This wasn't the first time this technology was used. Search youtube for "directed energy weapons, iraq" and you can compare the damage done to "enemy" cars versus the damage done to the 1,400 cars all around the trade towers, as shown in Dr. Judy Woods excellent website. Also, do you know about Hurricane Erin, the gigantic one, just 200 E of NYC on 9/11, that was totally blacked out from the media, even from your own mind and awareness. Look it up. It's fucking real, and still on NOAA site.
DK is a liar. They are trying to keep people from knowing about DEW. The basement would have been destroyed if it was nukes, but the basement was fine the next day.
people that were sacrifice ,this was a sacrifice to their god,this zionist mazonic ,illuminati,cabal sacrifice all this inocent people on that day,and made everyone to believe it was terrorist,yes they are the terrorist.
@antonfilth DK's numbers are way off man. dont believe the hype. i have some links that show he is way off if you would like them. otherwise it would be a good theory.
@thisphotoisproof Observation of this jpg : loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1(dot)jpg
clearly shows EXCESSIVE amounts of thermal energy. Notice the blast "circle" under bld 7. Conventional demo charges produce kinetic energy. Nuclear demo charges produce thermal energy. Seismic data also supports this FACT, as does the dust data produce by Steven E. Jones. Thermite theory never existed until Dimitri Khalezov published his book and sent copies to CONgress.
but thats still not solid proof i mean... these people who think they knew what hapepned and researched it, but the question is can you really believe them.
Does anyone recall hearing about a Category 5 Hurricane off the coast of New York on 9/11? Hurricane Erin I think it was....did this monster storm get any press?
I hope the below 30 crowd growing up with this incredible information technology is taking notes. This was a very, very high tech operation disguised by 'plane wrecks' and military exercises that neutralized our entire NORAD/NEADS operation....that's big time stuff.
Pay attention and take this country back before it's too late.
@Akileze See drjudywood . com website. See also NOAA website, it was called HURRICANE ERIN, and it was only 200 miles E of NYC (it had been bumped along for two weeks prior, presumably by HAARP weather mod blasts), yet it was 100% blacked out from news and 99.9999% of Americans' awareness. Pics on Woods' site and also on NOAA site. See for yourself how everyone's been 100% lied to and misinformed, manipulated, midsirected. 9/11 was a FCKING INSIDE JOB. WKAE THE FCK UP.
amazing media still trying to blame bin laden this and he was to plan new..lot more point on why its make from in side.
Explain how the rest of this very strong building there not was damage.!Also go down..normal top will tip over and rest of building will still bee there.
you see explosion at the floor plan-the building was seal on 3 part soo no fire are go down from top:-)complete joke.
Real terroist have take the neuclear fabric you find on way to new york..and kill many more.
Anyone who can watch this video and still argue that they didn't blow the shit out of those buildings.... is either completely retarded beyond all comprehension, or is a fucking traitor and should be hanging by their neck.
@1loydster shoddy workmanship on the buildings in the first place. not enough steel. its people like you and your ancestors hanging people without giving them a fair trial that created things like 911 in the 1st place. lets say you really thought he was retarded? you wouldnt speak to him like that. therefore you dont think he is retarded your comparing him to someone that is. your the type of people that get so mad they just start hanging people to sooth their souls and calm themselves
@derpotni3riots Shoddy workmanship ehh? You're a fuckin mook and stupid to boot. Study the towers then you can write intelligently about their construction, fuckwad!
@godbluffvdgg ok i will study the towers. ok well they had LESS steel in them then normal because of their UNIQUE design. it SAVED money. so much so they came under fire if it was safe. so much so they presented the buildings as the SAFEST buildings going capble of surviving a plane impact. are your studies aware of that mr mook?
@derpotni3riots Thats funny the thousand engineers at ae911truth say they were the Mac Daddy of all buildings ever built and were stronger than most ., You be a shill !
@1loydster Tough to stop watching these, ain't it bro? I am collecting them now for when YT starts charging us. How you been otherwise? How's business? I guess that now you're such a big movie producer, you don't have time for us little people ; ). Yo, have you checked out Judy Wood's presentation. If not, check it. Also, did you see ventura's show and the revelation that the "hi jackers" were in the cockpit prior to taking off. Peace my friend.
@1loydster What is so horrible ,out of mind, and so ugly naked is that US Government pushed the idea of "pancake collapse", when the scene is screaming loudly in the form of high powered EXPLOSIONS. It did not matter, what kind of explosives. it mattered that it was a high-noon mass murder , by insiders design , with the ugly big lie that it was the planes and the 19 hijackers that were not. This big government lie is still roaming , free, unpunished. but the truth will conquer the darkness.
I remember years ago while at work (before 9/11 happened). I was having a discussion with a co-worker that I have great respect for. During the discussion I told her that I believe that people are a lot smarter then everyone makes them out to be. She laughed and told me in no uncertain terms that I was wrong. That people as a whole were ignorant.
I've not found anything to support my argument in the 10+ years since I first uttered it. The 9/11 truthers is proof that I will never find it.
No one will know the truth for a long time unless the mass majority of Americans wake up. It's not to hard to believe that Bush was fiddling on the rooftop while the greatest swindle in history was done right in front of us on live TV. There is motive certainly.
I just want to know the extend of the technology that is being withheld from the public. If they have free energy and beer that doesn't go flat I'm gonna be pissed they held out on me.
@tobiashimself so how do you explain the puff of smo0ke at 3:00? it happens wayyy before the collapse reaches that level, and its under the sky lobby.
You obviously didn't see ground zero shortly after the collapse. There was plenty of steel not turned to dust. Unless you think they brought it all in from elsewhere and dropped it off while no one was looking?
"You obviously didn't see ground zero shortly after the collapse."
WTF? You obviously assume.
I have seen every picture and video available. There were tons of steel beams left mostly with angle cuts common with demolition some blown hundreds of yards into other buildings. The spires near the beginning of this video show steel standing vertically on the right side turn into dust sized particles and fall to the ground..
I meant with your eyes, and I was 100% correct. All you saw were the pictures the truthers felt supported their argument. I live in NYC, I saw the WTC 2 days after the collapse, before the cleanup effort. I can tell you there was quite a number of steel beams creating a massive mound of debris with part of the tower still standing.
The steel isn't what's creating the dust cloud, it's the concrete, sheet rock, etc.
I never said the steel made the pyroclastic cloud grasshopper. I said the steel particles fell to the ground. Yes you do assume. No such thing as being 100% correct about anything. End of discussion.
Ah of course, so how do you know any of the steel was turned to dust? From the photos of the debris afterwards? Yeah, well from actually seeing the scene with my own two eyes I could tell you that the steel wasn't turned to dust. Even the cleanup recovered most of the steel that was used in the building, so exactly how much of the steel was turned to dust and how do you suppose it turned to dust?
The problem is not seeing how this could happen naturally though, it is just on the edge of being conceivable. But WTC7 is not.
That is why it is so important. Once you concede that WTC7 could not have fallen naturally, it is hard to conclude that the rest of the event was not staged.
The twin towers are highly suspicious as it is. But the only conceivable way WTC7 could have been brought down like that was with explosives.
Your argument hinges on the fact that explosives were not used because of the conspiracy that it implies. But if the conspiracy already exists because of WTC7 that argument has no basis.
Every detail of the twin towers collapse is more easily explained by explosives, add that to a pre-existing conspiracy and it is not hard to connect the dots for most.
Well no, my argument is what it is because it makes sense. There is no evidence for explosives other than what you claim is unusual behavior, yet no one with any background in structural engineering seems to agree. There are no explosions in any of the videos, no one in the towers reported any explosives lying around, and there was no evidence of explosives in the debris."
No explosives where looked for by the official investigators, and the contention is exactly that nano-thermite is used, and was found by the only people who bothered to check.
Lots of people reported explosions, you are being more than a little disingenuous suggesting otherwise.
And the puffs of smoke seen in all the videos is so completely inconsistent with you own collapse theory that, if they were caused by breaking widows, you have to discard progressive collapse out of hand.
"But if the conspiracy already exists because of WTC7 that argument has no basis."
That's the most ridiculous leap of logic I've seen in a long time.
Look, if they came out tomorrow and said "Oh hey, yeah we blew up WTC 7, here's the proof, here's the empty canisters secretly removed from the site during clean up, here's how we set everything up, etc." that still wouldn't be evidence that the twin towers were a controlled demolition. It's a logical fallacy.
Then my proof of conspiracy does refute your argument.
Reason is a better guide though. Imagine three cones in the road, two are knocked over by either a car or wind we cannot tell which.
But if we were told that an adjacent third cone was simultaneously knocked over by wind, you would if to provide proof if you wish to contend that a car did it.
This is why the burden of proof rests not on the 'truthers' but on the official version, and that burden has not, as yet been discharged.
"you would if to provide proof if you wish to contend that a car did it."
No, if the wind knocked over one cone you can't just jump to the conclusion that wind knocked over ALL the cones. You could theorize that the rest of the cones were knocked over by wind but then you'd need evidence for that.
"if the wind knocked over one cone you can't just jump to the conclusion that wind knocked over ALL the cones."
Sorry to break it to you, but you cannot jump to that conclusion at all. But it is equally true for the official version. In fact logic does not allow you to jump to ANY conclusion whatsoever.
But a little thought does.
The evidence for the observed nature of controlled demolition is well documented and commonly observed though, so the evidence has already been given.
"...but you cannot jump to that conclusion at all."
I know that...
"....so the evidence has already been given."
Well no not really, where are the loud explosions heard for miles, where are the bright flashes, where are the synchronized explosions BEFORE the collapse, where are all the signs of explosives in the debris, how did they manage to get the explosives in to all the office buildings with no one noticing?
There really is no evidence for controlled demolition.
Renovations, power downs, fire proofing work, fire drills, lift upgrades. All of which were known to have been going on in the weeks prior.
Watch controlled demos closely, it is not necessary to have all the explosions go off at the same time, the main supports are often taken out well in advance. The biggest explosions at WTC happened several minutes before the collapse, nothing out of the ordinary there.
"All of which were known to have been going on in the weeks prior."
Fire drills happen in a matter of minutes (that's the point) not enough time to install explosives. Power downs wouldn't affect the ENTIRE building. Lift upgrades, well that would only affect the elevators. There would still be someone in the building during all of these occasions.
"The biggest explosions at WTC happened several minutes before the collapse"
I'm sorry, I must have missed that, please show me the explosions.
Why do you suppose most of the explosions have to be visible. You yourself have stated that most controlled demolitions do not have a lot of visible explosions.
But there are audible explosions, which are otherwise unexplained, in almost all the testimony and video.
Plus the squibs coming out the buildings during the actual collapse. They cannot be windows blowing from floors falling because a) it would imply impossibly fast collapse speeds and b) it contradicts the official model.
I stated that? I think I would have said that controlled demolitions DO have a lot of visible, and highly audible explosions. I've never observed a controlled demolition that was silent with no visible explosions.
