Improbable Collapse - new 9/11 video

Originally posted by rich23
Well, Beagle, once you start in on that slippery slope by accepting the possibility that WTC7 was demolished, you then have to accept that it therefore must have been prepared for demolition in advance of the day. You don't bring down a building that size in one day, there are no reports of explosives being brought into the building on the day, and you don't bring explosives into a burning building... so where does that leave you?

GREAT point Rich....that leaves me with this question.... How would the people that planted these charges know it would work AFTER tons of steel and debris land in with fires raging...etc... Demolition experts will tell you ...fires and crushing debris does not help when planning a controlled demolition.

It's also interesting that according to the movie, you won't find clips of the collapse of WTC7 anywhere but on the net - they won't show it on TV. That tells me that a) the media is under tight control on this one and b) the footage looks suspicious and rightly so.

Rich all of the footage from wtc7 IS from the media. wtc7 Was a story in NY when they were rebuilding...and the collapse was shown on all NY stations.

Edit: Larry Silverstein did, as I understand it, benefit from the "collapse" of those buildings - the fullest explanation is in 9/11 Mysteries. From what I remember he took out insurance specifically against the possibility of terrorist attack and then actually went to court (and won) to argue that both towers went down undertwo separate terrorist attacks, so he collected twice on his insurance.

Please show me how he benifited. yes he did take out terrorist insurance policies...SMART move id say...since in 1993 it WAS attacked.
The SAME insurance company that tried NOT to pay him for both towers...didnt not argue paying him for WTC7 ... now, if the insurance company thought he had it "pulled"...dont oyu think they would have denied his claim? Just a thought

[edit on 8-12-2006 by rich23]

CameronFox - On another thread, I tried to address this issue with you, after you had posted that he was actually negative three hundred and some odd million following the collapse of 7... Here was my post:

----

Silverstein had an existing $489.4 million mortgage, along with a $700 million tab for a new building. That leaves him with NEGATIVE $328.

Source, please? and I'd still like to see a source for this...


And what do you say about this below??

“New York, NY October 17, 2000: Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, the global real estate investment and management arm of The Blackstone Group, L.P., announced today that it has purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by 7 World Trade Center, a commercial office complex controlled by real estate developer Larry Silverstein”

Source

“But before the building can rise further than the substation, major financing issues have to be resolved by Larry Silverstein, who controls the long-term lease on 7 World Trade Center as well as the World Trade Center complex. The good news for Mr. Silverstein is that the company that insured 7 World Trade, Industrial Risk Insurers, has indicated that it will make a full payment under its $861 million policy. But it's not clear whether Mr. Silverstein can use those proceeds to start building without first reaching an agreement with the mortgage holder on 7 World Trade Center, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors.”

Source

On top of that, lookie there...

Kissinger McLarty Associates has a “strategic alliance” with the Blackstone Group. The Blackstone Group describes their relationship thus:

“Blackstone's alliance with Kissinger McLarty Associates is designed to help provide financial advisory services to corporations seeking high-level strategic advice. The relationship was announced in 2000 and recently completed its first strategic advisory assignment on behalf of a NYSE-listed company.”

Source

So, from what I'm gathering from the quotes above, the insurance company was willing to make a full payment of $861 million for WTC 7, if Silverstein could strike a deal with the mortage holder.... which, oh look above, he appeared to be able to do. So, I'm assuming that the $861 million must be included somewhere in that equation that you came up with regarding the Positive/Negative Silverstein received out of the destruction of WTC7...

Originally posted by CameronFox
GREAT point Rich....that leaves me with this question.... How would the people that planted these charges know it would work AFTER tons of steel and debris land in with fires raging...etc... Demolition experts will tell you ...fires and crushing debris does not help when planning a controlled demolition.

I'm no CD expert... but I suspect you could plan for this.

Rich all of the footage from wtc7 IS from the media. wtc7 Was a story in NY when they were rebuilding...and the collapse was shown on all NY stations.

So why would't they show it for the BYU guy? Watch the movie.

I don't know why you're so anxious to 'prove' Silverstein didn't profit, but conflating the issue of WTC7 with it is weird. There are people who are paid to come to sites like these and advance a POV. I don't know if you are one... but I find your approach to the arguments rather odd, and I'm therefore not going to get drawn into a big debate with you. I apologise if this seems accusatory - I'm just erring on the side of caution, that's all.

