Improbable Collapse

[chipmunk stew]

The inner core was like a beer can in that it was a tube made of metal.

Sniff the foot my little Fluffy.

[chek]

it is quite possible to accept that 19 Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks "

And that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Really? That tops Star Wars Beam Weapons? The No Plane theory? Faked crash sites and phone calls? A Pentagon Fly-over? ...THIS?

You have a bizarre sense of the ridiculous.

You do realise that Reagan Nat Airport is on the flight path if the plane flew OVER the Pentagon as the FDR seems to indicate?
Not hard to cause a big explosion and be out of sight within seconds.

And strange as it may seem, most of the other theories have more elements of truth in them than the Official Conspiracy.

Personally, I'd find Martian involvement far more credible than the pseudo scientific garbage being peddled by some.

But the 19 pissed off Arabs is the killer. Kudos to whoever invented that one - I'm sure he never meant it to be taken seriously outside the bar room.

[James C]

I have to say that I love talking to the shills. The more questions they raise about the WTC the more it confirms the truth seekers theory. So thanks Bushwacker, your last post raised an error in my thinking which I have now resolved. The whole thing is now more clear in my head than it ever was.

What the shills are saying is that the upper masses above the points of impact and above the fire damaged floors ultimately collapsed downwards onto the structure below initiating a progressive collapse. Certainly this would account for the top down wave of demolition that was observed, especially on the south tower.

The truth seekers argument is that explosives were used since the upper masses would not have been able to fall straight and vertically down because by definition the entire structure between upper and lower mass would have had to have failed simultaneously. Besides, would each mass have gained sufficient force to destroy the lower building and yet have remained intact for the whole third of a kilometre journey to the ground falling through a structurally sound building offering massive resistance? No! Aggle-rithm's coke can analogy is OK but it fails to acknowledge that a coke can is able to support the weight of a typical adult male if stood upon with care. Only with great force is the can crushed; a considerably greater force per size and shape of can than the upper masses would have been to the lower buildings. Also, it does not account for the lack of cross-bracing there is in a coke can compared with the bracing in the core or that the crush of the can is not necessarily from top to bottom but very much uneven, i.e. it is not a progressive collapse caused by the structure falling on top of the structure below.

But I need to revise my previous analysis slightly as prompted by Bushwacker. I said that the core was pulled first and that it pulled the floors which in turn pulled the facade. Clearly that was not the case since the floors didn't pull the facade all at the same time. Having read a few articles on implosison techniques the answer now appears simple. Many articles talk of the need to destroy the lower floors first and then use explosives throughout the upper storeys to help break up the building (easier for later removal and to prevent the building toppling).

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier clean-up following the blast.

This will account for the explosions heard at ground level and the sudden camera shake and low rumble at about 4 seconds into this clip showing the north tower collapse.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

After the ground floor explosions happened the upper blasts started to break up the core as described in the quote above, very possibly from top to bottom (the squibs running from top to bottom confirm this). This is then where the shills argument has its place in the whole theory. Well done shills! The core drops and takes with it the upper mass breaking at the points of weakness created by the impacts and the fires; in the case of the south tower, it began to rotate towards the buckled walls. Each mass was then able to drop freely through the building destroying the facade as it went. The shills cannot argue with this since it is the basis for their theory but it wouldn't have happened had the core not been destroyed. If we look at the south tower, the rotating mass suddenly stopped rotating because the core, which was acting as a fulcrum to the topling mass above, suddenly fell also.

Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.

Simple. Thanks guys.

[Bushwacker]

No problem, James, I can see you need quite a bit of pointing in the right direction. Unfortunately your new theory is still as much rubbish as the old one was, see if you can work out why on your own this time.

[aggle-rithm]

Besides, would each mass have gained sufficient force to destroy the lower building and yet have remained intact for the whole third of a kilometre journey to the ground falling through a structurally sound building offering massive resistance? No!

Done the math?

Aggle-rithm's coke can analogy is OK but it fails to acknowledge that a coke can is able to support the weight of a typical adult male if stood upon with care. Only with great force is the can crushed; a considerably greater force per size and shape of can than the upper masses would have been to the lower buildings.

So the can supports a static load, but not a dynamic load. Is that what you're saying?

