New video of all three towers

reply to post by bsbray11


BS, I don't have a problem with you. I do not understand why you insist on a planned demolition of #7 with no evidence, no postulated mechanism, and no pathway for getting to the explanation. In the videos there is no demolition of the upper structure, and no evidence of precuts, which would take months of work, so anything happening would happen much further down. No big explosions, so quiet methods are in order. If the building collapsed due to major support failure, what would be the difference in how it fell between modes of failure of major supports? How could you tell the difference between failure due to the official version and failure due to something other than the official version? How could it have been done, what could have done it, and what traces would it have left?

Originally posted by pteridine
I do not understand why you insist on a planned demolition of #7 with no evidence, no postulated mechanism, and no pathway for getting to the explanation.

The fact that none of its PE went to destroying it is evidence. It means another source of energy was responsible for the destruction. Remember the steel that was ingrained with sulfur, having its melting temperature lowered, and then melting before the building collapsed? What's that evidence of? You don't know? No, you don't, because not even the engineers who found and analyzed that steel could tell us what it was doing there. It's certainly evidence of something real that happened in that building, but what was it?

No big explosions, so quiet methods are in order.

I wouldn't assume that. Craig Bartmer, the NYPD officer who has the interview on YouTube, says he witnessed an explosion right in front of him, coming out of the bottom of the building, very loud. There were other explosions in the building in the hours before it came down that were both recorded and registered seismic signals, but not all of the signals have corresponding audio from media. Either way, there were explosions. How loud they were, how frequent, where they came from, etc., unless you want to lay all this out cut and dry for us to examine, I wouldn't make the same assumptions you are. In fact I would try to make none at all.

How could you tell the difference between failure due to the official version and failure due to something other than the official version?

I honestly don't think it should have fallen at all, based on every other skyscraper fire I have ever looked at and the effects upon the steel and all of that, and I have looked at a few of them in some detail. If it did, it would have leaned where the most structure was missing (and there was a slight lean towards the South face when WTC7 fell) and that leaning would eventually act basically as a lever, amplifying the forces being applied to the connections until either something local broke and fell away, or if the whole building is going to go at once, by gaining angular momentum until the whole thing tries to tilt over (which would probably only result in more local failures at various connections, but in many different places at once).

So, if the building didn't fall at all, or if it kept tilting and creating local failures until it made a complete chaotic mess and left a substantial portion still there, things along those lines, I would much sooner believe it happened by freak accident and was uncontrolled. But not by folding into itself in an accordion motion, at free-fall, with all four corners going simultaneously, and the vast majority of the debris ending up in a 3-story pile at the building's footprint.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by bsbray11]

While I agree at times our government does some dubious things, it is absurd to believe they would set up an event of this magnitude resulting in the intentional death of thousands of US citizens. The hatred of George Bush and all things Republican is blatent. I firmly agree that to accomplish the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would not be possible in secret. Anyone who has studied implosion techniques knows that the structures must be prepared by cutting and weakening key beams and support members that will in the end be severed by explosives. This to be done in secret in an occupied structure just is not possible. You and Rosie O'Donnel are ignoring the obvious: JP4 burns at a much higher temperature than the yield point of steel. It doesn't have to melt, just getting it red hot is sufficient to soften it enough to yield and bend,resulting in collapse of the Towers. Maybe you people should spend more time blaiming Ben Laden, the evil scum who masterminded the 9/11 tragedy. And radical Islam. Know it or not, we are in an undeclaired war which will not end until either we or they are dead. The sooner the latter happpens, the sooner we will see peace break out in the world.

reply to post by hackbart


No no no...just because there are several visible "squib" pops on the WTC 1&2 towers as they fall is not a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition! It is simple, and explainable...

It's the light from Alpha Centauri refracting off of the swamp gas on Venus being focalized on the high density carbon being used in the lenses of the cameras picking up over-tonal harmonics being sent out from the windows of the WTC towers. This happens when planes hit a building that is sitting on top of gold reserves, and backed up by 45 degree pre-cut structure bearing steel covered in thermite...

Very simply put "The snozzberries taste like snozzberries"!

