Momentum Transfer in WTC

Arkan requested clarification
Show that the observations conflict [with NIST conclusions].
Click to expand...

OK. As you all know, Dr. Jones has shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron at ground zero. This observation conflicts with NIST conclusion, and is ignored by them. This paper has been updated recently, it's worth another look if you haven't lately.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf


Molten iron is but one observation, as I said, the entirety of the collapse is ignored by NIST.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.
Click to expand...

For those who really want a laugh I would suggest checking out gordons site. He claims the flashes are explosives. When you look at other closer angles and photos you can see Gordons flashes are pieces of falling debris/aluminum from the outer facade.
Gordon uses this video here to make his flash claim
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Yet here you can see closer up that its just the aluminum
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

Large photos are also good at showing the detail of the collapse.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg
 
Lash entertains with a false dichotomy
Is that your own website, or do you just base all of your beliefs concerning the destruction of the towers upon its contents?
Click to expand...

No, not my website, and no, I don't base all my "beliefs" on it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Arkan requested clarification

OK. As you all know, Dr. Jones has shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron at ground zero. This observation conflicts with NIST conclusion, and is ignored by them. This paper has been updated recently, it's worth another look if you haven't lately.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf


Molten iron is but one observation, as I said, the entirety of the collapse is ignored by NIST.
Click to expand...
Honestly he hasn't shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron. Although I have no problem with some melted steel. As NIST has mentioned they also agree that some steel could of also melted. Steel slag can also occur at temps under 1000C
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
As NIST stated:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. "
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.
Click to expand...
And you've pointed out how the observation of the collapses conflicts with NIST's hypothesis of why the collapses occurred? I guess I am slow. Please bring me up to speed.
 
"Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST."

He's wrong about that also. NIST has a section of observations Following Collapse Initiation. Its on page 319 9.3.3 called Events Following Collapse Initiation.

"Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos."

Guys like Jones really didn't read the NIST report very well.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.
Click to expand...

What error did he make? Unless he's edited the URL - it deals with the eroded steel, which YOU brought up..

Wow, a flash! Consider me converted!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.
Click to expand...

Im going to guess you didn't look at his site. Since I grabbed the very link he had and added another one. Yes I saw that flash also during the collapse. Again yes it can be an ejected piece coming off. The video quality is not the greatest. I would suggest something more like a detailed photo.

As gordons sites says:
Evidence of Phase Four

Flashes of light throughout lower core section

http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv

The first six or so seconds of the above video shows many short duration, flashes of light, intense enough to be seen through the clouds of dust and smoke. Note that I have tried but am unable to take screen captures from this video to illustrate these flashes. If anyone can supply these I would be very grateful
 
PLease watch this video, it is the one that Ross talks about and analyzes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important. The above link is a nice quality. There is absolutely no falling debris of any kind where the flash on the corner occurs. I am very curious to see to what length you guys will go to deny was is seen in this video. There are several other explosions evident, but let's comment on the one that occurs about halfway up the near corner.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.
Click to expand...

those 2 lines appear to be on different floors to me. The bottom photo the red line has moved above what looks like the airplane hole, while in the top it's below it all. How were the photos normalized to ensure the lines were on the same floor?

Why, when attempting to criticize my comment that the top floors remained intact, did you first present photos of debris and smoke that have absolutely no imagery of the top of the building? Why didn't you present these photos first? What made you think the other photos were your best evidence?
 
Yes, Kent, you are correct that in the video you linked, there are flashes beneath the smoke and dust. I would say that is evidence of more explosions. What say you.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
PLease watch this video, it is the one that Ross talks about and analyzes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important. The above link is a nice quality. There is absolutely no falling debris of any kind where the flash on the corner occurs. I am very curious to see to what length you guys will go to deny was is seen in this video. There are several other explosions evident, but let's comment on the one that occurs about halfway up the near corner.
Click to expand...


Again yes I've seen the other video. It's far more likely to be ejected materical during the collapse. And again photos are a lot of times better because they have a higher resolution that just isn't possible with video. That's why I posted that large photo. Its full of all sorts of stuff you just can't see in the videos.
 
Paradalis persisted
Truthseeker, what would be the purpose of detonations AFTER the collapse starts?
Click to expand...

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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