The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

reply to post by samkent

Your Youtube doesn't match the expert that reviewed the NIST report.
Check my previous link on page 6. It clearly shows the collapse was slowed by the internal resistance of the floors.

The measurements are shown in the video dude.

Extra, extra, read all about it: Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

It was not a straight line acceleration like your video shows. That's what you end up with when you get your information from those non experts.

No, that's what you end up with when the acceleration is mapped as the velocity to illustrate that it's constant.

A constant acceleration will be parabolic, but a constant velocity will be a straight line.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Your Youtube doesn't match the expert that reviewed the NIST report.
Check my previous link on page 6. It clearly shows the collapse was slowed by the internal resistance of the floors.

It was not a straight line acceleration like your video shows. That's what you end up with when you get your information from those non experts.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by samkent

 

One problem with your assumption.

Free fall in air from the height of the towers = 10-11 seconds.

Actual destruction time = 13, 14 seconds max.

North Tower impact area - 95 floor.

Now watch this video

Thank you again, for advancing everyone's understanding of the truth by continuing to serve as a foil.

reply to post by TupacShakur

These people are an absolute disgrace, given what they're involved in. The average american Joe who doesn't have access to the info can be excused, but not the samkents of the world.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yo, this video brought to my attention by Hijaqd is rock solid proof that the official story is impossible. Despite dozens of repeated requests for official story believers to debunk it, nobody has even attempted to fully debunk this video, but they're more than happy to change the subject and call me crazy.

I did my best to break the video up into statements, evidence, and facts, but it's a little scattered. Lots of my commentary, evidence, and so on will be included, so I would recommend watching the video and then looking at the summary to make your debunking easier.

Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron:

Statements: NIST speculated that the molten metal seen dripping from the tower before the collapse was some type of an aluminum mix, but provided no experimental confirmation of their theory. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/140bfb66b935.jpg[/atsimg]

Evidence: NISTs Explanation:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Since NIST performed no experiments to back up their theory, Steven Jones did their job for them: stj911.org...
stj911.org...

Molten Aluminum:

The following video is the only one that I've seen which shows molten aluminum with an orange glow:

Looking at that one video which shows molten aluminum as orange, the theory that's it's aluminum can't be ruled out completely just yet.

More Evidence: NASAs Infrared Imaging Spectrometer located the molten metal, and found large amounts not just in the rubble of the twin towers but also WTC7: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d1f41de4d6b.jpg[/atsimg] How can molten aluminum from the airplane possibly be in the rubble of WTC7? Did a large chunk of the fuselage fall from the towers while covered in burning jet fuel, land inside of the farthest building in that complex, and turn molten? Nope, so now the molten aluminum theory can be ruled out. Plus NIST, the organization that official story believers fight tooth and nail to defend, even said it themselves: "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery", and Steven Jones debunked their theory that molten aluminum mixed with solid inorganic material would appear orange.

Also, dozens of witnesses saw molten metal in large amounts. Probably the most notable testimony is that of Firefighter Captain Philip Ruvolo:

You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.

There were many images of the molten metal as well: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/166e46e0e72c.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/188f9e9238b7.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6eb14e1a60.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Molten aluminum is silver, and molten steel is not silver. The molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not silver, therefore the molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not aluminum. Furthermore, the presence of molten metal in the debris of both the twin towers and WTC7 cannot be explained by the frame of the airplane turning molten.

Statements: Iron rich spheres were found throughout the dust, confirming temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a11ec07a598.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d89a065aa2c5.jpg[/atsimg] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Facts: Iron microspheres can only be formed in temperatures high enough to melt steel. Jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, therefore jet fuel did not create the iron microspheres. Iron microspheres are a natural biproduct of a thermitic reaction.

Evidence:

Speculation: Jet fuel office fires which burn 1000*F colder than what is needed to melt steel, somehow created the molten metal seen dripping from the towers and created the iron microspheres.

Facts: Jet fuel office fires burn 1000*F cooler than what is needed to melt steel, so the creation of molten steel and iron microspheres from jet fuel fires is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated. Molten steel and iron microspheres are biproducts of a thermitic reaction.

Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration:

Statements: The media told us that the collapse of the towers was caused by a pancaking effect, but as you can see in this image they never explained what caused the steel core to collapse. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/349fbe35017c.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: In order to bend, crush, or move something below, any falling object must first experience a jolt, or a momentary deceleration, in order to apply a force that is larger than its own static weight. This jolt has been clearly measured in a natural gravitational collapse, and as the falling floors contact the stationary structure below, the downward acceleration reverses momentarily imposing a jolt, or force, larger than its static weight, destroying the structure below.

