New video of all three towers

reply to post by bsbray11

BS,
You said: “First, there is NO EVIDENCE for what you believed in the first place.”
The building collapsed after being seriously damaged with a big piece of a much bigger building and having unfought fires burning in it for many hours. There is photographic evidence and eyewitnesses for this. The building was bulging between the 10th and 13th floors with another 34 floors above them. There are eyewitnesses for this. There is no evidence of demolitions. No one was seen hacksawing beams or unscrewing bolts or firing a ray gun. There is no evidence for anything else that caused the collapse.
What did it? I say that since there is no other explanation, then it must be impact and fire. When I ask for your alternative explanation, you said “So what "other explanation" you are talking about, I don't even know.”
Maybe you just have a feeling that something was wrong because you thought that buildings should fall more gracefully. OK, consider it logically and avoid the evil logical fallacy. How slow should they fall? The twin towers fell slower than free fall; the debris from the top beat the towers to the ground by a good margin; no free fall there. Of course, there are still some people saying demolition.
How about WTC#7? What do you think a demolition would look like and what do you think collapse due to impact damage and fire would look like? How can you tell the difference? If it is speed of fall, what metric will you set for the speed of fall to decide whether demolition occurred?

reply to post by godless

The kinetic energy of the falling mass was equivalent to many hundred tons of explosives. Perhaps that will help explain how the concrete and plaster board was broken up without any additional explosives.

Originally posted by pteridine
The building collapsed after being seriously damaged with a big piece of a much bigger building and having unfought fires burning in it for many hours.

Still an unsupported theory. It is not as simple as you try to make it out, or else no one would have paid for an investigation to begin with. You can't see what's happening inside the towers, you can only guess, and it was never proven that fires and impacts alone would cause what was seen. In fact, a structural engineer that worked for FEMA said years after the investigation that he had been trying to validate the ASCE's computer models for years and could only conclude that they were incorrect and that the towers (and most other NY skyscrapers) could withstand both the impacts and fires. That man's name is Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, and the Associated Press did an article featuring him not too long ago.

You skip over everything I say just to barrage me with something new, as if nothing I say matters to you. Just accept the fact that whatever you believe is as equally unsupported as what I believe. Telling me what you watched on TV doesn't count.

reply to post by bsbray11
BS,
You are avoiding the issues. Do you have committment problems with your theories?
I simply asked what do you thought a demolition would look like and what you thought a collapse due to impact damage and fire would look like. Then I asked how you would tell the difference. If the difference was speed of fall, what value you would use for the speed of fall to decide whether a demolition had occurred.
If you can't answer this, using the logic that you tout, then your reasons are .............feeeelings, which is what I suggested in the first place.
No logic.
No rationale.
No evidence.
No argument.

Originally posted by pteridine
You are avoiding the issues.

That's exactly what I just said you are doing. Maybe I have stopped responding to question after question after question, because every time I answer you totally ignore me and just ask a new string of unrelated questions?

Do you have committment problems with your theories?

You aren't even addressing my "theory," but implying a ton of logical fallacies that are entirely unrelated to my opinion as to why those buildings were demolished. Such as:

I simply asked what do you thought a demolition would look like

Like what you saw, apparently. But this question and others like it don't prove anything or have anything to do with why I believe what I believe. You're just baiting me to get more and more off-topic.

If you can't answer this, using the logic that you tout, then your reasons are .............feeeelings

So unless I can tell you what I "think" a demolition/natural collapse would look like (which I already did somewhere anyway -- another example of you ignoring what I post), and imagine up some collapse rates, then I'm not thinking logically? How is answering either of those questions NOT relying on intuition? You realize that you aren't making any sense at all, right?

I'm beginning to think you can't even tell the difference between straightforward reasoning, and a fallacy. It's just fallacy after fallacy and either you can't tell the difference or for some stupid reason you don't think it matters, and heaven forbid you address any of the questions I ask you.



