Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

you seem to know the report very well.

the problem with that explanation is that a global increase in pressure is not going to stamp out windows far away from the 'collapse zone' in sequential order and in non-random patterns. it's certainly not going to propel debris several dozens of feet horizontally out of the building while neighboring windows remain intact. (see first post on p3 for old links to a thread)



the following post might be interesting, too: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 17.6.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by snoopy

More importantly, finding another steel building that hasn't collapsed does not prove that no steel structures can collapse. Not only do the other steel structures that have collapsed from fire alone prove you wrong here, but so do all the engineers and scientists who all disagree with you.

Snoop- can you post a single example of ANY steel structure that has collapsed from fire alone? Just curious.

Originally posted by JackRuby

Snoop- can you post a single example of ANY steel structure that has collapsed from fire alone? Just curious.

Absolutely.

The McCormick Center in Chicago
Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster
The Madrid Hotel in Spain

Those are good examples since they are larger structures. But there are 100s of examples of small ones. And it still shows that Steel can be compromised by fire and loose it's ability to support a structure. There are 100s of cases of steel buildings having their roofs cave in from just fire. Bridges as well.

And even if there weren't well documented cases of steel structures collapsing from fire alone, it would still not matter. Trying to claim that a building cannot collapse because no other building has collapsed in the same way is a bogus argument. By that logic, nothing can happen unless it has already happened before. No building can ever have caught on fire because at some point there had been no buildings that had caught on fire. See my point?

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by jprophet420
you can quote all you want in the video its not engulfed in flames.

We made the decision to 'pull' the building...

[edit on 17-6-2007 by jprophet420]

That quote is not correct.

And when was your video taken? And does that video cover all for sides?

A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

...and in any video. im not on a computer that is able to play flash, but i am able to look up definitions:

engulfed - completely enclosed or swallowed up; "a house engulfed in flames"; "the fog-enveloped cliffs"; "a view swallowed by night"

i hate to put the ball in your corner (no i dont) but i have never seen any footage of wtc7 engulfed in flames, I have never heard of any, and i have never heard of any mentioned in threads on ATS.

I try to post links and back facts, but more and more it just seems people ask for links out of nothing short of spite. recently i have made references to videos posted within the same thread (in the OP) and been asked repeatedly to link. this is just absurd.

i assume that when i debate what happened on 911 here on ATS, that there is a certain amount of 'we already covered this' present. i will glady help a 'noob' on either side but to tell me that the quote is wrong but not post a source... please give me more respect than that, or put me on ignore. i dont care about points pr ratings, i care about what really happened. thank you.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
This page totally debunks the thermite allegations, and in fact makes them look totally ridiculous.
www.debunking911.com...

indeed. as a matter of fact, it wouldnt take thousands of pounds of thermite, it would take millions of tons.

now, if it would take millions of tons of thermite to break all the joints all the way down, how did 24000 gallons of jet fuel weaken the joints sufficiently?

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by JackRuby

Snoop- can you post a single example of ANY steel structure that has collapsed from fire alone? Just curious.

Absolutely.

The Madrid Hotel in Spain

Is this a joke?

The building didn't even collapse.



With the false claim you just made, ah forget it....

A better example is the First Interstate Bank fire:




Here's a floor plan:



Another:




Note the resemblance to the Twin Tower structures. This was also a steel-framed building.


Here it is on fire:





Here it is afterwards:




Look how much smaller the columns were!, and the shape they're still in!:




Another shot of the damage:




Overall I'd say this is a better example of a steel-framed building withstanding fire. The Windsor Tower was reinforced concrete in its core mostly. This building was much more similar, and had much weaker supports, and burned 3.5 hours, as opposed to .75 for the South Tower and something like 1.25 for the North Tower.

Wow...thats pretty close. It's missing one thing. An airplane that crarshed into it at 500 MPH. Other than that. Great find!

Wow, nice work bsbray.


Not to mention that the fire was bigger and much lower on the tower then the WTC.