Evidence: Newtons Laws of Motion.
Here's a video of that gravity driven collapse and the measurements to go with it:

But when the fall of the tower was measured, there was no jolt at all: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ecd9e86d7650.jpg[/atsimg]

Statements: In other words, the instant after the falling floors should have impacted the lower undamaged floors, the upper floors actually sped up, meaning that the force from the falling floors was less when accelerating down than when they were at rest.

Facts: Some other force must have weakened the stronger lower structure first allowing the roof to continually accelerate down. A downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit C: The fall of the spire:

Statements: Just after the towers collapsed, the wind blew the dust exposing some inner core columns that some call the spire.

Facts: Office fires cannot cut steel, yet white smoke trailed from cut segments of falling steel, and the top of the spire was not bent from any impact above. The spire stood as a free standing structure with columns swaying but resisting like a flagpole. Rather than tipping over like a tree, this structure dropped straight down even though there was no load above.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47b7dd5c8b1f.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: A freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory:

Statements: A month after the collapse of the towers, Bazant and some others published a paper explaining how the towers fell, even though NIST could not explain it after years of study. Their paper described how the upper smaller blocks of floor crushed down the larger undamaged structure below down to the ground, and then the upper block crushed itself up.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa7739f07fb5.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Not only was no upper block observed impacting the lower sections, but why the spire was not crushed as the upper block fell was not explained. Newtons Third Law tells us that interactions between colliding objects are always equal and opposite, meaning that at any upper smaller block of floors would have also destroyed itself when impacting the larger structure below, well before it could have crushed all the way down to the ground. No experiment has ever demonstrated this crush-down/crush-up theory endorsed by NIST.

Evidence:

Bazants paper got torn to shreds:
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Facts: The theory of a smaller top block crushing down a stronger larger lower structure of similar material is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel:

Statements: Some unique razor sharp steel that looked like swiss cheese was found at ground zero. Fire-wise professors found eutectic formations, a phenomenon never before observed in building fires.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a17aeae0e19.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: After doing some analysis in a laboratory, they identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen, the same materials found in thermate which causes similiar eutectic formations. NIST never solved where the sulfur came from, yet the media claimed that the sulfur game from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverized and burnt in the fires, even though gypsum is routinely used as fireproofing around steel. NIST and the media experts never conducted any experiments to back up their claim. But when gypsum and building material was packed around a steel beam and burned at similar temperatures for long durations, nothing of the sort happened.

Evidence:

Facts: An experiment with thermate on the other hand (The Great Thermate Debate) did make the steel razor shape and look like swiss cheese. Since eutectic formations have not been replicated experimentally, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration:

Facts: WTC7 was never hit by an airplane or even mentioned in the official investigation.

Statements: It looked exactly like a controlled demolition

Facts: NIST said it was a progressive collapse caused by normal office fires. It fell for over 100ft at total free-fall, meaning that the underlying supports had to be removed first allowing it to fall freely.

Evidence::

Facts: Since a progressive collapse will not allow free fall, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit G: Nano-thermite:

Facts: The USGS and independent physicists analyzed lots of dust, collected by some inside of buildings near ground zero. In addition to iron microspheres, active nano-thermite was found, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59151789bd41.jpg[/atsimg] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

Facts: Being an engineered material with a special matrix, it cannot form naturally because that would defy the Law of Entropy (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). And it's not just primer paint, because it does not have the properties of paint, react like paint, or even look like paint.

Evidence:

Here is Steven Jones igniting a dust chip from the sample: journalof911studies.com...

Facts: The formation of nano-thermite naturally is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Is collapse inevitable?:

Facts: NIST never looked at the actual collapse mechanism and just assumed that collapse was inevitable. However real world experiences have demonstrated that collapse is not inevitable, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ded355bee99.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/35c7b8ee9656.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ef7e45a3f48.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69e3478d2f71.jpg[/atsimg]

What is not impossible?

Statements: Could 9/11 have been planned as a new Pearl Harbor necessary to galvanize popular support for preemptive wars using our military to secure trillions in oil and mineral wealth? Were explosives allowed in the towers by the security company that the Presidents brother was on the board of (Marvin Bush--Director of Stratesec)? Could cutter charges have been placed in the core when the elevator upgrades were made in March 2001? Could nano-thermite have been sprayed by unsuspecting workers in the towers when upgrades were made? Could computer controlled explosives have brought down the towers at almost freefall in an attempt to hide the action behind a curtain of falling debris? Was this a shock and awe event intended to scare Americans into giving up their liberties, and control dissent while making billions for the security and military-industrial complex? Could it have been used to remove obsolete towers and avoid costly asbestos removal, allowing modern structures to be built in there place? Was it used to hide financial issues, destroy key SEC files, address the Iraq petro-dollar problem, or murder those investigating over $2 trillion lost in the Pentagon? Are people talking, but we're not listening? Were those in the towers exploded into thousands of pieces just collateral damage for a much larger operation?

