Explosive News

The question I still have is -- motive. What would TPTB have to gain by using additional explosive materials to bring down the twin towers? Were the fact that two jetliners being flown into them not enough to inspire retribution, if it was indeed a conspiracy? If the towers had not fallen, the act of flying into them would still have been enough to conjure up a war by the Bush administration.

reply to post by seethelight


no, I'm not lying, I said the explosive sound in the two videos are identical, I already explained the difference between multiple and single explosive sounds.

you are intentionally misconstruing my statements on the issue, and you know it.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

reply to post by seethelight


Watch , learn , listen. www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Sean48]

reply to post by balon0


different building, different plane, different circumstances.

the irs building did also recieve structural damage due to the plane hit, as to this quote.
“That is part of the building that is unstable,” she said. Battalion Chief Palmer Buck said that part of building has collapsed and some steel beams are bowed down.

Which to me implies that this building is structurally unsound by being unstable.

www.statesman.com...

As an engineer myself, and years after 9/11 I have always had my doubts about the scientific basis of the OS.

Especially when tenured physics professors based upon scientific facts and principals are fired after speaking out against the OS . But it also reveals the true nature of the conspiracy behind the OS in itself.

What I mean is that the That the OS and it's conspirators are relying upon the fact that most people have not studied advanced science and/or engineering and with absolutely no scientific knowledge are very easily convinced of what they are told via the MSM by the same individuals who planned and orchestrated the events of 9/11.

Most Americans believe what they are told by the press/media and when it comes to many if not most Americans, who sole rely upon television for their knowledge, one can see why the orchestrators of 9/11 planned it as so.

This article by the Washington Post is fairly monumental for , as myself, a collective group of professional engineers and architects, based upon the principals of Physics, Chemistry and Material Science are essentially calling for an investigation of the OS for what the OS is, which based upon science is BS.

reply to post by Bombeni


WTC had asbestos problems, knocking them down solves the problem and nets Larry Silverstein 7 billion dollars. How convenient. And as you probably noticed, they haven't started rebuilding the "freedom tower" yet. Still a hole in the ground.

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by butcherguy

 

oh dear another non engineer.

It takes a while to understand how buildings are designed, thats why people spend years at school learning about it.

Oh dear! You have your PE, I guess? Or are you an architect?
Are you trying to tell me that if you buckle the 70th floor of a 110 story building, that the structural integrity of that building is not going to be compromised?
How about this? Would you feel comfortable staying on the 100th story of a 110 story building after a jetliner flew into it? Bear in mind that this building, as I keep hearing, was built to withstand the impact of an airplane.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Sean48

 

Hey smarty pants, you're stretching it a bit.

Finally, the report notes that “debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7"

... and fire caused it collapse.

www.nist.gov...

Maybe you didn't see the remains of the Mandarin Hotel in Hong kong, completely torched by fire yet still standing, how is that possible, when building 7 had a small internal fire and fell quite quickly thereafter?

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by bigyin

 

Wow dude, you don't understand the WTC towers AT ALL.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm going on what I learned at college.

Another poster with engineering knowledge has just posted to say he agrees their something wrong with the OS.

So thats 2 engineers here disputing the OS.

Can we hear your technical analysis please ?

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


What you showed me isn't anything close to proof man.

Not even close.

I started in the position of believing that 9/11 was an inside job (on 9/11 when I mom called I said to her something like, "I'll go to Canada before I fight in a war over this", because I knew this would create a huge propaganda machine),

After YEARS of seeing the best "Proof" I changed my mind.

Everytime a faither would post new truth it would be proven to be untrue.

After watching this happen dozens of times and seeing people lying through their teeth about so called "evidence" I decided I didn't know the truth.

Then after reading dozens and dozens of things and talking to people I actually know and respect in the real word, I made up my own mind that the evidence for demo and inside-jobedness isn't there.

I alwways check when new stuff pops up and its always too good to be true.

So don't be a dick. I'm not some OS idiot.

I have done enough research (and continue to investigate with an open mind, like I said) to make me believe that my position is based on the best FACTS available.

"i mean honestly how could a skyscraper fall in free fall when it wasn't even hit..that's odd it seems like it was scheduled to be hit but missed and the detonation went of as planned.... "

Flight 93 was scheduled to fly into bld7 but it was shot down. So we are left with the bld7 anomaly by the conspirators.

willyloman.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by butcherguy

 

oh dear another non engineer.

