New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies

Originally posted by intrptr

The firefighters cut those beams with oxy - acetylene torches to clear the area of bent and twisted beams that hampered debris removal. Sorry, those cuts were made by torches AFTER the collapse.

I'm no expert, but I have cut metal with oxy-acetylene quite a few times, and one thing I noticed and caused me great concern that I might accidentally start a fire was that this means of cutting tended to blow all the melted metal away from the cut, leaving a rather neat, clean result, not at all like what I have seen in some of the WTC pictures.

The angle of the cuts also bothers me. It's identical to the angle used in CD to "walk" the structural steel away from its support, promoting a collapse, and doesn't make much sense and strikes me as a dangerous and inefficient practice for cleaning up the WTC aftermath, as it invites the upper portion of the cut beam to quickly brake free near the end of the cut. On the other hand, a cut perpendicular to the length of the beam would be both much shorter in length both saving oxy-acetylene and resulting in the upper portion of the cut beam being more easily manipulated by heavy equipment as it is not trying to jump away from the cut, as would obviously be the case with an angled cut.

Maybe there are perfectly good explanations that counter these observations.

reply to post by Elbereth


Angle cut, straight cut, oxy- acetylene or burning bar. I just presumed that it was cutting torches. I remember seeing both oxy and burning lances used to remove mangled girders at the base by guys who had dragged equipment up on the pile and were upside down in holes being showered with sparks while trying to cut away the tangled spaghetti like mass of twisted girders. I don't know where any of that footage is. (News archives?). Somebody seized on those photos of angle cut beams and now we have a new controversy.

A burning lance, used to scrap ship hulls, makes those kind of rivulet flows, right?

Also if this is evidence that the buildings were brought down by cutting these beams the collapse would have been from the bottom, not from top down, right?

Originally posted by nh_ee
What do you think the seal teams use for demolition purposes and permitting them time to escape the blast ?
Sticks of ACME dynamite, matches and a very long fuse ala Wylie Coyote ?

Thank You ! This made my day

Second _________________________

reply to post by intrptr


I remember seeing those pictures too. I wish I had archived them. I also saw pictures of angled cutting charges being used in CD legitimately. Same story on those pics, unfortunately. I have never heard of burning lances before. Guess I have a little Googling to do. Chances are this has been addressed already ad infinitum on ATS, but people come into this mess anew all the time.

Personally I think the whole BHO smokes out OBL and sends him to Davy Jones’ Locker children's tale coupled with the ten year anniversary has sparked renewed interest and skepticism.

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by intrptr

 

Oh, I thought I saw the penthouse at the top of the building falling first, my bad.
So again, uneven open fires caused a even implosion, got it.

It "fell first" because the bottom truss all the way down at the base gave first. You can see that first the center of the buiding begins to go then both ends follow giving the appearance that the collapse is top down. Really? You believe this is a top down? Look again.

Not that your tone convinces me that you are willing to see any thing different than what you already have decided.

By the way, that thing on top is not the penthouse but the heat exchanger that connects to every floor and room. When the collapse began, the air inside the building had to go somewhere. Nothing could resist that over pressure. So both the stairwell and the air unit on top pop open to exhale the wind like a collapsing balloon.

Bye Bye the way, gravity makes things fall straight down, sorry about that. They can deflect and they can bounce but generally...

reply to post by Elbereth


Thermal lance, Burning Bar, Oxygen Lance, etc:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Elbereth

 

Also if this is evidence that the buildings were brought down by cutting these beams the collapse would have been from the bottom, not from top down, right?

Truthers claim it was from the bottom. That's why the buildings fell at free fall speed. Had they fallen from the top and pancaked, like the official story claims, then there would have been floors underneath.

The top floors would have fell into those bottom floors and those billions of tons of floors underneath would have created resistance that would have slowed down the fall. It is also likely that would cause the building to fall over on its side taking the path of least resistance instead of taking the path of most resistance and falling straight down through billions of tons of concrete and steel.

Basically they claim it could have pancaked like they claimed, or it could have fallen at free fall speed. BUT NOT BOTH. It can't pancake at free fall basically unless it fell from the bottom, and not the top. And only way for that to happen is if someone removed the bottom.

That's why you're always hearing them talk about cutting the beams, or explosions in the basement. Trying to figure out what happened to all the resistance. Where did billions of tons of concrete and steel go?

Now I'm not an engineer so I'm not gonna get into it. I can't even tell you if it really fell at free fall speed or not. But that's just how the story goes. The heart of the argument if you will.

