Im not asking why the charges didn't get destroyed. I am implying that the pilots could never have hit the exact targets of those charges. And autopilot doesnt work because the auto pilot is programmed to fly to the normal destination not the towers. Plz read it next time.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Im not asking why the charges didn't get destroyed. I am implying that the pilots could never have hit the exact targets of those charges. And autopilot doesnt work because the auto pilot is programmed to fly to the normal destination not the towers. Plz read it next time.
First of all, why would it even be -necessary- to hit any exact location if the charges were radio controlled?
Clearly you don't know about the newer GPS navigation systems available at the time. The following is from an article titled Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems from the Journal of 9/11 studies:
*************************
U.S. federal government and civil aviation industry publications describe the development and implementation pre-September 11, 2001, of state-of-the-art systems capable of facilitating precise automated navigation of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft used that day to a given destination. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost. The information signal can be obtained through the use of GPS signal receiving equipment.[1]
*************************
Another theory is posited here.
I read it before I responded, regardless of what your sentiments on the matter may be.
Last edited:
No he was fired for writing erroneous articles which compromised the reputation of his current employer.
He chose to ignore any evidence of high temperatures and focused on the paint samples.
From the above article - “I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation.”
That paragraph again confirms that he is willfully ignorant. That last sentence seems to invalidate the previous claim but anyway….
I’m focusing on his qualifications because his opinion of what the temperatures should have been is irrelevant.
The debris alone did not cause the collapse.
Do you visit reality often? The steel on the Madrid tower collapsed due to the fire. It was a high rise that was only left standing due to its concrete core. If steel structures can collapse due to fire there is no fundamental difference when a tall steel structure collapses due to fire.
Yet there is no evidence for explosives.
They don’t do that in demolitions do they?
Can’t watch videos from work.
I’m guessing you are going to present me with more cherry picked witness testimony. We’ve been though this many times. We have even looked at individual cases. People saying they heard an explosion that sounded like a bomb isn’t surprising at all considering what happened that morning and taking into account that there was a bomb attempt only a few years earlier. There are many explanations for these noises that have nothing to do with bombs.
So it didn’t collapse into its own footprint.
So he is relying on youtube videos to give us his “expert” evaluation.
One demolition youtube expert, thats it? I can’t watch the video at the moment to see him but one is pretty weak.
Even your hero Ryan said it takes a lot of preparation.
Watch the videos I presented regarding WTC7 foreknowledge. One showed a firefighter saying that the leaning building was unstable. The building looked so damaged that firefighters think it will collapse so they back off, and then it does. How can you actually think that is suspicious?! Are you on medication?
Does this video involve cardboard boxes?
Last edited:
I notice that you've gotten rather fond of personally attacking Steven Jones (for others reading this, this is the physics professor he's alluding to) simply because he's a mormon. Steven Jones has made it clear that peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper with various theories on how fires could have caused the collapse of the WTC bulidings have been thrown into the dustbins of history in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? Something some may fail to realize is that a peer reviewed paper is only as good as the peers involved.
Steven Jones, in contrast, has had articles published in Nature and Scientific American regarding his work on muon catalyzed fusion -before- 9/11, which are arguably the most coveted scientific journals around.
True, he hasn't yet published any of his 9/11 work in either journal. However, considering the controversy surrounding 9/11, it's understandable that he hasn't yet been able to do so. He -has- however, been published in other peer reviewed journals, such as the Journal of 9/11 Studies, The Open Civil Engineering Journal and The Environmentalist.
Last edited:
The list of architects and engineers, complete with their numbers and addresses is far from meaningless. They can be verified easily enough. All you need is a phone. If they weren't behind it, I sincerely don't believe that they'd risk revealing so much about themselves. As to why they aren't writing papers for engineering magazines, are you sure none of them are? Simply because you or I haven't heard of it doesn't mean they haven't done it. I think it's understandable if few have done so, however. For one, why reinvent the wheel? The founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, Richard Gage, was initially struck by the evidence that noted 9/11 author David Ray Griffin had gathered. Kevin Ryan had also begun to talk to David Ray Griffin and in fact allowed him to publish a copy of the letter that he'd sent to Frank Gayle's NIST before he was fired for writing said letter. Kevin Ryan has worked with Steven Jones on atleast one paper. Architects and Engineers also relies on Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page. In other words, all of these people are essentially working -together-. If one of them has already said it well, there's no reason that another has to do the same. In these circumstances, a petition works much better, as it's simply making it clear that people agree, without the need for everyone take time out of their every day lives to write individual papers.
