Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Was their any evidence of structural damage in the basements? Or was there any evidence of bombs on the skylobby's? (if thats the areas you are reffering to)

As far as evidence, we've been over this. NIST didn't even test for explosives (of any kind). As far as structural damage in the basement, I'm not sure how they'd tell after thousand degrred fires down in them. But, by looking at pictures of the subway tunnel that collapsed, I'd say the basements probably had damage. Again, speculation.

If the core was taken out, how come it was standing briefly after the collaspe?

Going on speculation again. Maybe the debris pile was enough to hold it in place for a few seconds before finally crashing down itself. I don't disregard this anomoly in my theory. It is a kink, I will admit. Unlike NIST who still has the collapse times in their report as being 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Which everyone on both sides acknowledges as being incorrect.

As I have posted in the past from geologists, the seismic data did not support explosives.

There are other ways than explosives.

And yes, I know you guys aren't going to take this as evidence but it is possible to cut horizontally through a column with thermate. Here's one patent.

patft.uspto.gov.../61835 69&RS=PN/6183569

As far as people seeing the evidence of thermate cutting devices. Would you know what it was if you found one?

i keep posting on the attaack of '93...and you guys refering to the basement has to do with it...

the vehicle that blew up there, had the intention of taking out the structure of one of the towers and causing it to fall on the other.....obviously it didnt work...so fast forward 8 years....and you have a doubled effort to kind of "tackle" the tower....hit it at the bottom and the middle...

there were a few reports of explosions in the basements....

and sorry for the excessive quoting

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the vehicle that blew up there, had the intention of taking out the structure of one of the towers and causing it to fall on the other.....obviously it didnt work...so fast forward 8 years....and you have a doubled effort to kind of "tackle" the tower....hit it at the bottom and the middle...

You got me thinking. Maybe they tried a 1-2 punch. Weaken the base and try to topple it with the plane? But almost at the same time. Interesting.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Was their any evidence of structural damage in the basements? Or was there any evidence of bombs on the skylobby's? (if thats the areas you are reffering to)

White smoke from the base of the towers along with the infamous rumble come at about ten seconds before collapse. The core was definitely targeted to be taken out first.

You have the biggest squibs coming out of the sky lobby areas.

If the core was taken out, how come it was standing briefly after the collaspe?

Considering the massiveness of the core structure at the base of the towers, the real question is, "Why was the core destroyed?"

That remnants stood for ten or so seconds before collapsing indicates both the strength of the core and the immense amounts of energy needed to make it fall like burnt matchsticks.

As I have posted in the past from geologists, the seismic data did not support explosives.

That post offered nothing in the way of analysis of the evidence by these geologists, just statements.

I just wanted to share this video that I found last night, it's been up for awhile so I'm sure a lot of you have seen it. It has evidence (and yes, some speculation) by a variety of experts who all agree that the towers were taken down by some sort of controlled demolition. It's almost an hour long, but it's worth it because it presents a lot of logical explanations.

Were Explosives Used?

Originally posted by Griff

You got me thinking. Maybe they tried a 1-2 punch. Weaken the base and try to topple it with the plane? But almost at the same time. Interesting.

but looking at the timeline...they would have had to have a spotter and a detonator.....the one witness that claims explosions in the basement heard them mearly seconds before...in WTC1....or it could have been one guy with a cellphone operated explosive.....

if there were explosions in the basement...this is just a likely possibility....

tho i kindof do believe this is the way it happend....also this is the "mastermind" behind the orignal....

being convicted 5 years later....
www.cnn.com...

connections with iraq?
www.fas.org...

connections with the cia and osama??
www.cooperativeresearch.org...


[edit on 9-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

Originally posted by gottago
Damocles pointed out during our back-and-forth on squibs/demo that the initiation of collapse had no explosive sounds, though the sounds of explosives can be heard during collapse and the squibs are further proof of that.

i just wanted to point out here to make sure there is no confusion. the part i emphasised is gottago's split in the exchage we had for his own opinions. i dont believe i ever said i agreed that explosions could be heard during the collapse. what i DID say was that THEORETICALLY the collapse could have covered the sounds of subsequent explosions though i dont think so personally, i was willing to admit i could be mistaken and totally wrong on that particular topic. i dont belive nor will i ever imply that gottago misquoted me intentionally on this, i think it was just a simple run on sentence that to me at least could have given the impression i said something other than i intended.

lol so not trying to nitpick what gottago said, just wanted to make sure that MY thoughts were being fairly represented.

