WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin

 

To be frank, you don't sound intelligent at all. You say, think about it, they cleaned it up really fast. Of course they did! If your entire country watched a huge tragedy like that, wouldn't the first thing you'd want to do be to get the debris shipped to an area where it can be examined extremely closely?

As for the three towers in one day, I'm surprised you find that hard to swallow, yet you're willing to swallow absolutely no evidence of explosives, only a hunch. A hunch that has been debunked by countless testimonies and evidences.

Thankyou for being frank about my intelligence. so why was it not examined closely why was the steel recycled before it could be looked at closely. To be frank you need to do more research before comment on someones intelligence.911research.wtc7.net...

This must be a car backfiring then, 4:50 in

reply to post by remymartin


Yeah, because anyone has ever seen a demolition that took one explosive to work.

When it comes to buildings collapsing, especially with potentially explosive things in them and the similar sound an explosive makes to a large piece of building hitting the ground, there is nothing conclusive about what you have posted. It may make a person consider the possibility, but it is by no means proof and does nothing to invalidate the official story.

All I have heard to refute the official story is the same bull: "It couldn't happen like that! I knows it cause I've never seen it before!"



Edit: New Video I found, not new (2007), but I haven't seen it before and it is a simulation that shows the interaction of the plane with the inside of the North Tower.
www.youtube.com...

Actually it was three explosoins in that vid.
I just dont believe the OS and i hope one day the truth will out.

reply to post by remymartin


As long as you call it a believe and do not claim the official explanation is impossible without proving it, I am ok with such a believe. Although I do encourage anyone to keep an open mind for other explanations, including the official one. I mostly object to people shouting the official explanation must be false and if you don't agree you must be an government agent or something. To me that sounds like a very unhealthy state of mind, and I would suggest anyone holding such a position should either strongly rethink it or maybe even seek some counseling. (this is not directed to you, but whomever fits the shoe).

reply to post by remymartin


Remy martin you are right...and i have tried exhaustively to explain about the mass to a few people in here with loads of information..documentation and logic...but to no Avail...now if the towers were made out of the thickness of collective ignorance then they would have never collapsed.

I have been explaining how the 47 innner columns and over 200, count them were a complete as a set of built in redundancies that if part failure occur the rest were more than able to sustain the integrity of the structure.

blueprints

simple analysis

fire were supposed to be so hot they say it is melting the steel...right next to the Aluminium cladding which is not melting.

molten iron

lets NEVER forget building 7 shall we

wtc7

oh lets not forget that mass now shall we

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

but hey since we lack so much intelligence according to some and they are RUDE enough to be derogatory.

dont be disillusioned....cause the truth is going to come out...and hopefully before even more people get killed in the name of a false flag.

now i will know by the response who the rude refers too.

but IMHO very good info and posts Remymartin...nice to see your using an attempt at good logic.

reply to post by plube


OK.

Once again.

The fire did not cause the collapse by itself.

The plane impacts did not cause the collapse by themselves

The force of gravity and the weight of the upper floors did not cause the collapse by itself.

All three events, acting in real time did

Can you understand that? You keep referring to seperate events. Guess what, they were concurrent events acting in real time.

Plane impacts cause damage and the deflection of structural members. Fire heats and weakens steel (does not "melt" it) and weight of upper stories puts too much stress on a weakened structure which fails at its weakest points. Collapse occurs.

Not three seperate events a chain of events.

reply to post by neformore


Frankly Nef i truely and really do appreciate what your saying...and yes there are three events..but not in every case....never can we forget building 7...and the towers also were built above spec...and as you know when you design a structure ...especially a skycracper it is also built above spec. Though during the construction phase it can be said that contrcators are not always the most scupulous lot.

But by the same token if one came down...possibibly two buildings and one failed in a somewhat normal fashion with a topple over...then i would not suspect foul play and say the chances are it could maybe have possibly happened in that fashion...

BUT three buildings in one day all steel frame construction with extremely substainial innner cores...And for NIST and some of the hired Engineers for NIST to say LIGHTWIEGHT materials and to neglect lots of various important details in their analysis.and to have the entire Industry looking like we are fools.

