A brief analysis of WTC 1 : Initial catastrophic failure.

[video=youtube;urNEAakzOYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNEAakzOYk[/video]

Only anti-semitic conspiracy nuts like this guy (and the FBI) thought there were any explosions going off. Now you know so you can all just drop it.

 

That's a gem!

 

[video=youtube;cEUcnCh7n_E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEUcnCh7n_E[/video]

 

I've heard the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) for 12 years now. Truthers sure haven't moved forward with a damn thing, what would you call it? It sure as hell ain't progress. I hope its not standing idle, I was told that makes me complicit in a cover up of mass murder, why is your cult exempt from those same charges? To date only one truther has presented their case to a court, that I know of, Judy Wood. And that is a whole different level of insanity. Granted she was laughed out of court, but at least she had the balls to try. More than I can say for any other truther I know. If funding is what you are looking for, start by presenting your "expert" analysis to the insurance agencies who have paid out hundreds of millions in claims over the last dozen years. Go explain to them how they were defrauded out of massive amounts of money. I'm sure they will be all ears. Enough excuses, put up or shut up time champ.

 

Jet fuel created fireballs in the elevator shafts, some elevator cables snapped and dropped their cars, wonder what a big metal box sounds like when it crashes to the ground. I bet its a resounding BOOM! Like a bomb going off, I bet it would look and sound like an explosion went off!!!!! Me oh my!!!

 

To those with an IQ od more than 50, it sounds like they are discussing the collapse of the towers. We are listening to live feed from people who had not watched or understood what was happening at an altitude of one thousand feet. The fire fighter was on the ground, approaching the building when it fell. All that he could witness was a massive turbidity flow and the loudest noises he is likely ever again to hear in his life. The newsbabe had no idea that the tower had just collapsed in on itself. For all she knew, it was still there.

Now, let me tell you what happens in an explosion, as comared to the collapse of a building of that size.

In an explosion, a chemical compound degrades violently, causing an almost instant breaking of chemical bonds, resulting in an area of immense over-pressurization. This sends a shock wave through and materials in the immediate area of the explosion. The air, if present, is expelled from the immediate vicinity, along with any solid or liquid material at SUPERSONIC speeds.

This did not occur in the scenario described by the fire fighter.

During any normal or induced collapse of a structure, the solid materials used become compressed into a moving bolus which displaces the air below it. No two objects can occupy the same space, ever. You pseudo-Newtonians even have to accept that, right?

The amount of air displaced will, of course, depend on the amount of material displacing it, in an exact one-to-one relationship. A cubic yard of debris displaces exactly one cubic yard of air.

If you drop a slab of concrete on the sidewalk, you will see the air being displaced from under it. You will probably feel a slight breeze.

Now, imagine that you have just dropped all of the concrete that you have ever in your life dropped. This will create far more than just a little puff of air. It will, in fact, create an absolute wind as all of that concrete,, whether in slabs, chunks or freshly-ground powder drives out the local air.

The force with which that air will be driven out depends on a number of factors. I shall leaver it to someone who is not dyscalculic to explain the maths of that, but suffice it to say that the more rapidly a falling body passes through air, the greater are the speeds at which it will displace that air. What matters most for our purposes here is that the velocity to which the escaping air is accelerated will be less that supersonic.

Far less, actually.

The wind that the fire fighter described was less than supersonic. It was a result of falling debris and had sod all to do with explosive charges.

I expect that blithering hippy Chandler and idiot boy Cole to grasp this stuff just on the basis of their alleged levels of education.

They fail.

You people are also making a mistake in assuming that the primary action occurring in the collapse was a downward crushing of load-bearing walls and columns. No load-bearing wall or column was crushed. The connection between the walls and floors, one of the most delicate ever installed in such large structures, was broken by simple over-loading, allowing the weight of the falling debris to shove the outer walls out and away from the building at an ever-increasing speed.

Non of Newton's laws were broken.

It would violate all of them to postulate an arresting mechanism in the buildings as assembled.

 

Do you have any clue how an elevator shaft could be compromised with jet fuel? Do you even know what is an elevator shaft? It does not appear so.

 

He experienced what any hosedragger knows was a "backdraft." If you kids would at least bother to learn such basic concepts, there would never have been a a twoof movement, except among the sociopaths who start shrieking about "DA JOOOOS!" every time something bad happens.

When the plane hit on an upper floor, it expressed pressurized,, burning jet fuel into the elevator shafts. There was not sufficient air in the shafts to maintain combustion, but the fuel was still above ignition temperature. When it was exposed again to oxygen, upon the opening of the express elevator door in the lobby, it deflagrated, over-pressurizing the area. This is clearly what happened. The witness can apparently still hear, so there was no HE shock wave involved. There is usually only a minimal shock wave, if any, in a backdraft.

