Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

It's not the bigger the building the bigger 'the bomb' you use to knock it down. It's industry standard pre-fab'd shaped cutting charges for cutting support columns, not vapaorzing inner sections of the building based on its size.

The flash in one of those wtc vids makes no sense, it's above where the towers are exploding. At best it's sun light on the smoke which is as bright as the "flash". Or some form of other metal. To show it simple:

"Flash": *

WTC while it collapses:---------------------------

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's not the bigger the building the bigger 'the bomb' you use to knock it down. It's industry standard pre-fab'd shaped cutting charges for cutting support columns, not vapaorzing inner sections of the building based on its size.

Cash makes the world go 'round. Why spend more on high explosives when you can do the same with smaller explosives.

Originally posted by Gorman91
i95.photobucket.com...
Simply no explosons, just pressurized dust.

The reason you don't see explosions is because the CORE of the WTC's is where the explosives are. The exterior walls of WTC can NOT support the weight of the WTC's, the CORE is what supports the weight. If you destroy the CORE with explosives, you have lots of drywalls, furnature, doors, desk, computer stuff, and all that obstructing the "flash" that you would normaly see outside of building during demolition. So comparing these two pictures together is irrelivant because they are designed different. The building on the left needs to have its exterior and interior destroyed for it to fall. But the WTC only need the interior to be destroyed, for it to fall.



[edit on 18-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by 11 11


I still se no explosives for the upper parts of the tower, just as it is lower, which could be presurized crap from the floores above.

reply to post by Gorman91



I just told you why you don't see them, because they are hidden in the CORE. Should I explain again why you cant see them? The explosives are in the core, and the flash's are being hidden by the actual office space of the building.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by 11 11]

Can anybody explain to me, if the controlled demolition hypothesis is true, why the sequence of 'explosions' extends downwards, contrary to convention in controlled demolitions?

To answer your question; Those were two of the largest buildings on the planet and to bring them down in the normal way might have caused more damage to the buildings outside of the twin tower area. Also Silverstein only had insurance on the ones that fell.lol! sorry. But, he had to know!!!
Look, the plane were the show and the reason they fell according to officials. Plane-fire-fall-collect insurance. The weakest part of the building was falling into the undamaged structure and somehow continued to be more forceful than the resistance it met? BS! Then we have a building 7 that was hit by building material only on one side yet it fell straight down like it was a giant elevator. If you break a leg on a table the other three legs will lose all their strength or will it fall towards the broken leg?
I want all those that still can't see or understand to know that evil is coming for all of us in the form of friend. They are corrupt and sick in their desire to rule the world! They will kill as many as it takes to make daddy's dream come true. If they are not stopped you, your children, and maybe the whole world will be wiped out! They don't care! They lie, cheat, steal, and kill kill kill. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

reply to post by 11 11


If it was in the core then it would have imploded as the structure sucked the outside into the missing gap and pulled it into the inside. But it exploded and there was no vacum effect of the inside going down first.

If it was so then the structure would not have spit out chuncks of the building everywhere and it would not have come out in little spits of dust but rather floor wide waves as there would be more outward damage from the inside going out rather then from the near outside going out.

reply to post by piacenza


Great capture. William Rodriguez has mentioned something about the towers that Frank DeMartino ( I think that's right ) one of the late Architects , a victim of 911, pointed out about the bands around the buildings. They were constructed in thirds essentially, three separate structures tied together to form the complete tower. Those bands were the 'Sky Lobbies'. At these points/locations the towers were super-reinforced.

It is likely that more explosives were needed to pulverize these levels to keep the momentum of the cascade continuous.

Thank God for private video enthusiasts.

Originally posted by Gorman91
But it exploded and there was no vacum effect of the inside going down first.

You are right, it did EXPLODE. So you agree then, thanks.

You would think if the jet and the fire caused the collapse, it would "implode", but it "exploded" which is proof of controlled demolition.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by himselfe


Here's some logic to ponder, based on info that's fairly widely distributed by news accounts videotaped during and well before the events of 9/11.