The windsor tower was not the same design. It was concrete reinforced. And the steel portion DID collapse. And that was from fire alone. It didn't suffer sever structural damage, lose it's fire protection, and lose its sprinkler systems. And it had firefighting units figghting it the whole time.

And again, had it actually been a steel building that did meet all that criteria and hadn't collapsed, it would still NOT prove that the WTC could not have collapsed.

Originally posted by Long Lance

the problem with that explanation is that a global increase in pressure is not going to stamp out windows far away from the 'collapse zone' in sequential order and in non-random patterns. it's certainly not going to propel debris several dozens of feet horizontally out of the building while neighboring windows remain intact. (see first post on p3 for old links to a thread)

well, just a couple points to consider

for the "squibs" to have been explosives they would have to be premature detonations, any demo guy with half a brain would have set them up better, i mean ring mains are day one demo training and no way im going to buy into the fact that someone can rig a building to blow without being obvious its explosives and make that freshman mistake

watch the puffs carefully, they erupt and continue to eject material or continue to propel what they have ejected. if it were a demo shot there would be one fast push then it would drop off, and that is NOT what is observed

i could go on but i dont need to, research some demo things on your own and you'll see the points i raise are valid

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wow...thats pretty close. It's missing one thing. An airplane that crarshed into it at 500 MPH. Other than that. Great find!

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pulls out the airplane hitting the tower argument....

The plane (strangely) pierced through the building like butter and hit the cosmetic facade of the building. By the time the planes core possibly hit the center cores of the world trade center, the plane should have been in pieces and would not have caused much damage to the center core supports.

The way the building was designed, if a plane hits the building it's like a pencil piercing through a spider web. The damage is isolated into the area that the plane hits and doesn't affect the overall infrastructure of the building.

Not to mention that it took 1 hour for the building to collapse... if the planes impacts (both of them...) were the results of the impact then it should have crumbled down on impact or else it doesn't make sense that the building withstood the impact force for 1 hour and then all of a sudden pancake onto it's own footprints...

Since the world trade center was designed in such a way that the impacts of a plane would be isolated in the individual zone it crashed into so it doesn't transfer damage to the overall infrastructure of the building. It makes the theory that the airplane impact transfered damage to the columns and created a global collapse and pancake effect even more flimsy and far fetch then it already is.

Originally posted by jprophet420

i hate to put the ball in your corner (no i dont) but i have never seen any footage of wtc7 engulfed in flames, I have never heard of any, and i have never heard of any mentioned in threads on ATS.

That's because there isn't any. The whole place was evacuated so much of the building was not able to be seen. That's why we rely on the many people who were actually down there and could see what was going on.

I try to post links and back facts, but more and more it just seems people ask for links out of nothing short of spite. recently i have made references to videos posted within the same thread (in the OP) and been asked repeatedly to link. this is just absurd.

And you have been told repeatedly why there is no link. You guys are trying to imply that if something isn't caught on film it doesn't exist. But this is because you know the hundreds of firefighters testimonies proves beyond any doubt that there was major damage and fires.

i assume that when i debate what happened on 911 here on ATS, that there is a certain amount of 'we already covered this' present. i will glady help a 'noob' on either side but to tell me that the quote is wrong but not post a source... please give me more respect than that, or put me on ignore. i dont care about points pr ratings, i care about what really happened. thank you.

I don't even remember what you are referencing to. But I do remember someone directly misquoted Larry, so perhaps that was you. In that case there is no need for a source, you can just go back to where you got your quote and see. Show others the respect you want to get.

Originally posted by jprophet420


now, if it would take millions of tons of thermite to break all the joints all the way down, how did 24000 gallons of jet fuel weaken the joints sufficiently?

Because it wasn't fire alone. I think no matter how many times this is pointed out, it will still be claimed. You have a combination of structural damage alone with fire damage and loss of fire protection systems. A plane hitting a building or 100s of tons of falling debris hitting a building equals a lot more than 24,000 gallons of fuel.

