Momentum Transfer in WTC

[kevin]

Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

I did. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on that, but I'm not seeing the proof in the photos presented so far. My assumption of the top remaining fairly intact is based on there being not too much happening that would cause it to break apart. The top remaining intact, or breaking apart is not proof one way or the other of explosives being used, so the point is really, uh, pointless.

 

[Kent1]

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.

Thats why I posted this video.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

As you should be able to see it looks like the debris.

 

[Pardalis]

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

Why would the structure need help in its demolition once it started to fall?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

there is no need, there is a HUGE impulse from all the rubble from above falling down. The next floor won't be able to hold all the weight of the floors above with the added force which comes from the speed.

So, there is no need.

The question stands.

 

[apathoid]

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.

You're joking right? Flashes but no booms. Flashes while the collapse was 2/3 complete?

What purpose did these charges serve?

 

[Kent1]

Whoops double post

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent claimed

[The flashes are ] far more likely to be ejected materical during the collapse.

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None. Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.

 

[gumboot]

Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?

I know I am...

I wish I learned photographic interpretation at THEIR school. See, we were taught to use collaborating video/photos from multiple angles. We learned you had to be familiar with what you were looking at. We learned even with all that it was still very very very hard to be accurate.

Obviously at the CSI school of Photographic interpretation they learned how to measure sub-pixel particles recorded eight miles away...

-Andrew

 

[Kent1]

You're joking right? Flashes but no booms. Flashes while the collapse was 2/3 complete?

What purpose did these charges serve?

No these guys are serious. They think all of these little flashes are explosives. You can see these "flashes" all over the videos.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-demolition-4.avi

 

[Kent1]

Kent claimed

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None. Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.

Again as I stated the videos are many times not a very good way to tell what's going on. Thats why I posted the large photo where you can make out all sorts of detail not evidant in the videos. Im sorry you see all of these as bombs. But you can see the one you point to happens as the building is falling.

Honestly I know there's really nothing I can do to change your mind.

 

[apathoid]

Kent claimed

Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.

Quit projecting. Noone here is arguing from incredulity except yourself. You dont even know the definition, so dont accuse people of it.

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None.

...and can you please give us the name of the opthamologist who gave you your x-ray vision.

 

[Class]

Hey Truthseeker, any explanation as to why these supposed explosive charges failed to produce any sound that is consistent with a controlled demolition?

 

[apathoid]

Truthseeker1234, have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

In the real world, explosive charges are accompanied by really loud "BOOMs". This is what a demo looks and sounds like. Enjoy.

ETA: also note how no flashes are apparent as the building is on it's way down.

 

[Kent1]

Paradalis persisted

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

Why bother doing that. LOL!!

 

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, why would the buildings need to be even more destroyed than they would have been anyways by their fall?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis asked a fair question

Truthseeker, why would the buildings need to be even more destroyed than they would have been anyways by their fall?

1) No building near that size or strength had ever been demolished before, so the requirements were uncertain. Better to use too much than too little.

2) It was being exploded from the top down, whereas standard demolitions are from the bottom up. Bottom up makes better use of gravity to destroy intact structure.

 

[Pardalis]

Of course! It all makes sense to me now... sweet logic.

 

[apathoid]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

Are you even reading the responses? We've seen the video and acknowledge the flashes...however, we dont think they are from explosives. Now answer our follow-up questions please.

I will stick to the science.

We are nearly 300 posts into this thread and I still havent seen any science from you. Pictures and video do not equal science..

 

[Kent1]

Kent you are avoiding. Yes, photos can have more detail, but if it was not taken at the moment the flashes were occuring, is useless for this study. Also, the time dimension is important here too.

I can appreciate the obvious fear that all of you OCT's are demonstrating. Please, watch the video I linked. There are clear flashes, there is no debris falling there, at all. The fact that you have all resorted to name calling is very telling. I will not do that. I will stick to the science.

Allow me some time and I will create a gif that can be posted here directly.

I'm not avoiding at all. I clearly have been dealing with about every post you had. In fact you have been avoiding most of mine. I see the "flashes" but you believe they are bombs. I don't and I point to other videos and photos to show you details of the falling debris. It looks like material being pushed out.

The best thing for you to do would be to come back with a much cleaner video. Or detailed photo of the area.