Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes we all know the plane sliced through steel beams and all, but are we to be expected to actually believe that the planes could actually dislodge the fire protection around those beams? Surely you jest!

 

[R.Mackey]

Indeed the precise location of impact could not be replicated by a pilot.

Here's an idea paraphrased from another blogger:

Floors 92 through 98 were not rigged with explosive(X?). Floors 99 to 110 were rigged explosive(X?) and engineered more like a traditional CD. Floors 91 and below were rigged with explosive(X?) and engineered as a top to bottom CD.

Therm?te was used to cut a significant portion of steel support structures throughout the whole building.

Steel was cut with therm?te just prior to collapse. The top section fails due to explosive(X?) and falls in traditional pattern for a few moments until the lower section begins top down CD.

This pattern gives the effect of a natural collapse at impact point followed by progressive collapse due to falling upper section. This effect would only need to be seen for a few seconds due to the dust clouds covering the rest of the collapse.

So in said theory, the plane would only need to strike between floors 92 and 98. The precise location wthin those floors wouldn't matter.

What would be the point of such a complicated arrangement?

The thermite does nothing of any value. No cutting is needed to precipitate full collapse.

Explosives on floor 92 and 98, or whatever, also do nothing that the plane and fire won't do. And they'll be detected. And they won't give us the same collapse initiation phenomenology. Pulling floor trusses, remember?

I don't see any point to doing this at all. It certainly doesn't evade the evidence against explosives I listed previously.

 

[Sizzler]

What would be the point of such a complicated arrangement?

The thermite does nothing of any value. No cutting is needed to precipitate full collapse.

Explosives on floor 92 and 98, or whatever, also do nothing that the plane and fire won't do. And they'll be detected. And they won't give us the same collapse initiation phenomenology. Pulling floor trusses, remember?

I don't see any point to doing this at all. It certainly doesn't evade the evidence against explosives I listed previously.

Lets consider that the therm?te cut significant amounts of steel. Explosives for the upper section caused precise moment of collapse initiation. Explosive on the lower section moved building contents (structural steel, floors, etc) out of the way so that the collapse could continue and look progressive.

Remember, the design is engineered to look like a progressive collapse.

Perimeter buckling was real and due to strain caused by cutting of steel structure instead of fire. Collapse looks like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation from above.

Essentially, there are two parts to the collapse. Traditional CD of the top down into a top down CD of bottom.

Thermite cuts pre-collapse quietly. Explosives begin when collapse initiation begins, thus sounds of explosives are dubbed, sounds of collapse.

 

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or has this thread gone from dumb to stupid?

 

[Sizzler]

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

 

[beachnut]

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

But, alas, they are not CD. It is not themite, it is air being expelled from a collapsing building. An explosion is a blast, it is high speed slowing, not slow speed to more speed. Since the puffs of smoke are just air, it makes your theory as dumb as Jones.

Thermite, not as much heat as jet fuel and fires in the WTC. How many pounds does your plan call for?

You are right, it would be so easy to prove the new idiots who say it is cd were WRONG. We could have them fired easy as every single rational engineer sees the lies! BUSTED. No sounds, no thermite, zip.

 

[Sizzler]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!

An explosion is a blast, it is high speed slowing, not slow speed to more speed.

I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

 

[beachnut]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!



I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

yep, almost instant dust and smoke on real blasts, but not with pressure from falling buildings

 

[e^n]

I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

Almost certainly, every explosive used in demolition has an extremely rapid speed of detonation. Regardless you have switched from the deductive to the speculative. It's all very well and good speculating about what could have caused these effects had there been explosives involved, but you have yet to seriously provide any evidence for these explosives. Indeed your theory is having to become much more complex in order to account for evidence which seems unlikely.

If you presume that explosives were involved I have no doubt you can eventually come up with a theory which does not directly disagree with any evidence (see Max Photon's theory) but this will be utterly impossible to prove and not logically supported. I hate to be so blunt but the only serious evidence we have points towards a natural collapse initiation.

You must examine your own beliefs very very carefully, at the moment you are simply grasping to try and explain the behavior of the towers including explosives. Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory?

 

[Sizzler]

Almost certainly, every explosive used in demolition has an extremely rapid speed of detonation. Regardless you have switched from the deductive to the speculative. It's all very well and good speculating about what could have caused these effects had there been explosives involved, but you have yet to seriously provide any evidence for these explosives. Indeed your theory is having to become much more complex in order to account for evidence which seems unlikely.