Can I see a video showing audible explosions before the tower starts collapsing?
Contradict me, don't ask me how exactly they did it.
I already showed why a natural collapse is most likely beyond the bounds of reason.
No, I cannot reproduce exactly the details of what happened, but I do not need, the burden of proof does not rest with me, since we know demolitions can and will produce this effect.
What we do NOT know is examples of natural collapse producing this effect, therefore YOU no I need to prove your case.
"What we do NOT know is examples of natural collapse producing this effect, therefore YOU no I need to prove your case. "
Actually in the Madrid fire, the steel framed structure collapsed while the cement reinforced structure remained standing. You can see it collapse in the video of the fire.
You can clearly observe that no pancake was caused by this partial collapse. This is an argument AGAINST your view, not mine. I never said that fire could not cause collapse, but that it could not cause the OBSERVED collapse.
Are you sure those central columns are made purely of concrete. Remember that the WTC core was fire protected by gypsum boards, and the official version does not claim that they were dislodged.
I never claimed it would be proof, but you would be a fool to doubt it nevertheless.
Strict logical proof involves a determination of causality, which demands the presence of the effect in the presence of the cause, and it's absence in the absence of the cause.
The presence of a conspiracy does prove PROBABLE cause though, which is a wholly different animal.
"The presence of a conspiracy does prove PROBABLE cause though, which is a wholly different animal. "
Not really, as the idea that they knew WTC 7 was going to be struck by debris from the south tower is kind of ridiculous. If the WTC 7 wasn't hit by falling debris they wouldn't have been able to go on with the plans to destroy it, leaving explosives in the building for everyone to find.
Though like I said, I want to finish with WTC 1 and 2 first.
The official version requires the fire to heat the steel beams over a not insignificant area to a given level not as one-dimensional wires, but as three dimensional beams. If 10% of a beam is heated to the point where it loses 50% strength, does that mean the beam has lost 50% strength?
This is why the official version requires an out of control fire, even if they do not care to admit the fact.
The problem, again, is that the official version does not adequately reveal it's assumptions.
"...does that mean the beam has lost 50% strength?"
Sort of, a beam is only as strong as it's weakest point. If you weaken just the last 10 inches of a beam by 50% then that's where any failure will occur. Though there are other factors too, since you're only heating a random small area the rest of the beam (if it's supporting any weight) will end up warping due to the unbalanced load capacity. Plus steel is a thermal conductor, I don't think it's possible to heat up only a small portion.
"I don't think it's possible to heat up only a small portion."
Agreed, but isn't that precisely part of the problem in the first place, the reason why the Cardington tests did not produce failure of this kind?
Again, I will certainly grant warping, and even failure, but that is not what was observed. In both towers there needed to be simultaneous and complete failure of several beams, since there was little deflection until just before collapse and the collapse was symmetrical.
Besides, it's entirely within the realm of possibilities (if WTC 7 was actually brought down by controlled demolition) that WTC 7 was the target yet the planes missed, hit WTC 1 and 2 and those buildings just happened to fall due to a natural process. Then after seeing the damage to WTC 7 after the south tower collapsed they could set off the explosives and later explain "Oh well WTC 7 fell because of the damage from the falling south tower."
It is not logical, it is reasonable. Their is no logical necessity either way. As a matter of fact the towers could have been blown up, fallen naturally and de-molecularised by martians all at the same time and still be logically constant, logic does not prove anything in this instance.
What I did say though: if your argument is of the form: If there was a conspiracy then the towers were blown up, there was no conspiracy therefore the towers fell naturally...
Yes, but logically you couldn't say "Well this tower was blown up by aliens, therefore all the towers were blown up by aliens."
"if your argument is of the form..."
That's the thing, that's not my argument at all. I'm not discussing WTC 7 yet because we've not finished with the twin towers. You still believe there was nano-thermite present and don't seem to acknowledge why the "nano-thermite" had an inconsistent composition and didn't react like thermite.
It's not, it never was. My argument is that the towers could have entirely fallen naturally, therefore there is no NEED for a conspiracy.
They could come out tomorrow and say "Yeah it was all a conspiracy, we just used alien technology to bring down the twin towers" and the collapse scenario could still have been physically possible.
Right now I'm only arguing that the towers could have physically fallen the way they did under the conditions they were in.
The fact that there is no need for conspiracy does not prove that it was not there, just as the fact that there may have been no need for explosives does not show that explosives was not used, even though the preponderence of evidence points to it being explosives.
You must remember that the official version rests ENTIRELY on the isolated equations with dodgy inputs and a thought experiment reified on a computer simulation, the code of which was never released.
"...The fact that there is no need for conspiracy does not prove that it was not there"
I know.
You really don't seem to get this, I'm not trying to convince you that there was no conspiracy, but your point was that there must have been a conspiracy because the building couldn't have fallen any other way. My point is that the building could have fallen due to the cause in the official explanation with no need for explosives.
So to summarize, I'm only arguing that explosives weren't needed.
I will concede that it is conceivable that it fell naturally, in the same why that it is conceivable that Martians did it or it was explosives.
But this does not get us very far. Beyond that point I need to weigh the odds and the evidence in favour of each view. Yes it is possible that such a collapse occured naturally, but I have been shown no evidence that this was the case.
The design of the buildings is not sufficient, the notion that it HAD to fall that way is pure unsupported conjecture.
There are many videos available with audible explosion, dust clouds at the base of the building well before collapse and a eyewitness accounts from inside the buildings.
Remember that this was not a standard demolition, so the cutting could be spaced at leisure. If you think about it, there is no reason to keep the cuts spaced close together in this case, as it would have been preferable to use FEWER explosions rather than more.
But there is no need to follow industry standard timetables.
"There are many videos available with audible explosion, dust clouds at the base of the building well before collapse and a eyewitness accounts from inside the buildings."
Eyewitness accounts are flawed since we'd have to take that persons word for it rather than observing ourselves. And with all of the cameras rolling that day I'm sure there's got to be at least one that caught these explosions right? So can I see the videos with the audible explosions before the collapse?
With the "explosions" being as loud as they are in this video, why is no one in that massive crowd reacting? Did they not hear it? How do you know it's not just some other noise? Are these noises in other videos as well?
The next video just examines the previous one.
The last video assumes every low frequency spike to be an explosion ignoring all other possibilities. Why not compare these "explosions" to actual explosions?
Yo are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret low energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound.
Again, I am not trying to prove explosion, or any particular collapse theory. Proving that yours is not reasonable is more than sufficient.
Can you provide details explaining these noises in terms of natural collapse? Remember to state the exact location and explain the reaction of seagulls.
"Yo are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret low energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
Darn, editing is hard in this little window, that should read:
"You are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret highly energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
"You are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret highly energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
Sure but don't you think someone would say "Hey what was that weird really deep noise?" There was no reaction at all, as if no one heard the noises. Plus why are these noises so deep when the explosions in controlled demolition videos are much higher pitched?
Uhm, elementary physics? Low sound travels further than high sound?
"Hey, that plane hitting the building wasn't strange, but that rumbling sure is"
I can't show to you definitively what the origin of the sounds are, although it does establish a pattern.
How is it that you can just discount reams of eyewitnesses reports on a whim, yet now demand a video analysis showing the faces of all the onlookers? Many television stations reported explosions too, go look for it yourself.
...okay but if the sound is high pitched to begin with, unless the object creating the sound was moving, the pitch would not change. A high pitched sound heard far away would still be high pitched.
"yet now demand a video analysis showing the faces of all the onlookers?"
No, the faces are seen in the video, yet no one reacts to the noise. I just want another corroborating video, it seems odd that no one else seems to be able to hear the noise.
Any sound is composed of fundamental frequencies and harmonics. When you hear the 'crack' of explosives you are hearing a high frequency shockwave.
High frequency sound is very easily diffused though and does not travel well over distance or through objects.
It is quite easy to damp sound to cut off the higher partials, but it is very hard indeed to block low frequency sound, as would be produced by sympathetic vibration in the buildings.
"You can observe this when your neighbours party."
Okay, when you hear thunder you can hear the crack for many miles. Explosives are quite loud, it would be possible to clearly hear an explosion from just a few miles away over open water.
You can observe this at the Macy's fireworks show.
We're still talking about WTC 1 and 2 here. I wanted videos of the explosions prior to the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. You show me a few videos with a handful of low frequency noises interpreted as explosions that don't seem to be audible by anyone or any other camera microphones. Then you don't seem to be capable of comparing them to the videos you showed me of controlled demolitions. With dozens of very loud explosions moments before collapse.
So you are in the business of picking random facts to support your claim?
This item you have before looks just like all the forks you have ever seen, and behaves in a similar fashion. However, since it's handle is made of ivory (not seen on other forks), it must be some completely new heretofore unknown implement used in the hunting industry.
"This item you have before looks just like all the forks you have ever seen, and behaves in a similar fashion."
No, the report is basically looking at a collapsed house, picking up a piece of plywood and saying "This material has the same composition as firewood, it reacts when heated like firewood, therefore the house was burned down by it's owners due to all of the firewood."
Completely ignoring the glue in the plywood, or the fact that plywood is common in houses, etc.
I do not have another video with good sound for an extended period. The only other long duration video doesn't capture sound from the buildings at all.
This is too be expected when there is no line of sight to the buildings and low quality recording equipment.
What is interesting about that particular video is the lack of upper harmonics, indicating (if nothing else) a high energy, but distant source.
I agree it is not conclusive, but it does not need to be.
There are long duration videos out there, you'd think at least one person trying to prove the explosives were real would have done a comparison of two of these videos to see if the explosions line up...
Perhaps they don't line up and that's why no one has done a comparison? I mean it does seem like the most logical explanation given how many videos there were on that day.
Here is an especially interesting one, though not widely known: "Incendio Torre Santa María"
I am am still waiting for examples or explanations of a pancake collapse. Scale model, a study accurately reflecting reality (not assuming that the top stories remained intact), even a computer model will do if you release the input parameters and source code.
The reality is: You got nothing, zilch. As long as my theory is more likely, the burden of proof is on you.
"a study accurately reflecting reality (not assuming that the top stories remained intact)"
They don't need to remain intact, dropping one bowling ball on an object has the same impact force as dropping 4 quarters of the same bowling ball on the same object.
It seems as if you've got your mind shut away in a box, you don't seem to understand any of the concepts I'm presenting you with and you have no willingness to learn.
You make it sound like the preponderence of physical evidence points to natural collapse, when this is in fact a preposterous fabrication. Science is all about replicability and falsifiability. Computer models do not count.
Search these two Chinese examples on YouTube
1) 'Amazing : New apartment building tips over in China'
2) 'Controlled Demolition in China Vs 9/11'
Then provide me with a good physical model (computer models don't count) or another similar collapse.
Since when has since been about ignoring mathematical formulas and physics in favor of saying "Well those two look sort of alike, they must be the same!"
