WTC7

[Q24]

Furthermore, why on earth would anyone wanting to demolish the towers NOT destroy the core columns? Can you riddle me that Batman?

That’s the North-West corner of the core right?

I have always said that the majority of charges were placed in the main bank of elevators, and that happened to be on the South side in WTC1. That is why the tower tilted South despite the impact damage being on the North and the North-West core was not so damaged.

Riddle me this Robin: why did each tower tilt consistent with the main bank of elevators, and inconsistent with the impact damage?

Could it be that the impact damage did not contribute to the collapses, so much as charges placed in the elevator shafts?

[booNyzarC]

Expect a full response and more on the weekend. For now I'm going to bed.

I'll give you this much Q24, you're persistent.

Cheers.

[Wandering]

I'm not sure what video you are talking about, but you might want to give this a read.

....

You mean the text article that starts off with an extremely auspicious

If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers,

If you can believe that, then what's the problem with the exact same type articles 'conspiracy theorists' use to defend their viewpoints? I've learned though from you and Cz that you need to ask for evidence when someone provides just an article as source so...Where's the evidence that happened?

Well BoonY, on that note "If my theory is correct, 9/11 was 100% caused by Terrorist agents from Islams-a-bad wielding pink tricycles to escape unnoticed."

...Now I've put that on the net, I just have to sit back and wait for someone to post in here that actually the terrorists weren't spotted because they rode pink tricycles around.

Perhaps instead of reading, you and BFB could give this a watch:

Stundie go do a little home experiment. Mix 20 kilos of molten aluminum with 20 litres of water. BANG! Now you got the reason why the twin towers collapsed.

NOTE - If you do the experiment, please be advised it will leave a crater of 100 feet or more.

I can't see the crater or the BANG you mention. Not even when he shoots it with the garden hose. Perhaps you are wrong. Next time, a quick google search will save you embarrassing yourself.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Wandering

[bee]

In the 9/11 Government Commission Report...they have the South Tower collapsing in 10 seconds.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch9.pdf

page 305...

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and

emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—

[Von Bismarck]

....

You mean the text article that starts off with an extremely auspicious

If you can believe that, then what's the problem with the exact same type articles 'conspiracy theorists' use to defend their viewpoints? I've learned though from you and Cz that you need to ask for evidence when someone provides just an article as source so...Where's the evidence that happened?

Well BoonY, on that note "If my theory is correct, 9/11 was 100% caused by Terrorist agents from Islams-a-bad wielding pink tricycles to escape unnoticed."

...Now I've put that on the net, I just have to sit back and wait for someone to post in here that actually the terrorists weren't spotted because they rode pink tricycles around.

Perhaps instead of reading, you and BFB could give this a watch:

I can't see the crater or the BANG you mention. Not even when he shoots it with the garden hose. Perhaps you are wrong. Next time, a quick google search will save you embarrassing yourself.

I am really amazed how badly many people are when it comes to chemistry on this forum.

Okay, liquid aluminium will have little to no oxygen, most of it un-oxidised. Now add water and you will produce oxide/hydroxide and the explosive hydrogen gas.

Wandering if you dismiss this reaction why dont you try for yourself?

THIS IS BASIC CHEMISTRY!!

If you are so keen on watching videos, here you go.

Edited April 26, 2012 by BFB

[Von Bismarck]

If you are so keen on watching videos, here you go.

Go to 2:59

[Wandering]

I am really amazed how badly many people are when it comes to chemistry on this forum.

Okay, liquid aluminium will have little to no oxygen, most of it un-oxidised. Now add water and you will produce oxide/hydroxide and the explosive hydrogen gas.

Wandering if you dismiss this reaction why dont you try for yourself?

THIS IS BASIC CHEMISTRY!!

If you are so keen on watching videos, here you go.

What does chemistry have to do with anything discussed so far? You posted an opinion, I posted a video showing it doesn't happen like that.

The first time actual chemistry has been bought up is now, by yourself in an apparent attempt to make yourself feel 'above' the poor fools that inhabit this den of dumb-asses.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what your stance is here...Did the gentleman in my video lie? Was he using Steel? Iron? After all, if he has put molten aluminium and water together without the results you state, you have to prove why that is wrong.

