Trust Your Eyes , New AE vid . N Tower

Those who are here and have actually watched the video could not truthfully believe that this collapse was not aided by explosives are logically stunted.

Just look at it.

LOOK at the building turning to dust as it falls.

IMAGINE the amount of steel and concrete in the building.

IMAGINE how it would look if the planes really brought down the tower.

Would it look anything like that?

All the disinfo agents and useful idiots are not going to stop this.

One day it will be acknowledged.

One day we hold you to your opinions.

Get on the right side of history.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think you need to get to an opticians pretty smartly. The penthouse, like on the roof, falls in first; its not a matter of debate.

The building did not collapse from the penthouse.

Even by your own asinine reasoning, that column failed at the BASE of the building first, which is why the upper part collapsed at all.

You guys really can't be reasoned with. You don't know what it is in the first place.

Originally posted by Game_Over
Those who are here and have actually watched the video could not truthfully believe that this collapse was not aided by explosives are logically stunted.

Just look at it.

LOOK at the building turning to dust as it falls.

IMAGINE the amount of steel and concrete in the building.

IMAGINE how it would look if the planes really brought down the tower.

Would it look anything like that?

All the disinfo agents and useful idiots are not going to stop this.

One day it will be acknowledged.

One day we hold you to your opinions.

Get on the right side of history.

Interesting, please tell me how different the collapse would have looked if plane impact and fire brought them down. Thanks.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think you need to get to an opticians pretty smartly. The penthouse, like on the roof, falls in first; its not a matter of debate.

The building did not collapse from the penthouse.

Even by your own asinine reasoning, that column failed at the BASE of the building first, which is why the upper part collapsed at all.

You guys really can't be reasoned with. You don't know what it is in the first place.

I didn't give any reasoning. I simply pointed out that it is obvious the penthouse fell in first. Anyone can see that doesn't have a particular agenda. Perhaps you and Sean can make an optician's appointment together.

Originally posted by Alfie1


Interesting, please tell me how different the collapse would have looked if plane impact and fire brought them down. Thanks.

We will never know.

Buildings were designed to withstand those things.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by Alfie1


Interesting, please tell me how different the collapse would have looked if plane impact and fire brought them down. Thanks.

We will never know.

Buildings were designed to withstand those things.

Not according to Leslie Robertson, chief engineer WTC, but I am sure he will defer to your greater knowledge.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I didn't give any reasoning. I simply pointed out that it is obvious the penthouse fell in first.

And why did it fall "first"?

Isn't the theory because a column AT THE BASE failed first? As in, BEFORE the penthouse failed?

Hmm I'll let you think about that for a whole minute before you respond.

Unless you are proposing a brand new theory that no one else has ever suggested before. Even NIST is saying the columns went first at the base.






So where is the initial failure?

[edit on 24-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Alfie1
Not according to Leslie Robertson, chief engineer WTC, but I am sure he will defer to your greater knowledge.

Robertson's firm didn't do an analysis like that but John Skilling's did and he was also a top engineer on the WTC project. Look it up. Assumed impact with 707 at 600 mph. Also Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the guy FEMA hired to lead BPAT, also did modeling for years and concluded he could only contradict data saying the buildings could not survive the impact and fires. Look that up too. He went to the Associated Press about it but there was never a follow-up. I guess too many dense-headed people got in his way, too.

I'm with Sean48 on this one. If it was overpressure causing the windows to blow out then why not all of the windows, why only just a few?

And I'm in agreement that when a concrete floor turns to dust, it no longer exerts any pressure. Physicists will tell you that a collapsing floor can either transfer it's energy to the floor below it, causing it to collapse too, OR can use that kinetic energy to pulverize the concrete into dust BUT NOT BOTH! What happened on 9/11 has been described by a physicist as akin to a tree spontaneously turning to sawdust from the top down. There is no known physical principle that can explain it.

If high explosives had been used to dismember the steel girders, then the resulting shockwave could also have pulverized the nearby concrete AND imparted enough kinetic energy to some of the girders to cause them to fly thru the air and land half a block away.

There is a telling photo, which I no longer have a link to, taken by a journalist after the collapse, of the rubble. In it he quite by chance got a shot of a ground level steel girder that had a nice, neat diagonal cut at the top, corresponding exactly to the way that demolition experts use thermite to slice thru a steel beam on a steep angle so that the top part will slid down due to gravity. The thermite strips used in controlled demolition melt thru the steel in a fraction of a second due to the 3,000+ degree heat they generate and the molten metal from hundreds of cut beams at WTC could easily explain the pools of molten metal that were still hot weeks after the event.

The towers accelerated without interruption in free fall as if the lower 90 floors of the building did not exist.

what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4 seconds

US engineer Neel Ginson: "In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time the material must have been artificially exploded outwards, looking closely, one can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the floors are reached by the collapse line



David Chandler's homepage:
www.911speakout.org...

[edit on 24-2-2010 by conar]

Start injecting common sense into this discussion and it quickly dies, doesn't it?


A few people were just here relentless arguing that WTC7 collapsed from the top down, because of the penthouse. So I bring up the fact that it failed because the columns were destroyed lower down, at the base according even to NIST, and suddenly its all quiet here.

reply to post by bsbray11


Well done then, is what I have to say.

Wouldn't the tower, if it collapsed because of the impact of the plane, and the resulting fire topple, because only part of the building was impacted, kind of like when you fall a tree, damage is done on one side and the mass follows the path of least resistance?

So if the plane hit one side of the building that would be weaker than say the opposite side of the building? Causing it to tip to one side not collapse straight through the rest of the building.

Just asking what you think

Originally posted by JohnnyR
Wouldn't the tower, if it collapsed because of the impact of the plane, and the resulting fire topple, because only part of the building was impacted, kind of like when you fall a tree, damage is done on one side and the mass follows the path of least resistance?

So if the plane hit one side of the building that would be weaker than say the opposite side of the building? Causing it to tip to one side not collapse straight through the rest of the building.

Just asking what you think

I was talking about WTC7 in my last post which wasn't hit by any plane at all.

But yes and no to your question as to the towers. Yes that would be a much more logical behavior and WTC2 did start leaning over with no vertical drop at all. But then at the exact same moment its angular acceleration was interrupted, it began dropping straight down vertically just like WTC1 and WTC2. Imo the core structure was blown first in the buildings which made them extremely unstable and transferred too much of a load to the exterior columns. But really I don't think either tower would have collapsed at all unaided. The fires would have been put out and they would have just had gaping holes in them. That being my opinion, and no one has shown me any evidence to contradict that opinion.

If anything NIST's computer simulations only confirmed this, as they had to repeatedly raise simulation parameters to unrealistic levels to get anything at all to happen, and their physical reproduction of the trusses, which they put a multi-megawatt fire underneath, didn't do anything like their hypothesis suggested should have happened.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Sorry about the misunderstanding on which building you were talking about, my view is the same as yours, just more of a general question about buildings collapsing. Thanks for the response

reply to post by bsbray11


So if it collapsed from the bottom up, then why does the top fall down first??

Why does the penthouse area collapse into the WTC7 a few seconds before going down? I've yet to see a "bottom-up" collapse where the top falls down first, then the bottom.



What do I always see? I see the east penthouse fall into the building, then I see the rest fall in, then the building starts to go down. Nope, I wouldnt call this a "bottom-up" demolition.

For all you doubters out there ask yourself this, it would be really something if we were talking only 1 Tower here but "2" collapsing in exactly the same way! give me a break! not to mention Building 7! an the 2 little holes in a Field an the Pentagon!
Wise old saying: Those who have the eyes to see! will see, an Those who have the Ears to hear will hear! I know were I stand on that one, what about you?

reply to post by GenRadek


Sorry but I can't resist the temptation to point out how you, and the other OSers here DO NOT READ.

If you read bsbrays posts you'll see your question was answered and you are making bsbray repeat themselves for no other reason than you fail to gather all the pertinent information that has been handed to you before you post your irrelevant reactionary drivel.

Let's see if you can go back through this page, find your answer, and come back and tell us all about it without spin or BS.

You can't get your information straight when it's right in front of you then how can you expect us to believe you've done any research at all and know anything to support your beliefs?


[edit on 2/24/2010 by ANOK]

You can flame me if you want, but the OP was to trust your eyes?

Screams photoshop to me and I can tell photoshop from 100 miles away. Heres my reasoning:

1. The clouds have only 1 to 2 shades of grey, you think there would be a darker grey considering they are being shadowed.

2. The "explosions" dust doesnt move the same as the rest of the clouds. You can say that is due to explosion and i say, watch it again. The explosive "jets" move more like water then they do falling dust (after they have been jettisoned and are falling to the ground). I mean the jets look like someone animated the "smudge" tool in photoshop.

3. Combine those 2 together.
----------------------------------

Alot of people will think im full of #, but....who cares, i know manipulation when I see it.

send me a U2U if you want to get back to me, i rarely travel to the same posts again. Soon to be Graphic Designer of 3 years, if you think you can spot photo manipulation better then me, and think im wrong, thats all you.

reply to post by Sean48

Girders being Shot out of the Tower at speeds of 70 miles per hour , some landing up to 200 yards away. Shouldn't these pieces just fall if it was a gravity fall?

Have hundreds of thousands of tons crashing down on the structure below
The force of this hitting the exterior wall panels will shear the connections
holding panels together - as the connectors and beams snap some will
be kicked out by the force of the impact

Ever hear of a collapse zone? It is established by fireground commander
when suspect a building will collapse.

It is 1 1/2 times the height of a building




Now if the debris is supposed to fall straight down - why do you need
to clear an area greater than the height of the building?

Because debris will often be kicked significant distance from the structure

Inward/Outward Collapse

A wall leaning inward may not necessarily fall inward. The lower or upper portion may slide or "kick" outward.

The WTC towers (WTC 1 & WTC 2) were over 1300 ft tall - the collpase zone around the building would extend 2000 ft in each direction

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by thedman

reply to post by Sean48

 

Girders being Shot out of the Tower at speeds of 70 miles per hour , some landing up to 200 yards away. Shouldn't these pieces just fall if it was a gravity fall?

Ever hear of a collapse zone? It is established by fireground commander
when suspect a building will collapse.

It is 1 1/2 times the height of a building




Now if the debris is supposed to fall straight down - why do you need
to clear an area greater than the height of the building?


The WTC towers (WTC 1 & WTC 2) were over 1300 ft tall - the collpase zone around the building would extend 2000 ft in each direction

en.wikipedia.org...

You misunderstood the whole Collapse Zone Premise.

They account for 11/2 the height , in case it topples over.
Like a tree falling down.

That didnt happen, but still the girders flew 200 yards .