"...or another similar collapse."
That's the thing, how many similar buildings are there? How many 110 story buildings out there have been struck by airliners and suffered the same fire damage?
"Since when has since been about ignoring mathematical formulas and physics in favor of saying "Well those two look sort of alike, they must be the same!""
Physics will ALWAYS prefer observation over theory. Theory is only useful insofar as it predicts events accurately and is falsifiable. Yours is neither.
Anybody can come with random equations and put in random numbers to match a observed event after the fact. But that is not science I am afraid.
"Anybody can come with random equations and put in random numbers to match a observed event after the fact."
The thing is the equations aren't random, they're well known in the engineering community. The numbers are out there as well, unless of course you're talking about a specific made up equation, and if so please point it out.
How to use well established but irrelevant equations with false assumptions to come to any conclusion imaginable?
Given that a house is roughly spherical in nature and that watermelons are too, and given the fact that watermelons have a density [insert equation here] which is lower than that of water [insert equation]; we can conclude that houses, when submersed in water, will float to a confidence of [some t-tests and other statistics]%.
Unfortunately assumptions DO matter in the real world.
"How to use well established but irrelevant equations with false assumptions to come to any conclusion imaginable?"
Umm sure and I can also say 2 + 2 = 5 and it could actually be correct (in programming you can add 2.5 to 2.5, the computer will display it as 2 but the result will be 5.) But if I tried to publish a paper about the "findings" it would get rejected, or someone would correct it.
Anyway, exactly which equations are made up? Which numbers are made up?
"Physics will ALWAYS prefer observation over theory."
Not quite in the case of structural engineering.
They don't look at tall buildings and assume "Well those buildings are standing, therefore all tall buildings can stand." There is a lot of math involved in calculating the load bearing capabilities of a building, the wind forces generated, how elastic a building will be, etc.
If those calculations were all just made up with made up numbers, then we wouldn't have tall buildings.
The thing is though, the structural engineering models do not predict a collapse like this at all.
It is only predicted by cherry-picking data after the fact. The point is that science in general is about prediction, not explanation. Structural engineering, physics and common sense all PREDICT that the buildings will behave in a way different from what is observed.
If you want to come up with a model to explain the observation AFTER the fact you need to replicate the results to convince.
No, they make predictions with their equations which are replicated by later observations.
The simple fact is that there simply is no attempt to find or produce such replication on the part of the official version past the computer simulations.
You are expected to accept as an article of faith.
"The simple fact is that there simply is no attempt to find or produce such replication on the part of the official version past the computer simulations."
So sponsor building a 110 story building and flying a jet into it. I mean, there are enough of you that believe in the conspiracy that you could easily collect money to help prove that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy. Do that, then build a replica of the towers, then fly a jet into them and see if the results match.
You are being facetious, you know full well that that is not what is meant by replication.
No part, I repeat: NO PART of the official version, from the structural failure to the form of the pancake to the ejections, to the mid-air disintigration of office equipment.
NONE of it has been either observed in any number of collapses, and there has been zero attempt made to replicate any of these features in controlled studies.
Full scale replication, you think you are being funny?
"to the mid-air disintigration of office equipment."
I must know, what explosions have ever caused anything in mid-air to disintegrate? It either disintegrates during the explosion and never gets ejected, or gets ejected and disintegrates upon impacting the ground. Never in mid-air though.
So please if you really believe anything disintegrated in mid-air, what do you think caused that and why do you think that it would be a desirable effect given that they were trying to make this believable?
"It is enough for me to show that natural collapse could not have caused the observed effect, while you must prove that it could."
Unless you're arguing for a specific scenario. If you say it was explosives then prove explosives were capable of disintegrating office furniture mid-air, don't just say "Well the burden of proof is on you!"
My argument is that you're not actually observing what you think you are as it would have been impossible under any collapse scenario.
You have to prove that natural collapse was sufficient, I have to prove that explosives were necessary.
Both versions involve natural collapse as a given.
If there is only two collapse theories on the table, then the mere fact that natural collapse was not sufficient is enough to show explosives were necessary.
Except if you have a third theory or can show that explosive were impossible.
Note: Not point to lack of evidence for explosives- show that it is not possible.
"Note: Not point to lack of evidence for explosives- show that it is not possible."
It would be impossible to do that as any argument I can give that shows explosives weren't in the towers you can just say "Well they were top secret high efficiency cell phone sized explosives that don't make noises or flashes and you only need a few of them, they're easy to install and hide, somehow they weren't damaged in the plane crash and they used top secret ultra low latency wireless technology too."
"Bingo! That is why it is incumbent on you to prove sufficiency."
I did that already, you've not once debated any of the math. Your lack of understanding of a natural process which has been explained quite thoroughly is not proof that the buildings couldn't fall naturally.
"Perhaps you should go do such research?"
None of the other videos I've seen that show the last minutes of the towers standing have the "explosions" in them, so I believe that the noise is just wind or camera handling.
"The building doesn't need to be one dimensional for the calculations to be correct."
Assuming one dimension allows two things: It assures that the outcome will be symmetrical (which is at issue), and it allows the actual layout to be ignored.
You say the top floors impacted the core columns? What sheared the floors then? There was practically nothing BUT the core columns in the core.
If the weight is shearing the floors how does it get to the core?
It's not an assumption, they were trying to calculate the impact force necessary to start a collapse. If the force generated was distributed equally throughout the core columns (best case scenario) and enough to cause just one undamaged floor to fail, then the impact would be able to cause a complete and total collapse.
And what do you mean by ignoring the layout, do you mean ignoring the floor plan?
"The top section doesn't need to be rigid for it to act as a single entity."
Would you rather be subjected to a stroke of a feather each day for the rest of your life or a single lash from a whip?
Take a cup full of water where the water weighs the same as the cup, pour out the water on your foot, then drop the cup on your foot. Which stubs your toe?
Internal structure matters.
As for the explosions: You are disproving all kinds of random theories which are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
One metric ton of feathers dropped over a time span of two seconds on a persons head would still be as fatal as a concrete block of feathers weighing one ton dropping on the same head.
Yes, if the upper levels of the WTC took a year to fall down onto the lower undamaged floors the building wouldn't have collapsed. That wasn't the case here, the time span was quite short and the amount of debris was quite large.
"One metric ton of feathers dropped over a time span of two seconds on a persons head would still be as fatal as a concrete block of feathers weighing one ton dropping on the same head."
Perfectly correct. IF...
The feathers are stuck together in a ball and react as a coherent body.
A loose feather does not fall at the same speed as a brick and only feathers that come into direct contact will transmit any force at all.
"The feathers are stuck together in a ball and react as a coherent body."
Not at all, which is why I gave the two second time span. In two seconds all of the feathers had fallen on the head, while they were loose they would be quite fatal.
"A loose feather does not fall at the same speed as a brick"
That depends on the air resistance.
As far as those feathers making direct contact, I was quite specific that all of the loose feathers contacted the head.
If there was no noise of explosions going off then it's quite unlikely that there were any explosives going off. If the only sounds picked up before the buildings fell were only picked up in one video and no others (especially ones that were closer to the building) then it's not likely that the noise was explosives.
Unless you're arguing that they used silent explosives for which we have no evidence, in which case you could also argue for aliens, magical pixies, etc.
"I think we should drop the explosive question entirely..."
So the explosions don't line up, does that mean the videos you found are lying?
Find thermite that cuts through steel as quickly and predictively as explosives and I'll consider thermite.
As far as the eye witnesses, at a murder trial there are 10 video tapes of a CO2 canister exploding and killing the murder victim, but 100 witnesses who said they heard a gunshot. What evidence do you think the court is going to believe more?
I've had this discussion with a truther claiming to be a chemist before but here we go again. Adding sulfur to thermite (thermate) and then putting that on steel does not magically decrease the steels melting point. Just like putting salt on ice doesn't magically decrease the melting point of the ice. The salt is only effective when the ice melts, that's when the water (melted ice) can absorb the salt. It's the salt water that has a lower melting point, not the ice with salt on it.
"You have to prove that natural collapse was sufficient, I have to prove that explosives were necessary."
That's already been done with math and physics, you've yet to refute any of the numbers. You just keep saying I have to offer proof. Well I offered the papers with the physics calculations that show the building could have collapsed naturally. If you want to say they're wrong then please show me what it is in the calculations that's wrong.
No they didn't, you just fail to understand the concept.
The top section doesn't need to be rigid for it to act as a single entity. The building doesn't need to be one dimensional for the calculations to be correct. A substantial ejection would include the core columns. They core columns below the impact didn't need to be damaged. The top section accelerated as it fell downwards increasing it's impact force on the undamaged core columns.
Now that i have more than 1 of you here, Building 7, Building 7, Building 7! Did it fall from fire? or was it demolished ? I'll save you the carpal tunnel, If bldg 7 "naturally " fell from fire, then what is the Silverstein statement about "the decision" to bring it down? And if it was demo'd You better come up with a covert super speed demo squad that was not affected by the chaos. Gee, I don't see any dradles, or cowboy hats, Who's defense team am I speaking with?
"6. From the presence of elemental aluminium and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that contains the ingredients of thermite."
(page29)
"7. ... the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample."
Okay perhaps I should be more clear. When you ignite thermite it creates a sustained reaction until there is no more fuel (thermite) to continue the reaction. They had no sustained reaction, a small piece of red hot material was ejected and nothing else took place. If they had tried the same experiment with a sample of thermite it would have caused a much more violent (and dangerous for the person conducting the experiment) reaction.
"The first WTC red/gray chop so tested was approximately 1mmX1mm."
You are just making stuff up now. Where is your data backing up your claim that a small piece of thermite would be so dangerous? Thermite does it's damage from the heat of the resultant products. Any explosive does it's damage by forming a pressure wave.
Personal experience, thermite isn't hard to make when you're a bored teenager. Though even when I was a stupid teen, I never thought to ignite even a small amount of thermite while I'm holding it...
Though if you don't believe it read any source on thermite, they were even more dangerous slowly heating the thermite as that will cause it to explode when it ignites rather than slowly burn.
The guy wasn't holding it, and if you look at the video of the event you will see it reacts vigorously (cited of page 22, but it is also on youtube somewhere).
Unfortunately there is no audio but I would expect a little 'pop' to have accompanied the event.
It looks like you have taken your experience as a teenager and extrapolated what you thought would happen to a small quantity down to a tiny sample.
There is simply not enough thermite in that sample to form a significant shockwave.
"There is simply not enough thermite in that sample to form a significant shockwave."
Have you ever seen thermite in action? Thermite is VERY HOT and can ignite pretty easily when you don't want it to. It seems like they were being quite careless with their samples especially since they thought it was an exotic form of thermite.
Ignoring the safety concerns, from their description they didn't ignite anything. The orange projectile means the thermite was too cold for ignition.