That there was jet fuel present in the shafts is confirmed by all parties who witnessed the explosions. The Naudet brothers mention burning bodies in the lobby. This is only possible if there were a Class B accelerant on the bodies. HE does not coat a body with Class B accelerants. We know for an absolute fact that a Class B accelerant had just been introduced to the top of the air column at that time.

DUH!

 

That's a fact. "Non of Newton's laws were broken." even though NIST claimed they were. Newton's laws of motion are natural laws. The rest of lefty's post is bogus but at least he knows that Newton's laws of motion can not be violated in the physical world.

 

Nobody with an IQ of 90 or more said that they were.

 

Indeed, funny you don't, or you wouldn't be asking such silly questions.

 

I dont generally consult a witch doctor for data.

got anything outside of smoke and mirrors.

I already made my points on the matter that remain unrefuted want to start all over again is that it?

- - - Updated - - -

so does that mean that you are an iq expert now too?

 

no he doesnt "really" know that in a functional way.

 

liquid jet fuel? really?

how did it get up to 450+ degrees again? Did I miss that part of this crazy theory?

 

how did it get into the elevators?

you know the elevator was open is that it?

 

if you rig a demolition one of the first places you put explosives is in the elevator shafts.

 

they know they were defrauded, one company halted payments, the government destroyed all the evidence

 

You've appointed yourself as the personal spokesman for a lot of people, haven't you?

Tell us about it Swami.

That's odd. Your description sounds almost like the ones given by the witnesses.

On no?
Do you mean the one who said, "It was just as if it had been wired for detonation, 'Boom, Boom, Boom.'"
Or do you mean the one who said, "I think I know an explosion when I hear one."

Rapidly heated hot air will also expand rapidly.
It creates the cauliflower turbulence which was observed rapidly expanding away from the scene.
That's why some people called them pyroclastic.

This was confirmed by the witnesses who described them as being so hot that they thought they might be burned up by them.

This makes one wondered how so much of this concrete could have been pulverized to dust before it even hit the ground.

I gather you are "dyscalculic".
That's rather surprising for one who would have us believe that he knows more than people like Neils Harrit or Dr Jones who has a PhD in physics, to name a couple.

I'd say a good estimation of the wind speed might be gathered from watching the expansion of the dust clouds in the innumerable films which are available.

Many people described being overtaken by them and even blown down.

Dr Chandler did have enough saavy in physics to be able to determine that building seven fell at free fall speed for some seconds, which is more than most people would be able to do.

I think you are confusing the percussions of explosions which would have occurred inside the buildings with the expansive clouds of dust which happened outside.

Jets, or squibbs of rushing air and smoke CAN be observed being emitted from various windows several stories beneath the collapse front.

Debunkers have attempted to explain these away in terms of displaced air also. The fact remains that such emissions can be observed in controlled demolitions in which no provisions are ever made to conceal them.

Right. But a lot of man made laws WERE.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fe.911investigationworldtradecenterwtccollapse.shtml

If you know how many columns were destroyed initially and where they were located in relation to those which remained standing, make yourself useful and tell us.

You can also tell us while you are at it what the temperatures of the fires were and how long they operated on those remaining columns and beams.

After this you might try making your collapse theory jibe with the Cardington tests.


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/575-popular-mechanics-ignores-its-own-historical-records-of-thermite-demolition-destruction-of-skyride-towers-reichstag-dome-set-incendiary-precedent.html

 

answer: A media cover up. (censorship) "We have Public Relations people who handle things like this."

Ordinarily the media seizes upon any kind of sensationalism, muck raking, or controversial subjects that would grab the publics attention and boost ratings. It would be rather odd that they shouldn't be wearing out 9/11 to this very day for people who can go on indefinitely on some of the most inconsequential stuff as though the fate of the universe hung in the balance, Michael Jackson's overdose for example.

I say, it would be odd, except for the fact that Zionist involvement in the plot gives them every reason in the world to want to bury certain aspects of the story as quickly as possible and keep alive only those aspects which are required to fire a patriotic fervor to support the mid-east campaign.


Some of us believe that Judy Woods is one of those "weirdos" who either voluntarily or unwittingly is offered up by the propaganda ministerium as representative of all those who question 9/11. This is analogous to the way in which the secular humanists attempt to depict all people who believe that God created the universe as being ignorant bumpkins or snake handlers who believe that Bishop George Berkeley had the only correct interpretation of Genesis.
So it doesn't surprise me that you would hold her up as exemplary. If such people didn't arise on their own accord it wouldn't be much trouble to arrange that they should.

