How the Towers Fell?

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:34

posted earlier, 2m50s in...looks a LOT like charges going off. A LOT. Acidhell, what do you think would have cause them as the WTC isn't falling at this point?

stickroad · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:35

If it was timed explosions, why did the buildings collapse so far apart from each other?

You would have thought, with it being such a big job, it would have been more tighter nict if you see what i mean.

collisster said:
Also I disagree with some of the points on how the towers should have fell. I think it is unreasonable to expect a tower to fall in a uniform manner, iirc no one has ever built a couple of WTCs and flown aircrafts into them and documenting exactly how they fell. it is ludicrous to say some things (not just here on youtube aswell) like glass is mixed with paper in the debris, I think that everything will be mixed together there has been an explosion of jet fuel .

Thats very true.

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:37

AcidHell2 said:
Can anyone tell me how the demo was wired, how they done it in secret and how they did it in a few afternoons of evacuations (which are likely due to a threat from intel)?

it's a very fundamental question which needs awensering if you believe in controlled demolition.

No one can tell you *how* it was done, of course. However your only proof that it wasn't done is purely based on improbability. It can't really be proven that it was impossible.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:37

Tried&Tested said:
posted earlier, 2m50s in...looks a LOT like charges going off. A LOT. Acidhell, what do you think would have cause them as the WTC isn't falling at this point?

interesting but it's not explosions, there white flashes. Det charges are either shaped or drilled into the structure. You wouldn't get white flashes like that.

Possible electrical explosions?

Doohickey said:
No one can tell you *how* it was done, of course. However your only proof that it wasn't done is purely based on improbability. It can't really be proven that it was impossible.

it's hardly my only proof is it.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:38

AcidHell2 said:
Can anyone tell me how the demo was wired, how they done it in secret and how they did it in a few afternoons of evacuations (which are likely due to a threat from intel)?

it's a very fundamental question which needs awensering if you believe in controlled demolition.

A few afternoons would be plenty enough for a professional demolitions company to come in and plant a number of devices i would think. Sources suggest that the explosions that took place in the basement (witnesses and firemen both reporting this) we done as part of the demolition process. This enables the rubble that falls to gather in the hole beneath and not pile up and risk 'sliding' (for want of a better word) in to nearby structures.

I think the number of points they put in would only have to be limited due to the additional impact of the plane. But who knows what was going on INSIDE the WTC (where the majority of the main steel beams were).

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:39

AcidHell2 said:
interesting but it's not explosions, there white flashes. Det charges are either shaped or drilled into the structure. You wouldn't get white flashes like that.

Possible electrical explosions?

it's hardly my only proof is it.

Ok, now watch that video from the start. The other examples of demolitions have the white flashes (and the plumes jetting out the side of the buildings). That was the link i was trying to make.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:40

Tried&Tested said:
A few afternoons would be plenty enough for a professional demolitions company to come in and plant a number of devices i would think. Sources suggest that the explosions that took place in the basement (witnesses and firemen both reporting this) we done as part of the demolition process. This enables the rubble that falls to gather in the hole beneath and not pile up and risk 'sliding' (for want of a better word) in to nearby structures.

I think the number of points they put in would only have to be limited due to the additional impact of the plane. But who knows what was going on INSIDE the WTC (where the majority of the main steel beams were).

Again as warewolf said, watch some discovery videos it takes weeks of hard work. what's it 95 percent of explosions aren't caused by explosives.

No it doesn't work like that, you have to forget the plane, in a ocntroleld explosion, Infact in most cases the plane would mess the controlled explosion up.

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:43

growse said:
The reason thermite is aluminium / iron oxide is the very high reactivity of aluminium. Aluminium reacts phenominally well with oxygen and it will quite happily rip the oxygen from iron oxide. There's lots of energy released involved doing this, hence the high temperatures produced. That's why it works so well.

That's fine.

I found what I was talking about:

1, 3-diphenylpropane was found on testing by the Environmental Protection Agency in large amounts, and known to be used to cast shaped charges. And it has never been observed in any sampling done before i.e. outside of the WTC attacks.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:44

Tried&Tested said:
Ok, now watch that video from the start. The other examples of demolitions have the white flashes (and the plumes jetting out the side of the buildings). That was the link i was trying to make.

As you can see in the tower block you dont see the flashes. You only see the flashes in the second one as thee steel frame is exposed. Nothing to cover the explosive charges.

In the wtc, there doesn't seem to be much debris from the flashes either.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:44

Doohickey said:
That's fine.

I found what I was talking about:

1, 3-diphenylpropane was found on testing by the Environmental Protection Agency in large amounts, and known to be used to cast shaped charges. And it has never been observed in any sampling done before i.e. outside of the WTC attacks.

link please.

