9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

cchaic,

I'm not trying to prove anything, if you don't want to believe as I do then thats your right and I won't deny it from you. I was simply adding my thoughts to the discussion since I hadn't seen them covered by others.

I have a question for you though, do you really understand what your quoted "proof" is saying? Or did you just post it because others have used it and it sounded really technical?

I don't think anyone ever said that they used dynamite, that would be ludicris. The text you have quoted is misleading you into thinking that our theories rely on an explosive less powerful than C4 and then goes on to mock us by saying that even if they used C4 they would need massive amounts.

The theory, well the main one, states that they used thermite or thermate to cut the core columns in a 45 degree angle all facing inwards which would cause the core columns to slide inwards and the building would collapse. This is standard procedure in a controlled demolition/implosion.

Dynamite is used on concrete columns and buildings but would be useless on structural steel beams since the laws of physics would direct the majority of the explosive force away from the steel beam into the open air.

I don't see what you're getting at besides parroting what other's have said before.

As for the diagonal cut beam, I was just lending some experience and knowledge to the mini debate Gryff was having.

Hmmmm, well, we could always try to get to the 'hard edged science' behind this entire ordeal?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I was pointing out that corner 'squib' back in Jan.

These images are way scaled down from what I have. The one above is 3000x3000 for example, but I'm limited with what I can provide here.

The matching color lines coincide with each event, what they show is the demowave location at the time of the respective event. The green wire frame around the building (but NOT other the markerlines) are as they are built inside my video project so you can see the building frame as you watch it collapse).

At the time my focus was on the timing involved, in conjunction with the fact that NIST debunked the pancake collapse, which therefore makes the odds -of the floors on the inside being able to internally collapse ahead of the exterior demowave- that much more incredible.

Part of my argument was, assuming the air ducts from the mechanical floors disperse downwards from the mechanical floors, why were the 'jet plumes of dust' that far below the mechanical floor that wasn't yet consumed by the blast wave??
The demowave was 32 floors above the 1st 'blast' event.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are no corner columns, only where the two perimeter walls meet.

From my findings of the finished corners, there were no windows there, which creates a scenario of, if we're to take this video and that event as literal evidence, then it comes down to either that the video indeed shows the use of explosives, or well we're to not take the event as actual evidence.

I hate to play absolutes, however unless someone can come up with a photo showing windows there that's the way it is. Below are all the images of the corners that i could find, mostly from the interior anyways, and believe me i spent 2 days scouring the internet looking for interior photos for this project"
s24.photobucket.com...

An interior example:

Exterior:

Find the corner-windows!!!

Solid corners ladies and gentlemen... So did the compressed air push thru the drywall/marble-exterior aluminum cladding to make the event in the video occur, or do we just refuse to accept the video anomoly as being any at all????

Can anyone actually answer these questions and issues?

Originally posted by ccaihc
just because a designer says so, doesn't make it so.

This statement is utter rubbish. Designers (specifically structural engineers) know physics. If they calculated that it would take the plane impact, then it would. Plain and simple. Unless there're different physics laws on 9/11 (which the government wants us to believe). Anyway, point is you can't say that "just because a designer says so, doesn't make it so". What's the point of knowing physics then?

[edit on 8/6/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by MrSparkle
So that story doesn't work for you because it wasn't a skyscraper. Okay, well no problem. You're right, other than the WTC towers, no other skyscraper has ever burned and collapsed from being hit by a 767. So I guess you win?
Oh wait, that has never happened before or since, so we really can't compare it to anything.

But, it's ok to compare a composite bridge deck (that has about 1/4 inch of steel) with a steel column that is 4-8 inches thick?

There are other examples of buildings with steel structures collapsing... heres a few:
1967 steel roof collapses. www.chipublib.org...

1997, steel building collapses: www.interfire.org...

There's more on this page (thats where I got the two links above) as well as some refutations for other common stupid arguments.

Hmmm...roof collapses yet doesn't globally collapse the entire building. There have been partial collapses due to fire before (which is what the overpass that you linked to was). There has never been a global collapse into it's footprint from fire. Fires do not globally collapse structures. This is fact. Period. Or demolition companies would go out of business.

Originally posted by ccaihc
Second, most conspiracy theorists will claim a shorter time to fall, I favor the more accepted 15 seconds(well more accepted among non conspiracy theorists).

This is where you're wrong. Conspiracy theorists are NOT the ones who came up with 10 seconds and 11 seconds. The official reports did. So, why are you saying that the CTers are the ones being dishonest?

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

No, but it is sounding redundant. Why don't you calculate how much other explosives it would take. How about how much mini-nukes (don't give me the "we don't have them" and "radiation" because it has been proven that it could be done). How about how much thermate added with explosives would it take? This is the biggest straw man tactic I've heard.

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.

And yet, plane impact damage and fire DOES sound plausible after telling us all this?

BTW, how much does plane impact damage and fire reduce the amount of explosives needed? Because there would always still be the impact damage and fires.

So, you believe that plane damage and fire was enough to fell the buildings? Do you people realize that in your scenario, just ONE explosive would be enough? Since you believe that ZERO explosives was enough?

Originally posted by Shadowflux
As for the diagonal cut beam, I was just lending some experience and knowledge to the mini debate Gryff was having.

And I aprecciate your input. To be clear, you don't believe it was cut by a torch?

[edit on 8/6/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Can anyone actually answer these questions and issues?

Nope. That's why they are being ignored. Since it's not on screwloosechange or debunking9/11, then no one will touch them. Ask Labtop about how many have come forward to dispute his siezmic reading analysis.

Originally posted by Griff

And I aprecciate your imput. To be clear, you don't believe it was cut by a torch?

Honestly, I'm not sure, it's such a small aspect of the whole over all issue. I was just saying that it would've been very very very hard and time consuming to cut that massively thick beam by hand with an Oxy torch.

One thing I forgot to mention which I had hoped would be inferred, is that since you have to heat the section you are cutting the thickness of the steel is proportionate to the amount of heat that is transfered away from the point your cutting. So in other words, thicker steel takes longer heating times and a slower cut speed.

Also, it's fairly common that if you're cutting steel the wrong way it will fuse back together, I could see myself trying to cut that beam and cursing up a storm for a few hours.

The other thing about the beam, is that it's cut really clean which isn't easy to do by hand on such thick steal in such poor conditions. To create a perfectly smooth cut on thick steel requires the right temperature, oxy mixture, cut angle, cut speed etc. Trust me, cutting steel in a clean slice takes a lot of practice and aggrevation. And this is outside, if the wind was blowing it would cool the steel making it impossible to cut.

But I'm willing to be wrong, there could be another technique for cutting the beam.

Either way, where is the cut off section of beam? It would have to be a few hundred pounds minimum.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Either way, where is the cut off section of beam? It would have to be a few hundred pounds minimum.

I'm so glad you mention this. There is a colapsed column laying there. Why would they cut another column and haul it off before cleaning the already collapsed column?

Also. You are the first actual welder that has said what you are saying here. Usually we get a friend of a friend who was shown the picture and they said...

Thanks for your input for the torch cutting process.

So i guess its official. THIS VIDEO REVEALS DEMOLITION CHARGES 60 STORIES BELOW FIRE, SEQUENCE CHARGES( to steer collapse).

Remember... MARVIN BUSH'S COMPANY RAN THE SECURITY AT THE WTC AND DULLES AIRPORT UP UNTILL 9/11.

Prescott Bush funded hitler and used WW2 as a pretext to slaughter 500,000 women and children with two atom bombs and create the state of Israel as a miltary strategic launchpad and a Tax and fraud shelter bla bla bla..... Common knowledge to the un-american.


Heres the smoking gun video again....
www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by Griff


I'm so glad you mention this. There is a colapsed column laying there. Why would they cut another column and haul it off before cleaning the already collapsed column?

Also. You are the first actual welder that has said what you are saying here. Usually we get a friend of a friend who was shown the picture and they said...

Thanks for your input for the torch cutting process.

You're welcome, I'm just happy this knowledge is getting put to use lol. I sort of decided against a welding career to persue a career in art which might not have been the best decision. Anyway, I digress.

I'm trying to stay impartial on this diagonal beam issue just because I can't say 100% what they did to that beam. To answer your question though, perhaps they removed the beam because it posed a safety hazard to the workers in the area. Perhaps it was severely damaged and was going to fall so they cut it to make sure it didn't fall on anyone else. Just an idea.

To refute that though, it does seem to be cut completely from one end to the other which doesn't make sense. It would be far easy to start the cut at any weak point or already severed section.


One other thing I didn't mention is the fact the the diagonal cut would be rather odd if it were cut by hand since the 45 degree angle makes it a long cut than a flat 0 degree angle.

If it were cut at a 45 degree angle it would most likely have been cut from top to bottom. Due to the weight of the beam itself I would think that it would fall over, or at the least bend over to the ground once you got 3/4-4/5 of the way through it. This would leave a clear ripping pattern on the steel. Imagine taking a brick of cheddar cheese and bending it in half until it breaks, the steel would look somewhat like that, very rough.

The picture shows molten metal oxydized and resolidified on the lower part of the cut which to me would indicate it was cut all the way through.


Also, there is another process I've used, called Plasma Cutting. It's the same basic idea but instead of an acetalene flame it uses an electrical arc that heats the pressurized oxygen to the fourth state of matter and thusly melts the steel that way. However this requires both an oxy tank and a plasma cutting machine, sort of like a generator, like a TIG welding machine. It's heavy and bulky.

Plasma cutting also requires that you place an electrical contact on the steel because the cutting torch acts as the other contact creating a circuit when you turn it on. I would believe that this would electrify the entire beam and any other conductive material touching it.

I've also never used plasma cutters on anything larger than sheet metal. ("Sheet Metal" is anything below a 1/4 thick I believe where as "Plate Metal" is anything thicker.)

To me, if this were cut by hand, it would be a really messy cut, which would be fine since it's now scrap metal anyways. Why be so precise?

