WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

reply to post by remymartin


Don't take my observations as expert observations. I'm not a structural engineer. I also said nothing about seeing the core collapse. What I saw was this: IIIIIXXXXIIII, the X's being the part that was falling and the I's being the part that wasn't falling. This shows that it was not the entire floor there that collapsed, unlike a demolition. It was the floors just above there that collapsed, and it would be nigh impossible to be able to place charges exactly above where the plane hit.

reply to post by Son of Will


I actually have a beter video that you can hear the explosions on, check it out on my youtube channel
www.youtube.com... just make sure to turn up the audio for full effect.

I actually have a better video on my youtube channel that you can hear the explosives go off.www.youtube.com... Make sure to turn up the volume for the full effect.

reply to post by 911theinsidejob


Sorry, those explosion sounds on that video are fake.

Nice try though...well not really.

The tower collapse footage linked below (which I hadn't seen before) seems to show symmetrical events from the both visible sides.

www.kfunigraz.ac.at...

I cannot see how all 3 buildings collapsed uniformally through random damage (direct or collateral) in the same way when the structural damage was so different.



If anything the top section should have fell off via the path of least resistance.

reply to post by digitalf


*coughsomeonehasn'treadtheresponsestothetowertippingthingcough*

Seriously... have you read any of the mathematical, structural, and scientific evidence that explains them?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by digitalf

 

*coughsomeonehasn'treadtheresponsestothetowertippingthingcough*

Seriously... have you read any of the mathematical, structural, and scientific evidence that explains them?

Fair enough - I'll go and do some research - No need to be so rude about it *cough*

Originally posted by 911theinsidejob
I actually have a beter video that you can hear the explosions on, check it out on my youtube channel
www.youtube.com... just make sure to turn up the audio for full effect.

As has been stated, the soundtrack in the video of the collapse is fake. It was added in by a tv station for "effect". This is years-old news, though. Not sure why that video is still circulating the net.

Originally posted by Varemia
*coughsomeonehasn'treadtheresponsestothetowertippingthingcough*

Certainly lots of info on the tilting in the NCSTAR1 NIST report. Lots of info on debunker sites as well.
Equal amount of counter arguments and I'm continuing to find video's that just add to the debate.

www.youtube.com... shows the top section re-appearing from the dust albeit stripped of it's previous structure seconds prior.

www.youtube.com... shows continuous movement away from the tower.

I still think the collapse initiation as a result of upper section in tower WTC 2 is dubious. Perhaps you could point me to a thread on ATS that explains an opposing perspective ?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This is years-old news, though. Not sure why that video is still circulating the net.

Sort of like the entire truth movement. Don't you think Bonez?

reply to post by Varemia


South Tower (03:10): www.youtube.com...

North Tower: www.youtube.com...

Look carefully at the point at which the South Tower fails. It is not obvious at first that the building has failed MUCH higher than the impact point, but the smoke clears for the briefest second to reveal the edge of the building at that level before it collapses.

Watch the line I draw on the north west corner of the South Tower disappear (red arrow) as the top collapses, collapsing that side of the building.

Beware the viewing angle - the South Tower is further back from the viewer than the North Tower, and so the blue line I drew from the North Tower line of damage across the South Tower is actually BELOW the point which I am highlighting.

Note that the failure point of both North and South Tower is approximately in the position of the South Towers damage line (the North Tower top almost disappears inside itself completely before collapsing on top of the rest of the building, more than strongly suggesting it collapsed seperately, ahead of the "main" collapse, and above the damage line - impossible!).

The pivot point on the South Tower I am highlighting is also witnessed by the rotation of the top of the tower. Note the rotation abruptly stops as the pivot point suddenly gives way, removing the turning moment upon the top part, and collapses into the dust.

The green line highlights the sheer line across the floors of the building, along which the building must have failed in order to provide the rotation of the top seen.

It is my suggestion that the rotation is in part due to the damaged area giving way ahead of schedule as the building above is suddenly weakened and can no longer sustain the weight of the top of the building, ahead of the good columns in that part of the building failing (or being failed), and is also the reason why the rotation suddenly stops, as the floors below are weakened in sequence.

reply to post by -PLB-


Enter the red line is showing the stability of the building structure below while the top 15 are compressing into themselves before the integrity of the lower section is even compromised.