Here's another example of you ignoring the things I post: you still haven't shown me anything to justify the idea that planes and fires alone brought them down. Like I said, telling me what you saw on TV doesn't count. You are on the exact same boat as I am as far as having a well-defined theory supported by evidence. You have faith in reports you don't even understand. That's feelings. And I'll just keep bringing this up until you face it.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I am not baiting you, I am offering you a chance to respond. My position is what I said it was. Fire, impact, failure, and no other evidence for any other explanation.
You said that there is something wrong. As near as I can tell, it had to do with the speed of fall. It wasn't leisurely enough for you. I asked what you thought the speed of fall should be. How much less than free-fall?
You respond each time with weaseling containing the phrase "logical fallacy," a phrase that you are really fond of but may not always correctly apply.
Is it speed of fall? Yes or no.
What speed differential is the diagnostic, in your opinion, for planned demolition over collapse? 10% 20%?
Your move.

Originally posted by 911fnord
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Thanks brother!! For many years I have seen the principia and book of subgenius are deprogramming tools for religion and the NWO in general...but thats whole other thread. The video I posted is the best quality I have seen to date. The video is very telling I am glad the person that took this decided to release it. FNORD.

Could you start this thread, I am interested.

Originally posted by pteridine
My position is what I said it was. Fire, impact, failure, and no other evidence for any other explanation.

But why do you keep refusing to look at the evidence supporting the collapse theory you do believe? What makes you think what you thought you saw on TV that day is factual by default? That's the whole basis of questioning things to begin with, which is what almost all of here are doing.

I asked what you thought the speed of fall should be. How much less than free-fall?

Significantly more than air. As in, if I look at a chart of the resistance of this building's roof as it sank through the air, and compare it to a chart of any other object falling through a vacuum or with minimal air resistance alone, I expect to see a difference. That is to say, I should be able to tell them apart by looking at them. That's all I'm saying, or that I have to know or say, personally. I know you should be able to tell the difference between a building falling, and something else just falling through the air or even a vacuum. When I see a chart for any object that shows it accelerated at free-fall, I'm not going to expect it to have started from rest to fully disintegrate itself at free-fall and apparently without losing KE at all at times. That means something else is doing the work underneath the building to allow it to fall.

You respond each time with weaseling containing the phrase "logical fallacy," a phrase that you are really fond of but may not always correctly apply.

So then you don't know what logical fallacies are.

Browse through this: www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

This kind of logic has even been formalized into types of calculus, but I forget the names. I'm short on time now but you should show me what I accused of being fallacious that wasn't, or I could give more detail myself.

Your move.

Is this a game? You have to "beat" me? Then what am I supposed to be doing back? How is communication supposed to take place?

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

Imagine two, imagine ten, imagine 47 STEEL COLUMNS,

. . . imagine a plane hitting near the top,

Now imagine why that building came down...It is a lot harder for me to imagine

imagine that same fuel dropping to each floor and burning, . . .
you would have to imagine that . . .

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

I see you use the word “Imagine” 9 times. For someone who claims we should be using our eyes, then state it is easy for you to “Imagine”.
A little hypocritical is it not?
I was there, I had eyes. It is "much easier" for me to see, remember and know the truth.
You keep on using your imagination if it entertains you.
"Thermite charges were set by Bigfoot who used a UFO to gain access to the roof!"
Yeah . . . it could happen I imagine.

reply to post by bsbray11

BS,
You said: “But why do you keep refusing to look at the evidence supporting the collapse theory you do believe?”
One more time. The evidence is:
Collapse of the towers on WTC#7. Seen, noted, photographed.
Unfought fires burning for hours and likely fueled by emergency generator diesel. Seen, noted, photographed.
Loss of a large portion of the lower part of the building. Seen, noted, photographed.
Building buckled and bulging between floors 10 and 13. Seen and noted by FDNY.
No evidence of controlled demolition.
What do you have that is evidence of controlled demolition?

You said: “What makes you think what you thought you saw on TV that day is factual by default? That's the whole basis of questioning things to begin with, which is what almost all of here are doing.”
An interesting statement. Your building fall velocity discrepancy depends on what you thought you saw on TV and the video that was recorded that day. What is the basis for your argument?

Your turn to communicate.

reply to post by NYCMedic


NYCMedic, at what point did you become convinced of what finally brought those buildings down, and what exactly convinced you of it?

reply to post by pteridine


This is about, what, the 3rd or 4th time at least on this thread alone that you've asked me what evidence I see of controlled demolition? And how many times have I answered with the exact same thing? I'm not going to respond anymore if your memory lasts 1 post. Still waiting on any evidence that makes your position better than mine.

Originally posted by NYCMedic
You know, I became a little miffed at first reading some of these silly posts. Then I began to laugh.

...

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.