Normal thermite doesn't explode though. and 'the projectile' was just flame. In the subsequent test where a iron spheroid WAS recovered the resultant was only a couple microns across, hardly enough to do much harm even at very high temperatures on the palm of your hand.
The energy of the reaction will be a function of it's volume right?
Thermite works in part by heating the resultant iron from it's own reaction. There simply wasn't much iron to heat, and nothing to heat it.
Thermite explodes if you heat it slowly, which is exactly what they did.
The result of the test wasn't anything like what happens when you ignite thermite. One small piece is ejected? It reaches higher temperatures than what caused it's reaction yet it doesn't ignite the rest of the material? It just seems as if they didn't have thermite. Especially when you consider the method of heating it that they used was the most dangerous method you can use on thermite.
What is the rest of the material you are referring too? It was a small chip. They also argue that this was not normal off the shelf thermite, but rather that it was a special military grade composition.
All that I am saying is that the article DOES in fact come to a firm conclusion as to the nature and reaction of this material, and as far as I am aware some of this stuff was independently tested as well. It is not indisputable by any means, but it is better science than the commission report.
The rest of the material being everything except the little glowing orange piece that broke off. It was a small chip to start out, but the piece that "reacted" was significantly smaller than the remaining material.
All I'm saying is that the article does not come to a firm conclusion, it comes to a firm suspicion. While the chip contains the necessary ingredients for thermite (aluminum and rust, common in buildings), it did not react in the same way that thermite would.
The rest of the material being everything except the little glowing orange piece that broke off. It was a small chip to start out, but the piece that "reacted" was significantly smaller than the remaining material.
All I'm saying is that the article does not come to a firm conculsion, it comes to a firm suspicion. While the chip contains the necessary ingredients for thermite (aluminum and rust, common in buildings), it did not react in the same way that thermite would.
What part of 'it was thermite' makes you conclude that it is not firm.
I will paraphrase for your convenience: It was definisilisly most certainly without a doubt incontrovertibly indubitably verifiably thermite both in composition and reaction.
Satisfied? You might disagree with the conclusion, but you are misrepresenting the article by saying otherwise.
Also, what do you base your assertion about the amount of the remaining material on? You just made that up.
Incidentally, I downloaded a peer reviewed article by Bazant and Verdure (March 2007 Journal of Engineering Mechanics).
That is a fine example of shoddy science. It starts with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, sets up a straw man, engages in ad hominem attacks, makes unrealistic assumptions, discards observed data in favour of supposition uses math to cover flawed logic fails to take into account the fact that their simplified model does not predict the observed outcome.
The part where they didn't explore other possibilities.
They found aluminum, and rust, tried to ignite it and then decided that thermite no longer burns white, it now shoots off small orange sparks.
They started off with the idea that thermite was present and did everything possible to come to that conclusion while ignoring the very likely possibility that they could have something entirely different.
Like what pray tell? Either it was thermite and reacted like thermite, or it wasn't. They had established that it was not paint if I am not much mistaken. What else could it have been? Maybe scrambled eggs?
Aha! looks like they didn't test for that. There is a difference between testing an hypothesis and asserting your conclusion at the start.
What else is there made up principally of aluminum and iron oxide that reacts violently that I don't know about? It is thermite a priori at that point.
It could have been the remains of a collapsed building...
Pressure could have fused the materials together. There was certainly enough aluminum, and iron oxide around to have created them. The only other ingredient would be pressure, which is easy to find in a collapsing 110 story building. It would explain why the chips aren't totally uniform in composition, and why they were layered.
The article name is: "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" Journal of Engineering Mechanics @ ASCE March 2007.
To be fair, as I have noted, the body of the work may well be a good study of some one-dimensional collapses and therefore be acceptable on the that basis. But doesn't describe the WTC as is misleadingly suggested by the title.
Furthermore, Bazant is co-author of fully 10 of the 21 sources cited.
In comparison only around 7 of the 31 sources for the thermite study included one of the 9 co-authors.
So much for peer review.
My biggest issue is that the official explanation simply does not pass the test of good science. I have looked for it, I really have, but everybody assumes someone else has done the science, when in fact no-one has.
Clearly you don't understand what peer review means.
If I cite 29 of my own (peer reviewed) works in a paper with 29 citations, that paper is no less peer reviewed than if I cited none of my own works. Peer review means that I sent that paper to a publisher who sent it around to specialists in the field who would double check the work and make sure it's accurate and follows the correct methodology.
I didn't mean that the the number of citations actually amounts to peer review, only that an article of that kind of quality and with so few actual citations should never have passed peer review.
Obviously the number of citations does not matter, but when a journal article cites only 11 outside sources you have to wonder about the level of the work.
Part of scientific methodology is correctly citing claims that are not proven in the text.
"Obviously the number of citations does not matter, but when a journal article cites only 11 outside sources you have to wonder about the level of the work."
That depends on how long the article is, how well known the material is (you wouldn't have to cite an article if you're simply making the claim that the earth orbits the sun), and how many other articles relate to the information presented (it might be all new research with the paper providing the evidence for the claims.)
Did you actually read the cited papers or are you going by the titles? I'm confused with what your point is in regard to the citations, I don't see any inconsistency or problems with what was cited.
Well I was going by the dates and assuming that they all back the official story. Since it takes time to prepare a report for publication and have it go through the peer review process and these were all publish within a year after the event I am assuming they did not have much chance to actually study the event in depth.
But I will try and go through them one by one next week and see what they say.
Okay, given that the only thing we need to ask ourselves is whether the government conspiracy of people of dubious moral rectitude is more likely than the bizarre set of physical events required for an office fire to have caused all three collapses (I would include WTC7).
Frankly either explanation stretches credulity, but I believe the weight of evidence comes down comfortably on the side of deliberate demolition with thermite and other explosives.
This wasn't the first time this technology was used. Search youtube for "directed energy weapons, iraq" and you can compare the damage done to "enemy" cars versus the damage done to the 1,400 cars all around the trade towers, as shown in Dr. Judy Woods excellent website. Also, do you know about Hurricane Erin, the gigantic one, just 200 E of NYC on 9/11, that was totally blacked out from the media, even from your own mind and awareness. Look it up. It's fucking real, and still on NOAA site.
33rdPatriot 2 months ago
DK is a liar. They are trying to keep people from knowing about DEW. The basement would have been destroyed if it was nukes, but the basement was fine the next day.
jerichomutant 2 months ago
was there any activity at the HAARP array on 9/11?
buttlescutt 3 months ago
people that were sacrifice ,this was a sacrifice to their god,this zionist mazonic ,illuminati,cabal sacrifice all this inocent people on that day,and made everyone to believe it was terrorist,yes they are the terrorist.
144000V 3 months ago
Just get a dictionary and look up what ground zero means:
ground zero
n.
1. The target of a projectile, such as a missile or bomb.
2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.
antonfilth 3 months ago
@antonfilth DK's numbers are way off man. dont believe the hype. i have some links that show he is way off if you would like them. otherwise it would be a good theory.
dominic150 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago
There are similar effects described as the Hutchison Effect here on YouTube
eskatee 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Energy Microwaves High Beam Military Weapon
SuperYesyesyo 4 months ago
watch?v=dGEwvKUybH8
z1zaz 4 months ago
Was the thing made completely out of sand-stone?
orange70383 4 months ago
@orange70383 SOLID STEEL.
GeneralRushHour 4 months ago
If the tower went down in any conventional means, those steel beams would still be standing after a fire, colapse or explosions....not turn to dust.
3AtomicJabez8 4 months ago 2
theres no sounds of explosion on tape though, thats the problem... cant just "estimate" what happened...
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
@thisphotoisproof Observation of this jpg : loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1(dot)jpg
clearly shows EXCESSIVE amounts of thermal energy. Notice the blast "circle" under bld 7. Conventional demo charges produce kinetic energy. Nuclear demo charges produce thermal energy. Seismic data also supports this FACT, as does the dust data produce by Steven E. Jones. Thermite theory never existed until Dimitri Khalezov published his book and sent copies to CONgress.
Zeolite
cheerdiver 4 months ago
@cheerdiver
but thats still not solid proof i mean... these people who think they knew what hapepned and researched it, but the question is can you really believe them.
thisphotoisproof 4 months ago
Does anyone recall hearing about a Category 5 Hurricane off the coast of New York on 9/11? Hurricane Erin I think it was....did this monster storm get any press?
I hope the below 30 crowd growing up with this incredible information technology is taking notes. This was a very, very high tech operation disguised by 'plane wrecks' and military exercises that neutralized our entire NORAD/NEADS operation....that's big time stuff.
Pay attention and take this country back before it's too late.
Akileze 5 months ago 4
@Akileze See drjudywood . com website. See also NOAA website, it was called HURRICANE ERIN, and it was only 200 miles E of NYC (it had been bumped along for two weeks prior, presumably by HAARP weather mod blasts), yet it was 100% blacked out from news and 99.9999% of Americans' awareness. Pics on Woods' site and also on NOAA site. See for yourself how everyone's been 100% lied to and misinformed, manipulated, midsirected. 9/11 was a FCKING INSIDE JOB. WKAE THE FCK UP.
33rdPatriot 2 months ago
These buildinds disentigrated from the inside out.
VisionXray23 7 months ago 3
Comment removed
VisionXray23 7 months ago
amazing media still trying to blame bin laden this and he was to plan new..lot more point on why its make from in side.
Explain how the rest of this very strong building there not was damage.!Also go down..normal top will tip over and rest of building will still bee there.
you see explosion at the floor plan-the building was seal on 3 part soo no fire are go down from top:-)complete joke.
Real terroist have take the neuclear fabric you find on way to new york..and kill many more.
MultiAirbrusher 8 months ago
Anyone who can watch this video and still argue that they didn't blow the shit out of those buildings.... is either completely retarded beyond all comprehension, or is a fucking traitor and should be hanging by their neck.
1loydster 1 year ago 27
@1loydster shoddy workmanship on the buildings in the first place. not enough steel. its people like you and your ancestors hanging people without giving them a fair trial that created things like 911 in the 1st place. lets say you really thought he was retarded? you wouldnt speak to him like that. therefore you dont think he is retarded your comparing him to someone that is. your the type of people that get so mad they just start hanging people to sooth their souls and calm themselves
derpotni3riots 1 year ago
@derpotni3riots Shoddy workmanship ehh? You're a fuckin mook and stupid to boot. Study the towers then you can write intelligently about their construction, fuckwad!
godbluffvdgg 1 year ago 3
@godbluffvdgg ok i will study the towers. ok well they had LESS steel in them then normal because of their UNIQUE design. it SAVED money. so much so they came under fire if it was safe. so much so they presented the buildings as the SAFEST buildings going capble of surviving a plane impact. are your studies aware of that mr mook?
derpotni3riots 1 year ago
@derpotni3riots Thats funny the thousand engineers at ae911truth say they were the Mac Daddy of all buildings ever built and were stronger than most ., You be a shill !