Instead of 'debunking' my video which counteracts what you stated, you instead provide videos to back up your argument that don't even show molten aluminium.

That was your argument, molten aluminium. Not powdered aluminium exploding. Not an aluminium compound.

In my video, you can see molten aluminium prepared and then poured into water.

In your video,you cannot see molten aluminium.

In my video, nothing happens. (like what happens before the towers collapse)

In your videos (using aluminium compounds/powdered aluminium) massive fireballs are emitted. (Did this happen before the towers collapsed?)

In my video, liquid aluminium is poured directly from the forge into the water meaning It's as hot as it can get.

In your videos a pre existing setup is sprayed with water. What's in that setup? No one knows. (2 say aluminium alkyl which is not molten aluminium).

If you want to play the chemistry expert, try to do a good job.

EDIT: I notice you snipped my video, so I'll put it back up here so everyone interested can have a look and themselves decide which video shows molten aluminium & water and which videos show an explosion which could well be anything.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Wandering

[flyingswan]

Bazant’s case is conservative only to stopping the upper block dead in its tracks (an impossible outcome). It is not conservative to allowing any of the lower block to survive (which can and did happen).

You admit that the upper block can't be stopped, yet you think the lower block will survive? Incredible.

Of course the ‘conservative’ case logically (to maximise the lower block survival) is to allow the lower columns to stand for as long as possible, i.e. non column-to-column impacts; the opposite to Bazant’s case. Because as we see in the ‘spire’, when this happens, the upper block suffers damage.

You are saying that a case where the lower columns are immediately overcome is better to the lower block survival, and a case where the lower columns remain standing is worse to the lower block survival. It is utterly backward; nonsensical.

If the upper block keeps moving and the columns of the lower block are not crushed, then the beams must be broken away from them, an outcome which will slow the upper block even less. The beams are not there for decoration, they're essential support for the columns, see how the spire collapsed without them. Either way, the lower block doesn't survive.

So you think the ‘spire’ smashed through thirteen floors of the ‘intact’ upper block (that in itself is a contradiction) which then slid down the standing columns like a spindle, until the ‘intact’ upper block reached the ground and crushed-up around the spindle.

Look how flimsy the ‘spire’ is. It didn’t smash through anything significant.

You don't appear to appreciate the difference between primary and secondary structure. A column is strong but has a relatively small cross-section and can punch through floors without doing much damage to the primary structure of the upper block.

Thus the loss of momentum halfway through collapse, thus the reduced seismic activity to match, thus the sudden antenna tilt…

I'm still waiting for any evidence for your loss of momentum or that the antenna remains attached to the building, and once again you have no clue at all about how to interpret a seismograph trace.

[Von Bismarck]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what your stance is here...Did the gentleman in my video lie? Was he using Steel? Iron? After all, if he has put molten aluminium and water together without the results you state, you have to prove why that is wrong.

That was your argument, molten aluminium. Not powdered aluminium exploding. Not an aluminium compound.

In my video, you can see molten aluminium prepared and then poured into water.

In your video,you cannot see molten aluminium.

In my video, nothing happens. (like what happens before the towers collapse)

In your videos (using aluminium compounds/powdered aluminium) massive fireballs are emitted. (Did this happen before the towers collapsed?)

In my video, liquid aluminium is poured directly from the forge into the water meaning It's as hot as it can get.

In your videos a pre existing setup is sprayed with water. What's in that setup? No one knows. (2 say aluminium alkyl which is not molten aluminium).

If you want to play the chemistry expert, try to do a good job.

EDIT: I notice you snipped my video, so I'll put it back up here so everyone interested can have a look and themselves decide which video shows molten aluminium & water and which videos show an explosion which could well be anything.

No he proberbly used pure aluminium, *Snip*. Ask him to try to use aluminium alloys. Maybe it was my mistake to say aluminium instead of aluminium alloys. I just thought you knew planes were made of aluminium alloys and not pure aluminium since its too soft. *Snip*

BTW the reason why i removed you video link was because i were only allowed to post 2 youtube clips in one post. Don't know why.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Karlis
deleted ad hominems

[Wandering]

No he proberbly used pure aluminium, ... . Ask him to try to use aluminium alloys. Maybe it was my mistake to say aluminium instead of aluminium alloys. I just thought you knew planes were made of aluminium alloys and not pure aluminium since its too soft. ... .