Originally posted by selfless
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pulls out the airplane hitting the tower argument....

The plane (strangely) pierced through the building like butter and hit the cosmetic facade of the building. By the time the planes core possibly hit the center cores of the world trade center, the plane should have been in pieces and would not have caused much damage to the center core supports.

The way the building was designed, if a plane hits the building it's like a pencil piercing through a spider web. The damage is isolated into the area that the plane hits and doesn't affect the overall infrastructure of the building.

Not to mention that it took 1 hour for the building to collapse... if the planes impacts (both of them...) were the results of the impact then it should have crumbled down on impact or else it doesn't make sense that the building withstood the impact force for 1 hour and then all of a sudden pancake onto it's own footprints...

Since the world trade center was designed in such a way that the impacts of a plane would be isolated in the individual zone it crashed into so it doesn't transfer damage to the overall infrastructure of the building. It makes the theory that the airplane impact transfered damage to the columns and created a global collapse and pancake effect even more flimsy and far fetch then it already is.

LMFAOOOO well considering a plane did in FACT slam into the building at 500mph.... I just assumed it was a detail that shouldnt be overlooked and often is my so called "truthers".
Not sure why that is "STRANGE"
The pancake theory has discredited by NIST for some time now. Obvioulsy you didnt get the memo.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by jprophet420


now, if it would take millions of tons of thermite to break all the joints all the way down, how did 24000 gallons of jet fuel weaken the joints sufficiently?

Because it wasn't fire alone. I think no matter how many times this is pointed out, it will still be claimed. You have a combination of structural damage alone with fire damage and loss of fire protection systems. A plane hitting a building or 100s of tons of falling debris hitting a building equals a lot more than 24,000 gallons of fuel.

There were buildings around the area that got hit by debris that was literally cut in half and had much more intense fires and structural damage.... Yet they didn't collapse. I got pictures if you don't believe me.

So your point is a counter point.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

LMFAOOOO well considering a plane did in FACT slam into the building at 500mph.... I just assumed it was a detail that shouldnt be overlooked and often is my so called "truthers".
Not sure why that is "STRANGE"
The pancake theory has discredited by NIST for some time now. Obvioulsy you didnt get the memo.

I suggest that you do some research into how the building was designed and what was the intentions of the way the building was designed for airplane crashes into the building.

Piercing a spider web with a pencil is the perfect analogy of how the building was designed to sustain such an event.

And your LMFAOOOOO comment just shows your desperation to believe your own claims.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Selfless,

Your wrong. WTC7 collapsed. The Marriot hotel was destroyed. WTC6 was partially collaspe and had to be "pulled" down by cables...etc .etc...

Originally posted by selfless

I suggest that you do some research into how the building was designed and what was the intentions of the way the building was designed for airplane crashes into the building.

Piercing a spider web with a pencil is the perfect analogy of how the building was designed to sustain such an event.

And your LMFAOOOOO comment just shows your desperation to believe your own claims.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

I was laughing at your post about someone bringing up the plane. It was funny. As far as doing research..I suggest you read up on some from the past three years. If you had, you would have never brought up the "pancake" collapse.

What your missing also is that the building was designed to take the impact of a plane that was LOST in fog...etc. Where they would not be traveling at grgeat speeds. A terroist attack was NOT taken into consideration when the towers were built, and the effects of the jet fule on the buildings were not taken into consideration either.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Selfless,

Your wrong. WTC7 collapsed. The Marriot hotel was destroyed. WTC6 was partially collaspe and had to be "pulled" down by cables...etc .etc...

I'm wrong? and you're right? why? because you think so? Well that's a matter of opinion and it's subjective.

Here are some pictures that demonstrates the buildings that got it much much worst then the WTC7 and didn't collapse. But I'm sure you're gonna say that it's not gonna prove anything cause it's not the same building designs right? well that's your prerogative.






Of course it had to be taken down.... look at the shape they are in after the fires and the structural damage.... But it didn't collapse these pictures proves it.