New video of all three towers

reply to post by benoni

We have explained about the problems with explosives and thermal bombs. We have explained about the lack of any evidence of demolitions. Preston has no answers other than to insist that he is correct and all who oppose him are liars or government disinfo agents.

Perhaps you would like to describe the demolition of WTC#7? What did it? Prepositioned charges? Where? Tonnage? Detonation sequence? Precut and cabled building?

I await enlightenment from an explosives expert.

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
If the conspiracy is so obvious then it should be a simple matter to produce evidence. And no I do not mean grainy videos. Actual physical evidence.

I'm not sure how much good it would do to have more physical evidence when you won't recognize what's already there. We already know there was steel in WTC7 that had sulfur ingrained into it, lowering its melting point, and that it actually melted and failed (before collapse) because of this. Scientists and engineers with FEMA actually did the original study on this steel, and never determined what caused it.

So you have physical evidence like this from federal agencies, showing that something was failing columns in WTC7 before it even came down, something that also doesn't fit into NIST's theory at any place anywhere, and is still totally unexplained, but nobody cares.

More info on that steel here: 911research.wtc7.net...

There was also an extremely high level of some element or molecule found present, that had no other real reason for being there except that it is used widely in sol-gels. I forget the name of it, but sol-gels are gel technologies that allow eutectic mixtures like nano-thermite to be applied surfaces and are a relatively new technology, at least to public domain I suppose. I have a pdf on my computer about it from Los Alamos, from when they were researching it.

All the "evidence" I have seen on internet forums is not evidence at all. Rather it is theory and conjecture, citing the lack of confounding evidence as proof.

Of course you're only going to get "theory" and "conjecture" on the internet, and that goes no matter what you believe. I'm sorry to inform you that FEMA and NIST were the only two agencies that were even allowed to look at the physical evidence and structural documentation (and even then, only certain members of those teams), and also given the resources and authority to create reports to explain what happened. Nobody else was, including most people that use the internet.

I'm also sorry to inform you that those two agencies also failed to provide any physical evidence to support the final hypothesis. NIST finally blamed the collapse initiations on truss failures, but never reproduced any of the kinds of failures they asserted, while there is already no precedent at all for this mechanism of failure. So when you believe them, know that you are doing so 100% on your blind faith in authority, a conspiracy theorist's nightmare.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Don't get your Kundalini in a twist. You never said what did it but you think something "did it." Your compatriots say this because the building collapsed downward rather than flopping around and behaving as they THINK a 40+ story building would behave in a collapse, a common occurence that all have witnessed many times, I'm sure. It "looked" to them like a building undergoing controlled demolition, but those buildings are precut and cabled to fall. It takes months to do that. Cuts and cables are really obvious, as are cutter charges and bore holes so that can't be part of the plan, can it? If it wasn't cabled and pre-cut why would it appear to be a controlled demolition unless it fell that way because of gravity?

If something "Did It," what was it?

Originally posted by pteridine
You never said what did it but you think something "did it."

I don't know what caused it.

But that it happened, whatever "it" was? Yes, we can agree on that.

Your compatriots say this because the building collapsed downward rather than flopping around

Uh, you mean "leaning"? Like it actually did? Only, as it was also symmetrically free-falling into its footprint, of course.

One is an expected behavior from an unstable building, while one is not (outside of controlled demolitions).

It "looked" to them like a building undergoing controlled demolition, but those buildings are precut and cabled to fall.

That's why I find it suspicious, and suspect that some authorities would have to have been involved. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be covert, only that al Qaeda didn't do all this, but it's obvious to me someone coordinated this failure. You don't have to be very imaginative to see how these people do things while simultaneously having other excuses for doing them, thus hiding what they are really doing. Did you know that FEMA, NY's OEM and officials from Rudy Giuliani's office were all setting up a command post in WTC7 on September 10th (the day before 9/11) for a bio-terror exercise that just happened to be scheduled there? It goes without saying they used that command center the next day, but never for their exercise.

