9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[skyeagle409]

keep your eye on the point between where the molten metal is pouring out and the top of the screen where you see some white smoke whisping out. as the building collpases you'll see the corner break with a flash. this is well above the plane impact point. pause it at 1:26. also notice hte redish material being ejected below.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=CYLGSeK74HY

There are no chemical explosions evident and as the building collapses, the collapsing floors are forcing air out.

Edited October 5, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

There are no chemical explosions evident and as the building collapses.

I just showed you.

here is a different angle, well above the impact zone.

[Little Fish]

I didnt' see evidence of any explosions in the video. That guy was dreaming.

there were three firefighters in that video corroborating each other, are you suggesting they were all dreaming?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-before-towers-collapsed.html

[skyeagle409]

there were three firefighters in that video corroborating each other, are you suggesting they were all dreaming?

http://www.prisonpla...-collapsed.html

Looking at the videos, I see no evidence of a huge chemical explosion and I have seen enough explosions in Vietnam to know what explosions look like.

. What I see are air compression leaks, not anything to do with explosions. In a video shown on TV recently, a close-up of one of the bulidings shows where the building buckles just before the collapse, and yet, no explosion evident that caused the buckling because the buckling was the result of structural failure and nothing to do with explosions.

[skyeagle409]

there were three firefighters in that video corroborating each other, are you suggesting they were all dreaming?

http://www.prisonpla...-collapsed.html

Looking at the videos, I see no evidence of a huge chemical explosion and I have seen enough explosions in Vietnam to know what explosions look like.

. What I see are air compression leaks, not anything to do with explosions. In a video shown on TV recently, a close-up of one of the bulidings shows where the building buckles just before the collapse, and yet, no explosion evident that caused the buckling because the buckling was the result of structural failure and nothing to do with explosions.

[Little Fish]

Looking at the videos, I see no evidence of a huge chemical explosion and I have seen enough explosions in Vietnam to know what explosions look like.

here is another video in slow motion, pause at 0:34.

between the impact zone and the top of the building you will see a flash destroying the corner columns, it is well above the impact zone.

it is before the top section moves down which rules out "air compression leaks".

perhaps someone could upload a picture of the flash at 0:34 and circle it to aid your eyesight. watch it directly on youtube at full screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBzBaQ_TXbY

[Czero 101]

here is another video in slow motion, pause at 0:34.

between the impact zone and the top of the building you will see a flash destroying the corner columns, it is well above the impact zone.

it is before the top section moves down which rules out "air compression leaks".

Ok, so I did as you suggested, and I don't see what you're saying.

Let me clarify. I do see what I assume you are describing as a "flash", however, it is clearly after the top section starts moving, which occurs before the 34 second mark, and despite your declaration otherwise, it is most likely a window being blown out by air compression, in my opinion.

The resolution of the video, coupled with the distance to the building makes it hard to make a positive identification, however.

Cz

EDITED to add "in my opinion"...

Edited October 6, 2011 by Czero 101

[Little Fish]

Ok, so I did as you suggested, and I don't see what you're saying.

Let me clarify. I do see what I assume you are describing as a "flash", however, it is clearly after the top section starts moving, which occurs before the 34 second mark, and despite your declaration otherwise, it is most likely a window being blown out by air compression, in my opinion.

The resolution of the video, coupled with the distance to the building makes it hard to make a positive identification, however.

thanks for uploading the image.

the flash occurs before the top section moves down so cannot be air compression. There is another observation that rules out it being "a window blowing out" - look at the next clip and pause at the 5-6 second mark. you will see the result of the flash - a break in the corner columns.

perhaps someone could upload the image at the 5 second mark to show a picture of this break.

so to recap, there is a flash on the corner column that occurs before the top section moves down, the result of which is broken corner columns (the strongest part of a building structure is the corner). this occurs well above the impact zone before the top section moves down.