Facts: All of those things are not impossible But according to the official story, this--(Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron), this--(Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration), this--(Exhibit C: The fall of the spire), this--(Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory), this--(Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel), this--(Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration), and this--(Exhibit G: Nano-thermite) are all impossible. Yet every single one of those are a result of incendiaries, explosives, and controlled demolition.

To me this sounds like a internal government conspiracy to unknowing change completely the American peoples beliefs of Republican, democratic, and free thinking to a fachist way of thinking making the American people from fear, let the American government finally Usher in The NEW WORLD ORDER.

vIDEO DEBUNKED. nOT IN THE LITER SENSE BUT DEFINITELY UNCOVERS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHY THE IMPOSSIBLE HAPPENED.

To me this sounds like a internal government conspiracy to unknowing change completely the American peoples beliefs of Republican, democratic, and free thinking to a fachist way of thinking making the American people from fear, let the American government finally Usher in The NEW WORLD ORDER.

vIDEO DEBUNKED. nOT IN THE LITER SENSE BUT DEFINITELY UNCOVERS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHY THE IMPOSSIBLE HAPPENED.

wow interesting post, definatly going to have to come back another time when i have the time to fully anaylize the whole thing and reply back. thank you
OP

To quote your signature, SamKent: " After 9 years all they have are Youtube videos and speculation."
You've summed it up . I repeat, 9/11 was an unprecedented event, with no previous
similar occurences to make genuine comparisons with.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, from those like myself, who believe it is nothing
more than it appears to be, to those who think the whole thing was staged for some ulterior
motive. ( And the complexities that would have involved.)
Due respect to posters on both sides of the argument, this is a very emotive subject.
I won't be adding anything further.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan


Look into it - BARRY JENNINGS, who heard, and felt explosions, and saw areas blown out, stairways ending in the air and dead bodies, in WTC7, PRIOR TO, the "collapse" of the North Tower. Unfortunately, Barry died of a mysterious cause not long after going on record with his testimony.

Do not ASSUME.

What nonsense. Jennings dies seven years after 9/11 having altered his story as he got more attention from gullible truthers egging him on.

Even if what he said or his death were of any interest they are irrelevant to what I'm writing about. Perhaps you would like to try and discredit the firefighters' testimony. So far nobody else has been able to.

Steel buildings don't collapse from fire or at least none did prior to 9/11. The firemen were probably told or instructed to create a collapse zone around the building, on the basis that it was already KNOWN, in advance, that it was going to come down, without a doubt, even though there was no precedent, and therefore no reason to assume or to know in advance that the building would "collapse".

The BBC also seemed to share the same prescience





----------------------

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Steel buildings don't collapse from fire or at least none did prior to 9/11. The firemen were probably told or instructed to create a collapse zone around the building, on the basis that it was already KNOWN, in advance, that it was going to come down, without a doubt, even though there was no precedent, and therefore no reason to assume or to know in advance that the building would "collapse".

And so they let their friends and families go in those buildings to their deaths???

Is that what you would do to your father or brother?

Where did you get your family relationship values from? Bernie Maddof ?

Do you really think that Americans just blindly follow orders, knowing that would be the outcome? If so then you grew up with a strange values.

This is just more foolishness. Come on people think reality.

reply to post by samkent

We were talking about WTC7, not the twin towers where, in the case of the south tower, the firemen had arrived at the impact area and were getting set to put down the fires when the builing dropped on their heads. Many of the firemen in the twin towers reported explosions at varying levels of the buildings, some of which blew them right off their feet. Explosions, but not even near the impact areas..



According to Rudolf Guiliani, in his own words, they had a ten minute warning regarding the Twin Towers - so maybe you ought to put your question to him, not me.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Steel buildings don't collapse from fire or at least none did prior to 9/11. The firemen were probably told or instructed to create a collapse zone around the building, on the basis that it was already KNOWN, in advance, that it was going to come down, without a doubt, even though there was no precedent, and therefore no reason to assume or to know in advance that the building would "collapse".

But look at what the firefighters say. They specifically don't agree with you. They thought the building was going to come down, not because they were told it would, but because of what they saw and heard, the situation on the ground.

Either you're ignorant of this or you're altering what happened so you can carry on believing that your version of events is possible and that they can have told the truth. This is not possible. For your narrative to be true the firefighters must be lying. Does that seem likely to you?