SAYYOURROSARY 1 month ago
@1loydster Tough to stop watching these, ain't it bro? I am collecting them now for when YT starts charging us. How you been otherwise? How's business? I guess that now you're such a big movie producer, you don't have time for us little people ; ). Yo, have you checked out Judy Wood's presentation. If not, check it. Also, did you see ventura's show and the revelation that the "hi jackers" were in the cockpit prior to taking off. Peace my friend.
godbluffvdgg 1 year ago
@1loydster Or maybe they're just not a payed dis-info agent like yourself
thetableswillturn 11 months ago
@thetableswillturn
a-huh... I believe you fall under the 'completely retarded' sector idiot.
1loydster 11 months ago
@1loydster What is so horrible ,out of mind, and so ugly naked is that US Government pushed the idea of "pancake collapse", when the scene is screaming loudly in the form of high powered EXPLOSIONS. It did not matter, what kind of explosives. it mattered that it was a high-noon mass murder , by insiders design , with the ugly big lie that it was the planes and the 19 hijackers that were not. This big government lie is still roaming , free, unpunished. but the truth will conquer the darkness.
albertsneijMD 7 months ago 2
@1loydster They didn´t. It was Directed Energy,
GeneralRushHour 4 months ago
I remember years ago while at work (before 9/11 happened). I was having a discussion with a co-worker that I have great respect for. During the discussion I told her that I believe that people are a lot smarter then everyone makes them out to be. She laughed and told me in no uncertain terms that I was wrong. That people as a whole were ignorant.
I've not found anything to support my argument in the 10+ years since I first uttered it. The 9/11 truthers is proof that I will never find it.
andreo 1 year ago
No one will know the truth for a long time unless the mass majority of Americans wake up. It's not to hard to believe that Bush was fiddling on the rooftop while the greatest swindle in history was done right in front of us on live TV. There is motive certainly.
I just want to know the extend of the technology that is being withheld from the public. If they have free energy and beer that doesn't go flat I'm gonna be pissed they held out on me.
liqid9 1 year ago
1:34 to 1:58, never seen that before. Interesting
jlsumme 1 year ago
Comment removed
snafuedem 1 year ago
You guys really think tiny little puffs like that were demo charges going off? Charges powerful enough to drop a building like that?
Btw, the building is already falling by the time they puff. You guys are morons.
tobiashimself 1 year ago
@tobiashimself so how do you explain the puff of smo0ke at 3:00? it happens wayyy before the collapse reaches that level, and its under the sky lobby.
ems390 1 year ago
HAARP
JZJYRWO 1 year ago
If you still believe a cave man did this, then you the conspiracy theorist.
MrCone223 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Probably doctored. The music at the start is intentionally offensive.
Disinformation.
TinyCoconut 2 years ago
GREAT VIDEO.
FINALLY!
aeolismensae 2 years ago
To think some people believe the corrupt governments collapse explanation. Steel turns to dust dammit. Inside job.
ljrow49 2 years ago
"Steel turns to dust dammit."
You obviously didn't see ground zero shortly after the collapse. There was plenty of steel not turned to dust. Unless you think they brought it all in from elsewhere and dropped it off while no one was looking?
zakabog 2 years ago
"You obviously didn't see ground zero shortly after the collapse."
WTF? You obviously assume.
I have seen every picture and video available. There were tons of steel beams left mostly with angle cuts common with demolition some blown hundreds of yards into other buildings. The spires near the beginning of this video show steel standing vertically on the right side turn into dust sized particles and fall to the ground..
ljrow49 2 years ago
"I have seen every picture and video available."
I meant with your eyes, and I was 100% correct. All you saw were the pictures the truthers felt supported their argument. I live in NYC, I saw the WTC 2 days after the collapse, before the cleanup effort. I can tell you there was quite a number of steel beams creating a massive mound of debris with part of the tower still standing.
The steel isn't what's creating the dust cloud, it's the concrete, sheet rock, etc.
zakabog 2 years ago
I never said the steel made the pyroclastic cloud grasshopper. I said the steel particles fell to the ground. Yes you do assume. No such thing as being 100% correct about anything. End of discussion.
ljrow49 2 years ago
"I said the steel particles fell to the ground."
Ah of course, so how do you know any of the steel was turned to dust? From the photos of the debris afterwards? Yeah, well from actually seeing the scene with my own two eyes I could tell you that the steel wasn't turned to dust. Even the cleanup recovered most of the steel that was used in the building, so exactly how much of the steel was turned to dust and how do you suppose it turned to dust?
zakabog 2 years ago
The problem is not seeing how this could happen naturally though, it is just on the edge of being conceivable. But WTC7 is not.
That is why it is so important. Once you concede that WTC7 could not have fallen naturally, it is hard to conclude that the rest of the event was not staged.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"But WTC7 is not."
So your argument is WTC 7 couldn't have possibly fallen naturally, therefore the twin towers were brought down by the government?
That's not a very good argument.
zakabog 2 years ago
The twin towers are highly suspicious as it is. But the only conceivable way WTC7 could have been brought down like that was with explosives.
Your argument hinges on the fact that explosives were not used because of the conspiracy that it implies. But if the conspiracy already exists because of WTC7 that argument has no basis.
Every detail of the twin towers collapse is more easily explained by explosives, add that to a pre-existing conspiracy and it is not hard to connect the dots for most.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Well no, my argument is what it is because it makes sense. There is no evidence for explosives other than what you claim is unusual behavior, yet no one with any background in structural engineering seems to agree. There are no explosions in any of the videos, no one in the towers reported any explosives lying around, and there was no evidence of explosives in the debris."
zakabog 2 years ago
No explosives where looked for by the official investigators, and the contention is exactly that nano-thermite is used, and was found by the only people who bothered to check.
Lots of people reported explosions, you are being more than a little disingenuous suggesting otherwise.
And the puffs of smoke seen in all the videos is so completely inconsistent with you own collapse theory that, if they were caused by breaking widows, you have to discard progressive collapse out of hand.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"But if the conspiracy already exists because of WTC7 that argument has no basis."
That's the most ridiculous leap of logic I've seen in a long time.
Look, if they came out tomorrow and said "Oh hey, yeah we blew up WTC 7, here's the proof, here's the empty canisters secretly removed from the site during clean up, here's how we set everything up, etc." that still wouldn't be evidence that the twin towers were a controlled demolition. It's a logical fallacy.
zakabog 2 years ago
Then my proof of conspiracy does refute your argument.
Reason is a better guide though. Imagine three cones in the road, two are knocked over by either a car or wind we cannot tell which.
But if we were told that an adjacent third cone was simultaneously knocked over by wind, you would if to provide proof if you wish to contend that a car did it.
This is why the burden of proof rests not on the 'truthers' but on the official version, and that burden has not, as yet been discharged.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"you would if to provide proof if you wish to contend that a car did it."
No, if the wind knocked over one cone you can't just jump to the conclusion that wind knocked over ALL the cones. You could theorize that the rest of the cones were knocked over by wind but then you'd need evidence for that.
zakabog 2 years ago
"if the wind knocked over one cone you can't just jump to the conclusion that wind knocked over ALL the cones."
Sorry to break it to you, but you cannot jump to that conclusion at all. But it is equally true for the official version. In fact logic does not allow you to jump to ANY conclusion whatsoever.
But a little thought does.
The evidence for the observed nature of controlled demolition is well documented and commonly observed though, so the evidence has already been given.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...but you cannot jump to that conclusion at all."
I know that...
"....so the evidence has already been given."
Well no not really, where are the loud explosions heard for miles, where are the bright flashes, where are the synchronized explosions BEFORE the collapse, where are all the signs of explosives in the debris, how did they manage to get the explosives in to all the office buildings with no one noticing?
There really is no evidence for controlled demolition.
zakabog 2 years ago
Renovations, power downs, fire proofing work, fire drills, lift upgrades. All of which were known to have been going on in the weeks prior.
Watch controlled demos closely, it is not necessary to have all the explosions go off at the same time, the main supports are often taken out well in advance. The biggest explosions at WTC happened several minutes before the collapse, nothing out of the ordinary there.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"All of which were known to have been going on in the weeks prior."
Fire drills happen in a matter of minutes (that's the point) not enough time to install explosives. Power downs wouldn't affect the ENTIRE building. Lift upgrades, well that would only affect the elevators. There would still be someone in the building during all of these occasions.
"The biggest explosions at WTC happened several minutes before the collapse"
I'm sorry, I must have missed that, please show me the explosions.
zakabog 2 years ago
Why do you suppose most of the explosions have to be visible. You yourself have stated that most controlled demolitions do not have a lot of visible explosions.
But there are audible explosions, which are otherwise unexplained, in almost all the testimony and video.
Plus the squibs coming out the buildings during the actual collapse. They cannot be windows blowing from floors falling because a) it would imply impossibly fast collapse speeds and b) it contradicts the official model.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
I stated that? I think I would have said that controlled demolitions DO have a lot of visible, and highly audible explosions. I've never observed a controlled demolition that was silent with no visible explosions.
Can I see a video showing audible explosions before the tower starts collapsing?
a) Are you just guessing here?
b) How is it contradicting?
zakabog 2 years ago
"Landmark Implosion"
Notice two distinct sets of explosions.
"Tencza apartments controlled demolition"
Series of preparatory cuts
"Building Demolition Fail"
Not technically an explosion, but you get the idea.
'Department Store Controlled Demolition"
A clearer view of the sequence.
"Crowne Plaza Implosion"
Good shot of the actual explosions. "Stardust Implosion"
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Notice two distinct sets of explosions."
Two VERY LOUD sets of explosions. Where are these explosions in the WTC?
Second demolition, Again, very loud...
Third building collapse...
I don't get the point, the building was severely damaged and then rolled over, I don't see the similarities.
Fourth demolition
More audible explosions...
Where are these explosions before the WTC collapse? Just one video is all I ask for.
zakabog 2 years ago
All demolitions are not the same.
Contradict me, don't ask me how exactly they did it.
I already showed why a natural collapse is most likely beyond the bounds of reason.
No, I cannot reproduce exactly the details of what happened, but I do not need, the burden of proof does not rest with me, since we know demolitions can and will produce this effect.
What we do NOT know is examples of natural collapse producing this effect, therefore YOU no I need to prove your case.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"What we do NOT know is examples of natural collapse producing this effect, therefore YOU no I need to prove your case. "
Actually in the Madrid fire, the steel framed structure collapsed while the cement reinforced structure remained standing. You can see it collapse in the video of the fire.
zakabog 2 years ago
You can clearly observe that no pancake was caused by this partial collapse. This is an argument AGAINST your view, not mine. I never said that fire could not cause collapse, but that it could not cause the OBSERVED collapse.
Are you sure those central columns are made purely of concrete. Remember that the WTC core was fire protected by gypsum boards, and the official version does not claim that they were dislodged.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
I never claimed it would be proof, but you would be a fool to doubt it nevertheless.