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:46

AcidHell2 said:
it's hardly my only proof is it.

No it's not, but that particular argument you make is based on improbability. Say the buildings were rigged up and then set off successfully- would you say that the towers would have fallen in the manner they did and demonstrate the much-mentioned hallmarks, or not?

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:48

Doohickey said:
No it's not, but that particular argument you make is based on improbability. Say the buildings were rigged up and then set off successfully- would you say that the towers would have fallen in the manner they did and demonstrate the much-mentioned hallmarks, or not?

The trouble with this building is it is a first in a design. When it falls the hallmarks are very similar to that of a demolition. This has never been seen before. But then again neither has the design. That's why there's so many gobsmacked people.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:49

AcidHell2 said:
As you can see in the tower block you dont see the flashes. You only see the flashes in the second one as thee steel frame is exposed. Nothing to cover the explosive charges.

In the wtc, there doesn't seem to be much debris from the flashes either.

The Vegas casino about 2mins in you can, and this building is almost complete (audio in background with one guy saying there is glass, another guy saying there isn't). Also, i don't think there would be much debris from the flashes on the WTC, but you can clearly see a lump flying off just as it goes off.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:50

Tried&Tested said:
The Vegas casino about 2mins in you can, and this building is almost complete (audio in background with one guy saying there is glass, another guy saying there isn't). Also, i don't think there would be much debris from the flashes on the WTC, but you can clearly see a lump flying off just as it goes off.

Not it's not it's got huge windows taken out and the flashes are orange. It will also have the interior striped of. All that is left is structural members and the shell.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:52

Doohickey said:
No it's not, but that particular argument you make is based on improbability. Say the buildings were rigged up and then set off successfully- would you say that the towers would have fallen in the manner they did and demonstrate the much-mentioned hallmarks, or not?

A lot of arguments are based on improbability, because otherwise you could say anything. The point is those flashes *could* be anything. Unless you were there, you will never know. They could be angry green men with hyper-bright torches, but there's no evidence of this. To me, there's no evidence there's any explosive charges either, but I'm open to the (in my opinion, slim) possibility that they might be. I just think it's highly improbable. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but to convince others you may need a bit more than "Oh look, there's some flashes of light that look like those on a controlled demolition".

stickroad · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:54

growse said:
A lot of arguments are based on improbability, because otherwise you could say anything. The point is those flashes *could* be anything. Unless you were there, you will never know. They could be angry green men with hyper-bright torches, but there's no evidence of this. To me, there's no evidence there's any explosive charges either, but I'm open to the (in my opinion, slim) possibility that they might be. I just think it's highly improbable. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but to convince others you may need a bit more than "Oh look, there's some flashes of light that look like those on a controlled demolition".

Totally agree. We will never know what actually happened. Apart from the buildings did fall and they are now gone.

Theirs arguments for and aginast about explsoives being planted in the buildings. Very good argments that is.

I think we all have to move on from this becuase it will never get resolved.

We seem to always look at the bad points in the world. What about the good things, the things we have achived to this day is truly amazing.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:58

I'm moving on to STEAK!

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll leave now.

collisster · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:59

stickroad said:
collisster said:

Also I disagree with some of the points on how the towers should have fell. I think it is unreasonable to expect a tower to fall in a uniform manner, iirc no one has ever built a couple of WTCs and flown aircrafts into them and documenting exactly how they fell. it is ludicrous to say some things (not just here on youtube aswell) like glass is mixed with paper in the debris, I think that everything will be mixed together there has been an explosion of jet fuel .

Click to expand...

Thats very true.

cheers

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 02:01

AcidHell2 said:
link please.

Originally from here
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

The article does say that

it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

CTs argue that if this is the case, how come it has never been sampled before? Can't be that unusual a material if it's from burning plastics.

Debunking sites seem to just reiterate the above quote, but I can't find any explanations on why it has never been sampled before, in other office fires, for example.

Werewolf · 13 Aug 2007 at 02:02

AcidHell2 said:
The trouble with this building is it is a first in a design. When it falls the hallmarks are very similar to that of a demolition. This has never been seen before. But then again neither has the design. That's why there's so many gobsmacked people.

A bit like those buildings in London they are currently demolishing, from the ground floor up, the design is such that the structural strength comes from the roof or something, so the floors have to be removed starting at the bottom leaving the central column

Buildings may all look very similar from the outside, but there are some very wacky structural systems in place depending on when they are/where built, the materials used, specific requirements, and how adventurous the architects/engineers were.
I think that is one of the problems a lot of people have trouble getting around, two buildings may look very similar from the outside, but depending on when they were built they could have a totally different structure (things like how many lifts are in use, and where they are can have a massive effect on the overall design and strength of the building).