Proof that there were NO explosives in the collapse of WTC 2 (South Tower)

reply to post by SPreston


I am sorry, SPreston, but I heartilly disagree with your assertions.

The "Path of Greatest Resistance" is not a true statement. In fact, even in known and valid 'CD', the structure is pulverized, not by the explosive charges, but by the mass of the collapsing building doing all of the work, as gravity takes over. It is a tremendous amount of force involved.

Another fact: All that is accomplished in a 'CD' is to sever certain connections at key points...again, this weakens the structure sufficiently that the remaining load-bearing supports are overstressed, and fail. The key in the planned 'CD' is to time the sequence of 'natural' failures by timing the cutting charges...the building STILL falls into the, as you called it, "Path of Greatest Resistance".

This video is the best I've seen to illustrate just how different an actual 'CD' is, when compared to the WTC Towers' collapse:



Note the major diferences: The very loud, and very visible explosions on the Landmark Building. And, that building has most of the destruction occur at the bottom first, which is opposite of the videos seen of the WTC Towers. The Towers are obviously having a force acting from above...that would be the upper floors, as a "unit", and that huge mass can no longer be supported by the structure below, due to the massive damage and weakening that occured. Once that huge mass above acheived some momentum, its energy became larger and larger, and each successive bunch of debris added to the total.

It is very basic physics, really. Remember this fact, too: Force increases with the square of velocity. It is not a linear increase.

reply to post by SPreston


Yes, you have stated it has fallen at free fall speeds and now you are cannibalizing other peoples posts for answers. In fact, I can google it and find it...
Here you go


Still waiting for you to answer the 3 times as fast question though?

Originally posted by esdad71
This is what it would have sounded like but louder since they were in the lobby. I count no less than 17 explosions BEFORE the final charges. It was
only 30 stories.

www.youtube.com...

the fundamental flaw of ur research and argument is that you are
comparing apples to oranges. The CD you post is of a conventional
CD where strictly explosions brought down the building.
9-11 CD was a mixture of explosions in the basements to weaken
some columns while Thermate was used on other columns.
It was a combination of 2 different types of CD devices.
Mix the 2 together and you can get a CD without explosions
at the time of implosion.

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas

 

You want us to psychologically evaluate the intentions of the 9-11 perps and determine why they did what they did?

You have been one of the more convinced members claiming 9/11 was an inside job and stated right here:

Such dishonesty. Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph. It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

Surely you would have done the calculations demonstrating how much explosives were needed to explain this unusual "hurling" of exterior wall sections up to 600 ft. away as absolute PROOF that it could ONLY have happened by the intentional planting of explosives. Why would the "perps" make it so obvious that it was a "controlled demolition" if "gravity alone" CANNOT explain it, as you claim?

It is actually the BEST evidence you could have demonstrating that FAR more explosives were used than NEEDED.

Shouldn't that be the role of the New 9-11 Investigation and a Federal Grand Jury?

No. That HAS to be your role in order to convince anyone for the need of yet another investigation. YOU have to provide convincing evidence to get anyone to consider another investigation, no?

Isn't our role to obtain a new investigation by uncovering unexplainable evidence and impossible situations contained within the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY?

That's an internal contradiction. You can't get a new investigation unless you can demonstrate why a new investigation is needed.

Simply provide us the calculations showing how much explosives would be needed to hurl exterior wall sections from the WTC towers so far rather than simply pushing them out using less explosives.

I am surprised you wouldn't have that information at hand to support your claims, SPreston.

Originally posted by jthomas

Such dishonesty. Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph. It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

. . . . . . . . to explain this unusual "hurling" of exterior wall sections up to 600 ft. away as absolute PROOF that it could ONLY have happened by the intentional planting of explosives.

Well gee, jthomas. Are you claiming that hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were NOT hurled in all directions up to 600 feet from both towers? We have seen the proof ourselves, both from videos and photographs, haven't we?

Lateral Velocity



Yet, one of your heros, pseudo-scientist Thomas Eagar, claimed there was insufficient time, because of the Towers' near freefall collapse times of 10 and 11 seconds, for portions of the Towers to attain significant lateral velocity.

Of course Thomas Eagar could not consider explosives could he jthomas, because explosives could force those portions of the Towers to attain significant lateral velocity, couldn't they jthomas? So he was stuck with claiming that there was insufficient time for portions of the towers to attain significant lateral velocity. Not a very stable position to take was it, considering the actual evidence?

*Snip*

Lateral velocity: the component of an objects's velocity in a sideways direction

In the video of WTC1 above, are not those heavy portions of the tower achieving significant lateral velocity (sideways ejections)?

Or do you see something we do not?

Thomas Eagar

Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

www.tms.org...

Do you have something to add to Professor Thomas Eagar's calculations jthomas? Perhaps you will suggest gravity? But Thomas Eagar considered gravity, and stated there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity, didn't he jthomas?