Also, it does not account for the lack of cross-bracing there is in a coke can compared with the bracing in the core or that the crush of the can is not necessarily from top to bottom but very much uneven, i.e. it is not a progressive collapse caused by the structure falling on top of the structure below.

But I need to revise my previous analysis slightly as prompted by Bushwacker. I said that the core was pulled first and that it pulled the floors which in turn pulled the facade. Clearly that was not the case since the floors didn't pull the facade all at the same time. Having read a few articles on implosison techniques the answer now appears simple. Many articles talk of the need to destroy the lower floors first and then use explosives throughout the upper storeys to help break up the building (easier for later removal and to prevent the building toppling).

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier clean-up following the blast.

This will account for the explosions heard at ground level and the sudden camera shake and low rumble at about 4 seconds into this clip showing the north tower collapse.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

I didn't hear a low rumble, and the camera shake looks like someone bumped the camera. However, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the shaking was caused by explosions. Such explosions would have to produce seismic tremors far greater than that caused by the building collapsing, because that wasn't sufficient to make the camera shake.

Now all you have to do is explain why no such seismic readings were recorded, when they are usually evident when explosives are used to destroy a building.

After the ground floor explosions happened the upper blasts started to break up the core as described in the quote above, very possibly from top to bottom (the squibs running from top to bottom confirm this). This is then where the shills argument has its place in the whole theory. Well done shills! The core drops and takes with it the upper mass breaking at the points of weakness created by the impacts and the fires; in the case of the south tower, it began to rotate towards the buckled walls. Each mass was then able to drop freely through the building destroying the facade as it went. The shills cannot argue with this since it is the basis for their theory but it wouldn't have happened had the core not been destroyed.

According to you. Of course, you have no scientific support for this view.

If we look at the south tower, the rotating mass suddenly stopped rotating because the core, which was acting as a fulcrum to the topling mass above, suddenly fell also.

Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.

Simple. Thanks guys.

If the central core was destroyed near the bottom, then there would have been damage to the component parts beyond what would be seen in a simple collapse. The columns would have to have been partially severed ahead of time by the demo experts, or, failing that, much more powerful explosives would have to have been used. In any event, there would have been major damage to the columns beyond what would be expected in a mere collapse.

As the debris was hauled away, metal beams showing damage were set aside for investigators to examine, to try and determine the reason for the collapse. How do you explain, without resorting to ad hoc arguments, how these investigators failed to notice this catastrophic damage to a part of the core that was well away from the crash and fire?

Also, I'm sure I don't need to mention the problem with secondary explosives being set off in a heavily damaged and burning part of the building....

[Johnny Pixels]

You do realise that Reagan Nat Airport is on the flight path if the plane flew OVER the Pentagon as the FDR seems to indicate?
Not hard to cause a big explosion and be out of sight within seconds.

Then the air traffic controllers would remember guiding a plane that was supposedly destroyed. You keep adding people to the conspiracy, the weaker it gets. You can't just land at an airport.

[Johnny Pixels]

Besides, would each mass have gained sufficient force to destroy the lower building and yet have remained intact for the whole third of a kilometre journey to the ground falling through a structurally sound building offering massive resistance?

What is the "massive resistance" of the building in joules, and how does this compare to the kinetic energy of the falling mass?

[James C]

Besides, would each mass have gained sufficient force to destroy the lower building and yet have remained intact for the whole third of a kilometre journey to the ground falling through a structurally sound building offering massive resistance? No!

Done the math?

Aggle-rithm's coke can analogy is OK but it fails to acknowledge that a coke can is able to support the weight of a typical adult male if stood upon with care. Only with great force is the can crushed; a considerably greater force per size and shape of can than the upper masses would have been to the lower buildings.

So the can supports a static load, but not a dynamic load. Is that what you're saying?

Also, it does not account for the lack of cross-bracing there is in a coke can compared with the bracing in the core or that the crush of the can is not necessarily from top to bottom but very much uneven, i.e. it is not a progressive collapse caused by the structure falling on top of the structure below.