[booNyzarC]

thanks for uploading the image.

the flash occurs before the top section moves down so cannot be air compression. There is another observation that rules out it being "a window blowing out" - look at the next clip and pause at the 5-6 second mark. you will see the result of the flash - a break in the corner columns.

perhaps someone could upload the image at the 5 second mark to show a picture of this break.

so to recap, there is a flash on the corner column that occurs before the top section moves down, the result of which is broken corner columns (the strongest part of a building structure is the corner). this occurs well above the impact zone before the top section moves down.

The corner column was already buckling as it came into view. How can the "flash" be interpreted as causal if the buckle is already there? If anything, this clip supports the idea that it could be a window breaking out or some other reflective object as the corner is continuing to buckle during descent.

[TK0001]

Are we seriously focusing on one minor flash which, if you squint just right, could maybe get confused for an explosive?

If explosives were used in bringing down the towers, there would be absolutely no doubt. Every window in the vicinity would be blown out and people would be knocked over from the blast.

[Little Fish]

The corner column was already buckling as it came into view. How can the "flash" be interpreted as causal if the buckle is already there?

Because the flash occurs at the same location as the damaged corner columns, and the damage to the corner columns occurred at the same time as the flash on the corner columns, <rolleyes>.

If anything, this clip supports the idea that it could be a window breaking out or some other reflective object as the corner is continuing to buckle during descent.

so what caused the damage to the corner columns at the point of the flash way above the impact zone?

what you are doing here is acknowledging that the collapse occurred way above the impact point, which was the original point addressed. go back to post 240 to understand what is being discussed.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=225&p=4075415entry4075415

[Little Fish]

If explosives were used in bringing down the towers, there would be absolutely no doubt. Every window in the vicinity would be blown out and people would be knocked over from the blast.

care to prove that cutter charges of unknown pressure work, half a mile up in the air would knock people on the ground off their feet and shatter windows in the vicinity. I didn't think so, because your assertion is absurd.

[MadMike740]

^ your assertion that 9/11 was an inside job is utterly absurd.

Stop perpetuating the lie...you make yourself look like a lunatic and that go's for anyone else that keeps this garbage alive.

The people who were involved (Al-Qaeda) admitted they were involved and it wasn't the US government and it wasn't the CIA.

People keep this crap going and it takes away from the really important issues in the world...now it's times for YOU to wake up.

[Q24]

^ your assertion that 9/11 was an inside job is utterly absurd.

Stop perpetuating the lie...you make yourself look like a lunatic and that go's for anyone else that keeps this garbage alive.

The people who were involved (Al-Qaeda) admitted they were involved and it wasn't the US government and it wasn't the CIA.

People keep this crap going and it takes away from the really important issues in the world...now it's times for YOU to wake up.

MadMike, calling the 9/11 theories absurd, a lie, garbage and crap, and suggesting those who consider them seriously to be lunatics who need to wake up… it’s not going to change anything.

Those who have researched 9/11, in the main, are reasonably intelligent, valuing evidence and logic over labels and hollow repeated claims. If you really want to make a difference and stop the theories, it would be better to explain why these people are wrong.

I responded to you here explaining why people don’t accept the claim, “(Al Qaeda) admitted they were involved” as a full or accurate account. Can you explain why you think such information should be disregarded?

[booNyzarC]

Because the flash occurs at the same location as the damaged corner columns, and the damage to the corner columns occurred at the same time as the flash on the corner columns, <rolleyes>.

so what caused the damage to the corner columns at the point of the flash way above the impact zone?

Notice the outward bowing of the structure at the buckle point. This is most likely a result of the upper portion of the tower simultaneously twisting and falling into the lower portion of the building. The point of buckle is most likely a connecting joint of the vertical beams, which would be inherently weaker than the solid vertical beams. As the upper structure collides with successive floors moving downward the upper structure is experiencing successive jolts. That, coupled with the twisting frame, could easily account for the buckle at that point on the corner.

One thing is certain. That point of buckle is present before the "flash."

what you are doing here is acknowledging that the collapse occurred way above the impact point, which was the original point addressed. go back to post 240 to understand what is being discussed.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=225&p=4075415entry4075415

I understand what is being discussed. It really isn't that difficult to see what is happening.

[MadMike740]

Show me one shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and don't tell me to do my own research. I don't want links to other conspiracy websites. I want evidence to independent scientific results.