We know for instance, that Rudy's Command Center ( FEMA ) which he did not visit all that day, was on the 23rd floor of bldg 7. We know that it was designed to be self-sustaining in the event of an attack on the Towers. For instance, it had it's own air filtration and water filtration equipment as well as pristine supplies of both to be used as needed.
The command center was "secret" and said by NY Officials to be "State of the Art".
It was super-reinforced, including the 3" glass. It was laiden with top-notch surveillance
and sensor electronics. Workmen frequented this facility for "maintenance" regularly.

Sounds to me like the perfect disguise to control the whole operation.

You must also consider that many of the floors both in the towers 1 and 2 as well as bldg 7 had a 50% vacancy. Many companies were shuffled around to different spaces to allow for "upgrades" in the offices. It went on all Summer. This was going on while John O'Neill was calling every senior official he could reach to get serious about these
"pilots" training at or near bases in Fla.

People leasing space in the Towers were finding finely ground ( concrete ) dust on their furniture for weeks before it went down. It was all scratched off to hammer drilling ( for the upgrades ) going on in the buildings. No one was suspicious, it was routine.

What wasn't routine was the bomb sniffing dogs being pulled off the site just weeks before and the total power down of BOTH buildings simultaneously the weekend before that Tuesday and the appearance of men sent to rewire the "internet cabling" in the Towers the weekend of the 8th and 9th. We need to question Securacom's Wirt D Walker, Marvin Bush, and Larry Silverstein in a serious way. It's why 90% of the families who lost their loved ones refused the pay-out and want the investigation reopened. (Sean Hannity should be ashamed for using his influence on air to claim that people who refute the "official story" are hurting these families.) What's hurting these families is the anger over disinformation and an inconclusive, underfunded, commission given too short a window to be thorough in their examinations. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have said so repeatedly, even more so recently.

What's also very curious is that the "second impacted Tower" which sustained less damage, burned less time with less accelerant (fireball outside) fell first, right after
the FDNY was announcing on their Radio's that "they needed a couple of hoses to
knock down two small pockets of fire to get it all under control".

In addition, according to news reports that day, the offices that were afire in bldg 7
belonged to the SEC. Since we know they were working on cases against ENRON and WORLDCOM and host of others, that is interesting. Not a whisper about that fact since.

Finally, if you consider these smaller coincidences in the wake of a day that had so many "coincidences" that some insurance actuary calculated to be "a one followed by forty-three zeroes" ( boy, let me win something big with those odds ) it would be safe to say at least circumstantially, that there was definitely a concertd effort to eliminate witnesses and destroy evidence. ( like the core columns, perfectly cut in chevron
shape charge angles at 30 foot lengths to more easily be loaded on trailers to be hauled away before anyone inspected them well. All that was recorded in the official report is that they had an ususually higher level of sulphur traces in the material examined. ( residue from Thermate? Steel is carbon and iron, that's it. )

Investigate and ask questions, it's our Patriotic Duty.

Originally posted by Gorman91
If it was in the core then it would have imploded as the structure sucked the outside into the missing gap and pulled it into the inside. But it exploded and there was no vacum effect of the inside going down first.

LOL you've just contradicted your squibs are compressed air BS. Well done!

But anyway, sucking the outside into missing gaps? LOL your posts get funnier.

But answer this, the building exploded, as you have rightly noticed, now how about trying to explain how that happened from a gravity fed collapse? It's one of the question the de-bunkers keep avoiding. Until they contradict their own theories that is, because they know not what they are talking about...

The point I was making was that there was no imploding or inside falling down. The outside went down then dragged the core down with it. As I had said, it the bombs were on the core, it would not have spit out in one spot, it would have waved out in 1 floor wide explosion as it would have traveled further. You missed my point. I was saying that it was presurizes crap in the inside. The outer structure went first and spit out crap under it. The core went down with the drag. The plane never got to the core since you could only see a tiny bit inside of it. The fire only melted the truses a bit, the weight imbalancment on an exoskeloton based structure is what really did it. I cannot see a contradiction.