As far as whatever caused WTC7 to fall, determine what did that before we discuss the means of implementing this method. You could be talking HE's, but I seriously doubt it, because like you say, of the sound. There are an almost countless number of other types of bombs, explosives, and incendiaries, and that's before you get to all the possibilities in actually cutting it up and making it fall in any particular way you desire. There are a damned lot of variables for you to be trying to prove anything patently impossible right now. If you really want to prove something is impossible, though, apply that energy to the very new "official" version of why WTC7 fell and be a true skeptic. When something uses energy from its PE, its KE drops and so must its acceleration. Simple stuff.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


The problem is that the controlled demos involve precutting and cabling so the building doesn't drop across a street. WTC7 did cross the street but did so while obeying the laws of gravity. Has anyone considered that "down" is a direction that any falling object is fond of?
The time to place charges and the amounts needed would be noticeable. Precutting and cabling is way too obvious. Thermite/thermate would require tons of material [really!]and coffer dams for the verticals. Cold chisels and hacksaws would take too long and grate on peoples' nerves.

Why wouldn't a collapsing building fall as WTC#7 did?

Originally posted by pteridine
The problem is that the controlled demos involve precutting and cabling so the building doesn't drop across a street.

That is the goal. That is not a realistic outcome. Of course they are going to try to minimize damage to adjacent property, and that is always a #1 concern for the people doing this legally and commercially. But they never get it perfect. Never. There are always windows knocked out of adjacent buildings or something. Controlled demolitions of skyscrapers are not common occurrences, and worse than that each building is a completely different case with different priorities.

If that building was being demolished commercially (and not by intelligence/military entities ) you can NOT tell me you would stand on the sidewalk beside of it. If you would then that would be your own foolishness and you would certainly die from it. The 4 streets onto which WTC7 fell were literally only feet away from the building.

Has anyone considered that "down" is a direction that any falling object is fond of?

Have you ever noticed how many things are sitting perfectly still right now despite that tendency, which is exerted on all things at all times?

Have you ever heard that the laws of thermodynamics reveal that physical phenomenon always take the path that requires less energy to reach equilibrium? Have you ever noticed that when you chop into a tree, it will lean over all damned day every single time, but will never collapse downwards onto itself spewing sawdust everywhere? Even if it did, how many times could you actually expect symmetry? Every single time? Maybe you would. That's fine.

The time to place charges and the amounts needed would be noticeable.

That's an opinion. People do lots of work in buildings every day and are never bothered by nosy people. I don't bother maintenance men. Do you? Griff does all kinds of maintenance work in buildings, he says people never bother him. I know plenty of people in networking that get the same privilege, and I've even been in positions myself where, if I were to have a bomb, for example, I could have easily seized the opportunity to plant it somewhere and no one would have known a thing. Fortunately I've never had the desire, and bombs are not readily accessible to civilians.

As far as the WTC goes, there was construction or some kind of maintenance going on there all the time. These are not my words, but Philip Morelli's, who was a construction worker that happened to be the basement of WTC1 when it was impacted once but exploded twice in the basement (according to the same man's testimony). Shortly before 9/11 there was even an outside group contracted to come in for one of the tenants and do work with lights when normally that stuff is handled by the Port Authority. All the records of any maintenance work done to the towers over the years is destroyed now. Griff has tried looking through records of permits issued but found little to no information.

Bottom line, it's not hard to go in somewhere and rig it up with explosives in broad daylight. With the right security clearance and someone in a higher position looking out for you, I feel confident any small team could walk into any skyscraper and plant devices all over it within a short amount of time all while doing "maintenance work" of any variety you would like. Checking cabling in the elevator shafts, which happen to be right next to the central support columns? You bet. Expecting people to be all over this immediately is naive.

Cabling, is not necessary. They would have used remote control. No, there isn't always a risk of accidental detonation from EM radiation with remote control. You could even require a certain encrypted signal before anything else is accepted, and the technology for this is ancient. Nor would there have to be a risk of detonation even if it were directly in a fire. There is technology to combat both of those problems.