But I need to revise my previous analysis slightly as prompted by Bushwacker. I said that the core was pulled first and that it pulled the floors which in turn pulled the facade. Clearly that was not the case since the floors didn't pull the facade all at the same time. Having read a few articles on implosison techniques the answer now appears simple. Many articles talk of the need to destroy the lower floors first and then use explosives throughout the upper storeys to help break up the building (easier for later removal and to prevent the building toppling).

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier clean-up following the blast.

This will account for the explosions heard at ground level and the sudden camera shake and low rumble at about 4 seconds into this clip showing the north tower collapse.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _1st24.mpg

I didn't hear a low rumble, and the camera shake looks like someone bumped the camera. However, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the shaking was caused by explosions. Such explosions would have to produce seismic tremors far greater than that caused by the building collapsing, because that wasn't sufficient to make the camera shake.

Now all you have to do is explain why no such seismic readings were recorded, when they are usually evident when explosives are used to destroy a building.

After the ground floor explosions happened the upper blasts started to break up the core as described in the quote above, very possibly from top to bottom (the squibs running from top to bottom confirm this). This is then where the shills argument has its place in the whole theory. Well done shills! The core drops and takes with it the upper mass breaking at the points of weakness created by the impacts and the fires; in the case of the south tower, it began to rotate towards the buckled walls. Each mass was then able to drop freely through the building destroying the facade as it went. The shills cannot argue with this since it is the basis for their theory but it wouldn't have happened had the core not been destroyed.

According to you. Of course, you have no scientific support for this view.

If we look at the south tower, the rotating mass suddenly stopped rotating because the core, which was acting as a fulcrum to the topling mass above, suddenly fell also.

Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.

Simple. Thanks guys.

If the central core was destroyed near the bottom, then there would have been damage to the component parts beyond what would be seen in a simple collapse. The columns would have to have been partially severed ahead of time by the demo experts, or, failing that, much more powerful explosives would have to have been used. In any event, there would have been major damage to the columns beyond what would be expected in a mere collapse.

As the debris was hauled away, metal beams showing damage were set aside for investigators to examine, to try and determine the reason for the collapse. How do you explain, without resorting to ad hoc arguments, how these investigators failed to notice this catastrophic damage to a part of the core that was well away from the crash and fire?

Also, I'm sure I don't need to mention the problem with secondary explosives being set off in a heavily damaged and burning part of the building....

How big is the dynamic load on a coke can in order to crush it and how big would you have had to scale up that force to crush the towers?

Look again at that video clip, on the right hand side you'll see a piece of debris drop from the top of the tower after the camera shakes. Loose Change shows this better. If you listen carefully, you'll hear the rumble despite the noise of the helicopter.

As you ask your questions about the collapse, it's worth remembering that the twin towers stood on columns which went several storeys underground, below the New York Tube system. Were the foundation level columns really examined?

You might like to look again at the seismic evidence from the collpases. Looks quite revealing to me.

[James C]

No problem, James, I can see you need quite a bit of pointing in the right direction. Unfortunately your new theory is still as much rubbish as the old one was, see if you can work out why on your own this time.

Perhaps you'd like to point out my error.

[Patrick Brown]

Now all you have to do is explain why no such seismic readings were recorded, when they are usually evident when explosives are used to destroy a building.

There is seismic data which shows explosions:

The Twin Towers:



The Pentagon:



More here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

The article gives both sides of the story:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

The collapses of the Twin Towers generated seismic disturbances that were recorded by a half-dozen seismic recording stations within a 20-mile radius of Manhattan. Numerous websites have repeated an erroneous interpretation of the seismic recordings as evidence that bombs in the basements of the towers severed the core columns at the onsets of the collapses. One source of this error is an article by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn, reprinted in Serendipity.li .

e x c e r p t
title: Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse
authors: Christopher Bollyn


CENTRAL COLUMNS SEVERED

Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

SEISMIC "SPIKES"

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.

site: americanfreepress.net page: www.global-conspiracies.com/seismic.htm

THEY SAY

To the contrary, there was nothing strange about the seismic spikes recorded by the Palisades station. As the video and photographic evidence shows, the towers exploded into expanding clouds of rubble that were about 400 feet from top to bottom by the time they reached the ground. Those rubble clouds contained virtually all of the mass of towers -- thousands of tons of rubble falling from as high as 1000 feet. That could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves.