You must be looking at a list that includes people who aren't architects and engineers. The more then 500 architects and enginers can be seen here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
Last edited:
No I’m attacking him because he’s a moron.
Moron, not mormon. ..Oh come on I had to.
The guy took his own interpretations of artwork to conclude that jesus visited the Americas.. You really need to get some better heroes.
Right so every peer reviewed article, written by people who know far more about it than he does, is wrong but his are all right. Yes sure I’ll take that crackpot’s word on it.
That laughable document has been taken apart by debunkers for years. It is rife with errors. Anyone actually wanting to know the truth only needs to spend a few minutes at the debunking sites to get a more balanced picure, and they will see this. Those who just want to maintain the fantasy will never leave the conspiracy sites and keep referring to Jones’ flawed work.
When we are talking about twenty something journals I think we can comfortably say that a number of people have evaluated the work. Oh that's right all the structural engineers are in on the conspiracy as well. Just like the government, firefighters, major media networks, police, everyone near the pentagon ect ect.
So that means he can’t possibly be wrong about Jesus visiting the Americas for a holiday. That's what you’re saying isn’t it?
.. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago….
After all these years this is all he can get, which gives you an indication to the quality of the work he is submitting. An environmental journal and a little known engineering journal for which, apparently, there was no actual review. It shows that with a few $$ you can still get stuff published in one or two publications.
"Something some may fail to realize is that a peer reviewed paper is only as good as the peers involved. "
But we have been through all of this before. Your comment ‘for others reading this’ makes me think something. I think I understand you a little better now. You constantly spam the same stuff over and over again as if we didn’t discuss it on the previous page and others hadn't discredited it several timea already. I could be discussing why one of your sources is incorrect and as a rebuttal you will post that source. I have been convinced that you are either very stupid, dishonest or you have a genuine mental/memory problem.
But now I think you are just trying very hard to impress the lurkers. Imagine having an argument with someone who thought they were being filmed. Instead of listening, they were looking at an imaginary camera and constantly repeating old arguments while trying to impress an imaginary audience. It would be annoying. That’s essentially what you are doing. You aren’t interested at getting to the bottom of anything you just want to spam your conspiracy links in an attempt to proselytize.
That doesn’t rule out the other possibilities I mentioned though.
I'm making it clear that wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion. Take a look for yourself:
************************************
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
************************************
Perhaps he has solidified his belief since his tentative conclusions. In any case, there are reams of evidence that make it clear that the fire collapse theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently, however, I still have to present more before you'll believe me
.Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.
Which should be even more surprising...
True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its Concrete Pulverization page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.
The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
****************************************The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place. I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that. As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis. Anyway, it seems clear to me that explosives would account best for the tower's disintegration, since gravity didn't have a prayer of accomplishing it as I made clear in my last post.
My knowledge on this issue is lacking. However, the rest of the evidence I have presented makes it clear that the buildings could only have come down due to controlled demolitions.
I have heard this claim repeated many times as if it were being used in some pavlovian conditioning experiment, but I never actually saw any actual "debunking" of Professor Steven Jones work.
Would you show the proof that formed your belief that his work was bunk?
I am referring in particular to the discovery of the unreacted nanothermite explosive, and also the huge quantity of tiny molten alumino-iron spheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite all found in the wtc dust.
In particular the above, but also the other work such as the discovery of silicate particles resembling microscopic swiss cheese, which is surely indicative of high temperature evaporation which would have needed temperatures much higher than any building or jet fuel fire would have been able to achieve, and the sulphidation of a steel I-beam, which can be produced experimentally with ease by exposing steel to a reacting mixture of thermite and sulphur.