Why wouldn't a collapsing building fall as WTC#7 did?

In brief, it accelerated at free-fall, meaning none of its energy from falling was actually going towards bending, deforming, and destroying its massive columns. That's the funny thing about laws of physics: because it lost no PE/KE, then we know this must have been the case.

Why else? Because all four corners dropped at the same time, meaning the structure directly beneath each of those four corners was compromised at the same time. This suggests that somewhere, on some floor of that building, "something" happened at all four corners of the building simultaneously that caused all that support to instantly drop. Not something catastrophic that happens here, then leads to something else here, then here, etc., like a "chain reaction" of failures would be expected to do. It all just goes at once like someone pressed a button.

Those are the two biggest reasons that had me sold the second I laid eyes on it coming down. I didn't need anyone else to explain those two issues to me. I didn't really even need to see the measurements of its collapse acceleration, because I can tell just by looking at it that it isn't applying its weight to trying to destroy itself. It looks like it's on a free ride, because it is, in terms of PE/KE transfer.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by bsbray11]

I'm not American but I have to say I would be a very unhappy camper if I thought my government was going to waste taxpayers dollars on investigating the evidence of conspiracy you blokes have proffered so far.

LINK

I find the explanation on Dr Judy Wood's website very interesting!!!

DEW star wars weapon

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
Looking at a bigger picture, what is that Bin Laden wanted to achieve with 9/11? Awe and shock. Ok at first, but he must have known that the US would retaliate. And would that have been worth it? Two Muslim countries have been drawn into this, Iraq for having the supposed WOM and Afganistan for being a breeding place for Al Qaida. Is this what he wanted to happen after his initial succes?

It makes no sense. I mean when I hear him translated it is always about the US's arrogance and the fact that they shouldn't interfere with Muslim countries. Why then not bomb as much US embassies at the same time, to show: it is time to leave! Or something similar.

How does it not make sense? The entire world hates us now, we went from a budget surplus to a 1 Trillion dollar deficit, our hands are tied in doing further military action, Israel has become more vulnerable as a result, and have faced a potential great depression 2.0...yes, Osama's plan made no sense at all

[edit on 2-1-2009 by yellowcard]

I see what you mean, but when you say the whole world who do you mean? Do you think that Bin Laden expected the US to invade Iraq? As far as I can see Iraq was invaded because of the supposed huge oil supply. They used the whole axis of evil (or what was it exactly) and the WOM argument to invade that country. Really, I wonder what will happen if the US gets that oil. Will it become all powerfull again? Could it all have been just to get their hands on that oil? Considering the following. In Holland Wubbo Ockels (the first and as far as I know only Dutch astronaut) has been doing research about how much energy you can get out of wind. It is enormous, massive. Now finally in England they are extracting energy from the sea using huge metal tubes that have sort of hinges and aborb the energy of the waves. Just one tube could power a village. All of these energy solutions are still either being researched or in their infancy. The only thing that is now taking of, or so it seems, are the flexible thin solar panels in sheet form.

My point? I would not be surprised if somehow all of this has to do with keeping on using oil instead of cleaner and much cheaper (either immediately or after a while) solutions. Still I am not saying that 9/11 was an inside job. How much would the US earn if they got a hold of that Iragi oil, I wonder.

Didn't Obama say that the US soldiers will leave Iraq soon? That will free them to be somewhere else if needed. And where were they needed (both by the outher country AND the US) in all these years?