Why would Chewbacca live on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks...It simply does not make sense! ***Blabbering Blatherskite*** (roll away quickly)

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
While I agree at times our government does some dubious things, it is absurd to believe they would set up an event of this magnitude resulting in the intentional death of thousands of US citizens. The hatred of George Bush and all things Republican is blatent.

Listen man, I for one am not even political, and don't give two rat asses about George Bush. At the time all this happened I actually supported him in the last election (it was his first run and I was naive -- sorry ). Why does everything have to come back to "hating" Bush for the relative handful of people that still like the ass despite what he's done to our country? Yes, I said that, but I still don't care about George Bush, to go out and post all these things. You're just making excuses to yourself.

I firmly agree that to accomplish the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would not be possible in secret.

Then you are among the naive. I get tired of repeating how easy it is to do things in broad daylight in a building, especially in a uniform, and no one will question you. And when was the last time you pestered a maintenance guy you saw in any building? Etc., etc. It would not be "impossible," it would be "covert."

Anyone who has studied implosion techniques knows that the structures must be prepared by cutting and weakening key beams and support members that will in the end be severed by explosives.

What makes you so sure that the conventional techniques you are referring to would have been employed?

JP4 burns at a much higher temperature than the yield point of steel. It doesn't have to melt, just getting it red hot is sufficient to soften it enough to yield and bend,resulting in collapse of the Towers.

Actually there wasn't enough heat to do this, according to government reports. The "official" explanation (from NIST) is actually that the trusses heated, expanded, and then sagged, pulling on the exterior columns and causing them to buckle and deflect until somewhere everything starting falling straight down. They never bothered to test any of this in a lab, reproduce it, etc., but that's the theory, not column failure from overheating.

Jet fuel may burn at a high enough temperature, but what you're neglecting is heat. Look at the Cardington tests. It would take hours to heat so much steel to such high temperatures even to lose 50% of yield strength. Even NIST once had to hold multi-Megawatt spray burners onto thin sections of steel (trusses) for 30 minutes solid to reach a uniform temperature of 700 C. If the steel wasn't so thin, but an actual column, you can imagine how much longer this would take.

Know it or not, we are in an undeclaired war which will not end until either we or they are dead.

You don't really think so black-and-white, do you?

reply to post by 911fnord



teslaandlyne (6 seconds ago)
People waving above fire venting from hole in floor below means good fire
protection. At 0:12 an explosion went off and 0:20 the building is down. At 2:42
the core beams break away. Building 7 melted like a sponge for all I know but
Afghanistan and IRAQ are responsible for aiding and abetting terror as our own
government should know best how to deal with terror. "Mr Nam" Nixon and
"Nuke'um" Truman followed the Illuminati line of terror so what do you want,
act like JFK and eliminate the CIA.

reply to post by bsbray11


You said: "I honestly don't think it should have fallen at all, based on every other skyscraper fire I have ever looked at and the effects upon the steel and all of that, and I have looked at a few of them in some detail. If it did, it would have leaned where the most structure was missing (and there was a slight lean towards the South face when WTC7 fell) and that leaning would eventually act basically as a lever, amplifying the forces being applied to the connections until either something local broke and fell away, or if the whole building is going to go at once, by gaining angular momentum until the whole thing tries to tilt over (which would probably only result in more local failures at various connections, but in many different places at once). "

What I get from this response is that your gut feelings are the sole basis for your conspiracy theory. You suggest that the fire was the only cause of the collapse of WTC #7 and ignore the debris impacts. The conditions of the foundation and supports are also unknown so to base everything on a comparison with only fires in other buildings is spurious logic.
What you suggested as an "if" is exactly what appeared to happen. The building leaned into the damaged section and then collapsed. Apparently, it did not lean enough, nor scatter its parts far enough, nor fall slow enough, to satisfy the active imaginations of those who lack experience but blindly believe that they intuitively understand the situation and somehow know what will happen.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not even having viewed this guy's testimony, you're already changing what he said to fit what you believe when the guy's testimony is 100% as legitimate as any you could name. The firefighters who saw the building "leaning" were also not structural engineers or experienced with skyscraper collapses at all and could have had no idea how much damage was done to that building or if it would have fallen because of it. So what's the difference? Why pick apart my witnesses and make excuses, but not your own? You're not very objective.