In fact the seismic evidence from the Palisades station comports well with the sequence of destruction evident in photographs and videos: each tower was consumed by a wave of destruction that started near the crash zone and moved downward as it generated an expanding cloud of rubble. It took about ten seconds for the bottom of this cloud to reach the ground and another eight seconds for its top to reach the ground. Likewise the seismic records show small disturbances lasting for about ten seconds, followed by large spikes lasting for about eight seconds.

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each tower. And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.
Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.

An analysis of the timeline of the North Tower collapse on the 9-11Research site corroborates the idea that the large seismic spikes were produced by rubble reaching the ground.

e x c e r p t
title: Speed of Fall: The Towers' Tops Fell Virtually Unimpeded
authors: 9-11 Research


A Timeline for the North Tower
It would be useful if collapse events evident in videos could be associated with seismic signal features. Since some news broadcasts have real-time clocks on their banners, it may be possible to match visual events with features of the seismic signals.

Consider the North Tower, whose entire collapse was recorded by the abovementioned CNN live feed, which has a clock on its banner. That clock does not have a second counter, but its minute counter flips to 10:29 37 seconds after collapse starts, which places the collapse start, according to the CNN clock, at 10:28:23.

Various pages on columbia.edu put the origin time of the signal at the source at 10:28:31, plus or minus 1 second. This is based on an estimate of 2KM/s travel speed for the S waves, which, given the PAL station's distance of 34 KM from the WTC, gives a travel time of 17 seconds.

The CNN video suggests that it takes about 10 seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another 7 or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.


10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 the heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)

site: 911research.wtc7.net page: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html


That the larger spikes of the seismic signatures of the tower collapses were produced by falling rubble does not preclude that the towers were destroyed with explosives. In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.

17 Seconds!!
[GVideo]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 9471226055[/GVideo]

[GVideo]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 1964740001[/GVideo]

The seismic data for the twin towers:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20 ... EO_KIM.pdf

Strange that the plane going into the Pentagon doesn't show any similarity to the tower impacts.
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications ... ntagon.pdf

[Ignatz]

<snipped>
Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.
<snipped>

If I understand what you're saying here, you now reason that the core was primarily demolished from the bottom, while the falling mass from above the impact zone served to crush the exterior structure (which had been left standing while the core collapsed inside it).

Is that roughly what you're saying? We'd better wait for clarification before carrying on with this ...

[James C]

<snipped>
Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.
<snipped>

If I understand what you're saying here, you now reason that the core was primarily demolished from the bottom, while the falling mass from above the impact zone served to crush the exterior structure (which had been left standing while the core collapsed inside it).

Is that roughly what you're saying? We'd better wait for clarification before carrying on with this ...

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

No doubt you have a wonderful counter theory to put to me.

[chek]

<snipped>
Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.
<snipped>

If I understand what you're saying here, you now reason that the core was primarily demolished from the bottom, while the falling mass from above the impact zone served to crush the exterior structure (which had been left standing while the core collapsed inside it).

Is that roughly what you're saying? We'd better wait for clarification before carrying on with this ...

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

No doubt you have a wonderful counter theory to put to me.

Oh you bet - they're probably conferring with Shill central at this moment. And furthermore it'll be a humdinger of pseudo science in action.
I can't wait to see it.

[Ignatz]

<snipped>
Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.
<snipped>

If I understand what you're saying here, you now reason that the core was primarily demolished from the bottom, while the falling mass from above the impact zone served to crush the exterior structure (which had been left standing while the core collapsed inside it).

Is that roughly what you're saying? We'd better wait for clarification before carrying on with this ...

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

Do you have any information on the timing of these events?

[Anti-sophist]

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

[aggle-rithm]

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over.

Why would they want to stop it from toppling over? Wouldn't that be more dramatic? Since it's impossible for a building to fall straight down without controlled demolition (according to you), wouldn't they want to allay suspicion by making it look as little like a controlled demolition as possible? Or at least not go to a great deal of trouble to make it LOOK like a controlled demolition when it wasn't necessary, or even in their best interests?

The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

No doubt you have a wonderful counter theory to put to me.

Here's one: You have no evidence, and your theory makes no sense. Airliners crashed into the buildings, they caught fire, and they fell down.

[chek]

You do realise that Reagan Nat Airport is on the flight path if the plane flew OVER the Pentagon as the FDR seems to indicate?
Not hard to cause a big explosion and be out of sight within seconds.

Then the air traffic controllers would remember guiding a plane that was supposedly destroyed. You keep adding people to the conspiracy, the weaker it gets. You can't just land at an airport.

If we didn't already know better, your child-like innocence would be almost touching.

[chek]

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over.

Why would they want to stop it from toppling over? Wouldn't that be more dramatic? Since it's impossible for a building to fall straight down without controlled demolition (according to you), wouldn't they want to allay suspicion by making it look as little like a controlled demolition as possible? Or at least not go to a great deal of trouble to make it LOOK like a controlled demolition when it wasn't necessary, or even in their best interests?

The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

No doubt you have a wonderful counter theory to put to me.

Here's one: You have no evidence, and your theory makes no sense. Airliners crashed into the buildings, they caught fire, and they fell down.

All the elements of which have been shown to be fraudulent. Try again.

[Anti-sophist]

All the elements of which have been shown to be fraudulent. Try again.

How many of your posts are like this.. you making claims without even trying to back them up?

[James C]

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over.

Why would they want to stop it from toppling over? Wouldn't that be more dramatic? Since it's impossible for a building to fall straight down without controlled demolition (according to you), wouldn't they want to allay suspicion by making it look as little like a controlled demolition as possible? Or at least not go to a great deal of trouble to make it LOOK like a controlled demolition when it wasn't necessary, or even in their best interests?

The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

No doubt you have a wonderful counter theory to put to me.

Here's one: You have no evidence, and your theory makes no sense. Airliners crashed into the buildings, they caught fire, and they fell down.

Squirm squirm my fluffy owl. Your questions are beyond idiocy, you only have to read them and think about the event to see how stupid they are.

If the buildings had toppled from the bottom, don't you think that would have raised more questions than making a building appear to collapse due to the impact damage. How could they have used the excuse that the impacts and fire initiated a progressive collapse if it started from the bottom. If you'd thought about that then you wouldn't have asked such a pointless question.

The problem for you is that there is evidence, sounds of explosions, squibs, the weird rotation of the south tower, the straight vertical drop of WTC7, the speed of fall, the neat pile of WTC7 etc etc. The problem for you also is that you have no evidence to disprove me unless you want to rely on the assumptions made by NIST. Oh I forgot NIST hasn't got an answer for WTC7 yet has it!

[Anti-sophist]

The problem for you is that there is evidence, sounds of explosions, squibs, the weird rotation of the south tower, the straight vertical drop of WTC7, the speed of fall, the neat pile of WTC7 etc etc.

And all is easily explainable w/o explosives. Occam's Razor defeats another conspiracy theorist

[aggle-rithm]

If the buildings had toppled from the bottom, don't you think that would have raised more questions than making a building appear to collapse due to the impact damage. How could they have used the excuse that the impacts and fire initiated a progressive collapse if it started from the bottom. If you'd thought about that then you wouldn't have asked such a pointless question.

Do you see how many unknown entities you have to add to make your theory viable? That's a major red flag that you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're saying the towers DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, but to make it look like it did, they had to make it look like a controlled demolition, which is the smoking gun that proves that they DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, because if they did they would not have fallen the way they did. Am I right so far?

[Patrick Brown]

The problem for you is that there is evidence, sounds of explosions, squibs, the weird rotation of the south tower, the straight vertical drop of WTC7, the speed of fall, the neat pile of WTC7 etc etc.

And all is easily explainable w/o explosives. Occam's Razor defeats another conspiracy theorist

No it's not because the kinetic energy available could have smashed the concrete floors to dust or sheared the columns but probably not both. Is that a Coke can in your hand or a beer can?

[James C]

If the buildings had toppled from the bottom, don't you think that would have raised more questions than making a building appear to collapse due to the impact damage. How could they have used the excuse that the impacts and fire initiated a progressive collapse if it started from the bottom. If you'd thought about that then you wouldn't have asked such a pointless question.

Do you see how many unknown entities you have to add to make your theory viable? That's a major red flag that you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're saying the towers DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, but to make it look like it did, they had to make it look like a controlled demolition, which is the smoking gun that proves that they DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, because if they did they would not have fallen the way they did. Am I right so far?