Perhaps you have an alternate motive force, jthomas? *Snip*
C.S.I. 9/11

Dr. Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adeldhi University
Dr. Rob Lang, Dean, School of Engineering, UAA

Calculated ejection speeds from WTC1 west face to Winter Gardens 600 feet away

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78944e03429c.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/19/10 by SPreston]

Removed Snide Comments

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/19/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by jthomas

Such dishonesty. Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph. It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

. . . . . . . . to explain this unusual "hurling" of exterior wall sections up to 600 ft. away as absolute PROOF that it could ONLY have happened by the intentional planting of explosives.

Well gee, jthomas. Are you claiming that hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were NOT hurled in all directions up to 600 feet from both towers? We have seen the proof ourselves, both from videos and photographs, haven't we?

Nope, I'm not claiming any such thing as my posts demonstrate quite clearly. You should read more carefully.

Just so there is no future confusion, I FIRMLY believe ALL of the debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 landed where it did as shown by the photos, and always have. Any questions, SPreston?

So, let's get back to the problem at hand which you have not yet addressed, the most important unanswered question.

You are claiming that the outer walls of the WTC towers could land as far as they did from the WTC towers ONLY if explosives were used, to wit, you stated:

Hundreds of 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in all directions from both towers up to 600 feet away at velocities up to 55 mph. It takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph.

Simply provide us the calculations showing how much explosives would be needed to hurl exterior wall sections from the WTC towers so far comapred to the amount of explosives needed to simply push them out using less explosives.

You should have NO trouble providing those calculations, SPreston, no?



[edit on 19-3-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by esdad71
This is what it would have sounded like but louder since they were in the lobby. I count no less than 17 explosions BEFORE the final charges. It was
only 30 stories.

www.youtube.com...

the fundamental flaw of ur research and argument is that you are
comparing apples to oranges. The CD you post is of a conventional
CD where strictly explosions brought down the building.
9-11 CD was a mixture of explosions in the basements to weaken
some columns while Thermate was used on other columns.
It was a combination of 2 different types of CD devices.
Mix the 2 together and you can get a CD without explosions
at the time of implosion.

Ok, lets pick this apart. Ur fundamental issue is lack of research. We will start with just 2 parts.

1. First, If you used conventional explosives and then military grade thermite then there would be evidence. The FBI looked for this and a bomb dog actually died also so don;t try the argument that there was no investigation.

2. So, what you are saying is that there were 2 separate times that there were charges that went off an hour apart? There is NO evidence of this either. The damage to the lobby and basement levels were done at the time of impact.

Where is the physical evidence?

reply to post by esdad71


911 is srsbsns. You have 2 current threads trying to prove a negative. You cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try. Have fun in your exploits and I hope someday you start your quest for the truth.

Relative part bolded for easy access.

All three WTC were blown to pieces by the use of demolition, that much has been proven.

www.ae911truth.org...

Now all of you debunkers have not shown any evidences, or sources to disprove this fact.
Your “opinions” are not the facts.
Now if some of you want to stand behind the “proven fraudulent” NIST & ,911 commission report as your proof that the WTC did not blow up then perhaps you may want to consider the OS final for you.

How about bringing sources to the table to prove your argument, and leave your opinions at the door if you want people to find you credible.

I would love to see a real debate on this subject.
Does anyone who opposes demolitions, know how to debate?

Originally posted by impressme
All three WTC were blown to pieces by the use of demolition, that much has been proven.

www.ae911truth.org...

If you think that is true, WHY did they use FAR more explosives than needed? ae911truth and those asked here don't have any answers for that, which is curious, given they would have to know how much explosives were used, particularly since it seems odd that they would want to "hurl" thousands of tons of outer walls up to 600 ft away for no reason at all and requiring much more explosives than needed to just collapse the towers.

Now all of you debunkers have not shown any evidences, or sources to disprove this fact.

We don't have to disprove it. YOU have to prove it. You say it's all been proven (even when they don't have the calculations) so what's holding you up going to court? What's the next step and when?

reply to post by jthomas

WHY did they use FAR more explosives than needed?

Do you know what kind of explosives that were used?
How do you know how much explosives were used?

We don't have to disprove it.

You may feel you do not need to disprove the OS, but you have not disproved demolition either.

We have proved demolition but some of you continue to ignore all the credible sciences that have been shown from credible sources that not only prove it, but also disprove NIST fraudulent report as well.

(even when they don't have the calculations)

Are you sure of that? Can you prove this, because I can prove you wrong?





[edit on 21-3-2010 by impressme]

I am not here to argue but tio educate and to make sure that both sides of a story are known. If not, there is no basis for any post as it becomes a blog and not a place for debate. If you post the same 13 videos over and over and say " explosives were used and anyone who says they were not is stupid" and that is all you see then that is all you will believe.