I watched the towers fall with my own eyes....there were no explosions and WT7 fell because it was heavily damaged when the two other towers fell.

However any amount of proof that it wasn't and "inside job" will never change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

I think you guys do this for fun just to anger people who know the "real" truth. Saying 9/11 was a conspiracy is almost as bad as saying we [uSA] didn't go to the Moon.

Everything in life isn't a conspiracy.

Edited October 6, 2011 by MadMike740

[Q24]

Show me one shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and don't tell me to do my own research. I don't want links to other conspiracy websites. I want evidence to independent scientific results.

I have put to you evidence here that responsibility for 9/11 is not so clear as the official story tells.

Why do you keep ignoring it?

I watched the towers fall with my own eyes....there were no explosions and WT7 fell because it was heavily damaged when the two other towers fell.

Ok, read the official report on the WTC7 collapse: -

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

You will notice that damage to WTC7 prior to the collapse initiation was irrelevant to the building coming down.

Do you accept this?

I mean MadMike, you are the one spreading false information regarding WTC7 here.

[Czero 101]

thanks for uploading the image.

No problem.

the flash occurs before the top section moves down so cannot be air compression.

I disagree.

The "flash" occurs as the top section starts to topple sideways, yes, but it is obvious by the debris clouds forming around and below the impact area that the top section is also starting to move downward on that corner of the building. You can see by the difference in the orientation of the vertical corner of the building above and below the impact area that the top section on that side is already in collapse.

While it is not possible to see what is happening inside that section of the building at that moment, it is extremely probable that floor sections directly above the impact area are collapsing inside the building and that the air on those floors is being compressed and forced out in all directions.

Using the following image:

It is possible to roughly estimate the amount of air on a given floor of the building. Here are my calculations:

Each floor is approximately 12.4 feet in height: ((1362 / 110) + (1368 / 110)) / 2 = 12.4

Each floor has a total area of approximately 43,264 ft²: 208 * 208 = 43,264

Total amount of air per floor (assuming completely empty floor (i.e. no walls or core structure): 43,264 * 12.4 = 536,473 ft³.

Core section of the towers has a footprint of 12,144 ft²: ((208 - (60 + 60)) * ((208 - (35 + 35)) = 12,144

Assuming a completely solid core, the total amount of air displaced by the core is approximately 150,585 ft³: 138 * 88 * 12.4 = 150,585.

However, since the core is not completely solid, and to account for other things such as floor thickness, perimeter columns, interior walls, furnishing, etc. I have reduced the above figure by a conservative amount of 50% to get 75,292 ft³.

So we end up with 536,473 - 75,292 = 461,181 ft³ of air per floor, on average.

Using an even more conservative estimate, that means that each floor of the WTC contained roughly 420,000 cubic feet of air that has to go somewhere when the floors collapse. Air under compression will be forced through the remainder of the building through stairways and elevator shafts and escape through weak points, such as windows that may have been damaged from the initial impact or subsequent structural weakening.

And yes, contrary to what you (I think) and others believe, this can also happen several floors up or down from the actual floor that is collapsing.

It is my opinion that this is what we are seeing here with your "flash" - air under compression bursting through a window that was probably damaged by the initial impact and / or subsequent structural weakening.

There is another observation that rules out it being "a window blowing out" - look at the next clip and pause at the 5-6 second mark. you will see the result of the flash - a break in the corner columns.

perhaps someone could upload the image at the 5 second mark to show a picture of this break.

I assume you are referring to the point I have indicated.

so to recap, there is a flash on the corner column that occurs before the top section moves down, the result of which is broken corner columns (the strongest part of a building structure is the corner). this occurs well above the impact zone before the top section moves down.

The video shows no evidence of the "flash" or blown out window, as this happens "out of frame", just the collapsing section of the building and an area of the outer corner that breaks / buckles as it drops down "into frame".

At the beginning of the video you can quite plainly see that that corner of the building immediately above the impact area is moving down as the exposed corner columns buckle inwards, drawing the section of building above it downwards and inwards as it falls.

