WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

Originally posted by jthomas

You brought up JREF and I made the same analogy with Craig Ranke. You asked about my comment on post-modernism and I answered. If you complain about the answers, don't ask the questions to begin with.

You know, a piece of advice: if you're going to lie about, misrepresent, and slime other people so blatantly, it's best not to leave a post trail:

"Why you all would support such an irrational person as Ranke, anyway, gottago, is beyond me."

Well, rational discourse is apparently beyond you as well.

Central to the discussion of any claims made by anyone is the logic, rationale, and validity of those claims. I illustrate consistently that the burden of proof is on 9/11 Truthers to support their own claims made here - and that 9/11 truthers avoid that responsibility.

What do you think this thread is about, other than your tiresome fixation with JREF? Hey, news flash, this is (thankfully) not JREF. This is ATS. I don't care about what goes on at JREF, never have and never will. And it is different here, also thankfully.

Now, when you were actually presented with the details of the photos I am posting about and could no longer get around with baseless generalizations and character attacks, photos which are the very evidence of the claims I am making and which you have been saying doesn't exist, you beg off, but nonetheless your hollow bluster remains. So get a reality check and start posting OT and stop provoking, trolling and derailing. Believe me, I've seen your kind, with over 1300 negative points of posting credit already, come and go.

My persistence illustrates by the responses to me just what the problem is with any discussion with 9/11 Truthers: their avoidance of taking responsibility for their claims and their inability to back them up. Griff is a perfect example and his evasions should serve you both as an illustration and education of the 9/11 Truth Movement's inability to make any headway.

Your persistence has nothing to do with the content of this thread; you are just erecting a crowd of strawmen so you can rail against "truthers" in yet another post devoid of content and derail the thread. You know, this tactic is as old as the hills and quite obvious. Instead of attacking and trying to slime the other members of this board, which is a basic violation of ATS T&C and particularly that of this board, you'd do well to address the topic, which I laid out for you in detailed photos a page ago now. You still haven't addressed it; instead you are still trying to derail this thread with ad hominum character assassination of the members here. It is transparent as to its base motives, and is only proving you have no interest in the discussion, only in derailing it.

So, again, what's causing this?

in fact, even though the NIST study is buried in it's own largesse, and can bog down even the most streamlined of an inquiry in it's trivia and tangents.

ummm. that's not even a sentence, 'billybob'
don't you mean, "in fact, even though the NIST study is buried in it's own largesse, IT can bog down even the most streamlined of an inquiry in it's trivia and tangents.

conspiracy theorists. ugh.

Originally posted by ANOK
The NIST report isn't even a theory, let alone proof of anything. The NIST report is just a hypothesis, which to become a theory has to be testable in the lab and repeatable. The NIST report fails both.

If you de-bunkers really think the towers collapsed the way we're told by the government then why don't you'll get together, put your money where your ample mouths are, and do some tests. It isn't hard to set up an experiment that tests whether a building can fall with no resistance from asymetrical damage and fire. It would be simple to do and not cost that much. Plus you might learn a little bit about physics.

Sigh... You just don't pay attention, ANOK. "We debunkers", as you put it, have NOTHING to prove.

Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in.

We are asking YOU to demonstrate that the investigations are wrong since that is YOUR claim. If you are going to make that claim, then you have to support your claim with evidence.

We are happy to point out when your thinking and evidence are flawed. We are skeptics, after all, and, unlike you, we have NO political motives. If you can demonstrate what you claim, FINE. We are ONLY interested in the truth.

But we have learned over the last six years that the 9/11 Truth Movement is politically motivated and that any "truth" is subservient to that movement. You desperately want to believe the government is and MUST be guilty of 9/11, either behind it or letting it happen. YOU do NOT presume innocence. You DEMAND the government PROVE it is innocent of "crimes" YOU claim it committed.

That is intellectual dishonesty in its worst form. That is against every principle of the Constitution and the law.

The government is not charged with any crime. You must demonstrate guilt; NO one has to prove they are innocent. That is why we will continue to remind you that the burden of proof is and will always remain on YOUR shoulders to demonstrate your case.

Unless it finally dawns on you what your responsibility is, you will continue your downward trend into oblivion. And never claim we didn't warn you.

So, tell me, ANOK, just WHEN do you intend to bring official criminal charges against the government?

Originally posted by jthomas
And never claim we didn't warn you.

Who is this "we" you keep speeking of? Are you jrefers forming some sort of Dumbledore's Army?

I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations, gottoago. I might suggest you carefully review this thread and take your own advice.

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations, gottoago. I might suggest you carefully review this thread and take your own advice.

I started this thread, jthomas.

Oh boy, you're a real piece of work, and you doth protest too much. I'm still waiting for some sort of response from you about this:




It is after all what this thread is supposed to be about.