Let alone to say we are to believe ill trained cesna pilots flew these planes to their targets and executed it with precise precision that it all entailed...and especially...lets not forget the pentagon either...let a aircraft even come close to that restricted airspace.

OK i will state what i think and i am sure it is open to holes but without the materials that were so quickly destroyed by the powers that be...the Iron taken from site and melted down....when has the us goverment ever acted so fast.

the thing that gets me that has been mentioned in various places on the net is the MOLTEN IRON...for weeks after the demoltion.

now this is how i thnik the buildings were taken down...if you will follow my reasoning here for a min.

you would not have to to have a massive bunch of little explosions to bring down the skyscrapers now would you?

the towers foundations went seven stories below ground.....now if i was to design a way to take down buildings you create a diversion....i know this will get out there but it is completely hypothetical...but i am willing to run this by you...and this is the first place i have ever put my views.

so what you have now by the planes is everybody looking up....the great illusion...just like a standard magic trick would you not say.
since you now have everyones attention....we look at the possibilities....we take just the central cores at say -6,-5 -4 in the parking garages.

what is the effect of that.....the core become a weighted anvil attach to all the floors...you now only need some minor charges at say every 10 foors up the central core to take away all structural integrity.

what this does is allow the central core to do...it allows it to drag down the entire structure from with in...causing the appearance of a freefall progressive collapse.

I am in the process of working out a computer simulation of such an event...and frankly Nef....it is looking damn good.

but like i say hypothectical.....but it might explain a few things....the whole thing as you know by my responses is the central cores....they just really do not allow for progressive collapse from top down.

That is the reason SO many Architects and Engineers are so up in arms...me included.

reply to post by plube


The problem I have with a paper like "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1" is that when I search the name on Google, the first page already shows links that seriously debunk that paper. You also must have read those, but for some reason you choose to ignore or reject those debunks. Maybe you have good reasons for that, I must admit I am not qualified to do such assessment. I do however have a master degree and have read hundreds of scientific papers full with math, so I am not a total laymen. All I see is a lousy paper that is not peer reviewed, and is debunked thoroughly. Of course I can spent hours and hours in researching it, redo all the math to check if its correct, but I rather have you, who allegedly already done this, point me out why that paper is correct and those debunks are wrong.

reply to post by -PLB-


ok just a thought you have a masters in mathematics...then did you do the maths in the paper yourself and did you come to your own conclusions...or did you just go on a debunking run...cause the documents that NIST used the bhou and zant....did not recieve peer review either...but also not only that it got completely bashed by it's peers.

so this should be a breeze for you to tell us how it all works...cause i dont have a masters in Mathematics....so i would like you to present me with your mathematical equations to show me the results of where these papers are right or wrong then...i myself am just a lowly Structural Engineer.....so you would be better to show how the maths are wrong...or do you not do the numbers yourself and just say to me others are right and he is wrong.

now plasticity is a very complex set of rules in progressive collapse...so unfortunately i do have to rely on the others for the information...and from the information i have read on the subject....my concerns come fron NIST stating falsities that great deal of the industry do not agree with.

Also i have to go from my experience in the construction industry and the building industry to come to many of my conclusions and also the fact that these buildings had redundancy's built into them that stop these occurances from happening...especially in building 7.

reply to post by neformore


Would you Could you please explain to me in this Video



Edna Cintron; First 911 Tribute ( go to 34sec mark them pause it through here )

9/11: North Tower "collapse" (Sauret)



them go to 2.34 to 2:42 Min Mark pause when you see the ( movement Flash etc..)
(2.39 mark)



Now Compare the Location ! Was Edna Cintron Still there the Whole Time Waving something ?
There is claims that she Jumped tho..

Well if it is Her or Someone or Debris I see it n the Same path where she would of been or near it
and if its Debris Flash I Only See it in That location 3 sec before the Collapse

Even tho it must of been at least 300 degree where she was Standing let alone the Burning 2 Floors Below
Away from the Impact and where the Collapse Started 2 floors Below it Started

Please Respond thanks ...

Before you Judge me Im not a Structural Engineer nor a Architect nor a Demolition Expert but Im a Certified Welder with Some Knowledge in Metallurgy

Yes Im Suspecting Guessing that All we can do but it does bring out the Questions Right ?

