• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just out of curiosity, does C7 have any evidence of 4 ton anythings being "hurled" or "ejected" 600 feet horizontally?

I don't mean anything that obviously fell over from around 600 feet like it peeled away from the structure, but something being "hurled" 600 feet?

Of course not.

They have pieces laying on the ground by the WG, and they have peices falling out of the dust cloud.

Just for fun, I went here: http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel Level Chart.txt

and using those figures 300 kg of TNT, forgetting that RDX would be louder... 300kg of TNT would give SPL levels of ~ 210 dB at 15'.

And since they would have to have been fairly close to the ext, presumably only 20 dB or less would be attenuated when it got to the "outside".

So 190 dB, when you reduce dB by 6 for every doubling distance, you get around 150-155 dB at ground level.

Insane.
 
Is that 300Kg of TNT calculated with the energy/force being focused in a particular direction like when firing a bullet from a gun?
 
Just out of curiosity, does C7 have any evidence of 4 ton anythings being "hurled" or "ejected" 600 feet horizontally?

I don't mean anything that obviously fell over from around 600 feet like it peeled away from the structure, but something being "hurled" 600 feet?

It is known that portions of the exterior of the North Tower (WTC 1) were found embedded in World Financial Center 3; here's Ref's page on that series of buildings (a picture of WTC 1 debris stuck in WFC 3 is about midway down that page), and here are a couple of maps of the World Trade Center complex and surrounding buildings, just to give you an idea of the layout of the place: The first one is just a flat overhead rendering, and the second, while not quite to scale, is scaled enough horizontally to demonstrate the height of the towers relative to some (not all) neighboring buildings. I don't know how far that part of WFC 3 is from the North Tower, but it is across West Street, so it's not like it's right up against it.

But anyway, you've hit the nail on the head with your observation: The pieces found well away from the towers were indeed a fair distance away, but they also had most likely fallen from quite a distance up. From the image linked above on Ref's page, you can see that the debris "tore" a path down the side of WFC 3. On top of that, more debris was found on the roof of WFC 3, and while it's possible that debris travelling more or less horizontally could also park itself there, the simplicity of pieces falling from a great height and landing up top survives Occam's Razor better. Anyway, the Twin Towers were what, around 1,300 feet tall? What's more likely in comparison, that the piece came from high above, especially considering the damage path it created, and the fact that other debris landed on the roof? Or that it came rather horizontally?

To make the argument that the ejection was indeed an ejection, you have to be looking at a flat map and ignoring all else.

I don't think anyone knows for sure which floor the debris hitting WFC 3 came from, but the bottom line is that unless someone can demonstrate that it travelled more laterally than what can be expected when simply falling from that height, then there's no argument for explosive ejection of that piece. The fact that pieces of the external cladding were found in buildings across the street doesn't mean demolitions "ejected" them. It means nothing more than that the piece fell from a great distance up, and that some element in the chaotic collapse - perhaps a simple outward bowing from the impact of the upper floor forcing it outward to begin with, or perhaps impact with another piece of debris or part of the yet-to-be impacted part of the tower - caused it to fall further away from the base of the tower than other debris. It did not have to be an explosion, and in fact, it didn't have to be that strong a force to get it that far out relative to the height it likely had fallen from. Anyway, the point here is that amongst all the pieces "evidence" supporting the absurd notion of explosives use, the one about debris in neighboring buildings is only acceptible if you presume a lot. Otherwise, that "evidence" can be easily attributed to mere fall, not lateral force from demolitions.

And as a snarky aside: I've yet to hear of thermite pushing things sideways too.
 
Last edited:
We have an answer. You just refuse to accept it. The collapse itself and gravity is responsible.
You have not shown that to be true, you just claim it's true.

Many, many folks as qualified or MORE than you concur. You ARE IN THE ABJECT MINORITY.
If you-all are so qualified then why can't you explain how falling debris can eject 4 ton framing sections 500-600 feet laterally?

Oh, and yes, there are folks on this very forum more qualified than you. And, every single expert who contributed to the NIST report is more qualified than you. So, forgive me if I desire a second opinion on the "only explosives could have hurled those framework sections".
They did not explain how falling debris can eject 4 ton framing sections 500-600 feet laterally either.
 
Last edited:
Is that 300Kg of TNT calculated with the energy/force being focused in a particular direction like when firing a bullet from a gun?

I don't think so.

You'd have to ask Mackey, since I used his formula in the paper he wrote.

Matter of fact, I don't know HOW you could, without it then being a cutter charge, which of course.... cuts, and not throws.

I also have no idea what the purpose of having dedicated charges for the ext columns anyways. Presumably the TM's claim is that they're there to break up the concrete, and the columns being thrown is a result of THOSE explosions. Which of course means that they must now be even bigger since some energy would be expended on the concrete.

This is why you'll never see a cogent argument from the TM. Bring up these issues and they fall apart and spin into absolute absurdity.
 
unless someone can demonstrate that it travelled more laterally than what can be expected when simply falling from that height, then there's no argument for explosive ejection of that piece.
If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity
 
If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

Is it your contention that it is impossible for gravity to cause lateral motion? This is a yes or no question.
 
If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

You mean like collisions with other things in a tremendously chaotic event? Or maybe a connection further down the structure that allows a hinging type motion? You really can't understand how this can happen?

By the way, why have you not shown your calculations for the amount of explosives required to eject the 4-ton pieces 500-600 ft? that should be your next logical step.
 
There are many reports of the collapse being a huge roar like a freight train or words to that effect. Of the few videos that survived the purge, do any sound like a freight train?
 
One could probably compare it to that. What is your point? You do have one don't you?

Oh and can gravity cause lateral motion?
 
If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

What! Take a breakable object, a glass or a vase or something and drop a brick on it. Do all the pieces end up nicely under the brick?
 
Christopher7 said:

If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

And this is so far, the goal posts so moved, from your original statement about vertical kinetic energy, that you must be personally embarrassed to even post it.

TAM:)
 
You mean like collisions with other things in a tremendously chaotic event? Or maybe a connection further down the structure that allows a hinging type motion?
The hinging action can account for about 100 feet or so. Debris could be pushed outside the perimeter, chaotic collisions can cause deflections but none of these can hurl 4 ton sections 500-600 feet.
You will now want to criticize me for modifying my position for clarity, something you are incapable of doing. Don't bother, ICCL what you think of me.

By the way, why have you not shown your calculations for the amount of explosives required to eject the 4-ton pieces 500-600 ft? that should be your next logical step.
One would have to have a complete knowledge of every explosive including super thermite and the state of the art demolition tecniques. One would also need the plans and specifications of the towers.
Your request is rhetorical.

Furthermore, you don't know how loud it was. Someone here claims to have been there but no one can be expected to take his word for the noise level. We need the audio evidence contained on the 7,000 video clips that were collected. There was no need to hide this information from the public in the first place. You-all will support the government excuse that it was necessary because of the trials and/or investigation. Leaving the video evidence in the public domain would have no effect on either. Hiding the evidence is a cover up.
 
If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity

To repeat - when the apple bounced sideways off Isaac Newton's head, this wasn't powered by gravity?
 
Christopher7 said:


"If something falls from a height, no matter how high, it will fall straight down.
Any lateral motion is caused by something other than gravity "

And this is so far, the goal posts so moved, from your original statement about vertical kinetic energy, that you must be personally embarrassed to even post it.

TAM:)

wow, does he really mean the lateral motion of a falling object that isn't colliding with anything? That's so far out it didn't even occur to me that's what he might mean.
 
.
Furthermore, you don't know how loud it was. Someone here claims to have been there but no one can be expected to take his word for the noise level. We need the audio evidence contained on the 7,000 video clips that were collected. There was no need to hide this information from the public in the first place. You-all will support the government excuse that it was necessary because of the trials and/or investigation. Leaving the video evidence in the public domain would have no effect on either. Hiding the evidence is a cover up.

It was not their's to release. What part of that don't you get? My friend helped with his tape (which was returned) but he does not want the rest of the world to hear him crying because he just video tape the death of his wife (who was in the south tower). I saw the tape and frankly I can't blame him. And no, there was no sounds of explosives.
 
Last edited:
The hinging action can account for about 100 feet or so. Debris could be pushed outside the perimeter, chaotic collisions can cause deflections but none of these can hurl 4 ton sections 500-600 feet.

Calculations?
One would have to have a complete knowledge of every explosive including super thermite and the state of the art demolition tecniques. One would also need the plans and specifications of the towers.
Your request is rhetorical.

Super thermite? What the hell is that? By the way, thermite is an incidiary. It is not capable of blasting huge pieces of steel hundreds of feet.

Furthermore, you don't know how loud it was. Someone here claims to have been there but no one can be expected to take his word for the noise level. We need the audio evidence contained on the 7,000 video clips that were collected. There was no need to hide this information from the public in the first place. You-all will support the government excuse that it was necessary because of the trials and/or investigation. Leaving the video evidence in the public domain would have no effect on either. Hiding the evidence is a cover up.

How many times does this have to be explained to you? These tapes are private property. You don't have the right to seem them just because you are delusional and paranoid. And besides there are already plenty. Are you dumb enough to believe there would sounds of explosives in some but totally absent in others?
 
1-The hinging action can account for about 100 feet or so.

2-One would have to have a complete knowledge of every explosive including super thermite and the state of the art demolition tecniques. One would also need the plans and specifications of the towers.
Your request is rhetorical.

1- if it could account for some, then why couldn't it account for all of it? All you need to do is go higher up on the structure and/or use a longer piece. ( see how that works?)

2- no, you don't. It would take a certain amount of explosive effect/overpressure to push those columns, equivalent to 300 kg of TNT. Wanna claim lower velocity and hence lower volume/longer impulse period thermobarics? Go ahead and figure that out. I've had this discussion already so am prepared to refute this one too.

But this also avoids the fact that columns would need to separate from the towers just as the collapse front reaches whatever particular column you are claiming, because once the collapse front passes, and the floors are no longer there, there is nowhere for the charges to be. They couldn't be placed against the interior of the columns either, cuz the floors stripping off would remove them, leaving multiple unexploded charges in the rubble pile.
 
It was not their's to release.
It was not theirs to collect in the first place and hide from the public.

My friend helped with his tape (which was returned) but he does not want the rest of the world to hear him crying because he just video tape the death of his wife (who was in the south tower). I saw the tape and frankly I can't blame him. And no, there was no sounds of explosives.
People have a right to keep their personal videos private. The government has no legitimate right to remove videos that were publicly broadcasted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom