|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 20:03:35 GMT -4
Squibs 'R' Us....OK here is some photo evidence showing demo charges going off All I see is dust and debris; certainly nothing that looks like demolition squibs. Besides, the pictures show exactly what I was describing -- the bottom floors are completely intact. This directly contradicts your explanation for how the towers fell so quickly. You said " all support points are blown at millisecond intervals". Clearly this is not true since the bottom part of the towers have not been blown. I'm still looking for an answer. Let me ask it a different way: If the WTC collapse were a controlled demolition, what about it would make the towers fall any faster than they would if is were a structural failure. And I remind you, your answer must be consistent with and supported by the video evidence. Let's put it this way, it's easier, and so far I'm the only one putting forth all the links, vids and pics! You watch the videos of the two collapses, try and point out ANY structural resistance that leads to YOUR conclusion that these were ordinary building collapses encountering resistance as they plummeted to the ground.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 20:35:23 GMT -4
Let's put it this way, it's easier, and so far I'm the only one putting forth all the links, vids and pics! You watch the videos of the two collapses, try and point out ANY structural resistance that leads to YOUR conclusion that these were ordinary building collapses encountering resistance as they plummeted to the ground. There you go, just like every other conspiracy theorist, trying to push the burden of proof off on your opponent. I've never said anywhere in this thread that I believe the official story is correct; I've just said that I believe your hypothesis is wrong. Just because you think there is evidence to invalidate the official story, that doesn't mean your theory wins by default - it must still be proven. I want you to show me how the controlled demolition hypothesis explains the "free-fall" anomaly you think exists in the official story. How does your hypothesis account for the physical evidence?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 22:22:34 GMT -4
Let's put it this way, it's easier, and so far I'm the only one putting forth all the links, vids and pics! You watch the videos of the two collapses, try and point out ANY structural resistance that leads to YOUR conclusion that these were ordinary building collapses encountering resistance as they plummeted to the ground. There you go, just like every other conspiracy theorist, trying to push the burden of proof off on your opponent. I've never said anywhere in this thread that I believe the official story is correct; I've just said that I believe your hypothesis is wrong. Just because you think there is evidence to invalidate the official story, that doesn't mean your theory wins by default - it must still be proven. I want you to show me how the controlled demolition hypothesis explains the "free-fall" anomaly you think exists in the official story. How does your hypothesis account for the physical evidence? LMAO!! My FIRST time I ask for something from the opposing viewpoint, and I get labelled as the "typical, pushing the burden of proof off theorist!" Look back, bob - I'm serious, look back.......who has the "burden of proof" fallen upon? I don't mind, I mean I'm explaining my viewpoint. But for once couldn't the opposing viewpoint bear the angst, searing pain and exhaustingly laborious task of putting up something when requested - even ONCE? But I shall put up more info to better clarify my take on this issue..........since you bring it up, what do you personally think REALLY happened, that is, if you have any such inkling?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 5, 2005 22:38:28 GMT -4
Hi turbonium
Every controlled demolition I've seen places the charges at the bottom of the building - you can clearly see the explosions are happening down there, as opposed to anywhere else.
But in your WTC7 comments, you say you see the explosions happening at the top of the building. Now, assuming these were demolition charges, that would seem to me to be a very inefficient way of knocking a building down. (Okay, only my uneducated opinion...)
On the other hand, the collapse of WTC7 makes sense in the context of a building which had been showered with heavy debris twice, firstly from the plane impacts, and secondly from the collapse of WTCs1 and 2, and which also had the contents of a diesel tank burn out inside the building.
Out of interest, do you accept the idea that the load-bearing capacity of steel can be greatly reduced at temperatures well below the melting point of steel? If so, what do you think might happen to WTCs 1, 2 and 7?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 23:34:41 GMT -4
Hi turbonium Every controlled demolition I've seen places the charges at the bottom of the building - you can clearly see the explosions are happening down there, as opposed to anywhere else. But in your WTC7 comments, you say you see the explosions happening at the top of the building. Now, assuming these were demolition charges, that would seem to me to be a very inefficient way of knocking a building down. (Okay, only my uneducated opinion...) On the other hand, the collapse of WTC7 makes sense in the context of a building which had been showered with heavy debris twice, firstly from the plane impacts, and secondly from the collapse of WTCs1 and 2, and which also had the contents of a diesel tank burn out inside the building. Out of interest, do you accept the idea that the load-bearing capacity of steel can be greatly reduced at temperatures well below the melting point of steel? If so, what do you think might happen to WTCs 1, 2 and 7? Hi peter I think that to weaken the steel to the point of inducing a collapse would require temps greater than those possible by the fires on 9/11. I base that on factors such as the Cardington Fire Tests, which proved in controlled demonstrations that even unprotected steel did not weaken to the point of collapse. Keep in mind that these fires were subjected to maximum temps greater than even the FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports state were the maximum temps in the towers. And, the Cardington tests were done on support structures of an average office building www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/vulcan_cardington.htmlwiith beams and columns that were considerably smaller and weaker than in the towers. Add to this historical precedence, which shows that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire in recorded history. WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes, but that did not cause the collapse as we know. The fires that are claimed to be the final contributing factor simply has no basis in fact, neither through tests or actual events. They are also impossible to duplicate in a physical simulation, which is why they will never even attempt to conduct any demonstrations for structural analysis and to "learn from the mistakes in construction methods". The buildings were structurally sound, and the designs are not flawed in any way. That is a complete fallacy, but the head honchos need to maintain the facade to keep the "official" story going as the truth. And the video and photographic evidence reinforce the position that the buildings were in no way possible susceptible to the sudden and total collapses that occurred due to anything claimed as "raging infernos!" It can't be scientifically supported, but the charade continues....including the unethical reports in Pop. Mechanics and Scientific American!! These publications had earned over the years, a well deserved reputation as ethical and very accurate in their reports. Times have unfortunately changed for the worse when ownership changes and then dictates that political and corporate agendas come before the truth..........sad.. Good points re the methods used for implosions - and there is substantial information that these three buildings did indeed undergo secondary explosions in their basements (a theory supported by molten steel found in all three of the basements. But there also have to be charges placed throughout the structure at critical support points, in order to bring the whole building down in as limited and safe a footprint as possible. That is why we see those charges (squibs) blowing outward from the buildings just ahead of the whole structure coming down. Interesting side note: the company in charge of the WTC cleanup was Controlled Demolition, who just so happen to be highly specialized in what their shingle suggests..
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 6, 2005 0:22:52 GMT -4
LMAO!! My FIRST time I ask for something from the opposing viewpoint, and I get labelled as the "typical, pushing the burden of proof off theorist!" Look back, bob - I'm serious, look back.......who has the "burden of proof" fallen upon? I don't mind, I mean I'm explaining my viewpoint. But for once couldn't the opposing viewpoint bear the angst, searing pain and exhaustingly laborious task of putting up something when requested - even ONCE? But I shall put up more info to better clarify my take on this issue..........since you bring it up, what do you personally think REALLY happened, that is, if you have any such inkling? I ask one simple question and rather than an answer I get a rant. I'm not interested in your "viewpoint". I just want an advocate of the controlled demolition hypothesis to provide a valid answer to my question. If you can't answer then I'll just have to wait for the next conspiracy believer to come along. HINT: Maybe there isn't a valid answer. What would that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2005 0:39:24 GMT -4
The "too fast agrument" comes from the Work of Dr Jerry Russell. Unfortunately he failed to discuss his work with people involved in the industry itself and so once he had investigted it further, retacted his own work, not that those believing the conspriacy bother to method when a work has been retracted or discredited. by Jerry Russell Ph.DThis is his later refutation of his own work. by Jerry Russell Ph.Dthe referenced Bazant & Zhou articleThanks and Acknowledgement to Binko who pointed this out here
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2005 0:55:45 GMT -4
I always like this one. Funny thing is that we had a milk factory that burnt down about four weeks go. That steel framed building collapsed. I also recall Jay pointing out that he watched a steel framed warehouse collpase in Salt Lake City about a year or so ago, but yeah it's a fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed. As Jay likes to say, "Hogwash."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2005 2:20:34 GMT -4
Squibs 'R' Us....OK here is some photo evidence showing demo charges going off All I see is dust and debris; certainly nothing that looks like demolition squibs. Besides, the pictures show exactly what I was describing -- the bottom floors are completely intact. This directly contradicts your explanation for how the towers fell so quickly. You said " all support points are blown at millisecond intervals". Clearly this is not true since the bottom part of the towers have not been blown. I'm still looking for an answer. Let me ask it a different way: If the WTC collapse were a controlled demolition, what about it would make the towers fall any faster than they would if is were a structural failure. And I remind you, your answer must be consistent with and supported by the video evidence. The "dust and debris"? No - look at the "puffs" of smoke which are just below the collapsing main parts of the buildings. These are "squibs" that are the "millisecond interval" precedents to the main body of the structure. I guess I didn't clarify what I meant by the intervals. It works like a super fast game of "chase". Here again are some more pics and vid links that show what I mean.... www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/charges_going_off.mpegAbove video link shows squibs or "cutting charges" going off slightly below main collapse area. www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/charges_going_off.mpegAbove video link of WTC 2 with "smoke puffs" just below main collapse area, "chased" all the way down. These are frames that have red outlines to point out the "puffs" preceding and just below the main structure collapsing. thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/lines-explosives.jpgst12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_and_streamers.qtAbove video link is slo-mo version of earlier clip to more easily identify the squibs. I'll post more.....what you should keep in mind is that the charges ARE very precisely timed to the overall building downfall - they were NOT MEANT to be seen at all - but the camera often catches what the eye at first does not see (I'm sureone or two photo buffs here have heard that one a million times!) In the case of squibs, video replays are priceless evidence.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2005 2:28:19 GMT -4
I always like this one. Funny thing is that we had a milk factory that burnt down about four weeks go. That steel framed building collapsed. I also recall Jay pointing out that he watched a steel framed warehouse collpase in Salt Lake City about a year or so ago, but yeah it's a fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed. As Jay likes to say, "Hogwash." Please provide links to these - I would very much like to learn the details of what would cause a a steel framed structure to collapse due solely to standard fires. I'd be happy to forward the information to the people who ran the Cardington Fire Tests to see how it compares to the full-scale demonstrations they performed over three years. Maybe their data and research will have all been for naught if it doesn't match up with that from the milk factory.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2005 2:56:16 GMT -4
Well while you are making a classic mistake of expecting everything to be available on the net (not everything is, sometimes you need to read newspapers and books, or footage may just be on TV.) Luckily this story was big enough to make our local news sites. Here's a story about the Takaka factory fire. Takaka factoryThe door frame you see still standing, but burning, in the photo is the only part of the drying room that actually survived the fire, the internal and rest of the side beams all fell in leaving Fonterra wondering if they could recover any of the Factory You'll have to ask Jay if the one he saw made it to his local sites.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2005 3:37:01 GMT -4
Well while you are making a classic mistake of expecting everything to be available on the net (not everything is, sometimes you need to read newspapers and books, or footage may just be on TV.) Luckily this story was big enough to make our local news sites. Here's a story about the Takaka factory fire. Takaka factoryThe door frame you see still standing, but burning, in the photo is the only part of the drying room that actually survived the fire, the internal and rest of the side beams all fell in leaving Fonterra wondering if they could recover any of the Factory You'll have to ask Jay if the one he saw made it to his local sites. Couldn't find any structural details on it - but it states that it burned for many hours and was gutted but still standing. This photo shows the structure still remaining. Not really a relevant comparison, from what I see so far imo.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2005 4:23:02 GMT -4
Well, no, the aritcle does say it was gutted, but from the TV images, and even the one you show, the drying room has quite obviously collapsed. True, not all of the factory burned, the article also states that in it, saying they saved the butter room next to it.
The relevant point is that it was a steel structure and did collapse, such is obvious even from the image you posted, whereas the claims are that no steel framed structure has ever collasped. Changing it to no multi-storied structure or no skyscaper, or no multiple buildings in a complex or anything else so that it again fits but ruling out buildings that have, is just ignoring facts that don't support a theory.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 6, 2005 8:48:40 GMT -4
To clarify: steel frame skyscrapers have not collapsed solely due to fire damage, AFAIK. Fairly large steel frame structures have, however.
You don't need to melt steel to bring down a structure. You just need to reach some combination of expansion (steel expands as it heats up) and weakening (steel weakens when it gets hot enough). (A classic example of the former is the role of steel in light wood truss construction roof collapse - the structural elements are held together by steel tie plates which expand and pop off.)
The WTC towers had a great deal of direct impact damage and destruction of fireproofing materials on the steel even before the buildings' fire loads really got going. That's what made their cases different than previous steel-frame skyscraper fires.
turbonium, you've vastly overplayed your fires-reported-under-control argument, and I've explained why, so I'm not going around on that again. I've pointed out your errors on the temperature scale and explosives, and your reply is that they "could have" used thermite. They "could have" used a C-ray vortex generator installed in the top of the Empire State Building, too. Could have this, destroyed the evidence that, puffs of dust and smoke from a collapsing building must be demolition charges, and of course unverifiable claims of mysterious goings-on beforehand. The clincher, though, is the idea that a company experienced in dealing with building collapse would be involved in removal of... a collapsed building.
Are the collapses perfectly understood in all details? No. But do the conspiracy theories have any evidence? No. Do they fit the data? No. Do they make any sense? No.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2005 9:49:41 GMT -4
Thermite could be the incendiary with RDX the explosive component - what was used and how it was combined is not known yet - they shipped away all the evidence to China before you could say "Let's investigate!" There are some statements on record regarding pre-9/11 powerdowns, odd hours and places of access by various people as noted by m,aintenance workers at the WTC, etc. Not conclusive, but it is a start considering there isn't even a bloody real investigation going on (and never was). There are two phrases in this statement that sum up your arguments, “could be” and “not conclusive.” As far as I see it that is all you have to offer. I am not convinced.
|
|