WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[X]

I ask for a video of the upper block disappearing without smoke obscuring the upper block and you show me a picture of the upper block being totally obscured by smoke.

Is reading comprehension really that hard for you?

Not at all. I can read and I have eyes. Look again - no smoke/dust below the upper block! And no damages there of any kind. At the first picture there is no smoke/dust of course - only random fires in the upper block. At the second picture there is only smoke/dust around the lower part of the upper block (now 20 meters shorter) but no smoke/dust below so you can clearly see the structure below, which I refer to.

The smoke/dust must have been produced by the upper block imploding/getting shorter. Clear evidence that the upper block is not solid, etc. That's my point. + clear thinking of course.

Now, when you have studied my article, do you still think Bazant & Co are basing their papers on real observations?

The key word in Newtons Bits post, Heiwa is the one he italicized.
Video

Not one picture, Heiwa.
A sequence of many many picture flashing past at the rate of about 32 per second.

VIDEO

Not a picture.

 

[CHF]

Not at all. I can read and I have eyes. Look again - no smoke/dust below the upper block! And no damages there of any kind. At the first picture there is no smoke/dust of course - only random fires in the upper block. At the second picture there is only smoke/dust around the lower part of the upper block (now 20 meters shorter) but no smoke/dust below so you can clearly see the structure below, which I refer to.

The smoke/dust must have been produced by the upper block imploding/getting shorter. Clear evidence that the upper block is not solid, etc. That's my point. + clear thinking of course.

Wonderful!

So what caused this to happen?

 

[Heiwa]

The key word in Newtons Bits post, Heiwa is the one he italicized.
Video

Not one picture, Heiwa.
A sequence of many many picture flashing past at the rate of about 32 per second.

VIDEO

Not a picture.

Plenty of links to videos in my articles. All my pictures are from the videos.

I recommend 'socialservices' analysises of various videos, links to which you find in the articles. She/he really looks at the frames one at a time and then every frame from top to bottom/left to right, etc. Quite interesting results to say the least. I didn't know that it was so easy to edit videos. Live!

Anyway, the videos of the WTC 1 destruction do not seem to be edited, luckily. The upper block disintegrates one way or another prior to anything happening below - in the initiation zone and in the structure below - for everyone to see. Just copy any video and watch frame by frame. No smoke hiding the structure below the lowest floor of the upper block. Cannot be - it has not hit anything below!

I cannot understand how Bazant, Greening, aka Apollo20, can suggest that this bottom floor of the upper block remains intact all the time during destruction producing 'air jets', etc. Must have been a very strong floor! It pushed down the structure below, produced air jets blowing away columns and pulverized floors 200 meters in all directions and landed on the ground or on top of some rubble; then there was a push up that destroyed the upper block above this fantastic floor.

Why didn't this fantastic floor remain intact on top of all rubble of the structure below after push down and below the rubble of the upper block after push up?

Nothing could have destroyed this floor. What does Apollo20 say?

What destroyed the bottom floor of the upper block? It was intact during push down destruction of structure below and apparently transmitted energy upwards during push up destruction of the upper block!

What does NIST say? Was the magic floor of solid 20 centimeters thick steel?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Whoops. Ignore... erroneous post, wrong thread

 

[Zorglub]

Plenty of links to videos in my articles. All my pictures are from the videos.

I recommend 'socialservices' analysises of various videos, links to which you find in the articles. She/he really looks at the frames one at a time and then every frame from top to bottom/left to right, etc. Quite interesting results to say the least. I didn't know that it was so easy to edit videos. Live!

That video would be "September clues" rigth? http://www.livevideo.com/video/soci...F798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx
Well, I´m glad that you admitted that you still are a no-planer. That would rip off the last ragged pieces of credibility you still might have had.

 

[Heiwa]

That video would be "September clues" rigth? http://www.livevideo.com/video/soci...F798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx
Well, I´m glad that you admitted that you still are a no-planer. That would rip off the last ragged pieces of credibility you still might have had.

?? No, I am a no-magic-floor man. On 911 I was not in NY so I could not have seen any planes, obviously. I have to rely on videos. The planes on the videos and photos look a little elusive but if they really hit these magic floors in the WTCs, the planes evidently had no chance.

I have started a new thread about the magic floors - particularly the WTC 1 one - where you can sort out the matter. I will be off until end May - more interesting matters to deal with. But carry on the lively discussion without me. I will catch up later.

 

[Architect]

"if they really hit" ????? You imply doubt????

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

"if they really hit" ????? You imply doubt????

No planer Q.E.D

 

[Heiwa]

"if they really hit" ????? You imply doubt????