BTW the reason why i removed you video link was because i were only allowed to post 2 youtube clips in one post. Don't know why.

*Snip*

You forgot to answer this:

In your videos (using aluminium compounds/powdered aluminium) massive fireballs are emitted. (Did this happen before the towers collapsed?)

Did it?

I assume you can provide some video footage of such an explosion? (from liquid form into the water) Also some video footage of the explosion taking part in the towers, as I seem to have missed the gigantic fireball shooting out of the towers when the molten aluminium compound hit the water.

The videos you have already provided do not suffice.

I could video the local fire brigade setting off fireworks, then retitle it 'Aluminium Explosion' and you'd be presenting it as evidence to me here.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Karlis
deleted flame-type remark

[Karlis]

No more personal attacks, and no more responses to such remarks please. More than enough requests have been made along this line. Posting suspensions will be the next step, if this is continued.

• 3e. Flamebaiting: Do not taunt or bait another member in to an argument.
• 3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Karlis-- mod team member

[flyingswan]

In my video, you can see molten aluminium prepared and then poured into water. 

Check out this paper. It shows that the outcome can vary depending on the circumstances of the mixing.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ib24ZGoHYqoC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=%22molten+aluminium%22+water&source=bl&ots=UNzob2IAZt&sig=1gF3M3U3DsFd3RbkxwL4eofaxYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JE2ZT5TiMo_R4QTAlPTEBg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22molten%20aluminium%22%20water&f=false

The second part of your video, with the water sprayed on the aluminium, seems to show what the paper calls Force 1 explosions, ie small "pops" of aluminium thrown up by steam. Now read on and see what else can happen. I reckon BFB's video shows a Force 3.

[booNyzarC]

Do you have footage of this sack which contained the upper block debris?

The point is that the upper part of the building all came down together. Whether or not it was a solid mass, it acted upon the lower structure with essentially the same properties (and results) that a solid mass would.

Of course comparing theory to reality is a good test!

Bazant’s theory is not “most conducive to arresting collapse” though.

Consider: -

• Reality: upper block destroyed mid-point of collapse.
  Bazant: upper block near indestructible til ground level.
  Keeping the upper block intact, in one rigid block, is not conducive to the lower block survival. It simply and obviously isn’t. How can you disagree that point?
  
• Reality: lower columns survived and punched through the upper block.
  Bazant: lower columns destroyed immediately at collapse progression front.
  Destroying the lower columns sooner, rather than later, is not conducive to the lower block survival. It simply and obviously isn’t. How can you disagree that point?
  

Some day you'll realize the flaws of your logic, or at least I hope that you will. How many times do I have to say this? Bazant was not trying to model every detail of the actual collapse(s). If you point to something in the actual collapse(s) that differs from his model and claim that it somehow proves that he was wrong you are only exposing that you are unable to attack his model within the bounds of the model itself; which validates the model even further.

I don't agree with you about the first bullet point either, by the way. The upper block was most definitely not "destroyed" at the "mid-point" of collapse.

And as for the last sentence... seriously? The point of the model was to measure the resistant capacity of the strongest elements against the force imparted by the upper block. The fact that those elements could not survive the impact isn't an indication that Bazant was trying to make the collapse more likely, it is an indication that collapse was inevitable.

And that’s nothing.

Where on Earth Bazant gets a freefall drop through one storey from (considering the tilt in reality) I do not know. I suppose you think it “most conducive to arresting collapse” to have a freefalling block than a much more slowly tilting block too?

Not to forget NIST proved the collapse initiations were at a minimum against the odds to begin (and never proved they were possible due to the situation on 9/11). The whole official theory is lacking; based on theoretical, politically driven calculations, not reality.

The demolition fits and explains every reality with ease.