Strict logical proof involves a determination of causality, which demands the presence of the effect in the presence of the cause, and it's absence in the absence of the cause.
The presence of a conspiracy does prove PROBABLE cause though, which is a wholly different animal.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"The presence of a conspiracy does prove PROBABLE cause though, which is a wholly different animal. "
Not really, as the idea that they knew WTC 7 was going to be struck by debris from the south tower is kind of ridiculous. If the WTC 7 wasn't hit by falling debris they wouldn't have been able to go on with the plans to destroy it, leaving explosives in the building for everyone to find.
Though like I said, I want to finish with WTC 1 and 2 first.
zakabog 2 years ago
It wasn't fatally struck and it wasn't burning out of control. Yet it fell.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"It wasn't fatally struck"
No, it wasn't and that was never the point.
"...and it wasn't burning out of control."
It didn't need to be. You really need to re-read the official explanation as you don't seem to have any clue as to what it is.
zakabog 2 years ago
The official version requires the fire to heat the steel beams over a not insignificant area to a given level not as one-dimensional wires, but as three dimensional beams. If 10% of a beam is heated to the point where it loses 50% strength, does that mean the beam has lost 50% strength?
This is why the official version requires an out of control fire, even if they do not care to admit the fact.
The problem, again, is that the official version does not adequately reveal it's assumptions.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...does that mean the beam has lost 50% strength?"
Sort of, a beam is only as strong as it's weakest point. If you weaken just the last 10 inches of a beam by 50% then that's where any failure will occur. Though there are other factors too, since you're only heating a random small area the rest of the beam (if it's supporting any weight) will end up warping due to the unbalanced load capacity. Plus steel is a thermal conductor, I don't think it's possible to heat up only a small portion.
zakabog 2 years ago
"I don't think it's possible to heat up only a small portion."
Agreed, but isn't that precisely part of the problem in the first place, the reason why the Cardington tests did not produce failure of this kind?
Again, I will certainly grant warping, and even failure, but that is not what was observed. In both towers there needed to be simultaneous and complete failure of several beams, since there was little deflection until just before collapse and the collapse was symmetrical.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Besides, it's entirely within the realm of possibilities (if WTC 7 was actually brought down by controlled demolition) that WTC 7 was the target yet the planes missed, hit WTC 1 and 2 and those buildings just happened to fall due to a natural process. Then after seeing the damage to WTC 7 after the south tower collapsed they could set off the explosives and later explain "Oh well WTC 7 fell because of the damage from the falling south tower."
Proving one does not prove the other.
zakabog 2 years ago
It is not logical, it is reasonable. Their is no logical necessity either way. As a matter of fact the towers could have been blown up, fallen naturally and de-molecularised by martians all at the same time and still be logically constant, logic does not prove anything in this instance.
What I did say though: if your argument is of the form: If there was a conspiracy then the towers were blown up, there was no conspiracy therefore the towers fell naturally...
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...and still be logically constant"
Yes, but logically you couldn't say "Well this tower was blown up by aliens, therefore all the towers were blown up by aliens."
"if your argument is of the form..."
That's the thing, that's not my argument at all. I'm not discussing WTC 7 yet because we've not finished with the twin towers. You still believe there was nano-thermite present and don't seem to acknowledge why the "nano-thermite" had an inconsistent composition and didn't react like thermite.
zakabog 2 years ago
"...if your argument is of the form"
It's not, it never was. My argument is that the towers could have entirely fallen naturally, therefore there is no NEED for a conspiracy.
They could come out tomorrow and say "Yeah it was all a conspiracy, we just used alien technology to bring down the twin towers" and the collapse scenario could still have been physically possible.
Right now I'm only arguing that the towers could have physically fallen the way they did under the conditions they were in.
zakabog 2 years ago
The fact that there is no need for conspiracy does not prove that it was not there, just as the fact that there may have been no need for explosives does not show that explosives was not used, even though the preponderence of evidence points to it being explosives.
You must remember that the official version rests ENTIRELY on the isolated equations with dodgy inputs and a thought experiment reified on a computer simulation, the code of which was never released.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...The fact that there is no need for conspiracy does not prove that it was not there"
I know.
You really don't seem to get this, I'm not trying to convince you that there was no conspiracy, but your point was that there must have been a conspiracy because the building couldn't have fallen any other way. My point is that the building could have fallen due to the cause in the official explanation with no need for explosives.
So to summarize, I'm only arguing that explosives weren't needed.
zakabog 2 years ago
I will concede that it is conceivable that it fell naturally, in the same why that it is conceivable that Martians did it or it was explosives.
But this does not get us very far. Beyond that point I need to weigh the odds and the evidence in favour of each view. Yes it is possible that such a collapse occured naturally, but I have been shown no evidence that this was the case.
The design of the buildings is not sufficient, the notion that it HAD to fall that way is pure unsupported conjecture.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...but I have been shown no evidence that this was the case."
Well, show me the explosions that went off minutes before the tower fell.
zakabog 2 years ago
There are many videos available with audible explosion, dust clouds at the base of the building well before collapse and a eyewitness accounts from inside the buildings.
Remember that this was not a standard demolition, so the cutting could be spaced at leisure. If you think about it, there is no reason to keep the cuts spaced close together in this case, as it would have been preferable to use FEWER explosions rather than more.
But there is no need to follow industry standard timetables.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"There are many videos available with audible explosion, dust clouds at the base of the building well before collapse and a eyewitness accounts from inside the buildings."
Eyewitness accounts are flawed since we'd have to take that persons word for it rather than observing ourselves. And with all of the cameras rolling that day I'm sure there's got to be at least one that caught these explosions right? So can I see the videos with the audible explosions before the collapse?
zakabog 2 years ago
"Explosions on 911"
"WTC 2 Explosions"
"Audio Spectrum Analysis of WTC explosions - Pt 1, the best so far!"
"WTC 1 4 Base Explosions"
But you really are getting pretty desperate with the eyewitnesses, it is more than enough for a court of law is it not?
Do you realise that you have not as yet presented a single piece of evidence other than the official line?
No follow ups, nothing. Just natural collapse, NIST, Bazant and weak denialism. Not good enough, sorry.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Explosions on 911"
The towers already collapsed before this video.
With the "explosions" being as loud as they are in this video, why is no one in that massive crowd reacting? Did they not hear it? How do you know it's not just some other noise? Are these noises in other videos as well?
The next video just examines the previous one.
The last video assumes every low frequency spike to be an explosion ignoring all other possibilities. Why not compare these "explosions" to actual explosions?
zakabog 2 years ago
The first was prior to WT7 collapse.
Yo are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret low energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound.
Again, I am not trying to prove explosion, or any particular collapse theory. Proving that yours is not reasonable is more than sufficient.
Can you provide details explaining these noises in terms of natural collapse? Remember to state the exact location and explain the reaction of seagulls.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Yo are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret low energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
Darn, editing is hard in this little window, that should read:
"You are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret highly energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
Apologies.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"You are also misrepresenting the video, the human ear does not interpret highly energetic low frequency sound as being as loud as similarly energetic high frequency sound."
Sure but don't you think someone would say "Hey what was that weird really deep noise?" There was no reaction at all, as if no one heard the noises. Plus why are these noises so deep when the explosions in controlled demolition videos are much higher pitched?
zakabog 2 years ago
Uhm, elementary physics? Low sound travels further than high sound?
"Hey, that plane hitting the building wasn't strange, but that rumbling sure is"
I can't show to you definitively what the origin of the sounds are, although it does establish a pattern.
How is it that you can just discount reams of eyewitnesses reports on a whim, yet now demand a video analysis showing the faces of all the onlookers? Many television stations reported explosions too, go look for it yourself.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Low sound travels further than high sound?"
...okay but if the sound is high pitched to begin with, unless the object creating the sound was moving, the pitch would not change. A high pitched sound heard far away would still be high pitched.
"yet now demand a video analysis showing the faces of all the onlookers?"
No, the faces are seen in the video, yet no one reacts to the noise. I just want another corroborating video, it seems odd that no one else seems to be able to hear the noise.
zakabog 2 years ago
Any sound is composed of fundamental frequencies and harmonics. When you hear the 'crack' of explosives you are hearing a high frequency shockwave.
High frequency sound is very easily diffused though and does not travel well over distance or through objects.
It is quite easy to damp sound to cut off the higher partials, but it is very hard indeed to block low frequency sound, as would be produced by sympathetic vibration in the buildings.
You can observe this when your neighbours party.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"You can observe this when your neighbours party."
Okay, when you hear thunder you can hear the crack for many miles. Explosives are quite loud, it would be possible to clearly hear an explosion from just a few miles away over open water.
You can observe this at the Macy's fireworks show.
zakabog 2 years ago
"The first was prior to WT7 collapse."
We're still talking about WTC 1 and 2 here. I wanted videos of the explosions prior to the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. You show me a few videos with a handful of low frequency noises interpreted as explosions that don't seem to be audible by anyone or any other camera microphones. Then you don't seem to be capable of comparing them to the videos you showed me of controlled demolitions. With dozens of very loud explosions moments before collapse.
zakabog 2 years ago
So you are in the business of picking random facts to support your claim?
This item you have before looks just like all the forks you have ever seen, and behaves in a similar fashion. However, since it's handle is made of ivory (not seen on other forks), it must be some completely new heretofore unknown implement used in the hunting industry.
Salience.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"This item you have before looks just like all the forks you have ever seen, and behaves in a similar fashion."
No, the report is basically looking at a collapsed house, picking up a piece of plywood and saying "This material has the same composition as firewood, it reacts when heated like firewood, therefore the house was burned down by it's owners due to all of the firewood."
Completely ignoring the glue in the plywood, or the fact that plywood is common in houses, etc.
zakabog 2 years ago
I do not have another video with good sound for an extended period. The only other long duration video doesn't capture sound from the buildings at all.
This is too be expected when there is no line of sight to the buildings and low quality recording equipment.
What is interesting about that particular video is the lack of upper harmonics, indicating (if nothing else) a high energy, but distant source.
I agree it is not conclusive, but it does not need to be.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
There are long duration videos out there, you'd think at least one person trying to prove the explosives were real would have done a comparison of two of these videos to see if the explosions line up...
Perhaps they don't line up and that's why no one has done a comparison? I mean it does seem like the most logical explanation given how many videos there were on that day.
zakabog 2 years ago
Here is an especially interesting one, though not widely known: "Incendio Torre Santa María"
I am am still waiting for examples or explanations of a pancake collapse. Scale model, a study accurately reflecting reality (not assuming that the top stories remained intact), even a computer model will do if you release the input parameters and source code.
The reality is: You got nothing, zilch. As long as my theory is more likely, the burden of proof is on you.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"a study accurately reflecting reality (not assuming that the top stories remained intact)"
They don't need to remain intact, dropping one bowling ball on an object has the same impact force as dropping 4 quarters of the same bowling ball on the same object.