Ah so when some firefighters who are on scene, staring right at the building, seeing it leaning off center are mistaken and in no position to make a judgement of a building's structural integrity? I see, so in effect they should of said, "Oh its just leaning over a bit, its just off center, there is no danger. Its structurally sound!" I wonder if you even understand what firefighters do and what some of their jobs are, especially the fire chiefs and commanders. See what job they have when dealing with large fires and how they plan to attack a fire. You'd be surprised how much planning goes into fighting a fire which INCLUDES the structural condition of the building in question and what shape its in.

Plus you do not need to be a structural engineer when looking at a 47 story building that is burning and leaning to know there is some serious damage done and its not structurally sound.

7 had to go to make a clean sweep, that must have been the deal.
Who makes the deal, we don't know.
Perhaps a more evil force than Hitler.
Osama isn't dead yet and Hitler didn't die because US and
UK Intel lied and said Hitler died.
Where are the evil ones in control after WWII.
WWII and WTC 911 same thing.
East coast lives were saved by just a scant 56 years.
Instead of nuked by Nazis we get Therminated by Illuminati.

Originally posted by pteridine
What I get from this response is that your gut feelings are the sole basis for your conspiracy theory.

No, but check a mirror. I think you tell me what you would like to believe. I don't have a formal report, or a very specific theory that names devices, locations, firing sequences, etc., (and I hope you would agree that it would be absolutely unreasonable and unnecessary for me to provide these things, especially since I have no obligation to anyone to do so) but I still have a very broad "theory" that IS backed by evidence. This "theory" is that WTC7's global collapse was not sustained by its PE/KE. My evidence is the fact that it fell at free-fall, meaning no PE/KE was ever lost to the system as the building fell. Very simple. I told you before that even air resistance (drag) causes greater deviations from free-fall than what WTC7's roof line exhibited. Look it up and prove me wrong.

Every time I repeat this, and you ignore it and say that I'm just thinking with my gut, I'm going to repost the same damned thing and repeat to you that this is not my gut talking, until you actually address the facts I am posting. If you don't intuitively understand simple mechanics then at least try to understand that there is a point in what I keep repeating to you. Intuition involved or not, it is a FACT, that a falling mass, if it encounters any resistance whatsoever, is going to lose kinetic energy and therefore acceleration. That's the part you WISH came from my gut.

It's also a FACT that bending all of those steel columns and braces and etc. throughout the entire 47-story building would require an enormous amount of energy. Not a trivial amount. Not an amount less than what air resistance absorbs. I said that was intuition too but you would have to be truly asinine not to agree with that logic: steel is stronger than air.


Having said that, if you still feel as though my very firm opinion is based on gushy feelings alone, then show me something better. Show me what your opinion is based on. I'll step back as I prepare to be amazed. Specifically, if you want to cut right to the chase, let's say you happen to believe NIST is credible. Show me where they test or validate their hypothesized initiation mechanism in any way. Because they didn't, and like I said, your opinion (which is really not even your own opinion as far as I'm concerned) is based on blind faith in media/authority. And if they have evidence for their side of the story, they certainly aren't sharing any of it.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah so when some firefighters who are on scene, staring right at the building, seeing it leaning off center are mistaken and in no position to make a judgement of a building's structural integrity?

You're talking about hearsay. The entire building was leaning and off center? Why can't anyone see this in pictures or videos, including what we can see of the South face? There are pictures taken on the street looking right at WTC7 minutes before it collapsed, and you can see no leaning. A better question: who knows what in the hell those firefighters were really looking at it? Like I said, it's hearsay. They were probably looking right at where the building was impacted and talking about the local structure there. At any rate you could argue with me about it but you could never prove your point because it's still hearsay. Get used to it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Bldg 7?

You know, I became a little miffed at first reading some of these silly posts. Then I began to laugh.
I arrived at the scene on Church street a few blocks north of the site when the South tower went down. We retreated minutes before the North tower came down as well. At around 4pm or so, I was ordered to retreat because Building 7 was in bad shape - it fell soon after.

I was there at the 7 story high pile of very hot debris that came down with a lot of force. (On 9-11 and for weeks after) Don't forget about the underground damage the towers caused. The remnants of various buildings at the site were on fire for a long time. Bldg 7 (A tall bldg with a lot of weight) was on fire and suffered a lot of damage.
Give it a rest people. You are not going to sway the minds of those who were there and know better.