Originally posted by Shadowflux
To me, if this were cut by hand, it would be a really messy cut, which would be fine since it's now scrap metal anyways. Why be so precise?

I agree and if you look at the photo that people like to post. The one where there is a worker on a cherry picker cutting diagonally. You can see that his cut is far from smooth and perfect like the angled "cut" column.

As would be expected. Try using a lighter and a straw to cut through a candle, same idea, very messy. There was one time I was cutting steel and didn't notice I was dripping it all onto my boot. Long story short, my shoelaces were disintegrated but my boot and foot were fine.

Glad I spent 90 bucks on some Caterpillar Boots.

A cherry picker is a good solution on how to get the oxy and fuel tanks to the cutting area though.

I suppose i shouldn't be lazy but does anyone know what type of steel these core columns were made of? That would definitely influence their reaction to the entire collapse of the building.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I suppose i shouldn't be lazy but does anyone know what type of steel these core columns were made of? That would definitely influence their reaction to the entire collapse of the building.

I believe they were A36 steel box columns. I have seen (in the leaked architechural drawings) some being A50 steel. Does that help?

Descriptions have claimed that 'high grade' steel was used in the construction but that is a vague assertion and who knows where it was used if not extensively.

It looks more and more to me like the WTC from inception was designed for the sacrifice of 911 to herald in the NWO.

We can only try and guess the next event as to where, when and what. I have said before that it is likely a major fire in the Northwest USA, probably Chicago. Date? not sure. But the four sides of the US must be 'boxed in' for this ritual and the east (911) and the south (NO) have been done already.

Well, I did a quick Google search and found a few things about A36 carbon steel. This is from Wiki:

As with most steels, A36 has a density 7.8 times that of water. A36 steel in plates, bars, and shapes with a thickness of less than 8 inches (203 mm) has a minimum yield strength of 36 ksi (36,000 psi or 248 MPa), and ultimate tensile strength of 58-80 ksi (400-550 Mpa). Plates thicker than 8 inches have 32 ksi yield strength and 58-80 ksi ultimate tensile strength.[1] [2]

Wiki

And I found this about a wide flange A36 beam retrieved from WTC7:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

From Here

I'm no scientist so the talk of eutectic liquids is really lost on me. Oxidation, when we're talking about metal working, refers to the fact that the melting of steel without proper shielding gas or a silicone type covering known as slag will cause the materials in the steel to bond with the oxygen in the air and create an extremely brittle porous material that is easy crushed underfoot.

I believe this report is saying that the melted steel bonded with the sulfur and oxygen to create iron oxide and iron sulfide which changed the chemical make up of the A36 steel to lower it's metal point. But, like i said, I'm no scientist.

Where did the sulfur come from?

Low alloy carbon steel, such as A36 grade, contains about 0.05% sulfur and melts around 1426–1538 °C (2600–2800 °F).

From Wiki

So we know that under normal circumstances the A36 steel beams should have withstood temperatures up to 1538 C. In order to significantly weaken and melt the steel core beams the temp would have to be a fairly constant range between the above mentioned melting points for a prolonged period of time and concentrated on the beams.

However, since the beams were attached and connected to the rest of the building the heat would've been conducted through out a given portion of the steel beam and into any other substance it was touching. Air flow would also have played a part in the temperature by either lowering it by conducting heat into the surrounding air or, given the right properties, increased the heat as we saw at Waco, with the hot wind increasing the intensity of the flames.

I don't know, I want to be able to add to the discussion but I don't want to risk speculating on things I don't know.

What do the last few posts have to do with the compelling video showing demoltion flashes?
www.metacafe.com...

[edit on 7-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
What do the last few posts have to do with the compelling video showing demoltion flashes?
www.metacafe.com...

You've asked this several times on this thread. Really, I think your OP was great and obviously the videos sparked a lively discussion, but what's the problem here?

The posts above are discussing the question of the structural steel in a mature manner, with the intent of explaining the method of collapse/destruction seen on the videos you originally posted.

After all, your OP's title was asking if the videos were evidence of a CD, and now people are getting into the nitty-gritty of answering it. Do you just want people to simply come in and discuss the videos only? And just how far is that going to get one?

With all respect, you're not a forum moderator and you're a bit too presumptuous about setting limits on the discussion, since your OP is implicitly asking the questions now being discussed. Relax. It's just another 9/11 thread, but a good one, so go with the flow and let an enlightening discussion take place.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I don't know, I want to be able to add to the discussion but I don't want to risk speculating on things I don't know.

Please continue. Could you explain more what you said about how steel can become brittle to squash underfoot? Thanks. It sounds very interesting.

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
What do the last few posts have to do with the compelling video showing demoltion flashes?
www.metacafe.com...

[edit on 7-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]

Because any evidence to point more to controlled demolition helps your theory. Does it not?

So, if all you want to discuss is the flashes, then, ok there are flashes. End of thread. Move on. Is that what you want this thread to end up like? Discussions tend to move in different directions. I understand your want to discuss the video, but we have already said our opinions on it.

Edit: BTW, no offense ment.

[edit on 8/7/2007 by Griff]