Excuse me, you were there, you get great credit for that, but don't you find it absolutely bizarre (and you should) that all three sites registered temperatures--recorded by a NASA/USGS satellite in the weeks following--that were well over 1200 degrees?

In the immortal words of Monica Lewinsky, "Like, hello?"

If you think that it is normal that building collapses instantaneously generate such staggering heat, given off literally for months, simply by the process of their own destruction, then you are seriously misinformed, to say the least.

Summa sumarum: Hollow laughter.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by gottago]

BSBray, happy new year man. Long time no debate...

Bottom line is the videos, if nothing else, show the first tower "falling over;, something not seen in demolition. Second, we see the damage caused by said tower. Third. we see the collapse of the second tower and also the support/elevators that were standing for a small time before collapsing also. Again, something not seen in a demolition or not something wanted or warranted. The last video, WTC 7, is the hardest to discredit because it appears to implode. It does, but not from explosives but from loss if structural integrity.

Thank you for the videos.

reply to post by gottago


So, a 100 story structure collapses on top of itself creating fires and a toxic dump in downtown Manhattan and you wonder where the fires come from? Do you realize that there was an underground portion to the site? The accumulates debris from said structures and smolders. It was a slow burn of ALL the crap from those offices.

This is a list of materials...

Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted.

Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.
I will tend to use numbers on the high side since those make the best case for conspiracy theories.

Some Derived Numbers

Volume of one tower: 1.65 million cubic meters
Steel in one tower: 100,000 tons = 12,700 cubic meters
Concrete in one tower: 390,000 tons = 163,000 cubic meters
The concrete in the towers weighed about four times as much as the steel and occupied over twelve times as much volume.
Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.
Mass of one tower: most people use 500,000 tons, a few use 600,000. The mass of concrete and steel above comes to 490,000 tons and doesn't count elevators, plumbing, utilities, windows and so on. 600,000 is probably closer to the mark, especially if we count internal walls and furnishings.
Bulk density of a tower: If we assume 500,000 tons, 303 kg/cubic meter. If we assume 600,000, 363 kg/cubic meter. The bulk density is about one third that of water. Seal the holes and put them in water, and they would float.
Volume of building materials in a tower: 163,000 cubic meters of concrete, plus 12,700 cubic meters of steel = 175,700 cubic meters. Add windows, elevators, and interior fittings and it's probably around 200,000 cubic meters per tower.
If the volume of building materials was 200,000 cubic meters and the total volume of a tower was 1.65 million cubic meters, then building materials occupied 12% of the volume of the tower. 88% of the tower was air. That's what buildings are for - to enclose the largest open space with the least material.
At peak occupancy there were 25,000 people in the towers or 12,500 per tower. Assuming 70 kg for an average weight, the people in each tower weighed 875,000 kilograms or 875 tons. Since people are about as dense as water (1000 kg per cubic meter), the volume of the occupants in each tower was 875 cubic meters.
A grisly statistic but a necessary one. About 10% of the total occupants of the towers were killed on 9-11. Their combined weight would have been about 175,000 kilograms and their combined volume would have been 175 cubic meters. So searchers were looking for 175 cubic meters of remains in 400,000 cubic meters of debris. Typically 7% of the mass of a human body is bone, so the total bone mass in the ruins was 12,000 kilograms out of a billion kilograms of rubble.
The harsh reality is that remains of many of the victims of 9-11 will never be found. Tiny bone fragments will be turning up on rooftops, in crevices in pavement, and other nooks and crannies for decades if not centuries. Rudi Giuliani has come under fire from New York firefighters for ending the search for remains. FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches said “We have the remains of dead heroes at the garbage dump because of Giuliani and his administration and they’re still there today and they won’t remove them.” (Whatever esteem the NYFD won on 9-11 has been pretty much squandered by its conduct since then, or maybe I should say the conduct of its corrupt brass.) Given that many bone fragments were pulverized and picked up by workers' shoes and clothing and vehicle tires, there are probably 9-11 bone fragments in New Zealand by now.
On the one hand, Michael Moore's Sicko deals with the medical problems of 9-11 workers. On the other hand we have people who wanted the site excavated like an archeological dig to locate remains or look for evidence of a plot. Just imagine the health problems we'd have had if we'd spent years clearing the site.
One final note to the relatives of 9-11 victims and every other disaster where questions remain unanswered: you have a right to what can reasonably be done. You do not have a right to the wholly unreasonable like sifting every square inch of lower Manhattan. And you do not have the right to what cannot be done. If our best efforts fail to find remains or the cause of a disaster, then they cannot be found.
Energy

The gravitational potential energy of an object is the energy it takes to raise it to a certain height, or the energy obtained by letting it fall. The formula is U = mgh. U is the standard symbol for potential energy, m is mass in kilograms, g is the gravitational acceleration of the earth and h is the height in meters. Energy is in joules. One watt is one joule per second, and a joule is roughly the energy needed to raise one pound one foot.