I argue that the squibs are evidence they were softening up the structure below the cascade wave to facilitate collapse, though Damocles prefers to paint them as I'm-not-really-sure what, but at best evidence of sloppy demolition and therefore unbelievable as evidence of demo, if I follow his logic correctly.

you do follow my logic mostly correctly. ive never come flat out and said what i think the squibs are becuase my OPINION on that really doesnt matter much. what i AM sure of is that they are not "premature detonations" ( i said detonations you pervs keep it clean) because honestly thats simply not how you rig demo charges.

ill try to explain why i think this in basic terms without doing a "how to" class on demolitions.

when you set up a demo shot, whether its to drop a building, a bridge, or punch a hole in a road to create an obstical for the enemy, you creat whats called a "ring main" whereby you either use all electrical blasting caps or you use non electrical caps and those are set off by either time fuse or det cord. so with electric caps you tie them all in a series circuit so that you have 100% assurity that they all go. if one fails they all fail sort of thing. thats because you want them all to go. if youre using det cord then a single strand goes from the charge to a single main piece of detcord and "tied in" there are a variety of ways to tie in but how its done doesnt matter. once the main peice is set off, they all go unless a cap is improperly placed then THAT charge doesnt go.

so you can see...theres really no way for it to be a "premature' charge UNLESS they used one of a variety of OTHER methods to prime the shots, which, COULD happen but really makes no logical sense to do it as you would need more ordinance in the form of detcord or wires or whatever. using the simplest method is the most sure method and any demo guy is going to know that. the way i described you'd have one place on each floor to set off the shot.

the ONLY way it could be a premature shot is if they ran the wire/detcord to a central location and some demo guy hooked that shot to the wrong posts. im sorry, I PERSONALLY have a very difficult time believing that the guys that could pull this job were going to make a demo101 simple mistake like that.

and please dont say remote controls, id bet hard money they didnt use remotes on each charge. id be willing to concede they COULD have used a remote to initiate the ringmains but not each charge...and personally i wouldnt even use a remote for the first one. i wouldnt have used electric blasting caps anywhere in this rig save for the primary on the ring main.

but, if you take the time to learn anything about electric blasting caps you'll see why i say that.

this help anyone out there at all? not trying to debunk anything just trying to provide some info and some explaination as to why my opinion is that waht youre seeing are not "squibs" at all.

also, for those that pay attention, anyone watch the slow motions yet and see what i said about the jets continue being pushed after you'd expect them to die off after the intial shot?

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Damocles]

Damocles,

Further to the question of why there was no explosion at the onset of collapse, Griff's got a thread going with a very straightforward explanation. Take a look at it.

His argument is that the rumble/"seismic events" that truthers ascribe to blowing the cores would necessarily lead to collapse at the impact points, because the cores were tied to the perimeter columns/skin at the hat trusses at the top of the towers. Kick them out, and the perimeter takes all the building load and that of the core, and gives way at its weakest point--the area of impact. This explains why the antenna sagged before the actual structure buckled. Added bonus, it looks "real."

As for squibs, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see them as deliberate softening up of the core before the cascade of destruction gets to them. That's why they're centered on the facades and why the biggest ones occur at the sky lobbies.

If you look at a plan of the core, it is a rectangular column grid of 48 columns centered in a square floor plan. Two faces are much nearer the perimeter than the other two, and it has a tightly packed double row of columns in the center running in each direction that forms a cross--the real heart of the structure.

So it is no surprise to see squibs blowing out from the centers of the facades--that was the most reinforced part of the core structure.

Originally posted by Damocles
ive never come flat out and said what i think the squibs are becuase my OPINION on that really doesnt matter much. what i AM sure of is that they are not "premature detonations"

Pardon me old friend, no offense intended, but is that not an OPINION?

and please dont say remote controls, id bet hard money they didnt use remotes on each charge. id be willing to concede they COULD have used a remote to initiate the ringmains but not each charge..