Maybe now you understand a bit better why we talk about the topic of the thread here, and not around it, and not about each other?

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations, gottoago. I might suggest you carefully review this thread and take your own advice.

I started this thread, jthomas.

Indeed. As I said, I'll ignore your ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations, gottoago. The suggestion for reviewing this thread and taking your own advice went right over you head.

Oh boy, you're a real piece of work, and you doth protest too much. I'm still waiting for some sort of response from you about this:

And you missed what I wrote, too: "From those photos, I would never hazard a guess or an opinion of what I was actually seeing happening. I will do my own research in the next few days and come back to you on this." You might want to read more carefully.

Maybe now you understand a bit better why we talk about the topic of the thread here, and not around it, and not about each other?

I've always understood the principles that one must support their claims and assertions with evidence in any topic, in any thread. I remind those here when they don't. Also, if you had understood that, you would have not have titled this thread:

"WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces." Obviously, that is just a claim, not a certainty. Do you understand why?

It should also be apparent that I do not accept you claim outright and why. I have given you the benefit of the doubt by telling you I will do my own research and get back to you, but at this point I see nothing in your photos to support your assertion, and my first post on the subject stands unless I find you have a valid point.

Now, do you want to continue to discuss your claim or not?

reply to post by jthomas

There's no denying that some very heavy sections of steelwork were displaced (to avoid the 'explosions' word) with a considerable horizontal component of velocity sufficient to inflict the claimed damage on WTC7 and beyond so a simple calculation reveals they were ejected at horizontal speeds in excess of 10m/s and that's only if they came from the top of the building.

I'd be interested to hear your ideas on how this happened.

Stick to the topic, and cease with the veiled attacks!

Most of you can't be left without a governess for a day with resorting to childishness. Sometimes Mods have RL issues that keep us busy, as well as one hell of a big site to keep up with. Babysitting 24/7 with this forum is hard to accomplish all the time. But trust me, it is being watched.

And just for the record, "under close scrutiny" to me means when I come back here and find bickering, you will have been warned, here and now, in the thread, to tone it down. So if I find the same things past this posting date and just start banning right and left, both sides, you have no reason to whine that you're being mistreated. Either some of you are too juvenile to understand the concept of civility or too hardheaded.

Now the same way I tell my grandchildren I'm telling those involved to "Cut the crap or sit in the corner!"

After looking the photo you cannot be to sure about the direction the debris is traveling. As someone pointed out a photo is a second in time, where as video is a recording of several measures of time. So from the photo we can only see what direction the object is facing. Instead of being blown up and out, can this actually be falling down and in?

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
After looking the photo you cannot be to sure about the direction the debris is traveling. As someone pointed out a photo is a second in time, where as video is a recording of several measures of time. So from the photo we can only see what direction the object is facing. Instead of being blown up and out, can this actually be falling down and in?

Exactly. The ONLY way to substantiate the claim of material being launched up and out would be a frame by frame video analysis, tracking the actual vector of the pieces in question.

Anything else is not a viable analysis.

reply to post by ANOK

You know. I decided I won't be silenced by the likes of you ANOK.

The inward buckling proves nothing. Please explain how this buckling proves it was a natural collapse. So what if there were no ejections? They only needed to take out the central core, which means if there were any explosives they were deep inside the building.

It's proof that the central core failed. Not a COMPLETE failure as would be caused by demolition charges, but a progressive failure that grew and grew and grew til SNAP and they all fell down.

Showing the sound of other demolitions prove nothing, other than conventional explosives were probably not used on the WTC.
Don't ask for proof I'm just pointing out that the lack of explosive sound does not prove a natural collapse.

Ho ho ho ho! You would REALLY not accept such statement from me man so why do you expect me to accept it from you? Perhaps I should take it too far as you did Captain Obvious's comments? *look at your signature*

And did you just tell me don't ask for proof? Well. I am sure you have obviously apparent I am not taking you at your word or anyone really regardless how much alot would like to believe otherwise.
I require proof before I will sign onto anything. Bullying and attacks don't work for me. In fact tends to make me wonder about the person trying to do suchs motives and I generally end up finding them suspect.

Also I guess you'll just ignore all the witnesses that did hear explosives?
I guess those firefighters must have heard faked noises to huh? I think they have enough experience in fighting fires to distinguish between sounds common to them.

Not taken any psychology have you?
Eye witness testimony is generally speaking crap. As I have said about a gazillion times here now.
I have this on good authority if you don't believe me look it up.

Not faked. It's called the collapse of a rather large building. While in a state of excitement to say the least if not boarder lined panic. Complicated by the fact each time we access a memory it gets changed in at least a little way.
And the various other facts that leaves shrinks saying eye witness testimony is generally crap.

Ummmmm collapses of buildings as big as the WTC is not a common occurance.