If you presume that explosives were involved I have no doubt you can eventually come up with a theory which does not directly disagree with any evidence (see Max Photon's theory) but this will be utterly impossible to prove and not logically supported. I hate to be so blunt but the only serious evidence we have points towards a natural collapse initiation.

You must examine your own beliefs very very carefully, at the moment you are simply grasping to try and explain the behavior of the towers including explosives. Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory?

Totally. I started the thread to see what evidence for the official story would;

1. be likely for gravity driven collapse
2. be unlikely for CD

however with a burden of proof twist.

OP is flawed however because no clear hypothesis for CD is put forth, ie what kinds of explosives, therm?te no therm?te, etc. (losely said ae911truth.org but again, CD method is not oulined)

I admitted this and chose to focus on the idea that rigging the building to know precisely where the planes would hit is impossible.

I've tried to argue that the building could be rigged so that the plane would only have to hit between a certain amount of floors, and not exactly here or there.

Lets focus on your question as this is now a free for all thread (and that is fine sometimes).

Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory.

Here are a few;

1.

Free fall in vacum is 9.1 (or 9.2???)
A estimate of ~11 seconds has been given (at JREF) for the addition of air resistence.

Estimated fall times are ~15 seconds.

Thus air added ~20% more resistence and steel added ~40% more resistence.

The idea that all the steel only caused double the resistence of air seems counter-intuitive to me.

This lead me to Bazant's paper and number 2.

2.

The entire weight of the upper section would not cause crush down at the crushing front at the moment of impact. Loads would be transfered through load bearing components but would not act as a single unit of weight at the crushing front.

What damage would be caused in the lower section would also be caused in the upper section. The upper block would not be able to remain intact as Bazant puts forth.

He uses a crush down phase and then a crush up phase. Both would have occurred at the same time. Yes this is a simplified model, but it isn't realistic. As such, my counter-intuitive observation in 1. is further fueled.

3. once molten iron speres with traces of aluminum, sulfur and such, found in WTC dust.

4. unresolved sulfidation of WTC steel.

5. entire collapse squence of WTC7

there are more...but that is a start.

 

[Gravy]

Sizzler, please point out the minutes and seconds in this video segment when you believe the explosions occurred that brought down the south tower. You may want to use one of the slow motion segments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

Next, please do the same with the north tower, using the Etienne Sauret clip.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#6m17s

If you cannot do so, please explain why.

If you accept you will be the first 9/11 denier, out of many challenged, to do this.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, please point out the minutes and seconds in this video segment when you believe the explosions occurred that brought down the south tower. You may want to use one of the slow motion segments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

Next, please do the same with the north tower, using the Etienne Sauret clip.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#6m17s

If you cannot do so, please explain why.

If you accept you will be the first 9/11 denier, out of many challenged, to do this.

I'm just a few minutes into your video and I found a false claim made by you.

First there were no such explosions BEFORE collapse began.

This is simply untrue. Perhaps you should view the video I post above.

start the video at ~3:35 mark and watch. at ~3:44 mark you will see 4 or 5 "puffs" just prior to collapse initiation. watch it a few times and you will see what I mean. there are 4-6 "puffs" that occur around the upper section just a moment prior to collapse initiation.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

I'll comment on your explosions question when I get there.

And, why just those two clips? Can't I show you other clips with explosions?

 

[Gravy]

I'm just a few minutes into your video and I found a false claim made by you.

You're either mistaken or lying. Which is it?

Here's why those clips, Sizzler:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#11m55s

Now explain how your "puffs" relate to actual high explosives, in the quantities that would be necessary to bring down the towers, and be sure to include the sound and pressure effects on the building, windows, smoke, etc.

Proceed. You won't.

 

[bje]

This is simply untrue. Perhaps you should view the video I post above.

We did. Collapse initiation of WTC 1 started just before you see the puffs. Try again.

Anyway, one cannot see what was going on inside the towers.

 

[Sizzler]

You're either mistaken or lying. Which is it?

Um, you said ejections did not occur before collapse initiation. I just posted one video with ejections before collapse initiation.

So I throw the question back at you.

Here's why those clips, Sizzler:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#11m55s

Now explain how your "puffs" relate to actual high explosives, in the quantities that would be necessary to bring down the towers, and be sure to include the sound and pressure effects on the building, windows, smoke, etc.

Proceed. You won't.