I'd say that the evidence regularly presented by the official story is pitiful, but you don't see -me- saying that it's moronic. Or even pitiful, because I don't want to hurt your feelings
.shaman, the idea that I am trying to 'forget' parts I don't like is, in my view, insulting. Not only am I doing my best to remember everything, I've actually even started a -web site- with arguments from you and others and my refutations. I've also now created a schematic of this entire thread, with the response trees labelled out, so I'm now aware as to which posts I never responded to (which is why I find myself responding to this post of yours, number 25, when we're already past 100).
No Scotch once more you do not understand what i am saying. I am saying that the plane would have to hit the exact position of where the explosives were set so that it looked realistic. radio control has nothing to do with it.
And actually after seeing this picture i am now neutral on the fact. I believe now that there is a passibility that explosives other than jet fuel were on the plane.
If you see in the last one their is an explosion shooting out of the entrance from where the plane crashed. A plane moving at 600 mph and explosives IN the building would not cause that, so there must have been explosives in the middle section that shot out backwards as well as in other directions.
And actually after seeing this picture i am now neutral on the fact. I believe now that there is a passibility that explosives other than jet fuel were on the plane.
If you see in the last one their is an explosion shooting out of the entrance from where the plane crashed. A plane moving at 600 mph and explosives IN the building would not cause that, so there must have been explosives in the middle section that shot out backwards as well as in other directions.
Here is why I keep talking about the steel and concrete:
If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not science. It's opinion.
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/roboman/proverbs.html
psik
If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not science. It's opinion.
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/roboman/proverbs.html
psik
There's a lot of evidence even without knowing the amount of concrete though. It'd be nice to know and if I knew of a way to find out via the internet, I think I'd give it a try, but in the meantime I've focused on all the -other- evidence, most of which points to controlled demolition.
That so federline
?What don't you understand from this statement:
"The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost."
I'll give you a hint where you should focus your attention: accurate
And actually after seeing this picture i am now neutral on the fact. I believe now that there is a passibility that explosives other than jet fuel were on the plane.
If you see in the last one their is an explosion shooting out of the entrance from where the plane crashed. A plane moving at 600 mph and explosives IN the building would not cause that, so there must have been explosives in the middle section that shot out backwards as well as in other directions.
Your argument seems sound, but I simply don't know enough concerning what happens when jets hit buildings to be sure. That theory has been posited, but at present, it doesn't have many mainstream alternate theory backers. I have an open mind on it, but until I can make proper sense of it and/or the mainstream alternate theory backers go for it, it'll have to go in the same box as, say, mini nukes. In any case, whether or not the plane was loaded with an explosive device, that in and of itself wouldn't have been enough to bring down the buildings.
alaska1976
Registered Member
For those of us liking a good mystery the twin towers are it!
I have a question for proponants of the towers being sabotaged by explosives. Can you show your proof or even strong circumstantial evidence aside from pictures of the buildings and their actual collapses that charges were used? It is easy to look at the pictures and decide charges were used. But, it is not easy to show the facts and figures of the time and cost to literally tear down and rebuild sections of a floor to get at the main braces.
This is an area not a lot of people talk about; how the charges were set on dozens of floors of two buildings in multiple areas to create a pancake explosion to perfectly set the top of the building onto it's base.
1st, before you respond please refer to a diagram of the normal floor area that represents each floor above and below of the trade towers. Note where the offices are and note where the restrooms are and the elevators and stairwells to deduce where drilling and tearing of walls would have to take place to get into the core of the building covered by meters of cement and other solid obsticles.
2nd, account for how many floors would have to have been detonated to cause a pancake collapse.
3rd, account where each charge would have to be set and how much work would have to be done to plant all charges on just a single floor.
4th, show some kind of proof that each tower had major work done that would have literally shut off use of specific secitions of each floor being worked on to place and afix the charges.
5th, a time element. How long from start to finish for both buildings.