But I think most people will understand that....in order for progressive collapse to be the REASON for the entire building to come down the upper mass would be the required factor....THEREFORE the 15 floors had no REASON to be collapsing onto themselves as there is not the required mass on top of that section.

reply to post by plube


All the way down to the ground the structure is not compromised at the start of the collapse. Thats the idea behind progressive collapse. So your red line demonstrates is was indeed a progressive collapse

I will repeat it again, the reason the building started collapsing was because of the top section crashing into the lower section.

reply to post by -PLB-


I will try ....the top section should not have even collapsed at all in the fashion it did....the inner core would have still been intact...and in this answer i will also point out a couple of things to Nef.

the progressive collapse in order to happen require mass...the mass is what creates the plasticity and buckling as the mass accelerates due to total failure of the floor or floors below.

now an indication of collapse is due to the expulsion of the smoke in a horizontal fashion outwards.

now realising this series of photos indicates less than a second in time you see right at the top floor and aproximately 10 floors below that this expulsion of smoke occurs.

therefore one can see that the very floor and 10 floors below collapse. NOW the inner core gos to the top of the structue...there is not enough mass to cause failure in the core structure.

Nef you gave a youtube video..appreciate that ..but that is not the tower in question in the photos.

also just as a side note...i watched the history channel last night with just various footage and sound of loads of different footage but what was interesting was how selective of the videos they were...but one thing that was there was a call to a fireman on 78th floor....now one of the so called progressive collapse theories was that quantities of jet fuel pour down the shaft and caused the collapse.

Well the fireman said there was pockets of fire and that he was right next to the elevator shaft...that raises flags to me.

also it is very strange that finally the firemen are about to get to the area of the 82 floor of where these fires were soooo intense they were melting steel.

Another thing i noticed was many cars that were blackened but not crushed near ground zero...i find that strange also as the fire were pretty much smothered in the oxgen starved debris field.

you could see as the firemen were right next to the collapsed structure...the footage entailed 102mins of realtime. just an observation the vehicles looked like they were remanants of a bomb blast.

Also another thing i watched in the film was all the debris sitting ontop of building 6...the bulding took the hit with not great damaged and DID NOT collapse.

Also they still in the report say the fires caused the failure which led to progressive collapse....YET why did the second tower hit fall first.

I could come up with all kinds of theories but that has not at all what i have been doing...i open the possibilities and hopefully the intelligence of people will do the maths.

personally i feel it is not a progressive collapse
i feel there is a definite money trail to follow
i feel it is a false flag operation (not necessarily an american induced one...but definately a Isreal based one.)

but structurally speaking...DEFINATELY not a progressive collapse in one building let alone three.

reply to post by -PLB-


You are absolutely wrong on that point PLB i posted a paper showing the reason exactly why that fails...but have you bothered to read it....i can only guess not...so please go read it first then i might reply to your questions now...i see that you have choose not to objectively look read or follow anything i have stated....so i will not reply to any of your questions...cause when you get answer you take on min to outright dismiss it.

I am a structural Engineer and many others in my field agree with what i am saying here...so once again please go read some of the links i have provided cause you my friend do not understand progressive collapse at all....it is all about the mass impacting on the floors below.

our conversation ends now as i will not answer to someone who cannot bother to read look or listen.

Also note....progressive collapse has only been shown in open frame steel construction...not in skyscrapers with steel inner core strucures.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


The red arrow does not show the point of initial failure, that was on the other side exactly at the point of the plane impact, and was much lower. That is also the reason the building topples over, on the other side the structure was still strong enough to hold it a bit longer. It is very clear that the size of the top sections was very different in both collapses, so the buildings did not fail at the same point at all. If you can not see that with the naked eye, try to cut them out in an image editor and try to fit them on each other.

Another point against controlled demolition is the diagonal failure. With controlled demolition you would want to have an horizontal failure, not a more complex diagonal failure divided over several floors. That just does not make any sense.

reply to post by plube


Can you give a source that claims that steel has melted? If not, will you stop repeating this ridiculous claim?

YEs and just in case you decide to learn something ....you might consider reading this paper too...PLB cause you i have read the a lot of papers for progressive collapse and crunched numbers and also read a great many papers against progressive collapse.

In the case of the twin towers let alone WTC7 progressive collapse does not fit the bill.

progessive collapse

enjoy the read...but your obviously an expert and await your unending flawless replies.

reply to post by plube


How convenient. So your final answer is: "You are too ignorant, go read more, I wont explain it. I am a structural engineer and I know stuff like this."

Another fallacy, after the melting steel straw man. I am sorry, but you are being rude and unwilling to support your theory. If you do not change this attitude, our conversation is over.

reply to post by plube


Cite the sources or withdraw your nonsense please. And stop changing subject constantly.