What the hell are you on about? God, you and Anti-Sophist are really having to twist the words to try and find an answer. Who's paying you to write the nonsense you do? Do you know how stupid you sound?

[chipmunk stew]

Here's one: You have no evidence, and your theory makes no sense. Airliners crashed into the buildings, they caught fire, and they fell down.

All the elements of which have been shown to be fraudulent. Try again.

Are you now suggesting that no planes crashed into the buildings, they did not catch fire, and they did not fall down?

[Ignatz]

<snipped>
Since the core was a column within a tube, the outer tube being self supporting, the failure of the core and the breaking of the floors would not have pulled the facade; the facade breaking instead by the action of the falling mass above.
<snipped>

If I understand what you're saying here, you now reason that the core was primarily demolished from the bottom, while the falling mass from above the impact zone served to crush the exterior structure (which had been left standing while the core collapsed inside it).

Is that roughly what you're saying? We'd better wait for clarification before carrying on with this ...

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.
+

Anyhow - I'm still interested to know about the timing of this sequence.
Not specific numbers, just the order of events.

[Johnny Pixels]

You do realise that Reagan Nat Airport is on the flight path if the plane flew OVER the Pentagon as the FDR seems to indicate?
Not hard to cause a big explosion and be out of sight within seconds.

Then the air traffic controllers would remember guiding a plane that was supposedly destroyed. You keep adding people to the conspiracy, the weaker it gets. You can't just land at an airport.

If we didn't already know better, your child-like innocence would be almost touching.

So you think that this plane can interrupt the holding pattern, be the plane that ATC is looking for, yet not be recognised by ATC as they guide it in to land, be guided to a non-existant landing spot, because all the others are taken by the commercial flights scheduled to land at that time, and then ground crew unload the passengers and baggage, but then forget that they ever did this? And if you're suggesting a substitute ground crew, how did they get past security, and not be remembered as a 100% brand new ground crew?

Like I said, more people in on the conspiracy

[chek]

Then the air traffic controllers would remember guiding a plane that was supposedly destroyed. You keep adding people to the conspiracy, the weaker it gets. You can't just land at an airport.

If we didn't already know better, your child-like innocence would be almost touching.

So you think that this plane can interrupt the holding pattern, be the plane that ATC is looking for, yet not be recognised by ATC as they guide it in to land, be guided to a non-existant landing spot, because all the others are taken by the commercial flights scheduled to land at that time, and then ground crew unload the passengers and baggage, but then forget that they ever did this? And if you're suggesting a substitute ground crew, how did they get past security, and not be remembered as a 100% brand new ground crew?

Like I said, more people in on the conspiracy

If you want to speculate, at least put some effort into it.

[aggle-rithm]

You're saying the towers DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, but to make it look like it did, they had to make it look like a controlled demolition, which is the smoking gun that proves that they DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, because if they did they would not have fallen the way they did. Am I right so far?

What the hell are you on about? God, you and Anti-Sophist are really having to twist the words to try and find an answer. Who's paying you to write the nonsense you do? Do you know how stupid you sound?

OK. I've gone very carefully over your posts to verify what you have ACTUALLY said. And guess what? You haven't said much. You have IMPLIED a lot, but you have resisted coming out and saying what you believe. Here is a sampling from your posts, in which you discuss what you believe happened on 9/11:

I think you'll find that the core would have been structurally weakened by explosives and the use of thermate lower down the core structure. As you say, do that and the core will drop. Pull the core from below and it pulls the building.

Of course much of the building fell outside. These were some of the tallest towers ever built. The chances of completely preventing the outward fall of the buildings was remote. However, even you have conceded that most of the structure fell into the footprints of each of the three buildings. A classic sign of demolition, you have to agree.

The only way to explain the destruction of the twin towers and WTC7 is to look at the visual evidence and couple it with witness statements, all the time bearing in mind how the buildings were constructed and how the structural engineers suggested the buildings would cope with aircraft damage and fires. Do that and all of a sudden the squibs, the sounds of explosions, the dust, the neat pile of rubble after each collapse and the rapid removal of evidence suggests that NIST are looking in the wrong direction. Anyone can make any assumption about anything and create mathematical models as proof but if the assumptions are wrong then the calculations are pointless.

