• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Failure mode in WTC towers

bofors, it would be best that you use the HIGHER quality of broadcast quality video instead of youtube crapola. Its not hard to get the original videos. though you mihgt have plop down some money and actually have to do some work. something the entire 911 truth movement never does.
 
Max Photon said:
[*]Heat-weakening - amplified by thermite planted at splices - initiated the collapse of the WTC towers; gravity did the rest;
Click to expand...

Does anybody besides Max understand how thermite could theoretically be used to cause "heat-weakening"?
 
bofors said:
Does anybody besides Max understand how thermite could theoretically be used to cause "heat-weakening"?
Click to expand...
You do not need thermite when you have 315 tons of energy in the form of JET fuel! I hope you have seen thermite. You can make it with Al powder and some rust from iron. The black rust gives the best results, but most truthers do not know there are different kinds of rust, or do you?
Max's ideas on thermite are nuts, but thermite does get hot. Max has not run the calculations yet; he made it all up like Jones did.
Max has no idea how much thermite is needed, he made it up. Why did the thermite not melt the tracks and make them fail?
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
This contain a compilation of other videos from similar perspectives but I see no evidence of the same flashs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJXfIOEQB8M

Unless some other evidence turns to support the existence of those particular flashes, I guess I am going leave be unexplained video anomalies.

The reason I do not think they are simple compression artifacts are:

(1) They are not "interference pattern" type effects, where the length scale of the image features is near that of the size of a pixel or the compression algorithm sampling length.

(2) The output of the compression algorithm should be the same up and down the length of the tower, so artifacts should not be vertically localized.

(3) Compression artifacts should not be in sharp contrast to surrounding pixels, in this case brighter, rather they should be near average contrast of the surrounding pixels.

But again, at this point I writing these particular flashes off to some kind of unknown video anomaly because I do not see them reproduced in the video compilation I linked above.
Click to expand...

When I wrote video/compression artifacts I should have made it a bit clearer and written video and/or compression artifacts. Because I was thinking of the artifacts that could have been introduced through the whole chain from how the sensor reads light, through signal treatment in the camera and so on until you watch the final heavily compressed YouTube video on your computer screen. And of course those artifacts did not do any damage to the building.
 
Last edited:
Max,

The approach I am using in this thread is to list curious phenomena witnessed during and after the attacks on the WTC.

These are purely descriptive listings of phenomena.


Being so, whoever proposes a theory which cannot account for these witnessed phonomena must change their theory accordingly.



Wouldn't you consider it important to establish an accurate listing of features observed during the attacks and collapses to be indespensible to the formulation of an accurate theory?


If observed phonomena contradict your theory, which do you have to modify, your theory or the observed phonomena?


So many theories thus far have been the result of poor observation.

The patterns of dust ejections seen in available video clips by the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS ect speak for themselves. It is believed that ejections seen at the very front of the collapse wave are caused by floors crashing down on the next waiting floor below.

This theory can be tested for accuracy by carefully observing the very front of the collapse. Yet how many people proposing this theory test it for accuracy by using their own eyes?


The theories suggested thus far need an accurate listing of actual phenomena observed with which to compare whether they have some basis in reality or should be dismissed.


Note that you have people theorizing about what happened to the core columns for years without ever really looking at the columns themselves.

Same with the perimeter columns.

You have people postulating that ejections are caused by flooring acting as a piston at a particular corner without noticing that the collapse wave passed this floor 15 stories ago on the next corner over.


The science of 9-11 must be descriptive in nature. A recordation of actual events.


All theories must conform to these recorded events.


If I were forced to paint a picture with broad strokes, I'd probably say


1) Heat-weakening along the perimeter leading to collapse initiation
2) Funnybusiness along the 4 corners to split the perimeter into sheets
3) Limited and strategic assisted weld failure (human or Divine)


But, like I said, the patterns behind the ejections along the collapse front and below speak for themselves.

What is the point of me screwing up that direct perception with an overly simplified theory? I wish to open my eyes, not close them.


The subtlety of the ejections within the videos show our theories to be clumsy shadows.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
1) Heat-weakening along the perimeter leading to collapse initiation
Click to expand...

I think this is contradicted by the observation of the large sections of perimeter remaining in tact during and after the collapse. Furthermore, I see no video evidence of any kind of heat weakening process initiating the demolition. Moreover, I do not think the demolitions engineers would bother with such an unnecessary deception.

On the other hand, with exception of the clear appearance of thermite flowing out of the corner of the South tower near the collapse initiation zone, it is unclear where and how the thermite was used. This question obviously needs to be answered.
 
Last edited:
This thread has descended to the scientific level of a kindergarten sandbox, only without the brains and innovation normally displayed at such environments. Sheesh.
 
Norseman said:
When I wrote video/compression artifacts I should have made it a bit clearer and written video and/or compression artifacts. Because I was thinking of the artifacts that could have been introduced through the whole chain from how the sensor reads light, through signal treatment in the camera and so on until you watch the final heavily compressed YouTube video on your computer screen. And of course those artifacts did not do any damage to the building.
Click to expand...

I think the best explanation would be some physical defect in the sensor or circuitry of the camera used. One good reason to think this is that it appears the camera may have been bumped slightly after the impact of 175 and when the camera is slightly shaking artifacts move rapidly down the North tower.
 
Nist, Bazant and Seffen all assume that the upper block is solid and rigid and, when all the columns suddenly fail in the initiation zone, this solid block drops down, potential energy is released, it impacts on the structure below and applies an instant overload that has the effect of total collapse.

However, the upper block is neither rigid nor solid. It consists of a number n of floors (each 1850 tons) connected by columns that act as springs. In the unlikely case that this contraption drops down there will not be one sudden impact, but n smaller energy transfers at finite time intervals; each floor will transmit its potential energy via the interconnecting springs ... and no overload can ever take place. So no global collapse will take place!

If this unlikely event actually takes place you would also expect that the upper block selfdestructs prior to impingement or impact of the structure below and this seems to actually happens. Just look at the various videos how the roof of WTC1 drops for several seconds, the upper block telescopes into itself for several seconds, while the structure below is still intact. Thus the upper block is broken into smaller pieces - mostly concrete - that cannot hurt the structure below.

For more details read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

Thus, the global collapse cannot be explained by release of potential energy above (the official explanation).

Anyway - potential energy if applied correctly (difficult) after release and alleged collapse initiation can only deform or rip apart structure using brute force. It cannot cut steel beams using heat. Ripped apart by brute force steel beams are easy to identify in the rubble! They are not very many, contrary to what you would expect according to the ideas of Nist, Bazant and Seffen. Just look at the surfaces of the ruptured steel parts in the rubble and ask yourself how they were ruptured ... or rather cut.
 
Heiwa said:
Anyway - potential energy if applied correctly (difficult) after release and alleged collapse initiation can only deform or rip apart structure using brute force. It cannot cut steel beams using heat. Ripped apart by brute force steel beams are easy to identify in the rubble! They are not very many, contrary to what you would expect according to the ideas of Nist, Bazant and Seffen. Just look at the surfaces of the ruptured steel parts in the rubble and ask yourself how they were ruptured ... or rather cut.
Click to expand...

Your logical conclusion then is that almost all of the steel beams in the rubble were somehow cut. This makes more sense to you than maybe, possibly, you're not looking at this correctly? Despite the fact that hundreds of skilled professionals went over the debris by hand, they didn't see this smoking gun, that almost all the beams in the building were cut? They all missed it, but you, using your expertise picked up on this from looking at photos 7 years later.
 
Heiwa said:
Anyway - potential energy if applied correctly (difficult) after release and alleged collapse initiation can only deform or rip apart structure using brute force. It cannot cut steel beams using heat. Ripped apart by brute force steel beams are easy to identify in the rubble! They are not very many, contrary to what you would expect according to the ideas of Nist, Bazant and Seffen. Just look at the surfaces of the ruptured steel parts in the rubble and ask yourself how they were ruptured ... or rather cut.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, this is one way to prove demolition.
 
bofors said:
Absolutely correct, this is one way to prove demolition.
Click to expand...


Isn't it amazing that no scientists or engineers with triple-digit IQs were able to draw this conclusion? You guys are special, and I mean it.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Isn't it amazing that no scientists or engineers with triple-digit IQs were able to draw this conclusion? You guys are special, and I mean it.
Click to expand...

Heiwa and I are both engineers, so tell us what exactly are your qualifications, Ronald?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom