Empire State Building VS WTC

[phunk]

WTC2 flow: -

I hope you realize that the flow was nowhere near as bright as that image makes it seem. That image is either drastically brightened or overexposed, you can tell because the side of the building that is in sunlight is completely white and featureless.

[flyingswan]

I agree, which is why there should have been loss of momentum during a natural collapse. It is the official story which treats the towers like lego, matchsticks, cards, etc.

You are blatently ignoring the fact that the same computational methods used to derive the "official story" are in common use in engineering design offices all over the world. If you think these methods are so poor, how do you ever find the courage to travel via a new bridge or enter a new building?

[Q24]

I hope you realize that the flow was nowhere near as bright as that image makes it seem. That image is either drastically brightened or overexposed, you can tell because the side of the building that is in sunlight is completely white and featureless.

The image is a still from the video back over the page. The white area is caused by the large flat aluminium panel that ran down the corner of the building. The camera specifications would obviously make a difference to the image too.

Here it is again zoomed out: -

[phunk]

The image is a still from the video back over the page. The white area is caused by the large flat aluminium panel that ran down the corner of the building. The camera specifications would obviously make a difference to the image too.

Here it is again zoomed out: -

And darker. Notice the smoke that is grey on the left of this image is bright white in the other. I stand by my conclusion that the zoomed in image is artificially brightened.

[Q24]

And darker. Notice the smoke that is grey on the left of this image is bright white in the other. I stand by my conclusion that the zoomed in image is artificially brightened.

As I said, it is possible that the camera settings could have affected the contrast.

Are you satisfied with the second picture above?

[digitalartist]

So I was reading an article about the Empire State Building having bedbugs in its basement. I noticed it said it withstood a B-52 Bomber crashing into it at 200 mph. So, how could a building built in 1931 be made to take a hit from a plane, and the World Trade Centers went down after 56 minutes? All of these buildings (WTC) were built between 1975 and 1981. Surely the architects would have built it with the ability to withstand multiple plane crashes at over 200 mph and more weight. I mean... it was almost 50 years later. If this doesn't prove that there were explosives in the damn buildings, and that this was an inside job. WTF does? Also don't know if this should be posted here but it seems like a modern mystery to me.

This may answer your question

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[Q24]

Where did your post go, NeoGenesis?

It was here earlier.

[NeoGenesis]

Yes of course there are differences between conventional demolitions and the non-conventional WTC demolitions. I'm not sure why so many people expect to see a carbon copy of conventional demolitions on 9/11 as this would completely defeat the object of the intended deception.

Specifically regarding the pattern of detonations that you mention, this was simply not required in the Twin Towers – being top down demolitions, only removal of columns at intervals were needed to ensure the upper block could continue the collapse with minimum resistance.

<Non-conventional> Thermite.

Hmm. If only it was that simple Q24.

The cutting effect that so many CTs want to believe in here does not exist....I will repeat that again does not exist for the following reason:

The below pictures are rail workers welding to railtracks together using Thermite on a track end preheated to 1000 deg-C.

------

http://www.irfca.org...it-welding.html

WTC main collumns comparison to rail tracks.

If it still comes down to the argument that yes however the heat is not compared to the believed WTC thermite I have the following particularly the first one with the highest temprature obtainable by thermite and the maximum amount of recoverd metal per unit measure thermite powder:

3Fe₃O₄+ 8Al = 4Al₂O₃+ 9Fe (3088°C, 719.3kCal↑)

3FeO + 2Al ⇒ Al₂O₃ + 3Fe (2500°C, 187.1kCal↑)

Fe₂O₃ + 2Al ⇒ Al₂O₃ + 2Fe (2960°C, 181.5kCal↑)

If the believed use of thermite is true than the above will not work as the thermite will burn through the railtrack and the equipment involved with moderate ease.

But the reality it is not. Considered more a cheap efficient construction method.

Q24 you supprise me with the simplistic explenation of the believed use of the supposed "squibs" on the lower reaches on the towers to, well I figure that this is what you understand, aid in the collapse of the towers.

Considering the fact that the Towers were a innovative structure that the entire building is a all weight bairing structure. Now for the method of the supposed squibs to be ifluential in the collapse that requiers that on the floors were the dust puffs -argued "squibs"- are seen the entire floor area had to be rigged to blow thus the need of conventional -kicker charges as is known in the demolition industry- to be used.

The afformentioned method thus using moderately sized charges to buckle or bend the targeted collumns will generate a audible sound and the destruction of more than three or four windows as is seen in the videos.

The entire idea of a few collumns to be blown to aid in the top structure making its way down encountering less resistance by simply taking out a few intermitent floor is flawed in more cases than one.

I could think of much more inefficiant ways of causing the core columns to fail… office fire for instance. Whilst thermite would obviously not be the choice in commercial demolitions, it is ideal for the purpose on 9/11 – causing the structure to fail through heat weakening of the steel (mirroring the official story though more effectively).

Q24 this is the last time that I inform you that the fires in the WTC towers were not mere conventional office fires. Read this and understand this well.

The use of thermite as the heating agent is absolute nonsense and that to be used as a covert method. The foto below indicates the size of the container just to weld one railtrack.

And here the "covert people" in the WTC want to heat the core collumns in size larger that that of a normal railtrack

Covert operations being small package, effective, unseen, light weight and above all... precise and clean.

Thermite exhibits none of those traits.It is absolutely obsurd.

I would actually expect the shockwave from a column cutting charge to be far more focussed than the air pressure of a chaotic collapse. You think that the first cannot be focussed but the second can… despite it being seen that squibs in demolitions are focussed ejections.

Q24 how on gods green earh can a explosion be focussed.

Here this is a 300g chaped charge being test fired.... Tell me what is so focussed about that detonation:

<Chapped charge explosion>

How would you initiate what is meant to be a covert controlled demolition?

I have a rather simple answer: A covert controlled demolition only exists in movies.

I have nothing more to add.

The WTC2 molten flow cannot be aluminium. With a relatively low melting temperature, molten aluminium (at the point it would begin to flow) appears a silver colour in daylight conditions. The actual colouration of the flow indicates temperatures in excess of 1,000^oC. There is no way that the aluminium could have been contained whilst a near perfect heat transfer from the fire took place before it was released from the building.

Molten aluminium at melting point: -

Thermite reaction: -

Q24....A tanker truck fire brought down the Oakland freeway. And a fire in a car salvage yard produced the scene below:

Your cars rims that hold the tire are made of toughend aluminium alloy

<Molten alloy wheels>

To this I have the following to add:

<Last pictures in secon post>

Q24 do not try and use such pathetic methods on me again like you did above.

I agree, which is why there should have been loss of momentum during a natural collapse. It is the official story which treats the towers like lego, matchsticks, cards, etc.

Is that all what you read from what I wrote in the entire parragraph:

The dust cloud seen in the videos are not the remnants of the tops when first it hit the lower sections of the towers but is only a piece of the total amount of material. The main beams, trusses, roof structure and various other bits that made out the the top parts that came down would still be moving down the towers interior. The path of least resistance there would be the horizontal floor trusses and the gaps between that even if it was made rienforced concrete would be off little barrier to the main beams coming down the tower.

The result of this chaos would be unsupported main beams that would get batterd by the material moving down thus sway and buckle or break so contrebuting to the total mass moving down the tower.

The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.

The WTC buildings are not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. The layout clearly shows this.

What I showed here is that the top collapsing structure will not come to a halt a few feet down the rest of the tower as you so hoped Q24.

Or did you really think that the floors designed to support only 1300 tons of downward pressure now somehow had to support the total downward pressure from 20 stories equaling +20 000 tons of collective pressure.

Use some rational thinking here.

Edited October 8, 2010 by NeoGenesis

[NeoGenesis]

Apologies.

Some difficulties in posting materials as proof of argument as well some font issues.

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

<Finnished Railtrack weld>

<Chapped charge explosion>

<Molten alloy wheels>

<Last pictures in for previous post>

Full information for the above hand made oil fired furnace can be found here:

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

The temprature for the above colour of aluminium is is order of 1250 deg F with mixed impurities.

Edited October 8, 2010 by NeoGenesis

[NeoGenesis]

Where did your post go, NeoGenesis?

It was here earlier.

I had asked the Administrator to remove my first post.

[Q24]

If the believed use of thermite is true than the above will not work as the thermite will burn through the railtrack and the equipment involved with moderate ease.

But the reality it is not. Considered more a cheap efficient construction method.

I don’t follow your argument.

Why do you suppose that a diffuse flame in an office fire can heat the columns to failure but thermite reacting at 2,000^oC+ cannot?

The afformentioned method thus using moderately sized charges to buckle or bend the targeted collumns will generate a audible sound and the destruction of more than three or four windows as is seen in the videos.

The entire idea of a few collumns to be blown to aid in the top structure making its way down encountering less resistance by simply taking out a few intermitent floor is flawed in more cases than one.

You give two reasons above for why you believe the squib event is flawed: -

1. That the squibs should be heard.
   
2. That the squibs should have had a more visible effect.
   

Regarding the first point, it is unreasonable to expect the isolated explosions to be picked out amongst the din of hundreds of breaking connections and thousands of tonnes of falling debris – the collapse events were not quiet. Regarding the second point, in this case the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions – I have seen no evidence that the effects should have been more visible. The two flaws that you suggest do not stand up to scrutiny.

You ask further down your post “how on gods green earh can a explosion be focussed”? Again, the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions and in the point to which you were responding I referred to a focussed shockwave compared to a chaotic collapse. How on god’s green earth can a chaotic collapse be focussed?

Q24 this is the last time that I inform you that the fires in the WTC towers were not mere conventional office fires.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever said they were ‘conventional office fires’… but they were office fires. After 20 minutes the jet fuel had burnt off and on top of this there were no obvious combustibles in the tower core structures. This is why we see that the fire was actually diminishing in WTC2 prior to collapse and the NIST fire simulations showed relatively low temperatures at the core.

Q24 do not try and use such pathetic methods on me again like you did above.

Ok I will not try to pathetically point out to you that aluminium is silver at its melting point. You can believe that it is pink, blue, green or anything else that makes you happy. This doesn’t make good for your argument though.

The dust cloud seen in the videos are not the remnants of the tops when first it hit the lower sections of the towers but is only a piece of the total amount of material. The main beams, trusses, roof structure and various other bits that made out the the top parts that came down would still be moving down the towers interior. The path of least resistance there would be the horizontal floor trusses and the gaps between that even if it was made rienforced concrete would be off little barrier to the main beams coming down the tower.

The result of this chaos would be unsupported main beams that would get batterd by the material moving down thus sway and buckle or break so contrebuting to the total mass moving down the tower.

The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.

The WTC buildings are not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. The layout clearly shows this.

What I showed here is that the top collapsing structure will not come to a halt a few feet down the rest of the tower as you so hoped Q24.

Well, you have shown your opinion. The laws of motion however do tell that there should be loss of momentum in a natural collapse; not a perpetual crushing of the lower block. Imagine if the towers were of infinite height – by your reckoning, once the upper storeys begin to move downwards the collapse will never end. This is incorrect as the mass and energy of the falling debris must be lost.

Furthermore, the theory that you describe above is one of a ‘pancake’ collapse. This used to be a favourite of official story followers but has long been debunked. From NIST’s own FAQ: -

“NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Keep trying Neo

[NeoGenesis]

I don't follow your argument.

Why do you suppose that a diffuse flame in an office fire can heat the columns to failure but thermite reacting at 2,000^oC+ cannot?

The factors listed below for technical demonstration lists variables what a non-specific collumn will face in the event of a fire that will cause structural deflection - Buckle - Warp - as apossed to that of a Themite based heating event.

- Total collumn area being heated

- Duration

- Total thermal expansion produced by tested collumn.