Why has Isreal become more vulnerable? As long as Hamas denies the existence of that country, they will keep on sending those rockets. Even if all the Palestinians have their own safe country with everything working and in place (as it should be), Hamas will keep on targeting Israel.

reply to post by bsbray11

You said: “Have you ever noticed that when you chop into a tree, it will lean over all damned day every single time, but will never collapse downwards onto itself spewing sawdust everywhere?”
This is an abysmal analogy. The tree was not constructed from sawdust.
You said: “Cabling, is not necessary. They would have used remote control. No, there isn't always a risk of accidental detonation from EM radiation with remote control.”
The cabling in question is not wiring the charges, it is the steel cabling placed to direct the fall of the building “into its own footprint.” No cabling and precuts means free fall collapse.
As to the charges and their sequencing, this is probably not a “mission-impossible-red-light-blinking-radio-detonator” kind of job. Gated receivers can only do so much and there is always a danger of stray EMF doing what you don’t want at the wrong time, especially when there are hundreds of receivers. There would have to be many charges placed and timed. Some may be close enough spatially and temporally to be handled by percussion caps and det cord but sequencing would be a big problem even if you could come up with an invisible regiment of janitors to place the charges. This isn’t like setting charges in a mine face or dropping a bridge span. A few hours or days won’t do the trick; this will need a lot of time. The building is big and spread out. Horizontals and verticals have to be cut in many places to get it to fall or really big charges have to be placed on the main supports or something has to structurally weaken the building. We have ruled out big charges on the main supports due to lack of big explosions on the order of hundreds of pounds each.
You said: “That's the funny thing about laws of physics: because it lost no PE/KE, then we know this must have been the case.”
We know nothing of the sort. You assume that it lost no energy to deformation and shear and base your conclusion on an initial assumption. It looked like free fall. It would have had to lose some even in a controlled demolition because not every joint will be cut. How could you tell how much energy was lost without accelerometers? Do you think video and frame rates are accurate enough to see small differences? Did every point on the building fall at the same time?
Conclusions:
1. The building was not precut and cabled for controlled fall.
2. If it was dropped by demolition, there is no proposed method for such that fits the evidence.
3. If it was dropped by demolition, the fall must have been dictated by gravity after some unknown method destroyed one or more main supports.
4. If #3 is the case, there is no way of telling the difference between unknown pathways.
5. If one unknown pathway was the official story, there is no way of telling the difference between it and controlled demolition.
6. There is no proposed method for demolition that fits the evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine
The cabling in question is not wiring the charges, it is the steel cabling placed to direct the fall of the building “into its own footprint.”

There is a quote floating around the internet somewhere of a controlled demolitions expert saying they could make a building move whatever way they want, twist, rotate, "dance" (their words) etc., all by timing the explosives the right way. I can't imagine that you would need steel cables, especially when your demolition method is intentionally sending nearly all of the building's mass everywhere but down anyway (like the towers).

As to the charges and their sequencing, this is probably not a “mission-impossible-red-light-blinking-radio-detonator” kind of job.

You're very imaginative with the few words that I use. Every single word you read of mine, in the back of your head you must be thinking, "everything this guy says is stupid." I don't even have to say something, and you'll imagine you know what I'm thinking. I'm not naive about electronics, it's my major and I'm about to get my bachelors degree.

Gated receivers can only do so much and there is always a danger of stray EMF doing what you don’t want at the wrong time, especially when there are hundreds of receivers.

Not unless you have a total idiot designing the system. But to try to debunk what I say, no doubt you will assume the most completely asinine thing possible if you keep up the trends I've noticed in your thinking so far.

There would have to be many charges placed and timed.

Really? As opposed to... none at all doing the exact same thing, also according to you?

Until we know what the methods would have been, types of devices, etc., I'm not going to guess how many charges would be necessary, because I don't even know what the charges or methods would have been. Make sense?

We know nothing of the sort. You assume that it lost no energy to deformation and shear and base your conclusion on an initial assumption. It looked like free fall. It would have had to lose some even in a controlled demolition because not every joint will be cut.

Then where is it? Fractions of a second don't count for me. I don't even think you have enough difference from a dead-on free-fall acceleration to even justify air resistance. How was a total free-fall accomplished? I don't know. But even NIST is admitting that a significant portion of the total collapse time was a total free-fall. And what they must be insisting wasn't free-fall, must have been so damned close anyway, I really see no need to argue about it. These columns and the other steel in these buildings were enormous and extremely strong. You have entire buildings filled with them. I have to imagine that it's going to take more than a split second of bending and contorting to destroy all of it, all the way to the ground, using only its own weight.