It seems as if you've got your mind shut away in a box, you don't seem to understand any of the concepts I'm presenting you with and you have no willingness to learn.
zakabog 2 years ago
You make it sound like the preponderence of physical evidence points to natural collapse, when this is in fact a preposterous fabrication. Science is all about replicability and falsifiability. Computer models do not count.
Search these two Chinese examples on YouTube
1) 'Amazing : New apartment building tips over in China'
2) 'Controlled Demolition in China Vs 9/11'
Then provide me with a good physical model (computer models don't count) or another similar collapse.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Computer models do not count. "
Since when has since been about ignoring mathematical formulas and physics in favor of saying "Well those two look sort of alike, they must be the same!"
"...or another similar collapse."
That's the thing, how many similar buildings are there? How many 110 story buildings out there have been struck by airliners and suffered the same fire damage?
zakabog 2 years ago
"Since when has since been about ignoring mathematical formulas and physics in favor of saying "Well those two look sort of alike, they must be the same!""
Physics will ALWAYS prefer observation over theory. Theory is only useful insofar as it predicts events accurately and is falsifiable. Yours is neither.
Anybody can come with random equations and put in random numbers to match a observed event after the fact. But that is not science I am afraid.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Anybody can come with random equations and put in random numbers to match a observed event after the fact."
The thing is the equations aren't random, they're well known in the engineering community. The numbers are out there as well, unless of course you're talking about a specific made up equation, and if so please point it out.
zakabog 2 years ago
How to use well established but irrelevant equations with false assumptions to come to any conclusion imaginable?
Given that a house is roughly spherical in nature and that watermelons are too, and given the fact that watermelons have a density [insert equation here] which is lower than that of water [insert equation]; we can conclude that houses, when submersed in water, will float to a confidence of [some t-tests and other statistics]%.
Unfortunately assumptions DO matter in the real world.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"How to use well established but irrelevant equations with false assumptions to come to any conclusion imaginable?"
Umm sure and I can also say 2 + 2 = 5 and it could actually be correct (in programming you can add 2.5 to 2.5, the computer will display it as 2 but the result will be 5.) But if I tried to publish a paper about the "findings" it would get rejected, or someone would correct it.
Anyway, exactly which equations are made up? Which numbers are made up?
zakabog 2 years ago
"Physics will ALWAYS prefer observation over theory."
Not quite in the case of structural engineering.
They don't look at tall buildings and assume "Well those buildings are standing, therefore all tall buildings can stand." There is a lot of math involved in calculating the load bearing capabilities of a building, the wind forces generated, how elastic a building will be, etc.
If those calculations were all just made up with made up numbers, then we wouldn't have tall buildings.
zakabog 2 years ago
The thing is though, the structural engineering models do not predict a collapse like this at all.
It is only predicted by cherry-picking data after the fact. The point is that science in general is about prediction, not explanation. Structural engineering, physics and common sense all PREDICT that the buildings will behave in a way different from what is observed.
If you want to come up with a model to explain the observation AFTER the fact you need to replicate the results to convince.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Please explain where it was predicted by any sort of physics calculations that the building was not going to collapse.
"...you need to replicate the results to convince. "
Which is why astrophysicists are all wrong, they haven't created any stars...
zakabog 2 years ago
No, they make predictions with their equations which are replicated by later observations.
The simple fact is that there simply is no attempt to find or produce such replication on the part of the official version past the computer simulations.
You are expected to accept as an article of faith.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"The simple fact is that there simply is no attempt to find or produce such replication on the part of the official version past the computer simulations."
So sponsor building a 110 story building and flying a jet into it. I mean, there are enough of you that believe in the conspiracy that you could easily collect money to help prove that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy. Do that, then build a replica of the towers, then fly a jet into them and see if the results match.
zakabog 2 years ago
You are being facetious, you know full well that that is not what is meant by replication.
No part, I repeat: NO PART of the official version, from the structural failure to the form of the pancake to the ejections, to the mid-air disintigration of office equipment.
NONE of it has been either observed in any number of collapses, and there has been zero attempt made to replicate any of these features in controlled studies.
Full scale replication, you think you are being funny?
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"to the mid-air disintigration of office equipment."
I must know, what explosions have ever caused anything in mid-air to disintegrate? It either disintegrates during the explosion and never gets ejected, or gets ejected and disintegrates upon impacting the ground. Never in mid-air though.
So please if you really believe anything disintegrated in mid-air, what do you think caused that and why do you think that it would be a desirable effect given that they were trying to make this believable?
zakabog 2 years ago
Again:
Your point is irrelevant. If it cannot be explained by natural collapse, and may be explained by explosives, there is nothing more to be proven.
I am not the one trying to prove a particular collapse mechanism, you are.
It is enough for me to show that natural collapse could not have caused the observed effect, while you must prove that it could.
I do not believe that natural collapse has been shown adequately, therefore explosives must be true, whatever the contingencies.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"It is enough for me to show that natural collapse could not have caused the observed effect, while you must prove that it could."
Unless you're arguing for a specific scenario. If you say it was explosives then prove explosives were capable of disintegrating office furniture mid-air, don't just say "Well the burden of proof is on you!"
My argument is that you're not actually observing what you think you are as it would have been impossible under any collapse scenario.
zakabog 2 years ago
"prove explosives were capable of disintegrating office furniture mid-air"
And your theory to explain it is?
Crushing force?
Put a stick of dynamite on a computer screen, light it an throw it in the air. Disintigration.
Is that what happened on the day? No.
Do we know exactly what happened? No.
Did I claim to? No.
Did you? Yes.
Have you provided evidence? No.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
You have to prove that natural collapse was sufficient, I have to prove that explosives were necessary.
Both versions involve natural collapse as a given.
If there is only two collapse theories on the table, then the mere fact that natural collapse was not sufficient is enough to show explosives were necessary.
Except if you have a third theory or can show that explosive were impossible.
Note: Not point to lack of evidence for explosives- show that it is not possible.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Note: Not point to lack of evidence for explosives- show that it is not possible."
It would be impossible to do that as any argument I can give that shows explosives weren't in the towers you can just say "Well they were top secret high efficiency cell phone sized explosives that don't make noises or flashes and you only need a few of them, they're easy to install and hide, somehow they weren't damaged in the plane crash and they used top secret ultra low latency wireless technology too."
zakabog 2 years ago
"It would be impossible to do that"
Bingo! That is why it is incumbent on you to prove sufficiency.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"Perhaps they don't line up and that's why no one has done a comparison?"
Perhaps you should go do such research? Prove all those eyewitnesses wrong?
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Bingo! That is why it is incumbent on you to prove sufficiency."
I did that already, you've not once debated any of the math. Your lack of understanding of a natural process which has been explained quite thoroughly is not proof that the buildings couldn't fall naturally.
"Perhaps you should go do such research?"
None of the other videos I've seen that show the last minutes of the towers standing have the "explosions" in them, so I believe that the noise is just wind or camera handling.
zakabog 2 years ago
"The building doesn't need to be one dimensional for the calculations to be correct."
Assuming one dimension allows two things: It assures that the outcome will be symmetrical (which is at issue), and it allows the actual layout to be ignored.
You say the top floors impacted the core columns? What sheared the floors then? There was practically nothing BUT the core columns in the core.
If the weight is shearing the floors how does it get to the core?
Do a proper model, then we talk math.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Assuming one dimension allows two things:"
It's not an assumption, they were trying to calculate the impact force necessary to start a collapse. If the force generated was distributed equally throughout the core columns (best case scenario) and enough to cause just one undamaged floor to fail, then the impact would be able to cause a complete and total collapse.
And what do you mean by ignoring the layout, do you mean ignoring the floor plan?
zakabog 2 years ago
"The top section doesn't need to be rigid for it to act as a single entity."
Would you rather be subjected to a stroke of a feather each day for the rest of your life or a single lash from a whip?
Take a cup full of water where the water weighs the same as the cup, pour out the water on your foot, then drop the cup on your foot. Which stubs your toe?
Internal structure matters.
As for the explosions: You are disproving all kinds of random theories which are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Would you rather be subjected to..."
One metric ton of feathers dropped over a time span of two seconds on a persons head would still be as fatal as a concrete block of feathers weighing one ton dropping on the same head.
Yes, if the upper levels of the WTC took a year to fall down onto the lower undamaged floors the building wouldn't have collapsed. That wasn't the case here, the time span was quite short and the amount of debris was quite large.
zakabog 2 years ago
"One metric ton of feathers dropped over a time span of two seconds on a persons head would still be as fatal as a concrete block of feathers weighing one ton dropping on the same head."
Perfectly correct. IF...
The feathers are stuck together in a ball and react as a coherent body.
A loose feather does not fall at the same speed as a brick and only feathers that come into direct contact will transmit any force at all.
Assuming a rigid body makes all the difference.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"The feathers are stuck together in a ball and react as a coherent body."
Not at all, which is why I gave the two second time span. In two seconds all of the feathers had fallen on the head, while they were loose they would be quite fatal.
"A loose feather does not fall at the same speed as a brick"
That depends on the air resistance.
As far as those feathers making direct contact, I was quite specific that all of the loose feathers contacted the head.
zakabog 2 years ago
"As for the explosions"
If there was no noise of explosions going off then it's quite unlikely that there were any explosives going off. If the only sounds picked up before the buildings fell were only picked up in one video and no others (especially ones that were closer to the building) then it's not likely that the noise was explosives.
Unless you're arguing that they used silent explosives for which we have no evidence, in which case you could also argue for aliens, magical pixies, etc.
zakabog 2 years ago
I think we should drop the explosive question entirely, since you are unwilling to consider thermite and flatly discount the eyewitnesses.
As far as I am concerned you are in a state of denial, but that doesn't get us anywhere.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"I think we should drop the explosive question entirely..."
So the explosions don't line up, does that mean the videos you found are lying?
Find thermite that cuts through steel as quickly and predictively as explosives and I'll consider thermite.
As far as the eye witnesses, at a murder trial there are 10 video tapes of a CO2 canister exploding and killing the murder victim, but 100 witnesses who said they heard a gunshot. What evidence do you think the court is going to believe more?
zakabog 2 years ago
@zakabog id like to tell you it is not thermite it is thermate as it has sulfer added to it which lowers steels melting point
nevitup09 1 year ago
@nevitup09
I've had this discussion with a truther claiming to be a chemist before but here we go again. Adding sulfur to thermite (thermate) and then putting that on steel does not magically decrease the steels melting point. Just like putting salt on ice doesn't magically decrease the melting point of the ice. The salt is only effective when the ice melts, that's when the water (melted ice) can absorb the salt. It's the salt water that has a lower melting point, not the ice with salt on it.
zakabog 1 year ago
"You have to prove that natural collapse was sufficient, I have to prove that explosives were necessary."