It takes a while to understand how buildings are designed, thats why people spend years at school learning about it.

Oh dear! You have your PE, I guess? Or are you an architect?
Are you trying to tell me that if you buckle the 70th floor of a 110 story building, that the structural integrity of that building is not going to be compromised?
How about this? Would you feel comfortable staying on the 100th story of a 110 story building after a jetliner flew into it? Bear in mind that this building, as I keep hearing, was built to withstand the impact of an airplane.

Go back and read my lesson again. You havn't understood it yet. It takes time.

Originally posted by seethelight


I have done enough research (and continue to investigate with an open mind, like I said) to make me believe that my position is based on the best FACTS available.

Does that mean you would like to see a new investigation into why the buildings collapsed.

Thats what I want, because the OS doesnt make sense.

reply to post by seethelight


but what facts do you have? How can a building that was not hit by a plane fall in free fall collapse 7 hours after the first two buildings collapse?

How do you know it was Bin Laden when all you saw was a plane crashing into the towers?

Where's your proof that the FBI links Bin Laden to the crime? I have proof they don't.

What do you mean you were a truther, and then after seeing the evidence trying to get debunked, you are not? The only conspiracy theory that has been debunked is the popular mechanics, al qaeda conspiracy. most of the hijackers are still alive. Passports were not burned, even though the building was. You can't deny these facts. Maybe you don't think the explosive sound implies the building was taken down, but how then can you believe the official story? So in other words you are saying you are agnostic on the issue? Is it really so hard to comprehend? I know it is hard to emotionally comprehend, however that is what we have to do. We can't just ignore the truth, the lie isn't even that good, why believe a lie? A manufactured lie. Even if you don't believe the lie, you are letting a lie, an obvious, 100 percent lie, make you turn agnostic. But no one is 100 percent agnostic, you have thoughts and feelings. Whether you are a truther or not doesn't matter, I'm just here for my own benefit, not yours. I argue with people so I can better explain the story of 9/11. I hope you are getting some sort of enjoyment in return.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by moonwalk420

 

It VERY OBVIOUSLY didn't fall in freefall.

Just so you and dereks can understand "freefall speed", in physics if you take a 10mm steel ball and drop it from 1000 feet it hits the ground at the same time as a 1 meter steel ball dropped from the same point. This is a fact. So, the only resistance is the air, the times may be a few micro seconds different, but that is just splitting hairs, we are not talking seconds or minutes.

The Simplest Case


From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.


Checking Our Work

OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! Now let's check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

AND

One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

Now in case you do not understand that, I suggest going to the library and checking out a physics book and learning math and physics. Mass, matter, time, energy, distance and all the relevant terms and what they mean so you can properly argue.

I case there are any newbies to the 9-11 truth......here is a good video about building 7....

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by seethelight

 

Where's your proof that the FBI links Bin Laden to the crime? I have proof they don't.

Good point, Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and the FBI doesn't even have him on the list of suspects or Perps AT ALL!!!

I'm jumping into this thread and ignoring every page but the last two pages.

Why?

Because I've been part of this conversation before. I've been part of hundreds of threads revolving around this issue, not just here. I have read countless pages of documentation and theories on all sides. I have watched hundreds (if not thousands) of videos about this topic. I am currently reading the entire history commons timeline of the events in relation to the event.

Yet, I still do NOT consider myself an expert.

The people who ARE experts are the architects, physicists and engineers out there that can use science to prove or disprove the theories that are out there. They are our eyes and ears in the field where we are blind. They will use their scientific theory of bunking and debunking evidence in a manner that has been established and utilized for centuries. Of course, this is under the assumption that the process of information gathering and study can go untarnished and uninfluenced by external bodies. Please note, that the official commissioners (6 out of 10) have already proven to us - through their own testimony - that their efforts to unravel the REAL events were thwarted on multiple fronts.

Now, the scientists are not the only experts.
They are the eyewitnesses and photographers that were there on the scene.
They are the firemen and police officers that were evacuating people and survived.
Each of them have openly stated concern over the real story. Which brings me to the most important question.

Who are YOU?

and why are you wasting my time?

reply to post by daddio


not sure how small you believe the fire to be,
but from reports there was massive fires burning inside the 7 building as well as the debris damage that was caused.

A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.

reply to post by bigyin
I notice that you didn't reply to my question regarding your PE. That's okay, better to let it pass by than to answer with a lie.
I wonder how the faithers world looks through whatever lenses they are looking through?

Goodbye.