Here IS Something you might want to check on in or ATS Members Might want to check out
Examination from Collage University's Physics Dept...

( PDF) Extremely High Temperatures From the World Trade Center Destruction
www.journalof911studies.com...


Well From Kerosene Alone (Jet Fuel ) ?
Its just hard for me for a Steel Framed Structural Building to Freefall at 10seconds if it was like say 30 sec I would Thought Otherwise in a Natural Collapse Theory but 10 seconds ?

Here is another Opinionated Theory !! what about Thermite Paste or Something similar like Thermite with ( Say like Coated Flux Paste ) Just think of a Gasless Mig Wire Coating ,, on certain locations of the Inner Core Steel Beams with a Tiny Charge to start it off and certain sections of the Outer Frames and all is needed is a Slow Burning Kerosene to Burn it for an hour also Kerosene Is great for a Lubricant for Cutting Metal and a Great Cleaner ..

(Note you need a Primer )

# It can be used in conjunction with cutting oil as a thread cutting and reaming lubricant. When machining aluminium and its alloys, kerosene on its own is an excellent cutting lubricant.
# Military applications—kerosene is a primary component in the explosive ANFO, which has widespread use in the mining and agricultural industries.

en.wikipedia.org...


Any Yearly Inspections Before 911 on those Beams Inner Core Any Re FireProofing Those Beams ?
You Would Think it Would be..

reply to post by plube


OK.

Explain to me how explosions cause molten iron?

Someone, please explain that to me. Its just that they don't. Heat, yes. Explosive compression, yes. Light, yes. Thats all part of the energy transfer.

Molten metal? no.

Even thermite is not a self sustaining reaction. Once its passed through the oxidisation phase, its done. Pool of molten metal? No. Solidfied Puddle of iron. Yes.

Thermite is a red herring. Molten metal is a red herring.

reply to post by neformore


well Nef this is one thing we can agree now....as i said it is one thing that really baffles me too...but there are many many accounts of it. but you have now trigger something i am going to go have a look on.

but one thing ...look at the second video that wolfe has just posted...the one below the edna video...

watch the camera at about 19 mark into it.....it is there very stable....then all of a sudden it shakes...just a curious thing.

then within a few seconds the tower falls.

might mean nothing...but it is interesting to say the least.

reply to post by Wolfenz


If shes there, it suggests to me she can't get out, otherwise she would have.

What does that tell you about the state of the inside of the building? It tells me no stairs intact. The stairs are inside the core of the building. That tells me the core is compromised.

The photos show a fire above her. The other video shows a fire in the floor below, but on the other side of the building.

And yes, she was there for a long time, but if the internal fires aren't near her, then all shes going to be able to do is stay in the coolest place and hope.

It looks like that's what she did

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by neformore

 

well Nef this is one thing we can agree now....as i said it is one thing that really baffles me too...but there are many many accounts of it. but you have now trigger something i am going to go have a look on.

but one thing ...look at the second video that wolfe has just posted...the one below the edna video...

watch the camera at about 19 mark into it.....it is there very stable....then all of a sudden it shakes...just a curious thing.

then within a few seconds the tower falls.

might mean nothing...but it is interesting to say the least.

edit on 033030p://f38Saturday by plube because: just edited the timing mark

Yep some kind of vibrates Shutter from that video

Min Marks

1.02 to 1.04
1.30 to 1.32
1.59 to 2.01
2.30 to 2.32
2.54 to 2.56

Feel the Vibration Come on Feel it Feel it ... good Lord LOL

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

If shes there, it suggests to me she can't get out, otherwise she would have.

What does that tell you about the state of the inside of the building? It tells me no stairs intact. The stairs are inside the core of the building. That tells me the core is compromised.

The photos show a fire above her. The other video shows a fire in the floor below, but on the other side of the building.

And yes, she was there for a long time, but if the internal fires aren't near her, then all shes going to be able to do is stay in the coolest place and hope.