A suggestion here. Before you do any of the above, go web hunting for buildings that have been demolished and read how long it took from setting charges to detonation. Also have a good look at any pictures that show what has to be done BEFORE any charges can even be set. Now compare what you find that is normally done for preping a legal demolition job and compare that factual evidence to your heresay evidence that the same was done to the trade towers while not being gutted.
I have a question for proponants of the towers being sabotaged by explosives. Can you show your proof or even strong circumstantial evidence aside from pictures of the buildings and their actual collapses that charges were used? It is easy to look at the pictures and decide charges were used. But, it is not easy to show the facts and figures of the time and cost to literally tear down and rebuild sections of a floor to get at the main braces.
This is an area not a lot of people talk about; how the charges were set on dozens of floors of two buildings in multiple areas to create a pancake explosion to perfectly set the top of the building onto it's base.
1st, before you respond please refer to a diagram of the normal floor area that represents each floor above and below of the trade towers. Note where the offices are and note where the restrooms are and the elevators and stairwells to deduce where drilling and tearing of walls would have to take place to get into the core of the building covered by meters of cement and other solid obsticles.
2nd, account for how many floors would have to have been detonated to cause a pancake collapse.
3rd, account where each charge would have to be set and how much work would have to be done to plant all charges on just a single floor.
4th, show some kind of proof that each tower had major work done that would have literally shut off use of specific secitions of each floor being worked on to place and afix the charges.
5th, a time element. How long from start to finish for both buildings.
A suggestion here. Before you do any of the above, go web hunting for buildings that have been demolished and read how long it took from setting charges to detonation. Also have a good look at any pictures that show what has to be done BEFORE any charges can even be set. Now compare what you find that is normally done for preping a legal demolition job and compare that factual evidence to your heresay evidence that the same was done to the trade towers while not being gutted.
Responding to post 27 in this thread.
Something that should be investigated then, don't you think?
The authors of the articles that were cited definitely think it was a major issue. As I've said in the past, leave perfection to the gods. I think most of the people who wanted that information destroyed were fairly satisfied. As to credibility, if you would have told me all of this on the day 9/11 happened I would have probably been stunned. But as time goes on and you learn more, you start to realize that reality is at times stranger then fiction. As to better targets, by all means, elaborate on what you think inside jobbers would consider to be better targets.
If he built it again, I imagine he did so to make even more profits. I certainly haven't heard that he was under any obligation to do so. However, even if he hadn't, he had -already- made a net profit of about 500 million from WTC 7's destruction, as 9/11 Research makes clear:
*******************************
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
*******************************
Something that should be investigated then, don't you think?
The authors of the articles that were cited definitely think it was a major issue. As I've said in the past, leave perfection to the gods. I think most of the people who wanted that information destroyed were fairly satisfied. As to credibility, if you would have told me all of this on the day 9/11 happened I would have probably been stunned. But as time goes on and you learn more, you start to realize that reality is at times stranger then fiction. As to better targets, by all means, elaborate on what you think inside jobbers would consider to be better targets.
If he built it again, I imagine he did so to make even more profits. I certainly haven't heard that he was under any obligation to do so. However, even if he hadn't, he had -already- made a net profit of about 500 million from WTC 7's destruction, as 9/11 Research makes clear:
*******************************
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
*******************************
Last edited:
This is a response to spidergoat's post 16.
If people could agree that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition, the next step would be to further investigate who had access to the buildings. That investigation has actually already been done by some, and the results point to some -very- interesting suspects.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see those as well. But I think that the WTC buildings is in my view the most obvious smoking gun. We're all told there's nothing to see and most of the evidence has been destroyed, but I still believe it may well be our best bet. There are, ofcourse, other smoking guns I've explored and may re-explore, such as the pentagon flyover...
If people could agree that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition, the next step would be to further investigate who had access to the buildings. That investigation has actually already been done by some, and the results point to some -very- interesting suspects.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see those as well. But I think that the WTC buildings is in my view the most obvious smoking gun. We're all told there's nothing to see and most of the evidence has been destroyed, but I still believe it may well be our best bet. There are, ofcourse, other smoking guns I've explored and may re-explore, such as the pentagon flyover...
Last edited:
- Status