The BBC also seemed to share the same prescience

What is really more likely? That conspirators released a "script" to news organisations, just sprayed around their nefarious and evil plan so that scores more people would know about it, completely pointlessly, or that the BBC picked up on what the firemen were saying and reported it erroneously?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Dude, the building fell in free fall, straight down with uniformity. It was a steel structure building. This is not possible absent explosives removing all the structural supports at once, and the video I posted shows that they KNEW it WAS going to come down, not that there was concern it might. Wake up! It's you who's not based in reality. Are you're firemen quotes from the day itself, or afterwards?

No one could know that a steel structured building WOULD collapse from scattered fires. Steel buildings don't collapse from fire and there was no precedent, except the twin towers if it's assumed that they "collapsed" from fire alone.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Steel buildings don't collapse from fire and there was no precedent, except the twin towers if it's assumed that they "collapsed" from fire alone.

What about steel buildings with an airplane sitting on an office floor? Is there a precedent for that?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Dude, the building fell in free fall, straight down with uniformity. It was a steel structure building. This is not possible absent explosives removing all the structural supports at once, and the video I posted shows that they KNEW it WAS going to come down, not that there was concern it might. Wake up! It's you who's not based in reality. Are you're firemen quotes from the day itself, or afterwards?

No one could know that a steel structured building WOULD collapse from scattered fires. Steel buildings don't collapse from fire and there was no precedent, except the twin towers if it's assumed that they "collapsed" from fire alone.

I knew you would ignore my questions.

I disagree with your notion that a steel-framed building cannot collapse like that given the sustained damage and the type of construction. So do the firefighters. Which means you think they're liars. It's irrelevant when their testimony comes from - although it is after the fact - because they would still have to be lying.

You simply assume that because steel-framed buildings hadn't collapsed before that it could never happen. The sample size is tiny and the other examples given are of radically different design to WTC7. You extrapolate this to claim that it's impossible. Why then do the firefighters disagree with you?

And why would the conspirators jeopardise their plan by circulating a "script"? Why not blow up the building and allow the news organisations to report it as normal? It literally makes no sense.

reply to post by samkent

Are you suggesting that the weight of the airplane brought down the towers, or the structural damage from the plane impact. Not even NIST has indicated that. Theirs is a fire induced collapse initiation hypothesis.

Regarding the testimony of firemen, what do you think of this?

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
www.911truth.org...

And what are your explanations for the molten metal, and super high temps in the pit of destruction, as well as the presence of atomized steel (melted and sprayed) leaving the microspheres in the dust?

P.S. Thank you and TrickoftheShade both for continuing to advance awareness of 9/11 truth. Keep up the good work! Without you guys, we wouldn't have much of a debate relative which to continue rolling out more and more information and evidence, although the OP did a pretty fine job right at the outset.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I disagree with your notion that a steel-framed building cannot collapse like that given the sustained damage and the type of construction. So do the firefighters. Which means you think they're liars.

This kind of ignorant mentality needs to stop. "You either believe everything that everyone anywhere near Ground Zero or associated with 9/11 says, or you think every single American is a liar", that irrational line of thinking isn't realistic at all dude.

It literally makes no sense.

Oh, it doesn't make sense to you, so we can just toss those 7 impossible details out of the window because you don't think an inside job makes sense?

Case closed guys, TrickOfTheShade says it doesn't make sense, so we can forget the physics and facts backing the OP and contradicting the OS. He really shut the book on this one, with his top notch opinion based debunking and all.

Wait, I can't forget the firemen's testimonies he included, because some firemen saying "Yeah, the structure's all messed up in there and stuff" not only proves that WTC7 can collapse completely, but free-fall for 100ft and collapse symmetrically. Hang on....no it doesn't!

The buildings simply did not collapse faster than gravity - there is ample photographic evidence showing the building collapse being outpaced by free-falling debris - eg see www.debunking911.com...

The deceptive practices of the so-called "truthers" are an abomination.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Please explain then how 94 floors of a steel structured skyscraper can be crushed in about 3 seconds, which is the only difference in time between absolute free fall in nothing (but air) and the time of destruction as seen in the videos.

Try counting as fast as possible to 94 or clapping your hands together as fast as you can, to 94, in about three seconds, and then do a refresher course on Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, and perhaps you might begin to get the picture.

P.S. Thank you also for your help in forwarding the debate.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The buildings simply did not collapse faster than gravity - there is ample photographic evidence showing the building collapse being outpaced by free-falling debris - eg see www.debunking911.com...

The deceptive practices of the so-called "truthers" are an abomination.

.....Well yeah, how could something that's falling through the air with no forces acting on it fall "faster" than the acceleration due to gravity?

Both twin towers fell at 6.6m/s^2, 2/3 of the acceleration due to gravity. At the pace they were tracked at from the onset of the collapse, it would have taken approximately 11.5 seconds for them to hit the ground, and that's about a second less than how long they took, give or take another second for human error.

However WTC7 free-fell for 100ft: