Explosions in the Twin Towers

[CurtC]

Dude. Don't you know 'They' planted explosives in that building as well?

They had to, in order to build a plausible case that building fires can have explosions, in preparation for the WTC attacks. These NWO people think way ahead.

 

[twinstead]

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

Again, ad nauseam, experts in how buildings fail have studied the collapses frame by frame to learn what happened. Few, if ANY, have thought what happened is 'magical'.

The WTC collapses are studied in structural engineering classes all over the world. Perhaps you should ask some experts how what you think is magical could have happened, instead of posting incredulous musings on an internet forum. Perhaps in reality no investigation is necessary.

 

[Muckar-duva]

TS, let's put your earliest posts to rest, for once.
You didn't find anything in the Youtube that CptColombo posted here? How about a whole lot of debris much larger than what you maintain?

First question in OUR debate - answer it or go away:
Do you or do you not see debris (a lot of debris) that is considerably larger than macroscopic (your and Gordon Ross's assertion, not mine).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1990459#post1990459

View the video and then answer. No smoke up the skirt, just answer the question.

And while you're at it, you might want to notice what a lot of our reactions are all about. (For anyone still having nightmares about 9/11, don't watch past the first couple of minutes because there's disturbing, though not graphic,footage of them bringing out remains.)

Everyone else.... save the video link. Every time he brings up "powderized", ask the same question.

CptColombo - Good Vid! I hadn't seen it before, so if it's old news, thanks for renewing.

I don't just want to save it, I want to be able to link to its YouTube location.

 

[einsteen]

Thanks TwinStead, sound like a good idea.

 

[Hellbound]

In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that. The south tower toppling block is also something with a similar feature. If you consider point masses and a floor distance of 3.7 meter the initial falling block got about 0.86 seconds to hit the next floor and to increase its speed. It's a matter of counting frames in a video
to see what happens. Check this site, they conclude the block disintegrates even before it hits a major
part of the intact building.

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

Oh Jebus.

CAN YOU GET A NEW FREAKING POINT ALREADY?!

That one's been debunked already several times, you troll.

Go read a high-school physiccs book. It,s obvious you lied about your "advanced plasma physics" degree, you cretin.

You're too afraid (or ignorant) to explain your argument in the face of the rebuttal I made elsewhere, but you simply slink away and repeat it in every other thread you can, hoping eventually someone will be ignorant enough of the physics to think you have a point?

Sheesh.

 

[einsteen]

I regret that I used the name Einsteen because I only have a M.Sc in theoretical physics. Mrs Judy Woods is a professor in mechanical engineering and if she says (I just saw that today after re-reading):

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.

After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

then I don't have to shame myself because of Hunties big mouth, maybe only to use that name Einsteen, I've much cooler names on other forums.. I wish I could change it without signing up again

 

[pgwenthold]

again, you misquote. YOU might wanna try and RE-READ what they stated.
The firefighter in question described what looked like a demolition. looked like is not evidence of actual explosives.

More importantly, we have actual video of the buildings falling, and are able to judge for ourselves. In no way at all did the falling of WTC1 or WTC2 look anything like a demolition. The only thing similar is that buildings fell down. Other than that, there is no similarity.

This is so blatently obvious that CTists have admitted it, and therefore had to invoke the "it was a CD that was designed to not look like a CD" nonsense.

Thus, with no disrespect to the firefighters, who were talking from emotions after just seeing one of the most horrendous disasters of all time, they were mistaken in claiming that it looked like a demolition. I don't blame them. It was an emotional time. However, if you asked them now, with the benefit of video of both the towers falling AND actual controlled demolitions, if they think the falling tower looked like a demolition, would they agree? CTists can't even support that, so I don't think they would.

Short answer: what the firemen THOUGHT the collapse of the tower "looked like" at the time it happened is not very relevant. We have video. We know what it looked like. And we know it did NOT look like a CD.

 

[Hellbound]

I regret that I used the name Einsteen because I only have a M.Sc in theoretical physics. Mrs Judy Woods is a professor in mechanical engineering and if she says (I just saw that today after re-reading):

However, as we can observe, the building disintegrated from the top down and there was no block of material.

After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

then I don't have to shame myself because of Hunties big mouth, maybe only to use that name Einsteen, I've much cooler names on other forums.. I wish I could change it without signing up again

What she asserts is of no interest.

Where's the math? Where does she show that, because the upper part of the building was not a block, it's mass somehow ceases to exist, or ceases to impact the floors below? She's got a degree in engineering, right? So she must have done the math, right?

Or does she just assert these things without showing any proof or work, and expect people to believe them because she has a piece of paper?

Where does she show that conservation of mass and conservation of energy were not in effect that day?

Where does she show that the laws of physics suspended themselves long enough for her ridiculous assertions to be true?

Where does she show ANYTHING beyojnd conjecture and argument from ignorance?

If I'm wrong, prove it.

Of course you can't, you just make the same assertions, continually, without evidence.

