The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers

[flyingswan]

The Bush administration linked Iraq and Al Qaeda on mutliple occasions. Im not sure how you missed it.

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations

But they based their arguments before the UN overwhelmingly on the WMD issue.

[SolarPlexus]

But they based their arguments before the UN overwhelmingly on the WMD issue.

So? Do you remember what you said? That "the excuse they actually used to go into Iraq was WMD, not 911". Obviously Al-Qaeda also played a role

Most comes from far than credible and verifyable sources.

Br Cornelius

You mind answering my previous question?

Edited June 16, 2011 by SolarPlexus

[Little Fish]

Most comes from far than credible and verifyable sources.

Br Cornelius

The molten metal is a documented fact confirmed by many people on site, yet NIST states it wasn't there.

you think Harritt and Jones and the others that have confirmed it maybe lying? I don't see a motive. NIST or any other institution can easily check their own dust themselves and falsify Harrit and Jones, but they refuse and ignore them.

The provenance of the dust samples is documented and people have given depositions to attest they are telling the truth about the details of the samples they took.

USGS found 6% of the dust was iron microspheres, no explanation is given.

NIST claims that the molten metal flowing out of the towers was silver when anyone with eyes knows that is a lie.

FEMA found beams from twin towers and wtc7 had melted and thinned to razor sharp edges containing holes as if the beams were vaporised. NIST said nothing about this extraodinary evidence, they simply slipped the FEMA report in as an appendix even though the FEMA report called for more invetsigation, and later NIST claimed the steel samples were destroyed.

Why the silence and lies on this issue?

If they are concerned about "conspiracy theories" or wish to serve the public that pays their salaries, one would think they could do a little more than absolutely nothing with regard to this issue.

edit - the point I'm making here is that whatever term you use to describe the evidence above, "proof", "compelling", "suggestive of", "interesting" etc, it applies to both wtc7 and the twin towers. some dust samples were collected early in the morning hours before wtc7 came down, fema looked at beams from all 3 buildings, molten metal was under all 3 towers. so the above evidence cannot be attributed alone to wtc7's demolition.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Little Fish

[SolarPlexus]

The molten metal is a documented fact confirmed by many people on site, yet NIST states it wasn't there.

NIST is funny. In this video NIST's John Gross is caught in yet another blatant lie (denying molten steel) ...

Edited June 16, 2011 by SolarPlexus

[SolarPlexus]

Conspiracists always produce a clip that misses out the collapse of the penthouses a few second before the building goes, a key indication of an internal structural failure.

Firstly, i did not produce the gif image above, i merely linked to it. Secondly, the collapse of the penthouses is a key indication of a cotrolled demolition as well

[aquatus1]

Just look at that drop, and tell me the collapse is due to fires.

Okay. The collapse is due to fire. Wow, that was easy. And pointless.

But Solar knows that.

The entire building falls like a brick.

Of course it does. All skyscrapers do. For WTC7, it does not matter if the support beam buckled due to fire, explosive demolitions, or a magic sword cutting it half. The building would still have fallen the same way. It is, therefore, a little more forgivable that there be confusion about this building. The WTC towers, on the other hand, allow no such margin of error.

Which is why this is so pointless. It is a cheap and simplistic argument that basically relies on logic so thin it is almost embarrassing.

"Look! The building fell! You know what other buildings fall? Buildings with blowy-uppy things in them! That must mean this building had blowy-uppy things in it too!"

The really sad part is that the sole reason for the popularity of this argument is because people blindly accept that only demolitions make buildings fall like this, and never actually ask themselves the most important question all skeptics should ask, namely the No question, "Why wouldn't it look like an imploded building?"

Instead of looking for the objective inconsistencies that would tell them whether their argument is credible or not, people rely on cognitive bias, noting the few similarities (which, honestly, boil down to "It fell"), and ignoring the parts that don't conform to demolition.

[Q24]

All the points of disagreement on the collapse of the twin towers have been discussed in this thread. The point I make is all of the end objectives were already met before the towers came down. They would have been demolished as a consequence of the attack - which was the objective.

How are you determining the objective(s)?

The asbestos/insurance issue is just one facet.

Here is what strategy documents discussed as the transforming event prior to 9/11: -

• An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. ... Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
  ~Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy, 1998
  
• Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.
  ~Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000
  

Now consider: -

Pearl Harbor casualties: 2,402

9/11 casualties: 2,985

9/11 pre-collapse casualties: estimated 500-600

Which conforms with the figure mentioned in the text above?

Which best replicates the scale of Pearl Harbor?

Why do you assume the insurance companies would pay out in the double-digit billion dollars to have the towers deconstructed as well as rebuilt when they had always refused before? That is, rather than pay out a few billion to have the towers repaired, as they did in 1993 - if the towers had stood, this may have been possible.

Would hundreds of deaths and either repaired/deconstructed towers leave an imprint on the psyche so much as thousands of deaths and the terrible panic brought by witnessing those collapses; the very sudden, unexpected and devastating removal of those landmarks? Of course not.

For all of these reasons the towers absolutely had to come down on 9/11.

If they had stood, the objective(s) would have been at risk and/or not fulfilled as imagined.

The case for a controlled demolition has far to many huge gaps which would have to be filled before I would accept it. If those pieces of the puzzle come forward then I would consider them.

You mentioned "improbabilities" and now "huge gaps".

What are these?

I see no barrier to a demolition.

[Q24]

for both towers they predicted no collapse for best and a collapse for more severe.

Thank you.

I'm noticing an improvement in your posts lately.

Keep it up!

[Q24]

NIST claims that the molten metal flowing out of the towers was silver when anyone with eyes knows that is a lie.

Yes, NIST caught in a blatant lie.

This is a must-watch clip of NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder discussing the "silver" molten "steel", err he means "material": -

Hilarious... actually, ridiculous will do.

FEMA found beams from twin towers and wtc7 had melted and thinned to razor sharp edges containing holes as if the beams were vaporised. NIST said nothing about this extraodinary evidence, they simply slipped the FEMA report in as an appendix even though the FEMA report called for more invetsigation, and later NIST claimed the steel samples were destroyed.

Why the silence and lies on this issue?

Just to add to this so people can see for themselves: -

Of this, "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”, FEMA stated, "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure” and recommended a “detailed study”.

As Little Fish said, no such study has been carried out to date.

[SolarPlexus]

Suit yourself aquatus but i don't think you are being objective in this matter. There are two major visual symptoms in favor of a controlled demolition.

• The uniformity of the descent throughout the width and length of the building
  
• The rate of the descent (7 floors per second on average i.e. 47 floors for 6.5 seconds)

The descent is simply too sudden for a fire collapse.

Edited June 16, 2011 by SolarPlexus

[Q24]

Suit yourself aquatus but i don't think you are being objective in this matter.

Understatement of the century.

[flyingswan]

The descent is simply too sudden for a fire collapse.

And is that your opinion as an amateur engineer?

Just because you don't understand how a fire could have that effect doesn't make it a controlled demolition.

[flyingswan]

Okay. The collapse is due to fire. Wow, that was easy. And pointless.

At the start of this thread you were wearing your mod hat and trying to keep it on topic. Now it's some time since the topic was dropped and it became yet another "let's bring up all the old stuff one more time" thread. Do I take it that you've bowed to the inevitable?

[flyingswan]

So? Do you remember what you said? That "the excuse they actually used to go into Iraq was WMD, not 911". Obviously Al-Qaeda also played a role

The invasion was justified by claiming that Iraq was in breach of UN Resolution 1441, which is mainly about WMD. Terrorism gets a passing mention, but not in the context of 911.

[flyingswan]

I'm noticing an improvement in your posts lately.

Can't say I can return the complement. You are still all too prone to avoid arguing the point if you can instead post a cheap insult.

[flyingswan]

Firstly, i did not produce the gif image above, i merely linked to it.

If you look for a version of the video which includes the penthouse collapse, try and find one that has a soundtrack. This is another aspect that conspiracy sites tend to edit out, because the soundtrack reveals an enormous difference from a controlled demolition: no bangs.

Secondly, the collapse of the penthouses is a key indication of a cotrolled demolition as well

Really? How do you make that out? A long time ago on another thread, I challenged Q24 to come up with anything similar in a controlled demolition and he failed.

[Q24]

Can't say I can return the complement. You are still all too prone to avoid arguing the point if you can instead post a cheap insult.

Ok, Winston.

You never did answer if your own eyes or Bazant's theory are correct, you avoided that point from my post #156.

If you look for a version of the video which includes the penthouse collapse, try and find one that has a soundtrack. This is another aspect that conspiracy sites tend to edit out, because the soundtrack reveals an enormous difference from a controlled demolition: no bangs.

It has been repeatedly highlighted to you that a thermite reaction, which could be used to initiate the demolitions, does not necessarily go "bang". It is also obvious that a collapse preceeded by "bangs" as in conventional demolition would be the worst covert operation imaginable.

So how stupid have you got to be to expect to hear a string of "bangs" immediately prior collapse?

Don't ever try to pull-off a false flag attack Swanny - it'd be an epic fail.

Really? How do you make that out? A long time ago on another thread, I challenged Q24 to come up with anything similar in a controlled demolition and he failed.

No, I supplied a short list of examples where the collapse initiation was preceeded by earlier charges (which would have caused damage and possible failure to areas of the structure). In the case of the first, the Hudson demolition, one section falls 5-6 seconds before the main building. This is equivalent to the earlier damage and collapse of the WTC7 penthouse.

*SNIP*

Edited June 16, 2011 by Lilly
removed ad hom remark

[Little Fish]

If you look for a version of the video which includes the penthouse collapse, try and find one that has a soundtrack. This is another aspect that conspiracy sites tend to edit out, because the soundtrack reveals an enormous difference from a controlled demolition: no bangs.

here's one, I hear a bang

here's other clips with bangs

I find it difficult to believe that you are unaware of these clips.

[flyingswan]

Ok, Winston.

You never did answer if your own eyes or Bazant's theory are correct, you avoided that point from my post #156.

I answered that in post #175.

It has been repeatedly highlighted to you that a thermite reaction, which could be used to initiate the demolitions, does not necessarily go "bang". It is also obvious that a collapse preceeded by "bangs" as in conventional demolition would be the worst covert operation imaginable.

So how stupid have you got to be to expect to hear a string of "bangs" immediately prior collapse?

You have claimed that thermite could do the job, but I'm still waiting for a demonstration that it would actually work.

No, I supplied a short list of examples where the collapse initiation was preceeded by earlier charges (which would have caused damage and possible failure to areas of the structure). In the case of the first, the Hudson demolition, one section falls 5-6 seconds before the main building. This is equivalent to the earlier damage and collapse of the WTC7 penthouse.

Nothing like, as I pointed out at the time.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=120668&view=findpost&p=2286537

So now unfortunately you're a liar and/or forgetful as well as apparently stupid.

Yeah, default to insult. You've confirmed my point.

Sorry.

Now who's a liar?

[flyingswan]

here's one, I hear a bang

here's other clips with bangs

I find it difficult to believe that you are unaware of these clips.

I find it difficult to believe that you confuse these with a demolition. Even Q24 in his post above doesn't claim bangs when you'd need them:

So how stupid have you got to be to expect to hear a string of "bangs" immediately prior collapse?

Edited June 16, 2011 by flyingswan

[Little Fish]

I find it difficult to believe that you confuse these with a demolition. Even Q24 in his post above doesn't claim bangs when you'd need them:

you claimed there were no bangs prior to the penthouse coming down:

"If you look for a version of the video which includes the penthouse collapse, try and find one that has a soundtrack. This is another aspect that conspiracy sites tend to edit out, because the soundtrack reveals an enormous difference from a controlled demolition: no bangs."

I showed you bangs and you said that videos had been edited by "conspiracy sites" to remove bangless soundtrack.

what the christ are you talking about?

do you accept that there were bangs?

I showed you the jonathan cole experiments a year ago showing thermite cutting through steel. 4 weeks ago you wrote a comment on amazon review of Jonathan Kay's book, saying "If you study the "nanothermite" claims, you find the discovery of a substance incapable of damaging a structure. And who is claiming molten steel?"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2WLZE4TNGA28V/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0062004816&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

will you a year from now say "there were no bangs in the wtc 7 footage"

stop lying!

[flyingswan]

I showed you bangs and you said that videos had been edited by "conspiracy sites" to remove bangless soundtrack.

what the christ are you talking about?

do you accept that there were bangs?

There was nothing remotely like the very loud series of bangs that you get with a real controlled demolition. Any building that is on fire, let alone collapsing, is going to generate some noise, but a real CD is unmistakable.

I showed you the jonathan cole experiments a year ago showing thermite cutting through steel. 4 weeks ago you wrote a comment on amazon review of Jonathan Kay's book, saying "If you study the "nanothermite" claims, you find the discovery of a substance incapable of damaging a structure. And who is claiming molten steel?"

Two separate points:

Those experiments were unrepresentative of what would be required for a demolition, just check my reply.

The "Nanothermite" claimed to have been discovered in the dust barely marked whatever it was resting on when it was ignited.

will you a year from now say "there were no bangs in the wtc 7 footage"

Yes

stop lying!

Dear me, who's getting in a temper?

[jugoso]

Look, my bacon comes from a pig. But a CT might suggest that it came from a donkey.

What if your pig is really a donkey and somebody lied to you??

[PAPA PITBULL63]

there was actually a spacecraft in the twin towers that jimmy hoffa,judge crater,amelia earhart,and jfk were living in! it took so long because the evil aliens froze all our minds to make it look slow!

[regeneratia]

Welcome to the UM forums. I noticed you haven't actually done any of the math there. Get back to us when you have some numbers added in there. Otherwise, well, it's pretty much the same discussion that has been presented time after time after time.

Whose rules say he has to have math when he posts?