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
You said: “…your opinion (which is really not even your own opinion as far as I'm concerned) is based on blind faith in media/authority.”

My opinion is my opinion regardless of what it is based on. It is based on the fact that there is no evidence for any other explanation, something that seems to elude you. You have taken the easy way out; “I don’t understand it so there must be a conspiracy.” Then, you pretend to be a structural engineer more knowledgeable than those who actually investigated the collapses. You spout off what you learned in Physics 101 about PE and KE. You also said that small differences in the velocity of fall were of no consequence. I ask you again, how do you know that? Check that 101 book and you might discover that energy is proportional to V^2 so small differences might be all that are needed.
Essentially, your opinion is based on feelings and a calculation you can’t make. You could estimate the potential energy of the building and then guess at how many failures have to occur and then estimate the energy of those failures. The first part is relatively easy. The second part is much more difficult, will give you tensor headache, and has huge error bars because you have no idea of the strength or number of the joints that had to fail. Those estimates will dictate the results.
Now that your advanced beam theory has allowed you to run the numbers, what did your calculations show? Do you have evidence or “feelings?” Maybe you should stick to tracing currents in inductor arrays.

Check what NYCMedic has to say. He was there and has the advantage over armchair detectives watching video footage. The building was failing from the fire and the damage from tower debris.

reply to post by crookedj0k3r


Perhaps you should ask yourself why the Lusitania was sent into known-to-be-swarming-with-Germans waters...

Generally and simply put, when the government requires public support for something that would not normally be given, wholeheartedly, a "disaster" miraculously happens and switches the public view to the point where, and in this they they were and are, actively crying out for protection and security from "terrorism". Why did they kill their own people? Because the Bush administration would never have gotten so much past Congress so easily and so quickly, go ahead, check the facts.

Magically Homeland security was setup and all that has been done is the US and indeed the rest of the world has had this "terror" injected into it. Everyone wants more protection from terror but who are we actually getting protection from and who should be protecting?

Perhaps start with protecting the minds of people.

What are the chances that someone in the far east could successfully plan and execute something like this. It's possible but improbable.

Remember, the Government under the guise of what is right for the people often involves the sacrifice of the people in order to obtain that end.

Oscar Wilde once said "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people."

Just my two pence.

I am always in awe at how little we seem to be using our eyes these days.

I am sure this has been mentioned previously in the thread, but wasn't September 11 the first, and only example to date of a steel framed building collapsing due to 'fire' as the official report states? And it happened THREE TIMES in one day?

The one thing that always hammers it home to me is that if you dropped an apple 110 stories, with nothing underneath it, it would have hit the ground around the same time it took the two tall towers to collapse, and they had thousands and thousands of tons of concrete, steel, and whatever else is in 110 stories of offices.

It does not require mountains of evidence to understand, if you just work through the scenario in your head. In order for the buildings to fall so near to free fall, there has to be HUGE displacements of mass(like concrete and STEEL) underneath the collapsing apex. Imagine two, imagine ten, imagine 47 STEEL COLUMNS, all interconnected and bolted in a masterful grid that only gets STRONGER towards the bottom of the towers because of thicker steel. Now imagine a plane hitting near the top, missing the direct center of the building, harming maybe 15, maybe twenty for arguments sake, of the STEEL columns. That leaves 27 still intact from the ground of the building, to the top. The other twenty columns ARE STILL INTACT, but only up to the point where the plane hit.

Now imagine why that building came down...It is a lot harder for me to imagine jet fuel swirling to the other 27 columns at that level and simultaneously ripping the beams apart to start the collapse. And it is even harder for me to imagine that same fuel dropping to each floor and burning, remember now, 47 STEEL columns simultaneously to result in the relatively straight and quick fall of the buildings. Also, you would have to imagine that jet fuel can get that hot to melt steel, without another form of incendiary.

It is much easier for me to imagine a crew of disguised building workers placing thermite charges for some unknown client.

Originally posted by pteridine
My opinion is my opinion regardless of what it is based on.

Can't argue with you about that.