Not at all! Just quote correctly and add 'these magic floors, etc.' that is the topic. Bazant and Greening tell us that the WTC 1 upper block and its lowest floor are indestructible + that there is compacted rubble on the lowest floor (?) of the upper block or no floor but just compacted rubble at the bottom of the upper block that was subject to local destruction in the north wall 100+ minutes earlier ... by something. A plane? That sliced through the indestructible upper block + lowest floor? You must be joking, Architect!? Doubt?
Lack of evidence I would admit. As far as I am concerned there exists only one video of that 'plane' made by some Frenchmen and it is of very low quality. A lucky shot, we are told. But there is no evidence that it is real. It is as simple as that. Real evidence must be checked in a court of law, etc. The French are pretty good at intelligence, you know. Apparently they told both CIA and FBI that something was going to happen at NY on 911 before it happened. And as is normal procedure in a case like that, the French send in cameramen to to film the event. I assume the French have much better footage, somewhere. It is always good to have. Eric Edelman was visiting Paris the other day and it was a depressing appearance. Asked if the US could win the war in Afghanistan ... he could not say yes. Eric is of course US under-secretary of defence (second to Robert Gates) and should know better. It seems he wetted his pants, when asked that question.

 

[Zorglub]

?? No, I am a no-magic-floor man. On 911 I was not in NY so I could not have seen any planes, obviously. I have to rely on videos. The planes on the videos and photos look a little elusive but if they really hit these magic floors in the WTCs, the planes evidently had no chance.

I have started a new thread about the magic floors - particularly the WTC 1 one - where you can sort out the matter. I will be off until end May - more interesting matters to deal with. But carry on the lively discussion without me. I will catch up later.

Well ain't that convinient? Just as we've dragged you out of the caves of woo were everyone can se what you really are, you drop out.
Now why am I not surprised?

Oh but I understand you. Because now you have to explain:
1. What caused the explosion and how this "what" was placed there.
2. How hundreds of people thought they, with their own eyes, saw two planes hit the towers. You doubt this ever happened.
3. The lack of consistency in your "paper" regarding the collapse of the towers.

As you more than likely never will be able to explain, in detail, how you theories match together I agree with your choice to go on a short vacation.

For your own sake I hope it is a resort where the staff in uniforms make sure you are well looked after and keep all sharp objects in a locked drawer and make sure the walls in your room are properly fluffed.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... if they really hit...

Ok, a little perspective for newbies, lurkers and bystanders about the misrepresentation implied here:

There is no "if" regarding this issue whatsoever. There is zero doubt on the part of the informed that jets did indeed impact the towers. This is a separate item from the physics/engineering details regarding the collapse, and is not in doubt. There is no reasonable objection to the fact the jets impacted, and there is no credible evidence whatsoever that contradicts the presence of the jets or the fact of their impacts.

• Read what the eyewitnesses saw: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai
  
  Some excerpts from the many contributed testimonies:
  
  

  My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared.

  Source: http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639
  
  

  "I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors.

  Source: Newsday.com - "From Inside: Survivors' Tales"
  
  

  we heard the loud roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit on the Trade Center.
  
  Q. You actually saw it hit?
  
  A. I saw it hit. Within about ten seconds after that or so I gave the first report on the radio and transmitted a second alarm for a plane into the Trade Center...

  
  
  

  ... a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one. With that, everybody got on the rig. We started driving.

  Source for FDNY testimony: Gravy's site
  
  

  "I just happened to raise my head watching the Statue of Liberty and as I watched I saw this giant aircraft ... coming in slow motion towards me -- eye level, eye contact. And I just froze."
  
  United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the building, smashing through walls, bringing down the ceiling, breaking computers and overturning every desk -- except the one Praimnath had ducked under.
  
  "I'm trembling and I'm crying, 'Lord, don't leave me here to die!' And I realize that I'm covered with debris when I try to get up," he said. "Peeking through the rubble, all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was."

  Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/09/ar911.last.ones.out/index.html
  
  
• Next, view some of the physical evidence:
  
  http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  More images are available at the link above. See what the eyewitnesses to the debris says:
  
  

  Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her.

  
  

  "A section of the landing gear proved to me that this was a commercial airliner."

  Source: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf (Note: PDF document; scroll down to page 51 of the PDF doc to see St. DiLena's testimony.)
  

The information provided above is merely a tiny sample of the volumes of evidence; what's presented here barely scratches the surface of what's available.


-------

It is bad enough to obfuscate the engineering issues. It's messed up enough to handwave the issue about misalignment, or misrepresent the reasons why certain assumptions were made in other's calculations. It's bad enough to dodge everyone's direct questions about energy, and misrepresent the effect of gravity on the system. But to make the issue of jets impacting some conditional item in an argument is the biggest misrepresentation of all. There is no denying this fact. Any issues raised about video anomalies absolutely ignores the overwhelming mass of testimony from eyewitnesses, as well as the overwhelming mass of evidence gathered from the scene. Saying "if they really hit" is like saying "if the oceans are really full of water", or "if the sun really exists". These are not deniable issues. Rather, they're established facts, all of the fantasies generated by non-witnesses nonwithstanding.

 

[Heiwa]

Well ain't that convinient? Just as we've dragged you out of the caves of woo were everyone can se what you really are, you drop out.
Now why am I not surprised?

Oh but I understand you. Because now you have to explain:
1. What caused the explosion and how this "what" was placed there.
2. How hundreds of people thought they, with their own eyes, saw two planes hit the towers. You doubt this ever happened.
3. The lack of consistency in your "paper" regarding the collapse of the towers.