Well, lets assume for a moment that the C in CD means controlled. And lets assume that by saying controlled, we mean engineered. One could then call a CD an engineered event.

Thus, if engineering a CD to actually look and sound like a fire induced natural collapse, one would not want loud obvious pre-collapse explosions.

One possible way to engineer it is as follows;

1.Therm?te cut significant amount of steel structure pre-collapse quietly. Steel structure weakens and begins to buckle as observed.

2.A single detonation event causes collapse initiation in upper part. Sound is percieved as first collapse impact.

3. Top down CD ensues. Sounds are percieved as progressive collapse impacts (ie rumbling sounds as each floor impacts the next; I'm sure you've heard Hoffman describe this).

Again Gravy, CD is an ENGINEERED event, and we all know that things can be engineered to suit specific needs. The above is one example from a layman. Don't you have an imagination?

 

[Sizzler]

We did. Collapse initiation of WTC 1 started just before you see the puffs. Try again.

Anyway, one cannot see what was going on inside the towers.

Watch it again. Puffs occur just before the upper section moves.

Your second comment attests to the above.

Try again

 

[bje]

Watch it again. Puffs occur just before the upper section moves.

Nope, they don't.

Your second comment attests to the above.

Try again

Nope. It means even if you were able to demonstrate puffs coming out before, you cannot make any claim that you can see what was happening. But given all the other evidence, we know that there were no explosions.

You lose.

 

[CptColumbo]

During the winters here in MN, it looks like puffs are coming out of people's mouths. I'm pretty sure no explosives are involved.

 

[Sizzler]

Nope, they don't.

Are you saying the collapse initiates (ie, the top section moves) before the puffs?

And if you answer yes to this question, you need glasses, or a stronger pair.

Nope. It means even if you were able to demonstrate puffs coming out before, you cannot make any claim that you can see what was happening. But given all the other evidence, we know that there were no explosions.

That is fine. My claim in regards to Gravy's movie is that puffs occur before collaps initiation (cause of puffs is beyond the claim). The simple fact that you included the above shows that you have reasonable doubt in your claim, such that the inclusion of the second statement, erases any reasonable doubt. But you failed to understand my claim, and as such, shot yourself in the foot by including it.

You lose.

You are the loser. Have a good day.

 

[R.Mackey]

Lets consider that the therm?te cut significant amounts of steel. Explosives for the upper section caused precise moment of collapse initiation. Explosive on the lower section moved building contents (structural steel, floors, etc) out of the way so that the collapse could continue and look progressive.

But you see, this situation is the worst of both worlds. It requires damage from the aircraft in a reasonably predictable fashion, adding complexity and risk, and it also creates signatures of explosives, which we would be able to detect. All five arguments I posted on the previous page apply here. This strategy is DOA.

Remember, the design is engineered to look like a progressive collapse.

Perimeter buckling was real and due to strain caused by cutting of steel structure instead of fire. Collapse looks like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation from above.

You're going to have to explain that in detail. The perimeter buckling was an elastic phenomenon, brought on by increasing load and floor pull-in. "Cutting" cannot create or even assist this.

Collapse does not look "like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation." That's absurd. The bowing behavior started tens of minutes before collapse initiation. And even if this wasn't the case, your strategy now requires millisecond timing of these detonations after the upper block begins to move -- how are you going to sense it? When do you fire the charges? Since the top is already moving, why not just let it do its thing?

This is just plain wacky.

Essentially, there are two parts to the collapse. Traditional CD of the top down into a top down CD of bottom.

Thermite cuts pre-collapse quietly. Explosives begin when collapse initiation begins, thus sounds of explosives are dubbed, sounds of collapse.

"Sounds of explosives are dubbed?" You mean hidden in the collapse, right? Well, if you don't need explosives until after the structure starts to come down, why have them at all? I just don't get it.

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.

Ah, Argumentum ad YouTubeum, my favorite. The puffs of smoke are not explosions, so your premise is false, thus everything else is false.

They have nothing in common with explosions. They're too slow, they're quiet, they leave no seismic signal and no residue. You stated these happened "before" collapse, so don't pretend they were covered up by the sounds of collapse.

These "puffs" are due to internal failure at the moment of instability. This forces a large volume of smoke, crunched wallboard, and spalled concrete out through every available opening. Recall that each floor is an acre in size. If you move a flat surface that's an acre by a foot or so, do you think it might generate a gust of wind?

Your comments on the previous page were interesting, but I'm afraid your responses are quite mad. I liked you better before.