That's already been done with math and physics, you've yet to refute any of the numbers. You just keep saying I have to offer proof. Well I offered the papers with the physics calculations that show the building could have collapsed naturally. If you want to say they're wrong then please show me what it is in the calculations that's wrong.
zakabog 2 years ago
"That's already been done"
Bazant and Zhou actually did exactly the opposite. One presumes that there scenario represents a minimum to produce a complete collapse.
But the conditions required for the minimum were not present.
Top section a rigid body? No.
One dimensional building? No.
Substantial ejection observed? Yes.
Central columns intact below impact? Yes.
Assumed weight of top below presumed threshhold value? Yes.
If you cannot meet the minimum your theory is not sufficient.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"...did exactly the opposite"
No they didn't, you just fail to understand the concept.
The top section doesn't need to be rigid for it to act as a single entity. The building doesn't need to be one dimensional for the calculations to be correct. A substantial ejection would include the core columns. They core columns below the impact didn't need to be damaged. The top section accelerated as it fell downwards increasing it's impact force on the undamaged core columns.
zakabog 2 years ago
Snipedanwo 2 years ago
Again and again and again we hear the same old mantra, that the fire "was not not enough to melt steel".
Melted steel is liquid. Do you seriously think that you have to melt those steel beams before the structure collapses?
Steel loses its strength when it is heated in what is known as "thermal derating".
It does not need to melt to lose enough strength to collapse. It depends on the load and on the temperature.
It does not have to melt to collapse.
TroyaE117 2 years ago
You do if the building is going
to fall STRAIT down
All 3 of them
Demo Job !
Snipedanwo 2 years ago
Thermite blast is whats coming out of the side as the bldg. goes down. - White-
Did u watch this whole video?
Snipedanwo 2 years ago
"...a thermitic reaction actually occurs..."
(page22)
"6. From the presence of elemental aluminium and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that contains the ingredients of thermite."
(page29)
"7. ... the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample."
(page 29)
Perhaps try reading the article next time?
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Perhaps try reading the article next time?"
Okay perhaps I should be more clear. When you ignite thermite it creates a sustained reaction until there is no more fuel (thermite) to continue the reaction. They had no sustained reaction, a small piece of red hot material was ejected and nothing else took place. If they had tried the same experiment with a sample of thermite it would have caused a much more violent (and dangerous for the person conducting the experiment) reaction.
zakabog 2 years ago
Because it was small chip perhaps?
"The first WTC red/gray chop so tested was approximately 1mmX1mm."
You are just making stuff up now. Where is your data backing up your claim that a small piece of thermite would be so dangerous? Thermite does it's damage from the heat of the resultant products. Any explosive does it's damage by forming a pressure wave.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Personal experience, thermite isn't hard to make when you're a bored teenager. Though even when I was a stupid teen, I never thought to ignite even a small amount of thermite while I'm holding it...
Though if you don't believe it read any source on thermite, they were even more dangerous slowly heating the thermite as that will cause it to explode when it ignites rather than slowly burn.
zakabog 2 years ago
The guy wasn't holding it, and if you look at the video of the event you will see it reacts vigorously (cited of page 22, but it is also on youtube somewhere).
Unfortunately there is no audio but I would expect a little 'pop' to have accompanied the event.
It looks like you have taken your experience as a teenager and extrapolated what you thought would happen to a small quantity down to a tiny sample.
There is simply not enough thermite in that sample to form a significant shockwave.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
He was holding a torch to it and if you read the description some of the samples were being held with tweezers.
"Unfortunately there is no audio but I would expect a little 'pop' to have accompanied the event."
Not likely as they would have written about an audible pop.
"...and extrapolated what you thought would happen to a small quantity down to a tiny sample."
I started off on a small sample (only slightly larger than the sample they first started with) as it felt safer at the time.
zakabog 2 years ago
"There is simply not enough thermite in that sample to form a significant shockwave."
Have you ever seen thermite in action? Thermite is VERY HOT and can ignite pretty easily when you don't want it to. It seems like they were being quite careless with their samples especially since they thought it was an exotic form of thermite.
Ignoring the safety concerns, from their description they didn't ignite anything. The orange projectile means the thermite was too cold for ignition.
zakabog 2 years ago
Normal thermite doesn't explode though. and 'the projectile' was just flame. In the subsequent test where a iron spheroid WAS recovered the resultant was only a couple microns across, hardly enough to do much harm even at very high temperatures on the palm of your hand.
The energy of the reaction will be a function of it's volume right?
Thermite works in part by heating the resultant iron from it's own reaction. There simply wasn't much iron to heat, and nothing to heat it.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
But they should have mentioned sound.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Thermite explodes if you heat it slowly, which is exactly what they did.
The result of the test wasn't anything like what happens when you ignite thermite. One small piece is ejected? It reaches higher temperatures than what caused it's reaction yet it doesn't ignite the rest of the material? It just seems as if they didn't have thermite. Especially when you consider the method of heating it that they used was the most dangerous method you can use on thermite.
zakabog 2 years ago
What is the rest of the material you are referring too? It was a small chip. They also argue that this was not normal off the shelf thermite, but rather that it was a special military grade composition.
All that I am saying is that the article DOES in fact come to a firm conclusion as to the nature and reaction of this material, and as far as I am aware some of this stuff was independently tested as well. It is not indisputable by any means, but it is better science than the commission report.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
The rest of the material being everything except the little glowing orange piece that broke off. It was a small chip to start out, but the piece that "reacted" was significantly smaller than the remaining material.
All I'm saying is that the article does not come to a firm conclusion, it comes to a firm suspicion. While the chip contains the necessary ingredients for thermite (aluminum and rust, common in buildings), it did not react in the same way that thermite would.
zakabog 2 years ago
The rest of the material being everything except the little glowing orange piece that broke off. It was a small chip to start out, but the piece that "reacted" was significantly smaller than the remaining material.
All I'm saying is that the article does not come to a firm conculsion, it comes to a firm suspicion. While the chip contains the necessary ingredients for thermite (aluminum and rust, common in buildings), it did not react in the same way that thermite would.
zakabog 2 years ago
What part of 'it was thermite' makes you conclude that it is not firm.
I will paraphrase for your convenience: It was definisilisly most certainly without a doubt incontrovertibly indubitably verifiably thermite both in composition and reaction.
Satisfied? You might disagree with the conclusion, but you are misrepresenting the article by saying otherwise.
Also, what do you base your assertion about the amount of the remaining material on? You just made that up.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Incidentally, I downloaded a peer reviewed article by Bazant and Verdure (March 2007 Journal of Engineering Mechanics).
That is a fine example of shoddy science. It starts with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, sets up a straw man, engages in ad hominem attacks, makes unrealistic assumptions, discards observed data in favour of supposition uses math to cover flawed logic fails to take into account the fact that their simplified model does not predict the observed outcome.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
The part where they didn't explore other possibilities.
They found aluminum, and rust, tried to ignite it and then decided that thermite no longer burns white, it now shoots off small orange sparks.
They started off with the idea that thermite was present and did everything possible to come to that conclusion while ignoring the very likely possibility that they could have something entirely different.
zakabog 2 years ago
Like what pray tell? Either it was thermite and reacted like thermite, or it wasn't. They had established that it was not paint if I am not much mistaken. What else could it have been? Maybe scrambled eggs?
Aha! looks like they didn't test for that. There is a difference between testing an hypothesis and asserting your conclusion at the start.
What else is there made up principally of aluminum and iron oxide that reacts violently that I don't know about? It is thermite a priori at that point.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"What else could it have been?"
It could have been the remains of a collapsed building...
Pressure could have fused the materials together. There was certainly enough aluminum, and iron oxide around to have created them. The only other ingredient would be pressure, which is easy to find in a collapsing 110 story building. It would explain why the chips aren't totally uniform in composition, and why they were layered.
zakabog 2 years ago
The article name is: "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" Journal of Engineering Mechanics @ ASCE March 2007.
To be fair, as I have noted, the body of the work may well be a good study of some one-dimensional collapses and therefore be acceptable on the that basis. But doesn't describe the WTC as is misleadingly suggested by the title.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Furthermore, Bazant is co-author of fully 10 of the 21 sources cited.
In comparison only around 7 of the 31 sources for the thermite study included one of the 9 co-authors.
So much for peer review.
My biggest issue is that the official explanation simply does not pass the test of good science. I have looked for it, I really have, but everybody assumes someone else has done the science, when in fact no-one has.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"So much for peer review."
Clearly you don't understand what peer review means.
If I cite 29 of my own (peer reviewed) works in a paper with 29 citations, that paper is no less peer reviewed than if I cited none of my own works. Peer review means that I sent that paper to a publisher who sent it around to specialists in the field who would double check the work and make sure it's accurate and follows the correct methodology.
zakabog 2 years ago
Maybe that came across wrong.
I didn't mean that the the number of citations actually amounts to peer review, only that an article of that kind of quality and with so few actual citations should never have passed peer review.
Obviously the number of citations does not matter, but when a journal article cites only 11 outside sources you have to wonder about the level of the work.
Part of scientific methodology is correctly citing claims that are not proven in the text.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"Obviously the number of citations does not matter, but when a journal article cites only 11 outside sources you have to wonder about the level of the work."
That depends on how long the article is, how well known the material is (you wouldn't have to cite an article if you're simply making the claim that the earth orbits the sun), and how many other articles relate to the information presented (it might be all new research with the paper providing the evidence for the claims.)
zakabog 2 years ago
Agreed, but I had a closer look at the citations .
3 are historical evidence for pancake colapses.
1 Is the NIST report itself.
4 deal with the side issue of elastic waves which appears to lead to inconsistancy in with earlier assumptions, and is a side issue at best.
One I could not locate in the text.
Two appear to contradict the mathematical methdology.
Meaning that the main body is built entirely on misleading starting assumptions and citations to other works by Bazant.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Did you actually read the cited papers or are you going by the titles? I'm confused with what your point is in regard to the citations, I don't see any inconsistency or problems with what was cited.
zakabog 2 years ago
Well I was going by the dates and assuming that they all back the official story. Since it takes time to prepare a report for publication and have it go through the peer review process and these were all publish within a year after the event I am assuming they did not have much chance to actually study the event in depth.
But I will try and go through them one by one next week and see what they say.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
Okay, I looked at some of those articles and abstracts at a glance and I don't see them advancing the debate much.
Maybe we can agree on this formulation to move us forward: "The buildings collapsed because comlumn/s gave way".
Why did this happen? You say office fire, I say thermite. Happy so far?
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago
"You say office fire, I say thermite. Happy so far? "
Sounds reasonable.
zakabog 2 years ago
Okay, given that the only thing we need to ask ourselves is whether the government conspiracy of people of dubious moral rectitude is more likely than the bizarre set of physical events required for an office fire to have caused all three collapses (I would include WTC7).
Frankly either explanation stretches credulity, but I believe the weight of evidence comes down comfortably on the side of deliberate demolition with thermite and other explosives.
But respect your opinion if you disagree.
DarkwingScooter 2 years ago