As you more than likely never will be able to explain, in detail, how you theories match together I agree with your choice to go on a short vacation.

For your own sake I hope it is a resort where the staff in uniforms make sure you are well looked after and keep all sharp objects in a locked drawer and make sure the walls in your room are properly fluffed.

1. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

2. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

3. Lack of consistency? I have shown the Bazant/Greening assumptions to show what gravity can do to be ... fantasy ... and make two examples how serious local failures are arrested. NIST has admitted they haven't got a clue why the towers collapsed and do not mention that failures are arrested. They just explained the fires and what local failures might have occurred ... and stopped there. Very lazy! Unprofessional. A disgrace for the engineering profession. They tried to be politically correct and shot themselves in the feet. See how they dance. Their report is just a quibble.

 

[Architect]

What?

[splutters]

 

[applecorped]

1. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

2. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

3. Lack of consistency? I have shown the Bazant/Greening assumptions to show what gravity can do to be ... fantasy ... and make two examples how serious local failures are arrested. NIST has admitted they haven't got a clue why the towers collapsed and do not mention that failures are arrested. They just explained the fires and what local failures might have occurred ... and stopped there. Very lazy! Unprofessional. A disgrace for the engineering profession. They tried to be politically correct and shot themselves in the feet. See how they dance. Their report is just a quibble.

Yes, you are.

 

[Zorglub]

Yes, you are.

To say that Heiwa is a disgrace to the engineering profession is to give him credit for having some sort of profession in engineering. Heiwa is a professional engineer as much as I am a professional fighter pilot. I have a dream of being a pilot, but it is nothing more but a dream. If a real fighter pilot tells me facts about flying a jet I wouldn't dream of telling him/her they're wrong,
Heiwa is a fraud, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What?

[splutters]

LOL... poor Architect. The madness of Heiwa has driven our Scottish friend to sputtering disbelief.

So what is it that's sending you over the edge this time? His declaration that the collapses should arrest? The fact that he's not proven that all the collapse energy would indeed be used up "locally"? Or his characterization of the central initiating factors ("fires and what local failures might have occurred") as merely being part of the story, which ends up being a handwave past all others' calculations concluding that initiation does indeed lead to global collapse, and also ends up being an obsfucation that he's yet to provide any actual calculations proving the lower segments truly absorbed the energy released?

Or (*gasp* ), could it be something else?

 

[Zorglub]

1. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

You mean you do not know the answer to the question.

2. OT - we discuss if gravity alone can bring the towers down due to local failures up top ... and my answer is NO. Any local collapses would be arrested.

You mean you do not know the answer to the question.

3. Lack of consistency?

Yes. You haven't answered what caused the collapse if the plane, fires and collapsing buildings wasn´t enough. You even refuse to answer that question. Therefore your "theory" is inconsistent. Ergo: You lack - amongst other things - consistency.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

You mean you do not know the answer to the question.

You mean you do not know the answer to the question.

Oh, I bet Heiwas got an answer, and I bet he has his own theory, and I even bet that he's expressed that theory in mail convos with PfT and other no-planers he no doubtely has corresponded with. However, he won't ever dare express it outside the small circle of true believers, because he know that as soon as he ventures off the safe path of Woo, eg "Im just asking questions", everything will blow up in his face. Its a standard truther mo.

And again, its on topic, the thread is about "WTC collapses - Layman's terms", and Heiwa so far hasn't given any such explanation. You might even argue that Heiwa himself is off-topic in his own thread.

 

[Architect]

LOL... poor Architect. The madness of Heiwa has driven our Scottish friend to sputtering disbelief.

So what is it that's sending you over the edge this time? His declaration that the collapses should arrest? The fact that he's not proven that all the collapse energy would indeed be used up "locally"? Or his characterization of the central initiating factors ("fires and what local failures might have occurred") as merely being part of the story, which ends up being a handwave past all others' calculations concluding that initiation does indeed lead to global collapse, and also ends up being an obsfucation that he's yet to provide any actual calculations proving the lower segments truly absorbed the energy released?

Or (*gasp* ), could it be something else?

It was this gem:

Unprofessional. A disgrace for the engineering profession. They tried to be politically correct and shot themselves in the feet. See how they dance. Their report is just a quibble

 

[pomeroo]

Well ain't that convinient? Just as we've dragged you out of the caves of woo were everyone can se what you really are, you drop out.
Now why am I not surprised?

Oh but I understand you. Because now you have to explain:
1. What caused the explosion and how this "what" was placed there.
2. How hundreds of people thought they, with their own eyes, saw two planes hit the towers. You doubt this ever happened.
3. The lack of consistency in your "paper" regarding the collapse of the towers.

As you more than likely never will be able to explain, in detail, how you theories match together I agree with your choice to go on a short vacation.

For your own sake I hope it is a resort where the staff in uniforms make sure you are well looked after and keep all sharp objects in a locked drawer and make sure the walls in your room are properly fluffed.

THOUSANDS, not hundreds, of people witnessed Flight 175 crash into the South Tower.