature. But, no one for a long time has believed that the steel melted. Alluminum probably but not steel.

I was just replying to ThatsJustWeird from his reply to me near the first post. Im glad to hear that people finally stopped claiming the beams melted though, iv been away from ATS for a while. Even with that though it's hard to imagine the building loosing enough integrity to collapse from the fires and even the plane impact/explosion.

Thanks for the reply.

Bsbray, your remark ""Everything was spread radially around the towers, pretty evenly in all directions"" is definitely not on the mark.

For example, just look very carefully to the damage caused by fallen massive steel debris, observable after the colapse of the North Tower.

There have been hires pictures posted here a few month ago, which were taken on the 12th of September, so the next day, and you can observe a clear peeling of the four sides of both buildings, leaving debris not evenly radially spread out around the 2 towers footprints, but much more like the 4 walls of both buildings were unfolded/peeled-off and smashed down up to 300 meter away in a mostly cross-like debris pattern, where the 4 legs of the 2 buildings crosses were formed by the 2 x 4 walls of the 2 collapsed towers.

This can mean a zippered demolition pattern, but not the idiotic "official core trusses zipper theory" from the first hours, but an evenly unzippering of all 4 corners.

Griff, have a good look again at that once so triomphantically posted "proof of a stream of molten aluminum" pouring out of a CORNER window in this forum, and take in account the last reviewed version of professor Jones attack on all the official versions of 9/11, where you can see that what you saw streaming out of that window is with high probability molten IRON, and can't be molten aluminum at all.
The steel triangular corner beam on the above floor was melting. Ask yourself what ONLY can do that.


The three most striking antithesis to bsbray's "in all directions" remark are :

1. The Winter Garden roof damage path, but only minor collateral damage to the corners of WFC 2 (left) and WFC 3 (right).
And the rest of these two World Financial Center buildings had no damage at all.
This Winter Garden roof damage is caused by far-out flying debris from the west wall of WTC 1 (North Tower), which sliced through the Winter Garden in a path formed by an imaginairy peeling off of its top to bottom west wall, like a banana peeling off in 4 parts, and the west wall part hit the roof.
You can clearly see the 'peeling' pattern of heavy steel debris stretching from the west foot of the North tower into the Winter Garden. Already on the 12th most of the beams and wall parts were shoveled aside so trucks could use the road again, but the beams and wall plates were stocked up on both sides of the road, West Street.

2. WTC 7 southwest corner and south center facade damage after WTC 1 collapse, but only a bit of damage to the southeast corner of the Verizon building, and no observable damage to the southwest corner of the U.S.Post Office building.
The whole North tower's north facade peeled down and out over the WTC 6 building, and struck only partly the WTC 7 south facade.

3. The by far most obvious lack of damage at the south and east walls and corner of the still standing North Tower, after the collapse of the South Tower (first collapse, WTC 2). The north facade of the South Tower totally missed the North Tower but struck the west side of WTC 5.

Are there anywhere heli pictures from far above, showing the destruction pattern AFTER the South Tower fell ?
But with the North Tower STILL standing.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

4. Are you saying that this isn't catching fire all at once?

Then what would you call it?

Yeah nice pics of the fire balls, thanx for posting this. What you are seeing here is the fuel from the A/C igniting and burning off.
More proof that the A/C fuel could not have increased the fires inside the buildings. Most of the fuel is burned off before it even gets inside the buildings.

That's why we see no photographic proof of raging fires, there were none.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Bsbray, your remark ""Everything was spread radially around the towers, pretty evenly in all directions"" is definitely not on the mark.
[...]
There have been hires pictures posted here a few month ago, which were taken on the 12th of September, so the next day, and you can observe a clear peeling of the four sides of both buildings, leaving debris not evenly radially spread out around the 2 towers footprints, but much more like the 4 walls of both buildings were unfolded/peeled-off and smashed down up to 300 meter away in a mostly cross-like debris pattern, where the 4 legs of the 2 buildings crosses were formed by the 2 x 4 walls of the 2 collapsed towers.

(emph. mine)

Thanks for pointing this out to me.

My concern here was trying to get across that the debris did not particularly favor this direction or that direction, as if the building had leaned towards one side as if falling naturally, but were more like blown out floor by floor regardless of any tilting or etc.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by bsbray11]