I believe I answered that....must have been on another thread.... in any case, here is what I found:
This shouldn’t need to be said, but the fact that IRI didn’t dispute the $861 million claim should make it perfectly clear that Silverstein didn’t “admit” to destroying his building. With the "Pull it" comment.
If you think IRI’s management somehow benefited by looked the other way to Silverstein’s “crime,” consider that IRI did contest Silverstein’s lawsuit over his Twin Towers insurance claim.
Insurance companies have a funny way of making sure that insured parties don’t destroy their skyscrapers, collect the claims, and walk away with millions.In fact there was a clause in Silverstein’s WTC 7 policy required him to begin rebuilding within two years, and lenders required that the new building have as much square footage as the old (and they complained mightily when the plans came up short in that department). The cost of the new building? Over $700 million.
You may say that leaves "lucky larry" with $161 million, right?
Not exactly. There was an existing $489.4 million mortgage, which Silverstein paid off with the insurance settlement, leaving him with negative $328 million heading towards rebuilding WTC7.
New York, was desperate to see rebuilding begin downtown, saved Silverstein a bundle in financing costs by offering over $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, which the Bank of New York guaranteed.
That gave Silverstein and his backers the freedom to do something unheard of in recent New York real estate history: start construction of a skyscraper without a major (or minor) tenant on board. And when the building opened in 2006? Still no major tenants. In May, WTC 7 finally got its first possible major tenant when Moody’s Investor’s Service signed a nonbinding letter of intent to occupy 15 floors. More recently, other sizable tenants have signed on.

Sources: “Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times, January 16, 2003. “7 World Trade Center Gets a Major Tenant”: www.nytimes.com... Official World Trade Center Site; www.wtc.com... The Building Everyone Will Date But No One Will Marry: nymag.com...

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by CameronFox
GREAT point Rich....that leaves me with this question.... How would the people that planted these charges know it would work AFTER tons of steel and debris land in with fires raging...etc... Demolition experts will tell you ...fires and crushing debris does not help when planning a controlled demolition.

I'm no CD expert... but I suspect you could plan for this.

Rich all of the footage from wtc7 IS from the media. wtc7 Was a story in NY when they were rebuilding...and the collapse was shown on all NY stations.

So why would't they show it for the BYU guy? Watch the movie.

I don't know why you're so anxious to 'prove' Silverstein didn't profit, but conflating the issue of WTC7 with it is weird. There are people who are paid to come to sites like these and advance a POV. I don't know if you are one... but I find your approach to the arguments rather odd, and I'm therefore not going to get drawn into a big debate with you. I apologise if this seems accusatory - I'm just erring on the side of caution, that's all.

Rich... show me where you sign up! I would love to get paid for posting stuff here! Let me ad....so what if i were...if you are so sure of what your saying...then stand up for it!

Yes you have to plan a Controlled demolition..that my point. You plan it... you set the explosives and detonators....what you DONT plan for and is IMPOSSIBLE to plan for...What, where, and how much damage a skyscraper will do when it collapses and sreds debris all over your building..starting fires...etc...What do you think that would do to the detonation devices...etc? There would be NO way to confirm if what you planted was going to work. And on a side note...there has been not ONE employee that has spoken out about any major construction around the building in the days leading up to 911.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Yes you have to plan a Controlled demolition..that my point. You plan it... you set the explosives and detonators....what you DONT plan for and is IMPOSSIBLE to plan for...What, where, and how much damage a skyscraper will do when it collapses and sreds debris all over your building..starting fires...etc...What do you think that would do to the detonation devices...etc?

This is pretty simple, not impossible:

If the impact destroys an area with planted explosives, then you no longer have to destroy that structure with the explosives, do you? It was no secret that the towers could withstand jet impacts. And they did. Easily. No arguments there.

Fire will not set off many explosives. C4, as an example, can be thrown directly into a fire, and it will not detonate.

Finally, complicated demolitions, with many charges, are computer automated. You program the sequence, and the computer handles the rest. It would be nearly impossible for a human to manually detonate each charge or set of charges at exactly the right moment in such a collapse. It would really come down to something like plugging in a floor number after the impacts have already taken place.

Placing initiating "charges" of thermite-derived devices across a range of floors might've been necessary to anticipate the range of floors in which a jet may have impacted, but I don't doubt that this could still be accomplished.

Oh I'm sorry... would it be inappropriate for me to say.... How the HELL would you get to install thermite on all those columns? Seriously...think about how it works....