For the World Trade Centers, the towers were 400 meters high and their mass was 600,000 tons or 600 million kilograms. So the total gravitational potential energy in one tower was 6 x 108 kg x 9.8 m/sec2 x 400 m x 1/2. The factor of 1/2 comes from the fact that some mass fell 400 meters and some fell only a short distance, and the overall result is as if it all fell the average distance. So we have U = 1.2 x 1012 joules. A kiloton is 4.2 x 1012 joules, so the gravitational potential energy is about a quarter of a kiloton or 280 tons of high explosive, per tower.

The planes that hit the towers were Boeing 767-200's, with a loaded mass of about 140,000 kg. They impacted at about 600 km/hour or 167 m/sec. So their kinetic energy was K = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 x 140,000 x 1672 = 2 x 109 joules.

The basic 767-200 has a fuel capacity of 63,000 liters, and accounting for fuel burned before impact, call it 50,000 liters. Jet fuel has an energy content of about 35 million joules per liter. So the energy content of the fuel on each plane was 1.75 x 1012 joules or about 0.4 kiloton. An appreciable amount of that energy would have been released explosively, the rest during the fires following impact.

The energy from the collapse of one tower would have been roughly equivalent to a magnitude 3.5+ earthquake and the energy from the plane impacts somewhat less, depending on how much fuel exploded on impact. The impacts of the planes themselves would have been only a small part of the total energy released. The actual observed magnitudes were less because not all the energy was converted into seismic waves.

This was not a 2000 sq ft Ranch style home on fire.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats high quality? I beg to differ. And why does the video, just before the south tower begins to collapse, edit from a zoom in looking at a puff of smoke comming out of the side of the south tower, and then suddenly we see debris already falling almost half way down, then the camera zooms out?

Where is your footage?

And would a average civillian be able to actually think of how to record the video at all when such a act happened?

As far to all that don't believe there was a controlled demolition and explosives in the towers and most undoubtedly Building 7 then YOU are the conspiracy theorists.


The way the buildings fell to the ground simply look like they we're filled with explosives. As someone posted earlier, in order for that jetfuel burning at it's degree of massive heat to melt the entire structure of the building and make it fall the way it did is IGNORANCE. Heat would not of travelled that far up to the very bottom of the building to make it fall apart. What is even more alarming is the fact the way it fell, they did not fall piece by piece they simply gave way to the ground.

For you to believe in such ludacris as that planes caused the WTCs 1,2 and 7 to fall is just simple ignorance, no questions.

Give me one damn reason why those buildings fell symetrically, and not in portions.

There is no damn explanation for that, a person with engineering background could tell you that and as doing carpentry and cement in my time i can tell you the heat within the impact zones would NOT have been able to transfer to the very bottom of the building, There should have been atleast a goo 100 ft of the building left along with large and I mean LARGE chunks of the building scattered about not simple debris.

reply to post by Revolution-2012


Sorry, but I an far from ignorant. All 3 buildings fell in a different fashion for one. Second, WTC 7 was a building built on top of a building structure that was not up to present day code standards. The lower floors gave way and if there is nothing to support the upper floors, at that point gravity takes over and it collapses.

Can you explain why the government waited to implode WTC 7 for hours after the first two demos? Was it faulty remote control devices or were the holograms not set up?

reply to post by esdad71


Also do not forget that steel can burn as well, especially when it is exposed to high temps and chemicals readily found in such a toxic environment. Especially sulfur dioxide and the acid it creates when mixed with the water. And If I am not mistaken, they also used the seawater on the pile and I am sure you know how reactive seawater is with steel, especially if its heated up!
www.debunking911.com...

Be sure to read the entire page from the link above. Good info

Thanks for the link. I have looked at that site before and there is some good straight forward information.