 

no they were not!

where do you come up with that garbage?



you gotta rip away most of the columns and the exo to even come close to failure.

in the words of chandler..... that is what I would expect to hear from a kid who didnt crack the book to do any homework.

held the walls up? more expertise? NOT

they kept the walls parallel not held them up that is ludicrous.

Please recite that long resume of expertise for us again! LMAO

I am not imagining any such thing. I am imagining demolition.

Oh back to verinage? Got any clips of it being used on a steel building do ya?

No we cant see that.

Dont tell me that I can see something that I cant. Neither can you see any more than I can see unless you have xray vision and you have no clue what the actual damage was

 

No. You watch too many movies written by dimwits for dimwits.Nothing was done to the cores with explosives orv thermite charges of any kind. This is apparent to anyone with a room temperature IQ because the cores were the last part to fail.

 

citation required, I can link to the evidence online if you like, and prove you're lying.

 

Imagine if you will all the floors of said skyscraper removed. What you would have left is an exterior shell and the rectangular formation of the interior core remaining.
If we assume that these exterior walls formed a rigid structure which were joined together at the corners in a continuous seem from top to bottom, I see no reason why those walls would not remain standing and joined together. Cut the lid and bottom off of a box and you'll see what I mean. Then try removing one or two adjacent sides. Unless they are made of tissue paper they ought to remain upright.

The absence of floors running perpendicular to the planes of the walls should not effect their ability to remain standing as long as they remained fastened at the corners. Are you saying they were not?
Not only that, if one were to remove one entire face from such a hollowed out structure, or even two, I see no reason that the remaining walls should not remain aright, provided they were still bound together at at least one corner.
To accept your proposition one would have to assume that nothing was done to make the outside walls a contiguously solid surface or that a single wall had any support except the way in which it was fastened to the floor joists which connected to the core. The walls were constructed in such a way that the pieces were staggered all the way up and down. That means that there was no seam that could have been split along the floor lines.

It was pointed out earlier that the verinage technique IS a controlled demolition, NOT an accident waiting to happen.

A successful verinage demolition must be planned in order to succeed. All the illustrations of it which I have seen show the process being set up in the middle of the building, that is, on a floor or two half way from the ground to the top.
When it is conducted, ALL of the supporting columns are knocked out at the same time in order to ensure a uniform collapse.
Why do they do this?

I suppose it is because if they did not start at half way up then there might not be enough upper portion to crush the lower portion or conversely enough downward momentum to destroy the upper portion entirely. Additionally, if all of the supports were not removed at the same time, then the building would begin to tilt off center in the direction of those which were removed and thus fail to fall dead center.

Both conditions occur as a result of deliberate planning. In the case of the WTC buildings for such an event to occur, the damage done by the planes would have to have coordinated in such a way with the effects of the ensuing fires so as to produce a simultaneous failure of all remaining supports.
This happy accident would had to have occurred not once, not twice, but THREE times in a row.

What are the odds of getting conditions for verinage to occur by the process of undetermined damage coupled with the indeterminate path of fire on precisely the critical members?

They can also see that the greatest portions of those buildings were NOT damaged by planes and were NOT on fire.

So you cannot appeal to a prior "weakening" of structure to explain the mysterious way in which those intact structures appeared to peal away like a ripe banana in such a way as to allow the collapse to approach the speed of free fall in ALL THREE CASES such that they all fell straight down with scarcely a hitch.

The problem here was that the planners were being too merciful about sparing casualties and too tidy about minimizing destruction to the surrounding areas.
If they had designed the falls to topple somewhat and lay waste to an entire city block it would have been more believable. This is part of what leads me to suspect the possible enlistment of some of those "Russian" PhDs who migrated to the Brighton area after the Russian economy was looted. Some of those folks had not only the expertise to plan and execute an operation of that magnitude, but access to Soviet military and industrial technologies and materials.
No doubt the movers and shakers of New York would be acquainted with many of them, especially given their international ties of brotherhood, as in B'rith.

Then again, for all the furor that has been raised by people's doubts, I'd say they calculated the power of the media and the reaction of a public that has grown fat and lazy rather well. As you say, it's been twelve years, and now we have a Marxist president on top of it all.

They always have the DHS Obama army and the FEMA camps to fall back on.

 

You consulted your witch doctor guru did ya to get that insider info?

no they didnt they fell right away

in fact its the only way you can get the outside walls to pull in

 

Agreed. Like NIST he knows that "Newton's laws were suspended that day" won't fly anymore so the official truth debunkers are down to "anybody who doesn't believe the official government lie has a room temperature IQ."
They maintain that it takes a high IQ to believe that cavemen from Arabia, armed with boxcutters, defeated a multi-billion dollar military industrial complex on 9/11.