I was also not saying that the fire would detonate the explosives...though im not sure...but debris hitting the detonators sure could make a mess..or flames melting detonators...... OR...do you know what would happen to thermite if it is introduced to heat? BsBray...you are saying that this wasnt a conventional controlled demolition, tell me how the thermite is harnessed to cause the beans to be destroyed. I could be wrong but thermite needs to travel vertically? You would have to build some type of a harness around each column to hold it in place? I dont know.... Im just curious how this would work.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I was also not saying that the fire would detonate the explosives...though im not sure...but debris hitting the detonators sure could make a mess..or flames melting detonators......

Detonators can be insulated just like anything else.

OR...do you know what would happen to thermite if it is introduced to heat?

Nothing unless it's on the order of some two or three thousand degrees F; I forget the exact figure.

BsBray...you are saying that this wasnt a conventional controlled demolition, tell me how the thermite is harnessed to cause the beans to be destroyed.

I couldn't know how it would've actually be used, of course, but what would prevent someone from applying a nanothermite as a gel around the sides of a box column? It wouldn't have to slice from one direction like a high explosive; it would just eat away from all sides at once. As long as the ultimate effect is that of slicing at an angle (the "shape" of the application around the column), the column can slide or bend or contort in the desired direction. This wouldn't likely create a clean, resistance-less vertical collapse, but more like the lean you saw from WTC2, as if its core had been taken out and the upper portion of the building was just rotating as a separate body upon the lower building until the next phase was initiated.

So Cameronfox how do you explain this....



Turning into this...



This question was dodged in two threads and ended one, so I thought I'd ask it here. How does that 'toppling top' change it's mind and suddenly decide to crush the rest of the undamaged building beneath it. What it did is physically IMPOSSIBLE without something causing the lower undamaged floors to fail. That top section is NOT crushing the building, it's falling to one side on a pivot, there is not enough downward energy to crush itself. The rest of the building drops away from underneath it.
So again, how does that happen without something causing the lower undamaged floors to fail? As you can see here with the south tower it's not the top causing a pancake collapse.

So logic would say there must have been, for lack of a better word, 'explosives' of some kind involved. What was used I don't care, it doesn't matter. Would you need to know the weapon used to know the victim was killed?

It's all in the physics...

Anok... i wasnt there...neither were you. Im not an engineer...a demolitions expert...But i did find a video that explains it. Unfortunatly it is at my office. If I remember I will forward it to you on Sunday.

Bsbray....This so called Jelled Nano-Thermite.... any information on that? HAs it actually been invented?

Yeah, I think it's applied with sol-gel.

Here's a reference on that: en.wikipedia.org...

Specifically in regards to use with thermite-derived substances:

One current promising nanocomposite being pursued by the
researchers at LLNL involves the use of Fe2O3 which is generated
using the sol-gel method. The reason that Fe2O3 is chosen
is because its thermite reaction with UFG aluminum is very
exothermic (with only CuO and MoO3 yielding greater energy
of reaction). An example of the high degree of mixing and uni-
formity between two nanophases is found in Figure 7, which
indicates the excellent dispersion of Al and Fe on the nanoscale
domain. The Fe2O3 was prepared by the use of an organic
epoxide which was added to an Fe(III) salt solution resulting in
the formation of nanoscale crystalline and amorphous Fe2O3.
The reaction to produce Fe2O3 was done in solution which
already contained the UFG aluminum. In this case, the
nanoparticle aluminum was sonnicated (suspended in isopropanol
and placed in an ultrasonic bath to break up any aluminum
aggregates) before mixing with the Fe(III) salt solution.
For this work, the UFG aluminum was supplied by the NSWC
researchers at Indian Head using the dynamic gas-phase condensation
method (discussed above), which yielded an average
aluminum particle size of approximately 35 nanometers.
As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a
number of possible application areas that are envisioned. These
include: (1) high temperature stable, non-detonable gas generators,
(2) adaptable flares, (3) primers, and (4) high-power,
high-energy composite explosives. In addition, the sol-gel
chemistry may have advantages of being more environmentally
acceptable compared to some other methods of producing
energetics.

ammtiac.alionscience.com...

The above is on pages 45-46, which turn out to be 6 and 7 on the actual PDF file.

SlapNuts used to post on this stuff, but I haven't seen him posting in a while.

Thanks Bsbray, I read the pages you posted...all I have to say is... It's all chinese to me.. lol.

Interesting stuff though.... would you happen to know how it is applied, how would you detonate it ....and how much you would need to split the beams?