Yes, I do think it is most conducive to arresting collapse to have a free falling block that impacts directly on the strongest vertical structural elements instead of the weaker elements that are tying those vertical elements together. Like I said regarding the ladder, if you take out the rungs all you've got are a couple of poles that will fall over.

Bazant used the free fall drop to simplify the model. In reality the upper portion of the buildings were cutting through the first several floors like butter because they had been incredibly weakened by the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.

It does not all need to be deflected outside of the building footprint. Hold a wire mesh horizontal and drop a slab of concrete on it. Now grind your slab of concrete into stone chips that fit between the mesh and repeat the experiment (no you are not allowed to put the stone chips in a sack). Note how the stone chips pass around/through the mesh. You really don’t understand the difference between a hammer/metal filings, or stone/sand, or a rigid block/debris, do you?

I have no idea what you are talking about here with the concrete chips and wire mesh. Are you trying to say that the upper block should have been pulverized to the point that it could pass through a wire mesh before it impacted with the lower structure? What exactly would have been the mechanisms you propose under which this would have been accomplished?

You think you aren’t crapping on Bazant’s theory, then immediately show you don’t know Bazant’s theory.

Bazant himself states he needs the rigid block (his equations rely on it): -

Second, note that the analysis that led to Eq. ~1! implies the

hypothesis that the impacting upper part of the tower behaves

essentially as a rigid body. This is undoubtedly reasonable if

the upper part has the height of 20 stories, in which case the

ratio of its horizontal and vertical dimensions is about

52.8/2033.7'0.7. But if the upper part had the height of only

3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the

upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a

flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of

the upper part could move down separately at different times.

Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many

small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.

In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people

could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower

part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper

part or weakening it by some ‘‘smart-structure’’ system so as to

make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting

the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body.

Once the debris can act as a “flexible horizontal plate” this leads to “a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal”. And then, that through weakening of the upper structure to create a “mass of rubble” (which is what we have in reality by the mid-point of collapse – an observation that Bazant’s theory does not care for), the lower part of the tower would be saved.

Once again you seem to have no idea what Bazant is saying here. He isn't saying that he needs a rigid block. He is saying that the upper mass of the building is acting like a rigid block because it is all falling together. His point about "exploding" the upper part is about causing a gradual collapse instead of a sudden one.

There was indeed a mass of rubble half way through the collapse, but it had attained such a high velocity by that point that the force it was imparting to the floors below was mind bogglingly huge. There was no stopping it. What Bazant is talking about here is destroying the upper part before it can gain the momentum to globally collapse the structure below.

[Wandering]

Check out this paper. It shows that the outcome can vary depending on the circumstances of the mixing.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ib24ZGoHYqoC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=%22molten+aluminium%22+water&source=bl&ots=UNzob2IAZt&sig=1gF3M3U3DsFd3RbkxwL4eofaxYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JE2ZT5TiMo_R4QTAlPTEBg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22molten%20aluminium%22%20water&f=false

The second part of your video, with the water sprayed on the aluminium, seems to show what the paper calls Force 1 explosions, ie small "pops" of aluminium thrown up by steam. Now read on and see what else can happen. I reckon BFB's video shows a Force 3.

What about the first part swanny?

So where was the energy dispersed in the towers? It would have been an unmissable event had that molten aluminium compound in those amounts come into contact with water.

[booNyzarC]

That’s the North-West corner of the core right?

I have always said that the majority of charges were placed in the main bank of elevators, and that happened to be on the South side in WTC1. That is why the tower tilted South despite the impact damage being on the North and the North-West core was not so damaged.

Riddle me this Robin: why did each tower tilt consistent with the main bank of elevators, and inconsistent with the impact damage?

Could it be that the impact damage did not contribute to the collapses, so much as charges placed in the elevator shafts?

Could it be that the initial impact from the planes pushed the majority of combustible debris into piles that could burn and overheat the structural elements on the sides opposite of impact? Seems to fit with NISTs model to me...

[booNyzarC]

What about the first part swanny?

So where was the energy dispersed in the towers? It would have been an unmissable event had that molten aluminium compound in those amounts come into contact with water.

Unless maybe there were isolated pockets of this kind of reaction happening inside the buildings, far from the external walls?