Due to the amount of debris / smoke it is difficult to accurately place the bottom corner of the top section, so my indications are only approximate, but still serve to adequately illustrate the movement of the top section.

The area of the corner of the building that you say is being broken by your "flash" is, in my opinion based on observations noted above, actually buckling due to stresses as the bottom corner of the top section impacts on the floor below it, or as the corner columns are buckled and pulled further inwards. As it falls further down you can see that the corner columns in the area you say have been "broken", while they are certainly buckling and deforming, are still intact.

Cz

Edited October 6, 2011 by Czero 101

[booNyzarC]

Cheers Cz, great detailed post. You described it so much better than I did.

[Little Fish]

the flash occurs ~18 floors above the plane impact and does correspond to the damaged corner.

[skyeagle409]

here is another video in slow motion, pause at 0:34.

between the impact zone and the top of the building you will see a flash destroying the corner columns, it is well above the impact zone.

it is before the top section moves down which rules out "air compression leaks".

perhaps someone could upload a picture of the flash at 0:34 and circle it to aid your eyesight. watch it directly on youtube at full screen.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=uBzBaQ_TXbY

I did so, but I still don't see any explosions. Now remember, the heat doesn't have to be hot enough to melt steel, just hot enough to weaken damaged support beams to the point of failure. You will note that the second building to be struck was the first to collapse. Look at the videos and notice that particular building is supporting more weight from the upper levels than the first building that was struck.

Notice in the photo that the first WTC building to collapse is supporting much more weight than the first WTC building that was struck. If you are going to plant explosives, you are going to do so at ground level and then, detonate the explosives at the same time.

Edited October 6, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

I still don't see any explosions.

if there was thermal cutter charge 18 floors above the impact zone on the corner columns, then what would you expect it to look like? why wouldn't you expect it to look like this:

resulting in this:

you said "there is no evidence of chemical explosions".

the above is evidence.

[skyeagle409]

What the controllers have been saying. Audio tape of the terrorist voices released during the hijacks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5373490407014986726#

Edited October 6, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

the flash occurs ~18 floors above the plane impact and does correspond to the damaged corner.

How can you say it "does not correspond to the damaged corner" when it takes place directly above - albeit 18 floors above, as you put it - the bottom corner of the top section of the building...?

Do you not understand that impact forces from the bottom corner of the top section impacting the floors underneath would transfer directly up the side columns?

Using your latest video:

The two yellow arrows on the right image indicate the two exposed, but at that point, still intact outer corner columns. The blue line indicates that the building is still "intact", inasmuch as collapse has not yet initiated.

Note that this is before any "flash" is indicated in the left image.

This is the moment - or as near to it as reasonably possible to get to - of collapse initiation. Notice that the two outer columns (yellow arrows) are now bowing inward. The forces imparted on these columns are pulling the corner of the upper section downward and inward. Note the the blue line has now been separated and, while it is hard to see, the upper line is deflected slightly to the right at the bottom corner of the top section, indicating that it is in motion and moving downward and inward.

Also note that there is still no indication of a "flash" on the left image.

Moments later, we can see in the detail on the right that the top section is in full collapse and moving further downward and inward. By this point there would be contact between the upper section and the floors below in the initial damage area.

This is also the first time that we see an indication of what you describe as the "flash" in the left image. I still maintain that this is most likely a window, damaged either by the initial impact or subsequent structural weakening, being blown out by air compressed by the collapsing floors below. Another possibility is that the side columns are being overloaded from the impact with the lower floors and are buckling at that point. This could also cause window to shatter and / or blow out, or at the very least, make it easier for the compressed air to escape out a window at that level.

The red arrow indicates what is either further buckling of the exterior corner columns, causing deflection or "bulging" in the side of the building, or a video artifact - I am unsure as to which since it is present throughout the video.

Here we can see the "knuckle" as the video calls it which, presumably, is the same point at which the "flash" appears. As noted by the two yellow arrows, the two columns are still intact, but are buckled / deformed severely.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

911 Tapes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRNSd3aL7z8&feature=related

Edited October 6, 2011 by skyeagle409