[edit on 9-12-2006 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox
Interesting stuff though.... would you happen to know how it is applied, how would you detonate it ....and how much you would need to split the beams?

All I know is that its sticky (or can be as a sol-gel), it requires high temperatures to ignite, and you need much less of it than regular thermite to produce the same amount of heat.

Edit: Notice that one of the uses pointed out in the above PDF for "nanothermite" or whatever you'd like to call it, is a use as a primer, like a detonator cap. Not saying there would have to be additional "explosives" with this substance, but it's been considered in those regards.

In fact, check this out:

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are exploring the potential to release energy from nanoparticles – nano explosives. Nanoenergetics is a new field in which nanoaluminum particles are used as more effective explosives. Just as with the suntan products, the nanoaluminum presents a higher surface area to volume of the material. This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminum achieves chemical reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material. Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest atomic level. This means that nanoaluminum and the “superthermite” that is made from it are presenting significantly more powerful weapons than those in use today. Details on this power and ongoing projects are not publicly available. But, it is instructive that the experiments are being carried out at the same laboratory that created the designs for most of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal (Gartner, 2005).

www.ctonet.org...

This is the technology that is still supposedly under R&D. But they're already trying to apply this stuff to more conventional weapons, like daisy cutters, for example, to make them much more powerful.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by bsbray11]

BsBray,

Even if this is beyond the reported R&D stages as you suggest, do you think it is far enough along that they would risk using it for such a massive task?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok... i wasnt there...neither were you. Im not an engineer...a demolitions expert...But i did find a video that explains it. Unfortunatly it is at my office. If I remember I will forward it to you on Sunday.

So you wasn't there, that's your best answer?...lol

So if you are not able to answer this question because you wasn't (sic) there, how come you are trying to come across as some expert on everything else?

I look fwd to seeing this video you have, don't forget now. I have yet to hear of this, how come it's never been mentioned all the other times I ask this question?

But you've seen it right? So why not sum it up for me? This is an important question that keeps getting ignored. Can't wait to hear how physics failed to follow it's own laws that day...

Originally posted by CameronFox
But i did find a video that explains it. Unfortunatly it is at my office. If I remember I will forward it to you on Sunday.

Well well well, Sunday has come and gone...I guess you didn't remember after all?

Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, cause if there is a video
explaining this event I'd looove to see it.

Thanx...

Anok ~

Patience my friend I had the video on my e-mail, the the server for my Outlook is down until tomorrow. I did however find a shortened video...not what i wanted to send to you, but this will have to do for now.

And I have NEVER claimed to be an expert. I gather information and take it frome there. Bsbray has an easy time shutting me up with his technical stuff that I cant make heads or tails out of.

Anyway.. here is ONE of the videos.
video.google.com...



[edit on 11-12-2006 by CameronFox]

I've just looked at that video, and I have two points to make.

First, it's interesting that they have to resort to imposing graphics on the footage to show that the core is still there. The first time I watched it, I didn't notice that they were imposed, I thought it was actually there. It was only on a second viewing that it became clear. To the unwary viewer watching a TV programme, unable to rewind and watch it again, that would seem like "dramatic footage proving NIST correct" indeed. However, to these more cynical eyes it looks like an attempt to manipulate the viewer.

Second, it's possible to see the core standing on longer shots of the collapse. It's also possible to see the core collapsing almost immediately. How does that work? The load is gone, the core has nothing to support except itself? And how come it collapses within itself? These are questions left unasked and therefore unanswered.

I have yet to see a "pro-conspiracy" 9/11 video that has had to doctor archive footage to make its point in that way. The most that ever happens is that certain parts of a shot are highlighted to draw attention to squibs, for example.

Very misleading.

Originally posted by rich23
Second, it's possible to see the core standing on longer shots of the collapse. It's also possible to see the core collapsing almost immediately. How does that work? The load is gone, the core has nothing to support except itself? And how come it collapses within itself?

And why does it drop straight down?

In some footage, you can see that some of the columns' lateral bracing breaks loose and a tall column (those box columns were welded together for great lengths!) falls like falling timber, tipping to one side, as one would expect per laws of thermodynamics and paths of least resistance.

However, the entire remaining structure then abruptly drops straight down.


And another point that's odd, is that the "spire" (which is what that section of WTC1 core is called) looks as though it's producing a thick, dark dust:



Why?

Dude..your the brains in here....you tell us !

I will have to get the rest of the video....maybe there is an explination. Maybe not. Anok is ALWAYS asking for an explination and Im not qualified to make one....so..I will keep looking