How could you tell how much energy was lost without accelerometers? Do you think video and frame rates are accurate enough to see small differences?

You've obviously never tried measuring this yourself. The margin of error you're looking at is somewhere around a meter or two, out of how many meters tall are these buildings? Have you ever had courses where you had to learn "significant digits" or how engineers round or only take the most useful/accurate parts of numbers?

But yes, online videos and images are accurate enough to measure the acceleration down to very small margins of error. This is the same method NIST used when their people measured WTC7's acceleration.

Did every point on the building fall at the same time?

The four corners dropped simultaneously, and the flat plane of the roof that they created together. Let me guess: you are going to start looking for smaller and smaller differences between the actual physical movements and the theoretical values? Going to start splitting hairs?

reply to post by bsbray11

You said “I can't imagine that you would need steel cables, especially when your demolition method is intentionally sending nearly all of the building's mass everywhere but down anyway (like the towers).”
Moving nearly all of the mass everywhere but down is not very efficient and would require much more explosive. The building's mass is sent down. The way this is done is to send a little bit of it sideways and then let gravity take over. Catastrophic failures of complex structures involve free fall.

You said “in the back of your head you must be thinking, "everything this guy says is stupid."
No, I do not. You are not stupid. You are just not experienced.
You said: “I have to imagine that it's going to take more than a split second of bending and contorting to destroy all of it, all the way to the ground, using only its own weight.”
Imagination is a wonderful thing, isn’t it.
You said: “You've obviously never tried measuring this yourself. The margin of error you're looking at is somewhere around a meter or two, out of how many meters tall are these buildings?” and “Fractions of a second don't count for me.”
You asked where the energy came from and then said that small amounts didn’t count. How do you know that that small difference was not equivalent to the required energy to shear connections?
You said: “Until we know what the methods would have been, types of devices, etc., I'm not going to guess how many charges would be necessary, because I don't even know what the charges or methods would have been. Make sense?”
It would seem reasonable for you to postulate what might be used otherwise you are saying you don’t know anything but it looks suspicious to you so something must have been done. Do they teach structural engineering in undergrad electronics classes? Do you have experience in demolitions other than internet virtual blasting?
I will review the videos which I remember as having a center failure followed by collapse if you will address the conclusions from my last post.
Conclusions:
1. The building was not precut and cabled for controlled fall.
2. If it was dropped by demolition, there is no proposed method for such that fits the evidence.
3. If it was dropped by demolition, the fall must have been dictated by gravity after some unknown method destroyed one or more main supports.
4. If #3 is the case, there is no way of telling the difference between unknown pathways.
5. If one unknown pathway was the official story, there is no way of telling the difference between it and controlled demolition.
6. There is no proposed method for demolition that fits the evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine
Moving nearly all of the mass everywhere but down is not very efficient and would require much more explosive.

Yeah, and you know what else? Throwing all that mass out to the sides means you don't have hardly any mass pushing the rest of the floors down, either. In fact, it is the ultimate conceptual disproof of "pancake theory" or any other theory dependent upon an unstoppable and ever-increasing mass, because there were no "pancakes," or much of the buildings left at all in their footprints. At least 80% was straight out to the sides, for every floor. So it goes both ways. Except I don't actually have a specific theory for you to attack, because I don't claim to know exactly what brought the buildings down.

The building's mass is sent down.

This, right after you are mentioning the fact that most of the debris was sent out over the sides.

Catastrophic failures of complex structures involve free fall.

Have a source?

You said: “I have to imagine that it's going to take more than a split second of bending and contorting to destroy all of it, all the way to the ground, using only its own weight.”
Imagination is a wonderful thing, isn’t it.