All I do know is that for 10 years they've told the truthers there were no secondary explosions and called us crazy for saying there were. Now they produce this, and I'm not taking an opinion on what caused the explosions, but all I'm saying is that, it just proves that the truthers were right all along .That there WERE secondary explosions caused by SOMETHING.

Somehow we're still being called the crazy ones? Even though we right about secondary explosions the whole time? It's just proof the government lied for 10 years about the secondary explosions because they either caused them or didn't know what caused them.

I don't know which, but it just shows they're willing to cover things up and pretend like they never happened instead of doing what they SHOULD HAVE DONE. Investigated what caused the explosions that we said existed the whole time instead of pretending they didn't exist. And if that's the case it makes me wonder how anyone can trust the official story? Especially since it keeps changing and now we know for a fact that gov won't talk to us about things it doesn't understand. It'll just say, never happened.

reply to post by Elbereth


BINGO...

www.youtube.com...

So all this building needed was aluminum to create explosions and collapse?

Wait a minute? Fireworks started the blaze.

The variety of color in a fireworks show depends on the mix of metals.

Copper produces blue sparks.
A mix of strontium salts, lithium salts and other stuff makes red.
Aluminum and titanium put the white stars in an aerial flag.
Barium, also used in rat poison and glass making, makes green.
Calcium burns orange and sodium, yellow.

The Strange Ingredients in Fireworks



She was still standing the next day.


WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down intentionally. I don't understand how there is any other argument. You cannot discredit the thermite found in the dust or the sounds of explosions that firefighters heard before entering those death traps. And how does a quarter of a building collapsing on top of the remaining 3/4 of the building bring the entire thing down at a free fall pace? How is it that the mass of the lower parts of the building could not withstand the less mass falling down on top of it?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Howakan

 

I agree. Back in 2001-04, I used to wonder if it was an insider job. I didn't support the Iraq war and thought that 9/11 was being milked for a purpose other than peace (still do). But all I ever had were doubts. I was never a truther. But in the last year or so, I have started to research it and have made a complete reversal in my thought processes. I have went from doubting the OS to realizing that the facts support it. While I'm still confused about WTC7, my thoughts about WTC1&2 have never supported the OS more than they do now.

It goes like this:
1) WTC1&2 displayed buckling in the area of the impact just before they collapsed
2) Each floor was connected to the central column(s); it did not support the floors above it
3) The fire proofing was blown off on impact on the floors where the planes hit
4) Without fire proofing, the floors were unable to maintain integrity; were already low capacity anyway
5) Airliner impact scenarios were based on a slow flying 707, in fog; not a fast flying 767 on a sunny day
6) This latest model indicates localized temperatures could reach 2,200 to 2,700 F via aluminum/water explosions
7) The top floors had a lot of weight/equipment
8) 10 years later, and 9/11 truthers have not submitted a better explanation than the OS
9) OBL admitted to the attack on video several years ago; truthers just ignore it and claim it's fake
10) WTC7 was struck by debris from the collapsing tower(s); i think you can see this on video as well
11) WTC1&2 are relatively old building designs; a lot will be learned from this to make designs safer

Those are just some of the things that have led me here.

edit on 23-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Eye witness reports of explosions from workers at the WTC said they felt and heard explosions before the first plane struck the first tower, from lower levels. Explain this fact away with this #%&@'s BS theory.

In reply to #8, get real there has been mega strides in new evidence to support claims. Do some homework!!

Oh and don't forget the Governments experts were a 28 year old pimple faced editor of Popular Mechanics Magazine.
I tend to lean toward 2200 Architects and Engineers @ AE911truth.org

reply to post by Hurtswhenipee

I did say I wouldn't post here again, but I read your post.

There were definite reports of explosion, people who perished on the 80th floor said just that. They could not escape because of the damage.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Elbereth

 

BINGO...

www.youtube.com...

Interesting, but I wish there was more. It also didn't look like the cuts were at nearly as severe an angle as seen in the pictures that have been at issue. Looking at the apparent difficulty the lance operator was having in positioning himself on that rubble heap, I have to wonder at the very tidy, consistent across the beams, cuts and angles we are seeing elsewhere.

Thanks for posting that.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Hurtswhenipee

 

I did say I wouldn't post here again, but I read your post.

There were definite reports of explosion, people who perished on the 80th floor said just that. They could not escape because of the damage.

And then those people were labelled crazy truthers and perhaps even killed for saying it. jenningsmystery.com... Because there were no explosions.

Just waiting for someone to explain to me how aluminum in the towers caused explosions in WTC 7 before either tower collapsed.

So wait, does this explain building 7 as well?


It seems as though the mainstream media will only acknowledge the conspiracy theories about 911 at the moment they believe they have found a way to debunk them....