You give two reasons above for why you believe the squib event is flawed: -

• That the squibs should be heard.
• That the squibs should have had a more visible effect.

Regarding the first point, it is unreasonable to expect the isolated explosions to be picked out amongst the din of hundreds of breaking connections and thousands of tonnes of falling debris – the collapse events were not quiet. Regarding the second point, in this case the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions – I have seen no evidence that the effects should have been more visible. The two flaws that you suggest do not stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly.

As a baseline I bring forward again the Landmark demolition which the following points are beyond clear:

1. The squibs demolition charges are heard.
2. The squibs demolition charges do have a visible effect.

To obtain the above picture the video had to be downloaded and send through a program that broke the video down to individual frames in which that minimum time duration was still to much of which some detonations were still missed the shown fire balls lasting miliseconds before disapearing as a white cloud of smoke.

You do not get a quiet explosive. That is a fact.

The below debri jets being dark in colour eminating from the towers that is argued also as demo charges lasts one second in duration and visible in two frames from start to finnish:

The difference in duration between the two are to greate for the second to be explosives. An yet you still want to argue there credibility of being explosives ?

I would love to see the results.

Second.

<Regarding the first point, it is unreasonable to expect the isolated explosions to be picked out amongst the din of hundreds of breaking connections and thousands of tonnes of falling debris. Regarding the second point, in this case the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions>

Q24... Any engineer or person that is known with demolitions would have to be mad to believe the above.

You ask further down your post "how on gods green earh can a explosion be focussed"? Again, the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions and in the point to which you were responding I referred to a focussed shockwave compared to a chaotic collapse. How on god's green earth can a chaotic collapse be focussed?

<Again, the squibs match those seen in conventional demolitions>... What hogwash.

Focussed?.... Where is this focussed event....Have you lost your mind....

Neither a explosive shockwave nor a chaotic collapse are focussed. Where did you think that one of the other could be focussed.

I'm not sure that I've ever said they were 'conventional office fires'… but they were office fires. After 20 minutes the jet fuel had burnt off and on top of this there were no obvious combustibles in the tower core structures. This is why we see that the fire was actually diminishing in WTC2 prior to collapse and the NIST fire simulations showed relatively low temperatures at the core.

<20 minutes> What a load of bull. It took firefighters 2 hours to extinguish the fire on the I-580 freeway after it had collapsed and the end result:

Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat.

http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz11sJgdlBe

Well, you have shown your opinion. The laws of motion however do tell that there should be loss of momentum in a natural collapse; not a perpetual crushing of the lower block. Imagine if the towers were of infinite height – by your reckoning, once the upper storeys begin to move downwards the collapse will never end. This is incorrect as the mass and energy of the falling debris must be lost.

In the Empire State building the above notion will work but that is not the same case for the WTC Towers.

Physics explenation I will not even bother. Unless you want it.

Furthermore, the theory that you describe above is one of a 'pancake' collapse. This used to be a favourite of official story followers but has long been debunked. From NIST's own FAQ: -

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Right that is there explenation. I have mine that works in accordance with knowleage that I have about weakpoints in any metal structure using any fastening methods.

Ok I will not try to pathetically point out to you that aluminium is silver at its melting point. You can believe that it is pink, blue, green or anything else that makes you happy. This doesn't make good for your argument though.

So this is your answer to those that have difficulty assembling writen and photographic proof to support there arguments that is viewed by others. You did not even bother to follow the guidelines in the first reply with that of the second.

Just goes to show how naieve and inconsiderate a person you are.

Based on this 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 jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) 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 Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Aluminium at 1000 deg-C:

Aluminium at 1250 deg-C:

This doesn't make good for your argument though

Gives even less credibility to your own.

Edited October 9, 2010 by NeoGenesis

[MstrMsn]

The WTC builders did think it could happen. The towers shouldn't have collapsed at all, much less in the way they did.

Really? So, the towers weren't going to go down at all, with the extra weight? Right, maybe we should let the WTC builders build you a house. EVERY construction company, every engineer will say "this will never fall". Otherwise, they'd never be employed again.