Setting up a building for CD is done to make the job as easy and safe as possible minimizing damage to surrounding buildings. They didn’t have to worry about that too much with the towers, so the set up would not have to be as involved as the vid claims. Again WTC 1&2 were not conventional controlled demolitions. WTC 7 was.

Have you seen that area????????
Minimized my butt.
Here take a gander.
Ground Zero ten days after

And please point out the section where he explains the lack of resistance and other physics laws the collapses broke.

And please remember I have refuted you how many times on that little claim and its not a ordeal I will join in again with you as it serves no good purpose.

Prove to me 3 buildings can globally collapse without any resistance I’ll listen. In fact even discussing it would be cool, because so far I’ve not heard a squeak from you or any de-bunker on this. All I get is the collapse was inevitable once initiated, the biggest flaw in the official story. Nothing is inevitable and they have nothing to base that assertion on. No precedence to compare to and it contradicts known laws of physics, in fact Newton’s’ first 3 laws. I suggest a study of that and learn how to apply it to the collapse of buildings.

These laws?

Newton's first law: law of inertia

In a nutshell: Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

Or
* An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it.

* An object that is in motion will not change its velocity (accelerate) until a net force acts upon it.


Newton's second law: law of acceleration

In a nutshell: The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
Or

Newton's second law applies fundamentally to particles. In classical mechanics, particles by definition have constant mass. In case of well-defined systems of particles, Newton's law can be extended by integrating over all the particles in the system. In this case, we have to refer all vectors to the center of mass. Applying the second law to extended objects implicitly assumes the object to be a well-defined collection of particles. However, 'variable mass' systems like a rocket or a leaking bucket do not consist of a set number of particles. They are not well-defined systems. Therefore Newton's second law can not be applied to them directly. The naïve application of F = dp/dt will usually result in wrong answers in such cases. However, applying the conservation of momentum to a complete system (such as a rocket and fuel, or a bucket and leaked water) will give unambiguously correct answers.

Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions

In a nutshell: All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

I fail to see where a catastrophic structure failure in the Twin Towers and what we saw that horrible day violates any of these. Care to explain minus the insults you normally pepper your statements with? Its almost like you think that no building can collapse.
Source:Newton's Laws of Motion

And just to let you know ANOK and please don't take this as ad hom ANOK but as an reply to your statement with my honest impressions.
Trying to argue with you is an exercise in frusteration due to your propensity for veiled insults and attacks. I say this of course after many encounters with you. Seems like you look to anger your opponent SEEKING to anger them so you can win by any means necessary. Sorry but that is what I see and have dealt with from you.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

newton's laws are the wrong thing for an apologist to mention.

inertia: the (mass) ratio is more than ten to one AGAINST collapse(for the tower which had ten floors fall onto one hundred.)

momentum: is transferred equally back and forth between the collapse front(a collection of heat weakened, less massive 'wickerwork' which, though designed to resist vertical force from gravity, and horizontal force from hurricanes) and the stationary base(which is still to design spec) in short: top small piece is lighter, twisted and heat weakened; larger remaining tower, 100% as designed, not twisted, not heat-weakened and increasingly more massive towards the base.
in shorter: bouncing a tennis ball onto a basketball.

transfer of momentum:

the lower part, because it is still perfectly aligned against gravity, can act in concert, ie. as a solid chunk of steel and concrete. (see "newton's cradle" on youtube or your bosses' desk)

the upper, broken off chunk is on an angle, cannot. each connection will vector the impact stress, essentially isolating every bolt and weld to fend for itself.

reply to post by billybob

newton's laws are the wrong thing for an apologist to mention.

Were you or were you not paying attention to what the mod said not to long ago?
And I could care less what you THINK I am so kindly keep such comments to yourself.

inertia: the (mass) ratio is more than ten to one AGAINST collapse(for the tower which had ten floors fall onto one hundred.)

You can't have meant that as it read. Ten floors fell on ONE floor. Which then turned into eleven floors falling onto ONE floor. Which turned into twelve floors falling onto ONE floor. You get the idea. Progressive. LINEAR.

momentum: is transferred equally back and forth between the collapse front(a collection of heat weakened, less massive 'wickerwork' which, though designed to resist vertical force from gravity, and horizontal force from hurricanes) and the stationary base(which is still to design spec) in short: top small piece is lighter, twisted and heat weakened; larger remaining tower, 100% as designed, not twisted, not heat-weakened and increasingly more massive towards the base.
in shorter: bouncing a tennis ball onto a basketball.