Originally posted by jondular
Can anybody explain to me, if the controlled demolition hypothesis is true, why the sequence of 'explosions' extends downwards, contrary to convention in controlled demolitions?

Simple answer. If it was a covert CD and they wanted to make it look like gravity, they would do it top down. How many times do we need to say this before sinking in to some people? I have slowed down on the threads not because you guys are "winning" any argument or debate, I've slowed down because I'm tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo


No offense but you're going to get called out to back up those claims. Especially the power down of both buildings part.

I've been away for a while so apologies if I miss a few things while trying to catch up:

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not about to rewrite everything when your mind is made up anyways. In summary of what I was going to say before:

If your mind is made up it's all pointless. I study bias and I know

My mind is only as made up as the evidence dictates, my beliefs are by no means set in stone, however I am not about to throw rationality and logic away over baseless conjecture. If you had mastered a true understanding of bias you would be embarrassed, we both have bias, it's just that mine is towards science and yours is towards undermining a government. Stating that you study something hardly validates your claim when you overlook principal elements of the subject mater concerned.

Call me irrational all you want but I'm not the one who's mind is made up about this matter, nor am i the one rejecting and ignoring data that contradicts the version of it that was provided by our establishment media and government accounts.

Please do feel free to show me this data (as opposed to conjecture) at any point. Statements like "assuming the", "appear to", "Few would argue", and "I suggested that" are not a representations of factual data, factual data is "X=Y as proven by Z which conforms to the standards established in citations (a), (b), and (c)".

9/11 was exploited by the people in question for global domination. That's a fact and there is no debate unless you're politically biased or ignorant to the full story of things that happened before and after.

I agree, the government did indeed have an agenda prior to the attacks and as with all politics exploited the events in aid of that agenda, just as conspiracy theorists do in aid of their agenda. That does not imply that the government conspired to initiate or augment the devastation.

Since it was exploited, it's not much further off to assume they allowed it to happen on purpose.

By that logic one could argue that conspiracy theorists allowed it to happen on purpose. There's a huge difference between taking advantage of a bad situation and initiating the bad situation.

When you look at the rest of the story and facts that's actually the likely case. In light of what's in this thread an others that view becomes like giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, in my view, the "MIHOP" isn't nearly as rock hard of a case as "LIHOP".

Since that this thread is about 'making' it happen and that you have been arguing to that extent, it's a bit of a contradiction to then imply that 'letting' it happen is the more likely scenario and quite hypocritical given your pandering to staying on topic.

See the links in my sig for a view that doesn't merely fall on invading iraq was the as you apparently assume all "conspiracy theorists" would assume. Note they're not even about 9/11. Be sure to attempt to debate those issues in those threads.

I fail to see how those links relate to this discussion, indeed you clearly state they don't, so why bring them up? What other conspiracy would you imply the government could hope to achieve in relation to the implied actions taken on 9/11?

The thread we're in now is about a specific issue. I didn't provide those links to give you derailment red herring ammo, so lets stay on the topic of this thread from now on.

Indeed, why did you supply those links? Other than to float your own boat. They have nothing to to do with the topic at hand. Why would you state something in a place for which you do not wish it to be scrutinised? I will give you one thing though, "Reverse-Disinfo Agent" is a very fitting title.

(continued) ...

Don't bother continuing, in this thread. I already told you this thread has a topic while providing you with a free for all thread for you to rant in. This thread isn't about me. I know you're all about talking about me to divert the discussion, but please for your own sake you're making it look like you have a weak position as you're unable to address the topic at hand. In some circles that's known as thread derailment.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The prima fascie was for most 'look planes and jet fuel knocked down the towers'. In the time since close observations and scrutiny makes that not such a rock hard view.