Wow could they word this so it is any more biased?

Despite scientific investigations that have explained the processes that brought down the skyscrapers, some conspiracy theorists suggest the plane impacts were just red herrings, to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job" — that explosives had been implanted earlier in the World Trade Center buildings and were what really brought them down.

How about remaining objective and stating that new research may have determined where the explosive sounds originated from? Why do you have to jump to 1000 conclusions?


Despite a bunch of crazy people thinking one thing, some real scietists have some real evidence.....


Bias fail.

Im just going to say this out in the open, and ridicule me as you like.

Not everything in the world is a conspiracy theory. Period.

Just because a water source gets tainted does not mean the goverment did it.
Just because there is a abnormal plane crash does not mean the goverment did it.
Just because a couple psychologists explain why some people can not accept conspiracy theories does not mean that there is one.
Just because some college kid starts a stupid theory about the dollar bill predicting a national deisaster does not mean it is true.
One of my BIGGEST petpeves on this site is when people scream CONSPIRACY!!! at everything.

Tell me, what reason would the USA have to cause this disaster?
You say they wanted to start a war?
The USA has gained nothing on this war, in fact, they have lost money.
You say they wanted to cause fear?
If they wanted people to obey they would follow hitlers route.
You say it has to do with some illuminati numerology?
Lololololololol... ok lets go with that one.

wait, so it wasn't a case of an airliner crashing into a building precisely where charges were planted by elevator technicians in the 90's leading to a few subsequent explosions which brought the buildings down and didn't leave a trace of blasting caps or wire ?

well what do ya know about that......

I understand if you want to believe the official story out of some epic level of denial that TPTB would never do this to us... but it seems to me that EVERYONE should be suspicious of the Neocons when it comes to 9/11.

I mean the PNAC basically laid it out, they said what they needed, they took power, and then it all just coincidentally happened.

It's like a person says what they would do if they had no spouse and a million dollars and then says the only way that will happen is if the spouse dies and they can collect on life insurance... and then a year later it happens.

How can a person not be suspicious of 9/11?

And then to make matters worse... those mass murder suspects refuse to testify on record, and insist on being in the same room at the same time. In what world is that not a highly suspicious demand?? I mean, come on!

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I understand if you want to believe the official story out of some epic level of denial that TPTB would never do this to us... but it seems to me that EVERYONE should be suspicious of the Neocons when it comes to 9/11.

I mean the PNAC basically laid it out, they said what they needed, they took power, and then it all just coincidentally happened.

It's like a person says what they would do if they had no spouse and a million dollars and then says the only way that will happen is if the spouse dies and they can collect on life insurance... and then a year later it happens.

How can a person not be suspicious of 9/11?

And then to make matters worse... those mass murder suspects refuse to testify on record, and insist on being in the same room at the same time. In what world is that not a highly suspicious demand?? I mean, come on!

If I accused you of killing thousands of people and you didn't would you testify after you have 1,000 times? thats right, you wouldn't. I DARE you to go ask a firefighter or a policeman in new york area if 9/11 was an inside job. But make sure to tell me so i can get the 10,000 hits on youtube first mm'k?

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I understand if you want to believe the official story out of some epic level of denial that TPTB would never do this to us... but it seems to me that EVERYONE should be suspicious of the Neocons when it comes to 9/11.

I mean the PNAC basically laid it out, they said what they needed, they took power, and then it all just coincidentally happened.

It's like a person says what they would do if they had no spouse and a million dollars and then says the only way that will happen is if the spouse dies and they can collect on life insurance... and then a year later it happens.

How can a person not be suspicious of 9/11?

And then to make matters worse... those mass murder suspects refuse to testify on record, and insist on being in the same room at the same time. In what world is that not a highly suspicious demand?? I mean, come on!

If I accused you of killing thousands of people and you didn't would you testify after you have 1,000 times? thats right, you wouldn't. I DARE you to go ask a firefighter or a policeman in new york area if 9/11 was an inside job. But make sure to tell me so i can get the 10,000 hits on youtube first mm'k?

Dude, Bush and Cheney needed be in the same room at the same time so their 9/11 stories matched and refused to go under oath so they could not be accused of perjury. You don't think that's shady?

You see a bunch of people die on my watch and want to question me and my partner on how it happened and I say, ok, but only if we can be in the same room at the same time and we won't go under oath. And you wouldn't raise an eyebrow??

And on top of all this, I had just finished telling everyone a year ago all the things I could do if this terrible thing happened.

Seriously, no eyebrows raised? You just buy that? No suspicion at all?