Yes, it is. Scientists and engineers use it all the time. The way you tell me I'm not experienced, and then poo-poo imagination as a rebuttal to something I said, only tells me that you haven't had much experience in engineering anything practical. You probably don't realize how much creativity goes behind even a pocket calculator. I visualize things in a lot of detail pretty frequently, and the amount of destruction that happened to that building, and the amount of time given for it to happen (virtually none), do not match up in my mind. Not by a questionable margin, but by a long freaking shot. I already said, watching this building convinced me of demolition immediately.

Talking about "experience" with three totally unprecedented failures is amusing. Who's experienced with these things, again? How many years did it take to publish a report on why WTC7 collapsed, and how many questions are still unanswered by engineers?

You asked where the energy came from and then said that small amounts didn’t count. How do you know that that small difference was not equivalent to the required energy to shear connections?

Because it's not even in the ball park. If a bird flew up and landed on the roof and it suddenly failed, I wouldn't believe you if you told me it was the bird, either. You have a building with massive steel columns and connections that have to be destroyed. The only thing you can use, is those same columns and connections, nothing else, and most of them are still perfectly intact. Do you think the amount of PE is irrelevant to the forces holding the building together? It's the exact same steel. For most of the building, every single pound of steel in dead weight is also a pound of steel that is holding the building together.

Let me come from a different angle, that requires less visualizing.

When you drop something through the air, it will not accelerate at free-fall. Did you know that? There's something called "drag," which is resistance from the air, and it prevents a free-fall drop. The KE that's lost is pretty trivial, but we're only talking about air.

So then look at WTC7. It was filled with air, too. And it was also a steel framed skyscraper (cough). But it fell right at free-fall in a vacuum. What little difference there was, you could attribute to drag. In fact, unless you can prove there was no air in the building, you would HAVE to include drag or else you would essentially be lying with numbers.

How do I know a steel building will provide more resistance to a falling object than air will? That's what you should ask me. The answer is: because I am just intuitive like that. And yes, intuition is also a valuable tool to me, just like imagination. Not an end-all, just a tool.

It would seem reasonable for you to postulate what might be used otherwise you are saying you don’t know anything but it looks suspicious to you so something must have been done.

Exactly. And what's wrong with that? You can't attack what I believe happened? You don't need to, buddy, because I am not a government scientist or feel any responsibility to you or anyone else whatsoever, to explain how those buildings fell. I was not paid, I was not given access to any evidence, etc. So it makes it totally pointless for you to argue with me about what I think did happen.

As far as what I don't think happened, we can start with the hypotheses that NIST has offered. That's what I talk about, so I don't have to make stuff up for you to try to pick at ceaselessly without getting anywhere.

Do they teach structural engineering in undergrad electronics classes?

You would probably be surprised how much of the same physics and maths we have to learn. But no, and neither do they teach structural engineers about falling buildings, which is what we would call a "dynamic system," while civil engineers deal with "statics."

Do you have experience in demolitions other than internet virtual blasting?

Hardly anyone does, and the best demolition experts work for the military anyway. I'm not sure exactly how often you think skyscrapers are actually taken down with explosives.

Conclusions:

Just to let you know, yes, I see your list. I could make something similar for each post if I wanted.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by bsbray11]

I'm so glad you posted this video,and hopefully it will encourage others to come forward. There wasn't a plane to hit bld 7,so my claims of demolition from day one still stand. The words "PULL IT" still means demolition. My grand-dad did construction all his life all over the East Coast USA. He worked on the 2nd span Delaware Memorial Bridge ,buried at request in a graveyard close to the bridge off I-95. My grand-dad would have said the same thing,had he lived to see 911.So I'm speaking for him. Iron worker/Iron man.

reply to post by bsbray11


Dear BS,
You said: “Yeah, and you know what else? Throwing all that mass out to the sides means you don't have hardly any mass pushing the rest of the floors down, either.
This sounds like your Kundalini is getting misaligned, again. If you read the post you would have seen that I didn’t say that all that mass gets thrown out to the sides. I said moving a little bit of it sideways. That is how demolitions are done.

You said: “You would probably be surprised how much of the same physics and maths we have to learn.”
No, I would not. You may have done well in your studies.
You said; “Hardly anyone does, and the best demolition experts work for the military anyway. I'm not sure exactly how often you think skyscrapers are actually taken down with explosives.”
You aren’t sure of very much. You have no theory of how it happened, you just have a feeling. How “new age” of you. Your claims, and the claims of your fellow travelers, rely on videos of the events of 911 and videos of controlled building demolitions. As none of the controlled demolitions are of 40+ story buildings, you have nothing to compare them to. Feelings…….
The controlled demolitions use precuts and cables with controlled sequences. The military does not worry about precuts and cabling because they would have no time for such things.
You said: “The only thing you can use, is those same columns and connections, nothing else, and most of them are still perfectly intact. Do you think the amount of PE is irrelevant to the forces holding the building together? It's the exact same steel. For most of the building, every single pound of steel in dead weight is also a pound of steel that is holding the building together.”
You have no way of knowing how many columns and connections were intact or what their strength was at the time of the collapse. Every single pound of steel in dead weight is also a pound of steel that is holding the building together… but not necessarily holding the building UP. Only a fraction of the mass is holding the building UP and those elements are what we need to push sideways. Remember that when we do that, we don’t move the whole building sideways or even the whole vertical element because we are dealing with a plastic material.
As promised, I looked at the video. The building center began to fall before the corners. The building did not fall straight down. It can be seen to lean significantly as it fails. Because there are no videos of buildings of that size coming down, we have no basis for comparison of controlled versus uncontrolled collapse.
You claim to be knowledgeable in science and engineering. Try using that knowledge to postulate what happened. Try looking for more evidence than feelings. Intuition is knowledge and experience based but if you are lacking the knowledge and experience, then your intuition is a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by LucidDreamer85

 

No. The designers ASSUMED that they had built the towers to withstand a low-speed collision with an airplane, just as it was assumed that the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. Human arrogance rears its ugly head once again.

I knew that one was coming up... Look: Even if the planes hit the top of the buildings, they would not have 'taken out' the support at the bottom, & make it fall into the underground basement levels... That's a good one! If that was the case, the archeologists of the future, after people will be even permitted to investigate the area, will find many remains of several floors. - But no... everything had been carted off & the evidence was destroyed.

All that dust is pulverized concrete. Still going to deny the truth, and other evidence that is overlooked and the reason for any debunking, and say there were no explosions? COME ON!

And to say that this is disrespecting the family members is ridiculous! Most of them want a REAL investigation, which they clearly are not getting.

Google Video Link

reply to post by Time=Now


Yes and there were still quite a few chunks of concrete left behind. The family members, first and foremost, will always have my deepest sympathies. My dislike is directed at the people who have whispered in their ears the ridiculous conspiracy theories.

reply to post by Time=Now


If demolition occurred to take out the pillars there would have been strong evidence. First, the collapse would not have started near the impact area; the entire building would have moved down. It did not.
Second, a very large explosion would have been required. Remember the previous attempt used a truck bomb and destroyed several floors of a garage. It was noticeable at the time and would have certainly shown on the Columbia seismograph as a spike. No such event was seen.

Originally posted by pteridine
This sounds like your Kundalini is getting misaligned, again.

Sorry, I thought I was in the 9/11 forums. Maybe if my mini-profile, signature, or avatar are so distracting to you, you can u2u me for any off-topic questions you may have about them.

If you read the post you would have seen that I didn’t say that all that mass gets thrown out to the sides. I said moving a little bit of it sideways. That is how demolitions are done.

Well I thank you for your explanation of "how demolitions are done," but consider that it would still be a demolition if even more of the mass was thrown out to all sides. You don't seem to realize that, whatever you want to call these things, I'm looking at what happened and saying someone is yanking your chain. I don't think it really helps your case that this is how those buildings happened to come down, either, but you don't seem too eager to talk about the "official" explanations in any detail.

You aren’t sure of very much. You have no theory of how it happened, you just have a feeling. How “new age” of you.