Show me the PHYSICS that says the upper collapse could not have caused a global collapse, because the upper floors were not intact pieces. That's it. That will shut me up. ANd that's all that will shut me up. I'll tell you know, I will be looking for your posts in this forum, to call you out everytime you make this same, unsupported, ridiculous, debunked assertion.

So, if you want to shut my "big mouth", prove me wrong.

But you can't.

 

[Gravy]

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm
Without mentioning explosives I think this is really something to investigate and think about, you can wonder how much
initial momentum remains to be transferred, it's magical.

You've used the term "magical" several times to describe the collapses. Please stop.

Here's a question for you, einsteen. (I asked TS1234 this, but I don't expect answer.) From what height would the top portion of the north or south tower have to be dropped on to the bottom, in order to initiate a global collapse?

 

[CptColumbo]

Where on YouTube is this clip? I don't find it when I look.

The whole show is called "Rise and Fall of an American Icon."

Many in the CT community rely very heavily on news reports from the day of the collapse. The imfamous CNN story on "no plane hit pentagon" reported by John McIntyre, for example. Journalism, however is not an exact science, especially in the modern day world of 24hr news channels and streaming video. I'm not saying they are lying, but there may be errors in the rush to be the first to report on a major story or development. I believe it was Phil Graham of the Washinton Post who said that "journalism is the first draft of history." In other words as more information comes in, the picture becomes clearer. If you honestly want to investigate an event you should rely on later reports, not the reports from the day of the event.

 

[firecoins]

why are there no surviving FDNY firefighters in the truth movement?

These are people who run into burning buildings. They are not easily scared and over three hundred died. Threatening them would not seem like a workable idea. Many surviving firefighters have quit so keeping their job can not influence them.

 

[einsteen]

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

If the upper block is intact and the building is intact and there is fire and damage due to plane impact and the tower stands for an hour the deformation of the steel frame will be a continues process, if there is an initial collapse it’s unlikely that everything breaks at the same time. The south tower looks more ‘natural’ than the north tower.

A global collapse requires a minimum amount of energy which means a minimum amount of distance to fall, that energy is linear with the height it falls. What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour. But then everything breaks at the same time, fact is that it happened of course, empirical observation, we see a kind of fire explosion and the building starts coming down. But once it comes down we can go to 3) and 4)

btw Mrs. Woods doesn't need to show math about that empirical observation, the assumptions are used as input and you have
to start with assumptions because the process is absolutely complex. mr Greening also makes assumptions. If you throw
an object in vacuum the centre of mass will follow a parabolic track, whether the object explodes or disintegrates doesn't
matter, the centre of mass still follows that traject, mass is conserved. But if you assume a collapse it is only the vertical
component of it on the area of the building that matters. I think mrs. Woods got a point if she observes this process and wonders
how much momentum contributes. I don't think this is an easy matter.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Many in the CT community rely very heavily on news reports from the day of the collapse. The imfamous CNN story on "no plane hit pentagon" reported by John McIntyre, for example.

even this was quoted out of context, mcintyre was clarifying that a plane didnt crash near the pentagon, its crashed into the pentagon, of course CTers only quote the first part

 

[Hellbound]

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

SUre, but this isn't realistic and isn't worht considering.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

Sure, possibly (depending on how much angular momentum is imparted), but again, this is not representative of reality in any way and doesn't matter.

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

Unsupported assertion. THis is not one of the "assumptions" to start with. This is specifically a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, where you assume your conclusion. THis also ignores the fact that pieces of the upper block will not "leave the building", some will some won't. ALso, impacted floors from the lower section will collapse and fall into the building, adding to the falling mass. You'd have to show hoe the entirely of downward momentum and nergy would get transferred sideways. That's a LOT of acceleration to slow and stop all that mass....now you're talking about energy greater than the gravitational energy contained in the building (because it not only has to stop the falling material but also accelerate it to the side).

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

Not supported. You've shown no logical chain of reasoning, no physical laws, no mathematics on why this is the case. Again, in your ignorance, you simply assert that this is true with no support for it.

A global collapse requires a minimum amount of energy which means a minimum amount of distance to fall, that energy is linear with the height it falls. What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour. But then everything breaks at the same time, fact is that it happened of course, empirical observation, we see a kind of fire explosion and the building starts coming down. But once it comes down we can go to 3) and 4)

No. Peopel did hear sounds. The building was observed to bow outward on the damaged areas. Sure, if you ignore all the evidence it looks like it happened all at once. But that makes you intellectually dishonest.

btw Mrs. Woods doesn't need to show math about that empirical observation, the assumptions are used as input and you have
to start with assumptions because the process is absolutely complex. mr Greening also makes assumptions. If you throw
an object in vacuum the centre of mass will follow a parabolic track, whether the object explodes or disintegrates doesn't
matter, the centre of mass still follows that traject, mass is conserved. But if you assume a collapse it is only the vertical
component of it on the area of the building that matters. I think mrs. Woods got a point if she observes this process and wonders
how much momentum contributes. I don't think this is an easy matter.