By the way, I never said that this was what actually happened. I only agree that the constituent elements were present and that to some degree or another this kind of thing could have been going on.

[flyingswan]

What about the first part swanny?

I'm just showing that there is more than one possible outcome, and just because you produce a video of one outcome, that doesn't rule out the possibility of another.

[skyeagle409]

In the 9/11 Government Commission Report...they have the South Tower collapsing in 10 seconds.

http://www.9-11commi...eport/index.htm

http://govinfo.libra...1Report_Ch9.pdf

page 305...

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and

emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—

The timeline was revised after a closer look revealed no WTC building freefalls. A closer look at FDR data of American 77 also revealed some flaws in the NTSB report, which were corrected and the result was the new investigation reconfirmed the flight path of American 77 and that the aircraft, which stuck the Pentagon was in fact, American 77.

Any new investigations into the 9/11 will simply confirm that there was no 9/11 conspiracy and I am very sure that more information on intelligence reports warning of an impending terrorist attack using aircraft will be revealed. The warnings from foreign intelligence sources heated up just prior the 9/11 attacks.

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

First, General Warnings

# In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]

1. In late July 2001, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services." Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings. [independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

2. Also in late July 2001, the US was given a "concrete warning" from Argentina's Jewish community. "An attack of major proportions" was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02]

3. An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

4. Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

Warnings the Attack Will Come from the Air

Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air.

1. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways,""possibly as flying bombs." [sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush's briefing on August 6, 2001. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

2. In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out." Within the American intelligence community, "the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified" but "there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented." This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

3. In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that "20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas." To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. "The request never came." [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS "60 Minutes" show about a different topic.

4. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

5. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: "More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." [izvestia, 9/12/02]

6. Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02]

For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: "I'm studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other." The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for "the brothers going to the United States," and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that "very, very secret" plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

My link

My link

Edited April 26, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Dis Pater]

The timeline was revised after a closer look revealed no WTC building freefalls. A closer look at FDR data of American 77 also revealed some flaws in the NTSB report, which were corrected and the result was the new investigation reconfirmed the flight path of American 77 and that the aircraft, which stuck the Pentagon was in fact, American 77.

Any new investigations into the 9/11 will simply confirm that there was no 9/11 conspiracy and I am very sure that more information on intelligence reports warning of an impending terrorist attack in using aircraft will be revealed. The warnings from foreign intelligence sources heated up just prior the 9/11 attacks.

Looking at it from a neutral view,the problem with all the warnings that you have quoted and that were given to the US Government/Security forces prior to the 9/11 attacks is that they did not act upon them and tighten up security suitably .A neutral can look at this both ways.Option 1-did you not act because arrogance came to the front and you did not believe that they would happen(pretty silly considering the amount of warnings given) or-Option 2- did your powers that be consider it too good of an opportunity to miss.?.

The powers that be are at fault for causing all these conspiracy theories...but...sometimes all is not as it seems.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Dis Pater

[Q24]

You admit that the upper block can't be stopped, yet you think the lower block will survive? Incredible.

The upper rigid/intact block cannot be stopped but once the upper block deteriorates (i.e. is no longer rigid/intact) it’s a very different situation, providing better chance for the lower block survival. There is nothing “incredible” in this acknowledgment.

If the upper block keeps moving and the columns of the lower block are not crushed, then the beams must be broken away from them, an outcome which will slow the upper block even less. The beams are not there for decoration, they're essential support for the columns, see how the spire collapsed without them. Either way, the lower block doesn't survive.

If the upper block keeps moving and the columns of the lower block are not immediately crushed, then damage is reciprocated to the upper block (as evidenced by the ‘spire’ puncturing through the upper block). Now refer back to the first acknowledgement above.

You don't appear to appreciate the difference between primary and secondary structure. A column is strong but has a relatively small cross-section and can punch through floors without doing much damage to the primary structure of the upper block.

Your previous quote said the columns require “essential support” of the beams just to stand up. Now you contradict that with the claim that columns with no supporting beams are “strong” and “can punch through floors”. You are actually switching the standard midway between 1) believing what you want and then 2) having to account for the actual observation.

Otherwise known as ‘doublethink’: -

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

Thank you for the stark demonstration Swanny.