Want to just stand all the way up in your little box and judge me using your whole mouth, and not just the corners? Why don't you go ahead and show me what kind of a person you really are?

As none of the controlled demolitions are of 40+ story buildings, you have nothing to compare them to.

Not like you would have anything to compare them to, either, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

You have no way of knowing how many columns and connections were intact or what their strength was at the time of the collapse.

Don't tell me your "theory" relies on a bunch of unknowns, too? Go figure.

Every single pound of steel in dead weight is also a pound of steel that is holding the building together… but not necessarily holding the building UP. Only a fraction of the mass is holding the building UP and those elements are what we need to push sideways.

This is so convoluted in so many ways, I'm not even going to try to argue. If it sounds reasonable to you, then have at it, I don't even care. Have you ever done a free body diagram? I don't suppose you realize, that anything that wasn't carrying vertical loads only, is going to be resisting "sideways" forces. On each floor, each column was braced horizontally, bolted and welded to each floor, like one solid piece of steel. Can you do some kind of rough sketch as to how you think this pushing motion is happening, exactly? If you can do that, maybe we can start to get somewhere.

As promised, I looked at the video. The building center began to fall before the corners.

Are you supposed to be "debunking" something with this?

The building did not fall straight down.

Of course it didn't. It would be impossible to fall perfectly straight.

I have had this discussion with so many people, so many times. It really is pathetic how far people will go just to argue with me. If I had to ask any person with any sense about them at all, "In what direction is this building falling?," do you know what people are going to tell me? They're not going to tell me that it tilted over, that's for damned sure. When I ask what the color the sky is, I don't expect an analysis that includes 50 unique shades of the color blue, and I'm not going to really learn anything from it, either. Similarly when I have an acceleration that matches free-fall so closely that you can barely make out energy loss to drag, I say that's free-fall, and don't have to take it down to the nth degree of accuracy to show there's no loss of energy to account for an entire skyscraper being destroyed.

You claim to be knowledgeable in science and engineering.

Really? Where?

Try using that knowledge to postulate what happened.

I have. I just don't have the annoying habit of forcing myself to assume things when information is missing. I'm sure you would love me to do that, so it would be fun for you to rip apart what I say, whether it would be right or wrong, you rabid beast you. When are we going to start talking about what you believe brought the buildings down, and your proof, and all of that?

Try looking for more evidence than feelings.

A skyscraper accelerating to the ground while barely losing enough KE to explain drag is not "feelings." I'm sorry but if a solid steel building weighing thousands of tons is grinding itself into the ground at free-fall rate, and you don't think anything is wrong, then you were lost before you even got yourself into these arguments. There are plenty of you though so I've become jaded to it and really don't care, and I don't care what you think of me, either.

If you want to talk about "feelings," talk about blind faith in authority. Let's talk about how NIST offered these hypotheses, but never tested them or supported them with any physical evidence at all, and yet you'll take their word for it without even knowing so much, and can only accuse me of an equal lack of support. The difference between me and NIST, though, is that they were actually paid to come up with something (using YOUR money) and they still didn't. I still don't understand why you have such a problem with me, and won't even look at these people that spent your money.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Logically thinking, If Building 7 was controlled demolition, according to Silverstein's "Pull it" orders, because it "was on fire and unsafe"then amidst all the chaos and nanoparticles of debris, and the real fear of another "terrorist"attack, then who was brave enough to set the demolition in Building 7 in just a few hours, ( or indeed how ever long it took) on that fateful day. Did any identifiable vehicles roll up and get to work on it or was the area off limits to emergency rescue only.

Logic says that it was done weeks before 9/11. The same type of explosion that felled Building 7 also felled Tower 1 and 2.

CAN ANYONE LOCATE THE WHITE DOOMSDAY PLANE AMIDST THESE TOXIC CLOUDS? IT WAS FLYING AROUND THE TWIN TOWERS THAT DAY AND WAS MENTIONED BY NEWCASTERS EARLY ON, OVER THE WHITE HOUSE.