It is based on the fact that there is no evidence for any other explanation, something that seems to elude you.

Now, I can say this is just asinine.

First, there is NO EVIDENCE for what you believed in the first place. Pot, kettle, you know. Apparently you can have the cake, but I can't.

Second, there ARE no other explanations that have been investigated anyway! So what "other explanation" you are talking about, I don't even know.


Now I could say that my position (let's say that "something else" brought the buildings down) is validated for the same reason: because the given explanations do not have supporting evidence, and on top of that don't even make sense. I could say that, because I don't have to have some other theory to replace the one the government has provided. There are no other theories that have had the same treatment and consideration as the one the government exclusively investigated from start, to finish. No other investigations at all. So when that one fails, there is nothing anymore. Back to the drawing board.


The rest, you just keep appealing to authority. That's what makes a sheep, a sheep. You just keep threatening me that other people think differently, so I better change what I think even if it doesn't make sense to me! This is a threat that would only affect a sheep. These other people you refer to, that you think of as experts and virtually worship intellectually while having no idea what they are looking at, were in reality a small team of people that went from the ASCE to FEMA to NIST, and were accused of corruption while they were still at the ASCE for publishing misleading studies about the towers, and never did they publish their data to allow a peer-review.

So my point is, for gods sake, use logic, not logical fallacies, and stop appealing to authority. You will never change my mind by doing any of those things, and why should you be able to? A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy for a reason, my friend, and so is appealing to authority. Would you rather be on the side of the fence that is most logically sound, or the one that has the most people on it? Assume there is a difference before you just call them the same to avoid having to make a choice.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
While I agree at times our government does some dubious things, it is absurd to believe they would set up an event of this magnitude resulting in the intentional death of thousands of US citizens.

It would be touching, if it weren't so sad, that people can still believe this despite copious evidence to the contrary, and with the government not even troubling these days to feign an interest in the public good.

Those of us with eyes and mind unclouded by mainstream brainwash cannot help but see the glaring problems with NIST's disingenuous Bush science.

WTC7 looks like controlled demo to me.

What do I know, though.

Sarcasm on.

For all I know, concrete could just up and vaporize on its own. All the steel and concrete in a building could just fail all at once. It happens all the time right?

People accidentally play a trumpet or snap their fingers the wrong way and POW! The buildings just come down.

Sarcasm off.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Buildings are not demoed top down. The pancake collapse was just that. No seismographic indications of explosives were noted and the amount of explosive to do the job would have been large. It would have been tough to set it up, and really tough to set it up, unnoticed. The speed of fall of a collapsing building and a demoed building are the same. Explosives do not speed up the fall. Large structures are not "blown up," they have the supports blown sideways and fall due to gravity. Fall rate is not a diagnostic for demolition.
WTC#7 was seriously damaged from impacts of WTC collapses. Those buildings did not fail symmetrically; check the videos you posted. Fires burned for many hours. No explosions were detected seismographically. No explosions from HE were heard. There was no time to rig a building that was burning and leaning. Firemen couldn't get in so how could anyone else? A quickie job would have required so much explosive that the blast would have been really obvious.

Charges were set previous to the event. surely you've heard of the mysterious power-downs that took place over the course of a few nights in the months prior to the attacks?

There is simply not enough potential energy in those buildings to pulverize them the way that they were. Those towers did not simply collapse, they were obliterated. FYII seismographs did register explosions, most notably seconds before the 1st tower fell.

In my educated opinion (civil engineering) there is no way in hell the impact of those planes could cause those towers to collapse in on themselves the way they did. Let's not forget that, at one time they were the tallest buildings on earth. WTC7 is one thing, but for these giants to have supposedly naturally and without any demolition charges collapsed into their own footprints is about as likely as me meeting a dinosaur on my way to work.

One final thought, the 9-11 defenders love to quote the "pancake effect" when they speak of what happened that day, but it is disingenuous to mention this phenomena in relation to the attacks of 9-11 because the "pancake effect" results in the floors of the building being stacked upon one another like, well, pancakes. This was not the case with the world Trade towers. As I said before they were completely obliterated. Rubble was pulverized down to micron size. Good luck proving that concrete and steel can have that done to it with just gravity and a little jet fuel.