Ok so you agree that explosions could have created the scenario to the WTC surrounding area on 9/11. The question is based on the yield adequate to create the scenario described, sorry I didn't make that clear. "None are so blind as those who will not see." - Bible I understand that to you, what you see in the videos are "floors collapsing onto themselves" as in a gravitational collapse. For the North Tower what I see are floors being blown out top down in accelerating fashion with no observable hesitation (or deceleration). For the South Tower, beginning with a massive explosion (complete with a flash) that separates the top portion from the remaining lower portion, I see the top part descending smoothly and being turned to dust as it descends onto the lower portion and no evidence of the top portion crushing the lower portion (i.e. no hesitation as it seems to make contact with the lower portion). At the same time, the photos and videos show the top portion leaning at an angle but instead of falling over, it seems to disappear into the dust cloud as if it was disintegrating in mid-air. Yes thank you, I really appreciate that, it's quite refreshing for a change. For me the evidence of explosions are observable from the videos. The material being expelled is quite graphic visually speaking. I can't show any other evidence (no one can) because that would require a thorough forensic investigation using the physical evidence. The evidence that these multi-ton structural components were found up to 600 feet from the tower are FEMA accounts of what was found and the photos. Furthermore, there exists quite a bit of circumstantial physical and eyewitness evidence supporting explosions, molten steel, iron or metal. And there are the opinions of many experts in many relevant disciplines that agree that these were not natural collapses. I have many times and I agree. When floors are being blown out sequentially, the material is being ejected laterally at the same rate. The velocity of the ejected material has been calculated by Chandler. Obviously I'm not trying to convince you what I see is what actually happened and you're never going to convince me this was a natural gravitational collapse of 3 buildings all on the same day caused by planes, damage, fire or a combination plus gravity. This exercise is strictly for discussion purposes. You admit you're not an expert in the science of physics and neither am I but the experts I cited are. And they have written many detailed technical papers on the subject. They have also proven in much detail that the NIST reports are fraudulent. You even called them "hacks" if I remember correctly. And not to mention at least one former NIST employee blasting their reports. You also agree that explosions of sufficient type could have just as easily caused the scenario surrounding the towers. But it seems to me you're ok with the fact that this was never investigated even though it's possible and you also seem to be ok with the possibility that this will never be investigated. So my question to you is why is that your attitude?
Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists are in a plane when it crashes An instant later they find themselves in the afterlife, being judged by Almighty God Himself. One falls to his knees, "I deplore you, all-powerful Creator of the universe! Before you judge me, I humbly beg you, reveal who was behind the September 11 attacks!" God sighs. "Muslim extremists. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did it." His friend leans down and whispers, "Damn, dude. This thing goes way higher up than we ever realized."
This is one of the most obvious signs that convinced me that the towers were demolished. The top-section of the tower should have kept pivoting away from its center of gravity. Instead it just disintegrates into nothing.
Correct. And the video evidence shows that just before the dust cloud obscures it, the roof of the top portion is descending while the top of the lower portion remains intact. That makes no sense unless the top portion is disintegrating as it descends.
I can rely on "experts" as well ... this is just turning into a tit for tat game ... https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Yes you certainly can, those who you believe are experts, have no agenda, are credible to you and have not been proven wrong. NIST is comprised of experts as well. The problem with Popular Mechanics is that they went along with an early version of NIST's theory that NIST backed away from but Popular Mechanics did not. Another problem with Popular Mechanics is that they parroted that early NIST theory strictly for the purpose of attacking "conspiracy theorists" and not for scientific purposes and of course questioned and analyzed nothing about NIST's theory. I posted a lengthy article that ripped apart Popular Mechanics a few years ago. You can review it or not as you please. http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-debunking-popular-mechanics.html It may be that for you but it is nothing of the sort for me. As I've posted on numerous occasions, nothing about 9/11 is up for debate for me, that isn't my agenda and it's not a game of any kind. It is all up for discussion, at least what I believe is reasonable subject matter. I did notice you failed to answer my question.
So what have you considered for causes for explosions. PS, there are a lot more possibilities than planted bombs, so lets not mention those as causes. We have that one.
Reply by NIST 7. If the WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of a 767 cause so much damage? As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the PANYNJ indicated that the impact of a [single] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...." The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation. The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces. 8. Why didn't NIST consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis? NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers. Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6. So, what is question 6? 6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2? Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST said lots of things, unfortunately their reports were fraudulent on many levels. Summary of problems with the NIST WTC Tower Report 1. The claim that the upper part of the towers crushed the lower part of the towers violates the laws of conservation of momentum and the law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As shown by the measured smooth uninterrupted descent of the upper portion of the North Tower. 2. NIST claims that the floor trusses in the aircraft impact zone push outward on the perimeter columns with a force of about 80 KIPS before starting to sag and pull the columns inward to cause the building to collapse. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. Extensive photos and videos of the towers show no outward bowing of the perimeter columns at any time during the fires before the collapse. 3. NIST imposed unrealistic artificial 5 KIP forces on each floor truss to column connection over the 5 stories of the damage zone on the south face of the North Tower in order to make their collapse initiation model work. This amounts to a lateral force of about 750 KIPS applied artificially to that face of the building which cannot be justified by any rationale. 4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”. 5. The NIST collapse sequence is initiated by the failure of the floor trusses in the impact zone and subsequent pulling in of the perimeter column. But the sequence ignores the fact that the core columns failed first, as evidenced by the video of the North Tower collapse showing that the antenna and hat truss resting on the core column began their descent well before the outer perimeter of the building began to fall. This fact invalidates the NIST collapse initiation theory. 6. The NIST report fails to provide any information suggesting that the load capacity of the core and perimeter columns was exceeded at any time during the collapse sequence. NIST ignored the fact that the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model. 7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory. All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions. 1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off. 2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off. 3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate. 4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat. 5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor. 6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down. 7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling. 8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce. 9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored. 10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse. 11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications. Deficiency Categories in the NIST WTC Reports and ASCE published Theories First – Defective collapse initiation theories in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports Second – Unjustified assumptions and errors in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports Third – Omissions and alterations of construction details in the NIST WTC7 report Fourth – Errors in the calculations of the ASCE published theories Fifth – Internal contradictions in the NIST WTC7 report Sixth – NIST ignores FEMA evidence of high temperature exposure of structural steel from WTC7 Seventh – NIST and the ASCE refuse to respond to peer criticism
I think you are claiming the two buildings were so well built they could not collapse. But we saw both collapse.
Bob, you have been called out on this before. Post a whole page of BS, so when one is proven wrong, you can just jump to another. Post one thing at a time so people can confront it, not just enable you on your quest for whatever.
I'm not claiming anything other than what happened and I agree 100% with the assessment of experts. YOU saw 3 buildings "collapse", I saw 3 buildings destroyed in their entirety in a matter of seconds. We each have our personal point of view. Steel framed high rise towers ARE generally constructed such that they will not totally "collapse" from fire in a matter of seconds. History shows that to be true. There were 2 experiments (Cardington and Broadgate) that showed that to be true as well and no experiments have proven otherwise.
help3434 said: ↑ I have never seen the "controlled demolition" types explain how all the explosives were brought in and rigged without anybody noticing. It is utterly absurd. So why aren't these troofers showing us how tons of demo equipment was brought in, and nobody noticed it.
An interesting point about the PM "debunking" is that one of the big dogs at PM is the nephew or some other relation to either Chertoff or Mukasey, two of the many dual citizen Israelis that populate the federal government. The PM writer has an agenda to advance Israeli propaganda.
We have. You seem to be trying to make the viewers think we haven't. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-the-towers-for-controlled-demolition.295802/ This is one of the videos in that thread that still works. How they EASILY Rigged the WTC Towers for Demolition (WATCH THIS) The New Pearl Harbor ~ full (3:26:50 time mark)
This is what paid sophists do when they're checkmated in a debate. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html (excerpt) ------------------------------------- 6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up. ------------------------------------- They go into a "Bury-it" mode. The tap dance around and make jokes with the attitude that they're winnning hoping that the truther will get tired and stop posting. Then, they'll bury that part of the debate and then they'll go on as if nothing had happened. The truther has to keep linking to the part where he won in order to thwart that tactic. The disinfo team probably realizes that they've essentially lost so they might as well at least try to keep the truther on a treadmill so that he doesn't post on other forums.
I never saw that video before, thanks Scott. I do have some criticisms though. 1. This one is minor, they should have spelled checked their work for professionalism. Some of the spelling errors were juvenile. 2. A bit too much conjecture, Illuminati??? Let the viewer imagine who the conspirators may be. 3. They never addressed "compartmentalization" as a hypothesis. The number of eyewitnesses shown claiming/believing controlled demolition was far more than I had known.
I agree on that but they did show that it was possible to prepare explosives. I watched this years ago so I forgot the details; it talks about explosions that were heard. 9/11 Eyewitness https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-eyewitness/