Look carefully now, especially at the nearside corner at the point level with the base of the smoke on the north tower! Looks to me like the building only starts to collapse when these flashes appear. I hope they didn't just ignore these!


So what are these flashes and puffs of smoke and why does one appear above the 82nd floor? If the mass of the building is fully intact above the level of floor damage at the point of rotation, why would there be a flash way above this? Since you ask if you can clear anything else up for me then please do that because thus far you still have no explanation!

You still have not explained why there is such a definite flash and debris on the nearside corner. It certainly isn't flying glass so forget that argument.

The flashes and distinct puffs of smoke on the video I posted are not particularly big. The explosions on building demolitons are not particularly big either. There is no reason why they would have affected the fire or produced shock waves. The flash on the nearside corner is way above the fire and it produces distinct damage to the surrounding area - dust, smoke and debris.

To summarize:
IF explosives and thermate were used in the lower part of the inner core, it would have "pulled" the building.

The buildings falling mostly in their footprints was a classic sign of controlled demolition.

NIST is looking in the wrong direction.

The building collapses when flashes appear.

Why do the flashes appear, smartypants?

The flashes were not very big.


At this point, you appeared to grow bolder, and actually made some assertions:

The flash on the corner above the fire shows that the whole building was wired.

Wow! Pretty bold statement, based on the evidence. You're sure preconceived beliefs had no role in this conclusion?

Nothing will change my view that the WTC was destroyed by the use of explosives unless of course Osama Bin Laden comes back from the grave of Mohammad Atta comes out of hiding and admits to the whole thing.

Here, for the first time, you come right out and say that you believe that WTC was destroyed by explosives. You also say that nothing will change your belief (I don't believe, of course, that OBL or Atta would change your mind). This is a sure sign of someone who disregards evidence that conflict with his preconceived notions.

He states that no explosions were seen above the failure points of the towers, well I have discussed this before on this thread that there is a video showing such explosions.

This is the first time you go out on a limb and actually say the flashes were explosions. Bravo! Of course, you're still wrong.

As the core dropped it pulled the floor trusses. As the floor trusses dropped they pulled the facade. A few additional external explosives would have aided the shredding of the facade. And that is what is seen.

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

Now, finally, we hear something of a coherent theory of how the buildings were destroyed. Of course, this is just a small part of the 9/11 story. You would still have to figure out how this fits in with the bigger picture. For instance, why WTC7 was secretly destroyed when (in the first place) it could have been destroyed openly along with all the other heavily damaged buildings, and (in the second place) no one really noticed or cared that it collapsed.

Also, why did the fiends go to so much trouble to make the towers collapse in a manner that you described as a "classic sign of demolition"?

You said that my statement makes me sound stupid. I say that fear of sounding foolish is exactly why conspiracy theorists will rarely come right out and say what they believe. Deep down, they know how ridiculous their beliefs are, so they hide behind tired statements such as "we're just asking questions", and "we need another investigation".

[James C]

You're saying the towers DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, but to make it look like it did, they had to make it look like a controlled demolition, which is the smoking gun that proves that they DIDN'T collapse from the crashes, because if they did they would not have fallen the way they did. Am I right so far?

What the hell are you on about? God, you and Anti-Sophist are really having to twist the words to try and find an answer. Who's paying you to write the nonsense you do? Do you know how stupid you sound?

OK. I've gone very carefully over your posts to verify what you have ACTUALLY said. And guess what? You haven't said much. You have IMPLIED a lot, but you have resisted coming out and saying what you believe. Here is a sampling from your posts, in which you discuss what you believe happened on 9/11:

I think you'll find that the core would have been structurally weakened by explosives and the use of thermate lower down the core structure. As you say, do that and the core will drop. Pull the core from below and it pulls the building.

Of course much of the building fell outside. These were some of the tallest towers ever built. The chances of completely preventing the outward fall of the buildings was remote. However, even you have conceded that most of the structure fell into the footprints of each of the three buildings. A classic sign of demolition, you have to agree.