You are a good guy. I like you. You seek truth.
If I am not mistaken you are basing your opinion of doing things 'the right way'.
What if you werent concerned about 'the right way'?
What if all you wanted to do was make sure the buildings fell, and you werent concerned about some charges not going of at the exact second or some charges not going off at all, as long as it falls.
Any evidence of shoddy demolition practices would be crushed and promptly shipped off to communist China, as long as you made sure to put enough 'bang' into the building to bring it down, which, judging by the official story, would be little more then some keroseen in the basement.

lol thanks 11b, yes, i was offering my opinion on what they werent. but, the difference is that if i offer my opinion to what they WERE, im speculating, if i offer an opinion as to what it isnt, thats based on more than just guessing.

ill put it in a way you are probably more familiar with. the coil of wire for a claymore is shorted at the detonator plug in until its ready to be fired. why? to keep the electronic blasting cap from picking up a static charge. its also stored INSIDE the roll of wire so that the wire blocks radio waves and keeps it from shorting out inside the cap and detonating correct?

i wont even go into the possibilites of that many radio recievers being unsafe in and of themselves, but think what happens when you hang that many electric blasting caps in a building full of cell phones and im sure security had walkie talkies. then add to the fact that theres a radio transmitting tower on the roof kickin out god knows how many watts.

so while you may view it as me just basing on whats "right", and that is partially true, its also a matter of basing it on what is the most likely to succede and stay covert. if even one of those charges had gone off prematurely by picking up a stray radio signal the whole operation is blown.

so, as an infantryman you know you always take the plan that gives teh best chance of acheiving the mission objectives. would you use electric or nonelectric caps? keeping in mind what any FM or TM says about minimum safe distance from a 1W transmitter to an electric blasting cap.

ill admit, there is sure a small possibility of them using all radio controlled devices, but those also leave behind more forensic evidence than say...det cord would have. i would just bet money they didnt.

always keep it simple and your chances of success go up, a simple ring main on each floor is more simple than 100's of individual radio controls, so thats the obvious choice. IF they used radios it was PROBABLY one per floor, which still wouldnt give you the single "squib" jets and would stil have a higher margin for error than any number of a dozen other ways to do it.

hope that explains my "opinions" a little better. im open minded about the events of that day its just that some theories are going to take a lot more backing them up than ive seen so far.

Man this gets really frustrating for a native NYer. How many of you "theorist" saw the planes hit the tower with your own eyes. I did my friends did. It happened.

Howmany of you have seen the actuall molten steal and aluminum being removed from ground zero?

I have, no evidence of blasting.

CD is completely hogwash.

Originally posted by Torlough
Man this gets really frustrating for a native NYer. How many of you "theorist" saw the planes hit the tower with your own eyes. I did my friends did. It happened.

What does this have to do with CD?

Howmany of you have seen the actuall molten steal and aluminum being removed from ground zero?

I have, no evidence of blasting.

Please expain how jet fuel and global collapse causes molten steel and I'll listen to you. Thanks.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If the core was taken out, how come it was standing briefly after the collaspe?

Only part of the core was initially taken out, I think. That way, only part of the perimeter walls would be overloaded at a time. So the perimeter columns around the impact region collapse first, while the perimeter columns at the bottom of the building can't tell the difference because their loading hasn't really changed.

Then the ~floor-by-floor started, then WTC2's core "collapsed" (it looked like only a concrete block was left, and it just disappeared), while WTC1's seems to have been taken out a little earlier (during the what I'm calling the floor-by-floor) except for what looks like a part of the outer ring of box columns a little over 1/2 the original height of the building.

As I have posted in the past from geologists, the seismic data did not support explosives.

This only came from LDEO. They waited a couple of days before even releasing WTC7's seismic data, they were so hesitant about it. They later re-did some of their work under a contract with NIST. I wouldn't consider them any better of a source than FEMA or NIST itself.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Nice shot, but I am still not buying it.

The demolition explosion was from the initial impact of the plane. That was the flash everyone was talking about when the plane hit the tower, with the type of explosives they were using, the heat was great to melt the steel. They just had to wait for the initial fall out to detonate the rest.

That building could have easily with stood jet fuel because the jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt that type of steel. Plus, if it was from the plane. Then that does not explain how the rest of the steel melted all the way down at free fall speed.

So what I am saying, is that if this section did fall from just the one section of the building, just that section alone would have fell and not the entire building. That's the way it was constructed according to the engineer who had built it.

I'm new to the site, so I might be posting ideas that others have already covered, but these are the things I find most central to the collapse of the towers.

The first is good ole E=MC^2. While the force of the weight of the top portion of the towers above the impact zone are indeed tremendous, the acceleration as the semi-melted support columns yielded the the enormous force of the weight had to be very small. Numerous of the inner support columns would have had to reach a fluid state at almost the same time for the collapse to gain momentum/acceleration adequate to create the Energy necessary to demolish the much larger lower portion of the building in the manner which this lower portion was completely destroyed.

Second, the next consideration is the point of impact. Undoubtedly, the point of impact would have been the area of the building weakened the most. The columns absorbing the initial impact would have been weakened the most, as well as the exterior columns and support structure. Film footage shows the fire ball coming out of the point of impact, so most of the dispersion of fuel and therefore the heat source, also would have been concentrated mostly on the side of the building at the point of the impact. This should have thrown the structural integrity of the building way off balance.

Thirdly we need to consider the Path of Least Resistance. The support structure of the upper, smaller portion, of the tower becomes disconnected from the lower portion and begins to fall into the well of gravity. the upper portion lands on the lower portion, designed to hold the upper portion under serious stress, thereby providing great resistance to the fall of the upper portion of the building. The huge mass in motions should then seek the path of least resistance, which would be the huge expanse of air on the side of the impact.

As the building collapsed, the side where the jet impacted should have failed the most catastrophically, and that is where the acceleration of the collapse should have been greatest. As the momentum/acceleration on the side of the impact increased, the energy of the force on that side of the building would have increased in a squared function, acceleration squared, which would have vectored the force towards that side of the building where it would have encountered the path of least resistance, open air. The top portion should have fell off to the side, or collapsed that side of the building first, leading to most of the towers falling in the direction of the impact. This did not happen, and the claim that the building was designed to collapse into itself only seems reasonable for a Controlled Demolition. It just does not seem reasonable that this collapse would be balanced enough for the building to collapse into itself considering the jet struck from the side. The massive structure of the lower portion of the building should have forced the top portion to fall to the side.

Funny how the smoke completely hid the way the building collapsed. None of it makes sense, and the official explanation is extremely weak at best. Add this question to the other huge, gaping holes in the whole 9-11 event story and a cover up seems more and more plausible.

It seems that a model could be built to test theories of how the building collapsed, and would be worth the effort.

Dude, that video doesn't prove jack diddle that it wasn't demolition. It is a panned in view of a very small corner of the building. Had the filmer panned out the "squibs" would STILL be there as in every other video showing them. All this video "proves" is that when the building started to fall, for whatever reason(not shown), that corner folded in. THATS ALL. For those of you who actually would use this as proof that the official story must now be true, OPEN THE BLINDERS!!!! Wow!

Originally posted by Fowl Play
www.metacafe.com...



[edit on 13-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

I would say you would make a bigger impact if you showed video of another building falling in that manner that wasnt controlled. I could show building after building dropped in CD that looks JUST like wtc7 but nobody can seem to show another building fall like 7 that wasnt controlled. Why is that. There is tons of video out there, fires in high rises, empire state hit by plane and burning. Is it to much to ask for one case in history that is similar to 911?

[edit on 8-9-2007 by shug7272]

[edit on 8-9-2007 by shug7272]

A building can't tear itself apart AND fall at close to free-fall speed.

Either it collapses, destroying itself over a relatively long period of time,

Or it was already in pieces before it fell.

Originally posted by Torlough
Man this gets really frustrating for a native NYer. How many of you "theorist" saw the planes hit the tower with your own eyes. I did my friends did. It happened.

Howmany of you have seen the actuall molten steal and aluminum being removed from ground zero?

I have, no evidence of blasting.

CD is completely hogwash.

Sorry my friend... I'm sure your intentions are good, but the physical impossibility of those collapses proves that something else was involved.

Hydrocarbon fuels cannot burn, in the best of circumstances, hot enough to melt steel. Yet there are a number of witnesses, including video evidence, showing that steel in fact melted at wtc 1, 2, and 7.

Even if you throw out the MOUNTAIN of other means, motive, and gain of those who might commit this crime, the simple physical facts speak for themselves.

How does the top section reach the ground in ~10 seconds with the bottom section standing in the way? The bottom section was pulverized. The top section didn't pulverize it, because if it did then it would have taken much longer to reach the ground than 10 seconds. Something else tore that building apart in front of the falling debris.

Think about it.

There's some interesting looking red smoke there for a moment. Not sure what to think of that. Doesn't appear to be fire. Looks like a red smoke bomb in the middle of that mess.