It looks like that's what she did

Yep right at the Impact and near where those Full Loaded Fuel wings Broke Apart

the Super Woman that She is ! I Guess she didn't jump tho right ! ? as this Video Might be able Prove that

or She cant get to the Stairs, elevators etc.. because of those high intensive heat from Flames and the blockage of Airliner Plane & Office building material debris You would think from a head on center impact..

this is just to point out some things on the steel it self and shows some molten steel i will look for more but i am going to stay with my hypothesis and see if i can build a picture that starts to makes sense...but i know there are a few that do truely believe the Official story....but I don't as there is to many variables that just dont fit it...black boxes never found....three steel structures that should not porgressively collapse....molten metal from lower parts of the debris when the fires occured in the 5th upper section of the buildings...any molten materials should be closer to the top of the debris piles.

not going to enter anything into this thread about the molten steel as i know there is another thread already on the molten steel issue...but i am going to now start to pursue the true point of this thread more vigorously as the thread is about the possibility of explosives being used in the bringing down of these structures...I will also...try to bring a less confrontational view...i will post information but it is upto others to choose to look into it or not...i don't have time to argue on points of speculation...cause no matter what...until the goverment bodies allow independents to examine material...which loads of it has been systematically disposed of...it is speculation on both sides of the fence.

name calling does nothing to understand.

reply to post by plube


The maths are actually rather easy, it is more the knowledge of the physics that I lack. But although I lack general knowledge, I have strong doubt that the assumption made in that paper are correct.

For example, he says "This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds. To estimate and illustrate the further momentum changes we can assume that the storey which is 25 storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the 24 affected storeys will vary linearly from the velocity of the falling section to zero."

On what exactly does he base this? No source is cited, no explanation given. If this assumption alone is wrong (which I very strongly think it is) all the rest of this paper is worthless. Why do I think this is wrong? Because there is no direct contact between the top section columns and the lower section columns, which he seems to assume. Most of the momentum has to be transferred through the beams, then through the columns to the lower floors. The amount of energy transferred is limited by the failure point of the connections between the beams and columns.

All in all that seems like a very complex system on its own, but just out of the blue, a linear system of 24 stories is assumed. Why not an exponential system of 4 stories? That would drastically change the outcome.

This is discussed in further detail in one of the "debunks". See here

reply to post by -PLB-


He actually basis that in the standard crush up effect built into the structure of the building in the use of a central core structure and the loads that the floors are meant to carry with in the structure itself. the building itself due the the materials used in it's construction will have inherent resistance to the crush down effect in a progressive collapse.

So he is basically saying that the mass of the materials from the top of the building will beresisted by this effect and should eventually slow down or even cease.

but like i did say before progressive collapse has been used in the understanding of the way open span steel structures have collapse....but most of these have been during the construction phase,,.but there was a hotel that had been complete that had a progressive collapse i will see if i can find that one...but also if you look into the results of these collaspes you will see definate pancake and also they do not disintegrate.

It is not in any case that i dont not believe in progressive collapse otherwise i would not be in my trade...but...i dont not believe the odds of three cases of progressive collapse in three extremely well built buildings that also have had a very checkered life....yes not on this scale but i truely believe in the construction of these building...and personally they were built stronger than many skyscrapers of toady as the materials we use get lighter and lighter....but hopefully the designs are stronger.

I found the hotel i was refering too and a good pic to...a fine example...the mass of the collapse was not strong enough to overcome the crush up effect of the strusture below...this was considered a progressive collapse...not sure if it helps but there is not a huge number a sample out there...progressive collapse is rare at the best of times. but it is a unversal failure. that is trigger by sometimes a serious of small events and i know that you will apply that to the towers but the towers are a completely different structural monster.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f32af40aaf6.jpg[/atsimg]

the first show on discovery channel this morning..12am..as soon as it turned...9-11-10...was about demolition.....called "the detonators".....i couldnt believe it....ive never seen the show before and couldnt believe it was the first show on 9-11....i thought to myself wow...ive been watching all day to see if would repeat but it hasnt been back on....


Saturday September 11, 2010
1:00am - 2:00am, DSC (28)
The Detonators : "Coral Gables"

A blast goes awry in Coral Gables, Fla.

* Original Airdate: February 18, 2009
* Repeat TVPG (CC)