I'm still waiting for any evidence for your loss of momentum or that the antenna remains attached to the building, and once again you have no clue at all about how to interpret a seismograph trace.

I set out the observation showing loss of momentum in my post #1062. I can see the reduced speed of collapse progression at a glance, but to help you along I set out further specific times and observations which makes it clear to even the visually challenged.

I find it hilarious that you still attempt to write off the reduced seismic reading as random. First, it occurred in the same moment in both tower collapses; coinciding with destruction of the upper block and aforementioned momentum loss, i.e. it certainly does not appear random but quite fitting, despite your bluster. Second, I know that some years ago you used the same seismic data to support your WTC7 theory and you were not writing off the readings as random back then.

It’s this antenna that’s really got me interested though. Excuse the ‘choppy’ image: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ttD9w5LTFY&feature=player_embedded#!

The red line down the tower is centre-line of the antenna’s starting position.

The further red lines are length and position of the antenna during its fall.

The blue line is the roof after the known initial tilt of the upper block.

The question is: how did the base of the antenna travel the green line?

You will note that it is well off-centre of the starting position. The antenna cannot have broken free, because it would then be required to perform a hop and a jump out from the tower to reach that end position.

Yet the green line is fit to continuation of the upper block tilt. The conclusion is, that not only was the antenna still attached to the roof, but the upper block actually continued it’s rotation – it was falling sideways and well off-centre of the core. In fact, at the midpoint of collapse, the upper block was nearly outside of the tower footprint! No wonder there was a loss of momentum and reduced seismic activity in that moment.

Also no wonder a large portion of the core remained standing (it was more than just the ‘spire’) after the upper block had passed.

That is utter devastation to Bazant’s theory – he needs to remove the upper block altogether. It is certainly not ‘conservative’ to calculate a large mass crushing the lower block, when that mass was not within the tower footprint! Wow, he needs to recalculate using the debris only against the core columns. What an outright criminal to deceive the world for a decade.

One final thought came to mind whilst I was putting together the image above (not for you Swanny, I know you don’t question anything). Isn’t it perturbing that no official investigation looked in any detail at the collapses after their initiation. Let it sink in… no official investigation studied the actual collapse progression of the towers. Un-be-lievable.

[Q24]

The point is that the upper part of the building all came down together. Whether or not it was a solid mass, it acted upon the lower structure with essentially the same properties (and results) that a solid mass would.

I have no idea how you conclude that a solid mass is the same as a non-solid mass.

Like I said regarding the ladder, if you take out the rungs all you've got are a couple of poles that will fall over.

Not if the poles are cemented in the ground.

Bazant used the free fall drop to simplify the model. In reality the upper portion of the buildings were cutting through the first several floors like butter because they had been incredibly weakened by the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.

That’s funny… I don’t remember Bazant ever giving that reason, or using the word “butter”. Likewise NIST did not describe the lower impact floors as “incredibly weakened”.

I have no idea what you are talking about here with the concrete chips and wire mesh. Are you trying to say that the upper block should have been pulverized to the point that it could pass through a wire mesh before it impacted with the lower structure? What exactly would have been the mechanisms you propose under which this would have been accomplished?

The spacing between the wire mesh in the example represents spacing between the columns.

Once again you seem to have no idea what Bazant is saying here. He isn't saying that he needs a rigid block. He is saying that the upper mass of the building is acting like a rigid block because it is all falling together. His point about "exploding" the upper part is about causing a gradual collapse instead of a sudden one.

I disagree, and this is very obvious - please refer back to first response above.

Could it be that the initial impact from the planes pushed the majority of combustible debris into piles that could burn and overheat the structural elements on the sides opposite of impact? Seems to fit with NISTs model to me...

No because in WTC2 the tilt was toward the impact, in WTC1 it was away from the impact.

The only factor consistent with both tilts was the main bank of elevator shafts where charges were placed.

[skyeagle409]

IThe only factor consistent with both tilts was the main bank of elevator shafts where charges were placed.

What charges? No one found any explosive evidence in the WTC buildings and here's another reason why.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

WTC photos show

buckling steel columns in the minutes before

the collapse

of the buildings.