We are still talking about tons of material. And also we are talking about the damage caused by impact of said material then the sheer fact they are sitting on something that is already weakened by getting hit and not designed to hold up the added weight. It's called a cascade effect and is NOT covered by Newton.

transfer of momentum:
the lower part, because it is still perfectly aligned against gravity, can act in concert, ie. as a solid chunk of steel and concrete. (see "newton's cradle" on youtube or your bosses' desk)
the upper, broken off chunk is on an angle, cannot. each connection will vector the impact stress, essentially isolating every bolt and weld to fend for itself.

Don't matter crap man. The whole thing was dependent on each other and it should be noted you SEEM to think that it was effectively a solid singular thing rather than something made up of MANY parts that could and did fail causing a cascade effect. And that bottom part was NOT designed to have the top half smash into it, hold the top part up YES, survive the top smashing into it heck no.

Every bolt and weld as you put it couldn't hold that building up by themselves. Especially in a cascade effect failure situation.

And ANOK. The accumulating weight (and damage because of the weight) with each failure makes the time it takes a floor to fail goes down and thusly the speed.



[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ten floors fell on ONE floor. Which then turned into eleven floors falling onto ONE floor.

Wait, this isn't supposed to be how the collapses started, is it? Would it be unreasonable to ask why those 10 floors have all come loose and are already falling as a single mass?

Floors sagging and failing = floors sagging and failing. All theoretically. NOT a big upper block that all instantly falls at once, and none of the columns have anything to do with it, especially initially. Not in any "official" theory, at least. NIST has even shown that about 5 floors would have to be totally gutted of trusses and everything to cause significant deflections in columns. I don't know what you're imagining is falling between these columns but I'm confused as to why 10 floors worth of trusses and pans/concrete would be falling all together instantaneously. It doesn't sound right, does it?

[edit on 29-2-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

Floors sagging and failing = floors sagging and failing. NOT columns, dragging more floors, failing. NIST has even shown that about 5 floors would have to be totally gutted of trusses and everything to cause significant deflections in columns. I don't know what you're imagining is falling between these columns.

They were sagging and falling because the damage the planes did to the core columns that was aggravated by the fire.
Ok you are familiar with the fact that the columns hold everything above it up right? The sagging and failing was because the core columns were damaged and was progressively failing.
So if you have a break in a structure with stuff above it what will logically happen?
Especially when you bring into consideration the fact a plane penetrated 75% more or less (with parts going all the way through) way through the darn thing.

The core was a latticework of steel.
If the damage over time is enough to cause the latticework to start failing there will be a cascade effect of failure once a point is reached.
As each part was NOT designed to work alone.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ok you are familiar with the fact that the columns hold everything above it up right? The sagging and failing was because the core columns were damaged and was progressively failing.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. The trusses are what NIST claims were sagging, not the columns. Do you know where the trusses were? I'm not even going to address the fact that everything you just said here is completely unsupported by either NIST or FEMA.

Especially when you bring into consideration the fact a plane penetrated 75% more or less (with parts going all the way through) way through the darn thing.

And severed less than 15% of the columns.

If the damage over time is enough to cause the latticework to start failing there will be a cascade effect of failure once a point is reached.
As each part was NOT designed to work alone.

This must be another off visualization or something that you're having, because I understand how the forces would have transferred through the building pretty well I think, and I've had to do free body diagrams enough to know how forces transfer, and I don't really get why you're thinking everything would just fall apart after x falling mass is achieved.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by bsbray11]

okay.
you wanna do one on one, wrath?

so, the first floor impacted is equal to the floor impacting it.

hence, they are BOTH destroyed. there is no 'thor's hammer' smashing down. it is one against one. it is not ten against one, ten against one, ten against one. one against one ten times plus ten, and then zero.

so, you have ten floors crushing one hundred floors. get it, yet?

let's say with gravity's 'push', i'll give you two floors from above for one floor from below.
that still only crushes thirty floors, total, and it doesn't account for the fact that the cap was leaning off to the side and unable to transfer one hundred percent of it's mass onto the floors below.

that still means collapse gets arrested, or at least, SLOWED.

and the final straw? no pyramid pile of debris.

you design ANYTHING other than a house of cards that will collapse on itself and leave 90% of the debris outside of the footprint with no pile of debris on the overall center of gravity, and i will reconsider my position.

sorry if i let a name slip, defender of the official story.


[edit on 29-2-2008 by billybob]

Yeah, and I'm still wondering why 10 floors are instantly falling together.

Can we start with just 1 floor's worth of trusses somehow all falling together? Because, even though NIST says this is an unlikely event to occur, they also say that each floor could withstand the dynamic loading of more than 5 floors. Which leads me to a question I don't think you would be able to answer.

reply to post by bsbray11


yeah.

there were HUNDREDS of connections. each one should failed individually(ish) in an unassisted collapse. there should have been SLOW warping and sagging. yet, we have in all three cases all four corners, and the core giving out instantaneously.

the more connections there are, the less likely that they will all let go at the same moment.