Just to avoid any ambiguity, what are you implying here? That the planes and jet fuel were not the catalysts that initiated the collapse sequence?

Your paper, like NIST and others, rejects and ignores the witness testimonies of explosions. I've looked closely at them (there's lots of mashup videos out there) and some can be explained as their perception of the collapse etc, many cannot. For this reason, answers need to be established.

My paper?
Eyewitnesses are not experts and at the time of their observation did not have the facts or details of the dynamics involved that are required to provide a comprehensive judgement. In fact, given the chaos, disorientation, distress, and trauma involved with such catastrophic devastation, eyewitnesses can not be relied on for an accurate account of the situation. Given the nature of memory and cognitive bias, eyewitness accounts can not be relied on as accurate data when considering the cause of structural catastrophe.

B] The speed of the collapses, etc.

The timing involved is specified in section six of this FAQ, rough speeds can be calculated by dividing either the total hight of the tower or the average height of each floor over the total time taken for entire collapse sequence. Section 6 of that FAQ also indicates that the momentum of the collapsing section was modelled by NIST.

C] The lack of what is known as the path of least resistance

Can you be a little more specific (i.e with factual data and physical modelling) as to where this is lacking?

D] The molten metal found months afterwards, including under WTC7.

What about it?

A-D are mostly topics for discussion in other threads, and there are plenty, but none the less, because of them it's irrational to make up your mind in terms of there being 'nothing to see here'. These issues, and the other evidence in this thread deserve careful consideration.

As with all things that petition careful consideration, evidence and factual data must be provided to enable detailed analysis and scientific scrutiny.

So without further ado, how about you talk about the evidence presented, instead of me or others or your doubts about alternative views of 911

Present factual evidence and I shall happily discuss it, conjecture is not evidence.


reply to post by Griff

This is what I would do if I was to do it. Have shaped charges in the basement set off to weaken the building but not near enough to collapse when the planes strike. This would weaken the core and be masked by the planes.

Have a plane slam into the top portion. Also weakening both exterior and core in that area.

Finish with a final weakening of the core and you have the towers falling from the impact zone with nothing inside to hold them together.

If the intention is for the collapse to be initiated from the point of impact what benefit would planting explosives in the basement have?


reply to post by ANOK

What support systems were blown away? There is no proof at all that any of the central columns were even damaged let alone blown away.

I never stated there were any, if you care to read the entire post you'd see I was asking the person who did imply so.

cont...

Originally posted by himselfe
Eyewitnesses are not experts and at the time of their observation did not have the facts or details of the dynamics involved that are required to provide a comprehensive judgement.

You mean like suggestions from outside forces? The power of suggestion is a great one.

In fact, given the chaos, disorientation, distress, and trauma involved with such catastrophic devastation, eyewitnesses can not be relied on for an accurate account of the situation.

Maybe not the victims involved who would have been in shock. But you can certainly take the eyewitness testimony from the first responders as fact. These people weren't in shock and were there doing their jobs.

Given the nature of memory and cognitive bias, eyewitness accounts can not be relied on as accurate data when considering the cause of structural catastrophe.

So we shouldn't listen to the firemen who said WTC 7 was bulging, cracking and etc.?

Originally posted by himselfe
reply to post by Griff

 

If the intention is for the collapse to be initiated from the point of impact what benefit would planting explosives in the basement have?

You just need to take out the core anywhere below impact and they would have initiated collapse in the impact zones. With the transfer truss still attached, any loss of structural strength in the core would have redistributed the load onto the exterior, which (with plane damage) wouldn't be able to resist the load. Remember that load in a column runs it's entire length. And we all know that chains break at the weakest link. The impact zones.

Plus, why not get the added load of an entire core column missing? If they just severed the core at say the first mechanical floor, you still have the intact core columns beneath them. If you sever the core at the base, there's nothing holding it up.

I know people are going to say that there were core columns still standing. My contention is that they didn't need to sever all the columns.