The only way to explain the destruction of the twin towers and WTC7 is to look at the visual evidence and couple it with witness statements, all the time bearing in mind how the buildings were constructed and how the structural engineers suggested the buildings would cope with aircraft damage and fires. Do that and all of a sudden the squibs, the sounds of explosions, the dust, the neat pile of rubble after each collapse and the rapid removal of evidence suggests that NIST are looking in the wrong direction. Anyone can make any assumption about anything and create mathematical models as proof but if the assumptions are wrong then the calculations are pointless.

Look carefully now, especially at the nearside corner at the point level with the base of the smoke on the north tower! Looks to me like the building only starts to collapse when these flashes appear. I hope they didn't just ignore these!


So what are these flashes and puffs of smoke and why does one appear above the 82nd floor? If the mass of the building is fully intact above the level of floor damage at the point of rotation, why would there be a flash way above this? Since you ask if you can clear anything else up for me then please do that because thus far you still have no explanation!

You still have not explained why there is such a definite flash and debris on the nearside corner. It certainly isn't flying glass so forget that argument.

The flashes and distinct puffs of smoke on the video I posted are not particularly big. The explosions on building demolitons are not particularly big either. There is no reason why they would have affected the fire or produced shock waves. The flash on the nearside corner is way above the fire and it produces distinct damage to the surrounding area - dust, smoke and debris.

To summarize:
IF explosives and thermate were used in the lower part of the inner core, it would have "pulled" the building.

The buildings falling mostly in their footprints was a classic sign of controlled demolition.

NIST is looking in the wrong direction.

The building collapses when flashes appear.

Why do the flashes appear, smartypants?

The flashes were not very big.


At this point, you appeared to grow bolder, and actually made some assertions:

The flash on the corner above the fire shows that the whole building was wired.

Wow! Pretty bold statement, based on the evidence. You're sure preconceived beliefs had no role in this conclusion?

Nothing will change my view that the WTC was destroyed by the use of explosives unless of course Osama Bin Laden comes back from the grave of Mohammad Atta comes out of hiding and admits to the whole thing.

Here, for the first time, you come right out and say that you believe that WTC was destroyed by explosives. You also say that nothing will change your belief (I don't believe, of course, that OBL or Atta would change your mind). This is a sure sign of someone who disregards evidence that conflict with his preconceived notions.

He states that no explosions were seen above the failure points of the towers, well I have discussed this before on this thread that there is a video showing such explosions.

This is the first time you go out on a limb and actually say the flashes were explosions. Bravo! Of course, you're still wrong.

As the core dropped it pulled the floor trusses. As the floor trusses dropped they pulled the facade. A few additional external explosives would have aided the shredding of the facade. And that is what is seen.

Roughly yes but you musn't forget the explosions going off elsewhere on the core, starting from the upper floors, to help break the tower apart and stop it from toppling over. The upper masses only collapsed after the core was broken apart starting from the initial ground explosion.

Now, finally, we hear something of a coherent theory of how the buildings were destroyed. Of course, this is just a small part of the 9/11 story. You would still have to figure out how this fits in with the bigger picture. For instance, why WTC7 was secretly destroyed when (in the first place) it could have been destroyed openly along with all the other heavily damaged buildings, and (in the second place) no one really noticed or cared that it collapsed.

Also, why did the fiends go to so much trouble to make the towers collapse in a manner that you described as a "classic sign of demolition"?

You said that my statement makes me sound stupid. I say that fear of sounding foolish is exactly why conspiracy theorists will rarely come right out and say what they believe. Deep down, they know how ridiculous their beliefs are, so they hide behind tired statements such as "we're just asking questions", and "we need another investigation".

Well done, you've wasted all your precious time saying....er....er...let me see.....absolutely nothing!

Your devotion to prove me wrong is admirable or is it just shear desperation that you feel it necessary to trawl through my posts in the hope of catching me out. Quite pathetic really.

The fact that last night I made a statement of my beliefs surrounding the mystery of the twin tower collapses to which you now state that no CT ever says what they believe just shows how twisted your own understanding is of the debate. And when people have made reference to the bigger picture of 9/11, the issues of Iraq, Afgahanistan and Neo-Con policy, you suggest that such talk is just diversionary tactics.

What do you believe fluffy little owl because I haven't got a clue, basically because you don't appear to be clever enough to debate the issues properly.