I gave 3 separate videos of the actual time the event occurred and there are no sound of explosives. I understand you are using accounts of what someone saw or heard but if a 100 story building collapses, what else but a huge explosion would it sound like?

Just because I offer a separate view it makes me no different that anyone else and does not preclude me from posting as long as it is a singular subject and what we are talking about here is NOT hearing explosives in the video before the collapse.

reply to post by impressme


They did look for explosives. it was the FBI that did it at the WTC sites. Don't spread disinfo because it makes your view look even worse when it is simply not true. We can speculate but we can also educate.

Originally posted by esdad71
I gave 3 separate videos of the actual time the event occurred and there are no sound of explosives. I understand you are using accounts of what someone saw or heard but if a 100 story building collapses, what else but a huge explosion would it sound like?

Maybe I need to ask this a couple of times in order to get an answer?

Why would you expect to find the sounds of explosions in VIDEOS?

Second and separate question -

Why would you believe that witnesses talking about explosions mean nothing but some video that does not have sounds it should not have anyway means something? Can you explain that logic to me?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I guess it comes down to point of view or perception. I do not think people who say they heard explosions are lying but what else would it sound like?

I should also hear explosions leading up to the sound of collapse and they are absent.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I guess it comes down to point of view or perception. I do not think people who say they heard explosions are lying but what else would it sound like?

I should also hear explosions leading up to the sound of collapse and they are absent.

You have avoided the question, again.

I guess I need to just ask it all by itself in order for you to deal with it or ignore me completely.

Why should you be hearing any explosions on video?????????????



One question, asked many times now, all by itself to make it easier to spot.

I guess this is a really tough question as it has been posed more than a few times. Would any OS supporter like to attempt to tackle it? I see many others also complaining about what they do not hear on video so if any one is willing to step up to the plate that esdad keeps running away from, I would be thrilled!

[edit on 21-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by esdad71

They did look for explosives. it was the FBI that did it at the WTC sites.

Well, looks like the FBI believes explosives were used after all, or are the FBI lying to?

[color=gold]FBI Believed that Bombs Were Used on 9/11

Because, according to the FBI's website:
Following the massive terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI dedicated 7,000 of its 11,000 Special Agents and thousands of FBI support personnel to the PENTTBOM investigation. "PENTTBOM" is short for Pentagon, Twin Towers Bombing.
(see also this and this).
Indeed, the FBI told a reporter for USA Today that FBI agents believed there were bombs in the Twin Towers.
Similarly, the Washington Post believed that bombs were involved, as reflected in a September 21, 2001 article containing the following phrase:
In the hours after Tuesday's bombings . . . .
Many firefighters and policemen also said there were bombs in the Twin Towers.

georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

Don't spread disinfo

Care to prove that?









[edit on 21-3-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by esdad71

Just because I offer a separate view it makes me no different that anyone else and does not preclude me from posting as long as it is a singular subject and what we are talking about here is NOT hearing explosives in the video before the collapse.

While you most certainly did offer a different view, however your opinion is not a fact.

You offer a video with lousy sound bites taken from what?

You have not proven your view to be factual, again this is only “your opinion” that you claim you do not hear any explosions. Any casual ATS reader gets that, and can critically think for him or herself.

Even the 911 commission members have admitted the OS is a lie.

NIST report has been proven a lie, why support it?

Besides these two reports there is nothing else from the government that explains to what happened to the WTC.

A&E has proven the OS of the WTC is a lie. Would you like to debate me on it?






[edit on 21-3-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Impressme, set up a debate on ANY piece of the WTC and I would be glad to attend. I have stated this before.

You should hear explosion prior to collapse because that is what happens in a demo. This is common sense. It was not a video of poor quality. You can hear the tower come down. WHY would there not be any explosions leading up to it if there was a demolition going on? There is nothing to argue.

Also, I know that the FBI as there to look for explosives. That would be SOP for something of that nature.

Originally posted by impressme

Do you know what kind of explosives that were used?

I don't have any reason to think explosives were used.

How do you know how much explosives were used?

I am asking those who claim explosives were used to tell us. I thought that was clear.

Because the government did not investigated demolition or test any debris for residue of chemicals that could have been used.

1.)The City of New York investigated the chemical composition of the dust in many locations radiating out from ground zero in October 2001. They wanted to know exactly what was in it and what could affect the health of those who had been at ground zero. NO chemical composition of any explosives were found. Subsequent testing by several medical institutions found none either.

2) NIST found no evidence of explosives. Just like they didn't find any evidence of "space beams." What reason would they have to test for things for which there was no evidence and when the cause of the collapses were explained?

You may feel you do not need to disprove the OS, but you have not disproved demolition either.

No, you have to refute the investigations. No one has to disprove demolition. You have to prove it.

We have proved demolition but some of you continue to ignore all the credible sciences that have been shown from credible sources that not only prove it, but also disprove NIST fraudulent report as well.

You haven't convinced anyone that you have "proved" demolition.

So, what is your next step?