East Face of WTC 2

9:53 AM

Maximum inward bowing of approx. 20 in.

alt. link's: 1, 2, 3, 4

NIST 6McAllister.pdf

East Face of WTC 2

9:58 AM

Inward bowing of perimeter columns seconds before collapse.

alt. link's: 1, 2, 3, 4

NIST 6McAllister.pdf

South Face of WTC 1

10:23 AM

Max bowing of 55 in.

alt. link's: 1, 2, 3, 4

NIST 6McAllister.pdf

East Face of WTC 2

9:21 AM

Maximum inward bowing of approx. 10 in.

(18 min after impact)

alt. link's: 1, 2, 3, 4 NIST 6McAllister.pdf

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed. Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down." "The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.

My link

Edited April 26, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

The steel-framed building didn' collapse because of fire nor explosives, yet the steel-framed building collapsed anyway, and you thought that I made it up.

Your point being what exactly?? Buildings collapse from earthquakes?

Is this the best you can offer because as you are well aware, you can't find one which collapse entirely in on themselves from fires.

Just shows thtat you were proven wrong again.

Actually what it shows is that you don't have any valid points and in desperation, you have resorted to posting a building which collapses from an earthquake which you have fooled yourself into thinking it proves some kind of point. Edited April 26, 2012 by Stundie

[booNyzarC]

I have no idea how you conclude that a solid mass is the same as a non-solid mass.

Maybe you need to look up the word essentially.

Not if the poles are cemented in the ground.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Fat lot of good a rungless ladder is going to do for someone.

That’s funny… I don’t remember Bazant ever giving that reason, or using the word “butter”. Likewise NIST did not describe the lower impact floors as “incredibly weakened”.

I didn't say Bazant used the word.

The spacing between the wire mesh in the example represents spacing between the columns.

oooohhhhh.... so you mean where the FLOORS were.... and this helps to stop collapse how exactly?

I disagree, and this is very obvious - please refer back to first response above.

And I disagree with you - please refer back to my response to your first response above.

No because in WTC2 the tilt was toward the impact, in WTC1 it was away from the impact.

The only factor consistent with both tilts was the main bank of elevator shafts where charges were placed.

In WTC 2 the majority of the tilt was toward the east. The plane impacted from the south. How can you say that it was "toward the impact?" It was toward the area which would have accumulated the most combustible debris into piles after the impact of the plane; as was the case with WTC 1.

[Stundie]

What explosions? No bomb explosions were registered.

Yes they were, they were registered by people at GZ.

No internet warrior on a debunking crusade can't deny that can they/

He is one to the top demolition experts in the country and look what you posted! About the company of Brent Blanchard.

He is one of the top experts who has never demolished a building??

I'm sorry but Blanchard is not an expert let me explain.

Brent Blanchard paper probably came from this letter he received.

Letter to implosion world

So Brent Blanchard posts his paper which as explained in this paper hereturns his paper into a teabag, in that his paper is full of holes.

Highlights include....

....Blanchard boasts about the volumes of evidence that supposedly supports Protec's alleged investigation, but he doesn't let you, the reader, see any of that evidence. Blanchard's approach contrasts with that of 9-11 Research, which is to publish every piece of evidence we can find....

....Note that Blanchard mentions only I-beam columns. Is he unaware that all of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns and all but the top stories of their core columns were box columns, not I-beam columns? ....

....Blanchard's "compelling argument" combines an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) with supposed evidence that the reader can't see (alleged seismic recordings possessed by Protec) while ignoring public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades). Wrapping his hollow argument in the pretentious language of "detailed analysis" and the dictates of the "laws of physics" makes it no more compelling.....

.....How many foremen did Blanchard's investigators speak with? Two? Three? Because Blanchard provides no details about this survey, his summary of its results is meaningless. ...

......Blanchard's claim that the steel was properly examined, lacking any verification, stands as an empty assertion, and is contradicted by testimony to a hearing by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives ....

I like this bit the most...

Having failed to articulate, let alone answer, a single of the score of compelling arguments for the demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, Blanchard declares victory.

Reminds me of someone I know.