Wrong again.

Mrs. Woods makes the assertion that there could not be a global collapse unless the upper block was a solid, indestructible object. Mrs. Woods does not, anywhere, explain why this is so or support her assertion in any fashion.

Also, we can get an estimate of how much material "left the building", in your words. It is a very small percentage of the total material. Such an observation essentially blows your entire theory out of the water. We know the upper block did not stay intact...yet pieces were not thrown out of the building. There's no evidence of explosives anywhere...no trace, no boom sounds, no indications that anyone could have or did plant explosives anywhere, no evidence of any explosion blast, etc, etc, etc. You simply make up all this stuff, blend it together, and assume it proves something. Making multiple assertions without evidence does not make any of them more likely. Look up ad hoc reasooning.

Now, when you can actually show the math and physics to tell why any of your nonsense posted as 3 and 4 have any resemblence to reality, then maybe you'd have something.

But you don't. Because you and Mrs. Woods (who, I should point out, thinks buildings should fall like trees...an assertion that would require the falling block to be indestructible) do not understand physics..or are too blinded by personal bias to apply it correctly, or are simply so caught up with your ego in the argument that lying is viewed as acceptible so long as it gets you the conclusion you reached before examingn the evidence.

So, got any evidence at all, beyond "I think it was like this"?

 

[einsteen]

1) is in fact Greening's model, but once the block hits the ground it is not infinitely strong and the 2nd stage of collapse occurs.

Indeed the other models cannot be proven, but as I said this is what I would expect using 'common sense', I don't state it as the truth, nobody can calculate such a complex model exactly, even numerical methods are very difficult.

 

[Hellbound]

1) is in fact Greening's model, but once the block hits the ground it is not infinitely strong and the 2nd stage of collapse occurs.

Indeed the other models cannot be proven, but as I said this is what I would expect using 'common sense', I don't state it as the truth, nobody can calculate such a complex model exactly, even numerical methods are very difficult.

But you have been stating it as proof.

You been continually talking about how it's unlikely that the building would have collapsed. IN your earlier post you clearly stated that the building could NOT have suffered a global collapse unles the upper block stayed in one piece...an assertion you have yet to back up with anything resembling evidence.

As usual, you post your assertions and, once you realize you've backed yourself into a corner, try to play the "wasn't meant as truth" and "I'm just asking questions" card.

Since you have no proof of your theory, whatsoever, or even any math or physics to show it as a possibility or likelihood, am I correct to assume that we'll no longer hear about it from you?

 

[Belz...]

But do they explode one floor at a time, systematically, from below the plane crash till all floors have been demolished?

kc440

I think you are using hyperbole, here. A few "puffs" here and there do not constitude anything "systematic".

One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives.

Based on how much time it takes to rig smaller buildings, he was right.

I don't think so. Bombs were involved in my opinion.

Well, not in mine. Take that!

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused.

Who said they were confused ? They heard explosions, period.

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Gravity.

 

[Belz...]

In the north tower it looks like the block already disintegrates during the fall. There is somewhere a pic around with some read lines to show that.

Yes, and that red line happens to be drawn over a cloud of smoke, making that determination impossible.

1) Theoretically if you consider the upper block as an infinitely strong solid object that starts perfectly in the middle in a perfectly symmetrical homogeneous building it will fall through the whole building above a critical amount of energy, global collapse.

2) In a non symmetrical situation the infinitely strong solid object will fall a couple of stories, get angular momentum, behave chaotically (very sensitive to initial variables) and then leave the building at a certain point. No global collapse

3) If the upper block is not infinitely strong (as strong as the building or less) it will be destroyed in a higher rate, it will be one big mess of chaos (very sensitive to initial variables), finally all parts will be destroyed and also leave the building, maybe 20 stories are destroyed then. No global collapse.

4) If the upper block disintegrates at top, like in that posted URL there will be no global collapse.

Oh please, please tell me where you got all this.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The point is people who do not see complicity in what happened that day, get frantic when there's talk of bombs exploding in the WTC. I didn't understand why.

People "get frantic?"

One member here said it would have taken years to install the explosives. I don't think so.

You apparently have no inkling how large the Twin Towers were.

Bombs were involved in my opinion.

Please provide proof. Unsupported opinion is worthless.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

kc440 makes an excellent point. Yes, things like fire extinguishers can explode in a fire. But veteran firefighters know this, and would not be confused. The firefighters report being blown up the stairs and such. They report "huge" explosions.

This is certainly not inconsistant with explosives. People who parrot the canard of "no evidence" for controlled demolition are just wrong. There is a ton of evidence. For example, this:

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/17_WTC2_tilt2.jpg[/qimg]
​

Can someone please explain this to me? Here we see the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 tilting over to the south. The north face is to the right in the picture. We see great clouds of smoke and dust being expelled from the north face. Since the top of the building is tipping away from the north face, what force is present to create this effect?

Also, notice that the top 10 or so floors have already broken. Why?

There is so much wrong with the above post it's nearly a textbook example of wrong.