World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

[Rroff]

But they didn't need to specifically hit a range of floors, just the two largest buildings in New York. Why do you think they specifically had to hit the floors they did? Also the crashed at different points, Plane 1 93rd-99th floors, Plane 2 77th -85th floors. Both planes hitting high purely due to the nature of New York skyline.

For there to be validity to any claim of an alternative reason for the towers collapsing that day the planes would need to have hit specific pre-determined floors. Theres no way they could have extensively rigged up the whole building not knowing which floor the planes would hit and it not be discovered, but if they targetted a specific range of floors its within credibiity that they could have rented floors at or below their target.

To elaborate, they couldn't have used conventional demolition techniques without a noitceable effect at the base of the tower(s) - all videos from the day taken from the base of the towers show nothing major at the base. Disruption to or below the foundations would have resulted in a very different pattern of collapse, most likely with the building splitting outwards at the top. So the collapse as seen in the videos has to have originated at the point of impact or within 2-3 floors below.

 

[RDM]

For there to be validity to any claim of an alternative reason for the towers collapsing that day the planes would need to have hit specific pre-determined floors. Theres no way they could have extensively rigged up the whole building not knowing which floor the planes would hit and it not be discovered, but if they targetted a specific range of floors its within credibiity that they could have rented floors at or below their target.

To elaborate, they couldn't have used conventional demolition techniques without a noitceable effect at the base of the tower(s) - all videos from the day taken from the base of the towers show nothing major at the base. Disruption to or below the foundations would have resulted in a very different pattern of collapse, most likely with the building splitting outwards at the top. So the collapse as seen in the videos has to have originated at the point of impact or within 2-3 floors below.

Alternatively the buildings collapsed not due to any sort of demolition but because two bloody great big jets crashed in to them. That way you don't have to keep making stuff up to try and get it to fit...

 

[chumpit]

Alternatively the buildings collapsed not due to any sort of demolition but because two bloody great big jets crashed in to them. That way you don't have to keep making stuff up to try and get it to fit...

People also rember their not designed to have that much force hitting them s far up the twisting moments that must have happend on impact could easily severe the buildings supports

 

[RDM]

People also rember their not designed to have that much force hitting them s far up the twisting moments that must have happend on impact could easily severe the buildings supports

I am still struggling with the concept that some people cannot accept that "plane crashes into building and building collapses". It seems pretty obvious even from an engineering novice like myself.

 

[Glaucus]

Thats a 1 dimensional way to look at it, theres plenty of ways to weaken it and then use a synchronised method to finally destabalish it at the right moment bringing it down on its own footprint.

The way these things work, is you make a theory then see if that theory supports teh evidence. Now weakening the building would leave evidence. Same as explosives. The videos taken do not support your theory. There for uit is not 1-dimensional. it is logical in the scientific method.
For exampled if teh structure was weekend enough to collapse. It would have collapsed on impact, You got any idea the KE transferred to the building.

What evidence do you have for this? not even CT people come up with this. You might think you are trying to take a middle seat but you are not. your theories might not be well thought out, but they are theorys and thus they can be looked at.

 

[chumpit]

I am still struggling with the concept that some people cannot accept that "plane crashes into building and building collapses". It seems pretty obvious even from an engineering novice like myself.

it's called the human condition. theve seen movies where people can walk around being shot multiple times, and when builds take air planes flying into them and are still standing.
In reality the forces from the impact alone can easily tear the surrports to shreds, let alone the the effect of supper heating metal and concrete with turbine grade aircraft fuel plus the shock wave of the compressed gas tanks exploding, its jsut oh i know more than the idependant crash investigators...

 

[gillywibble]

it's called the human condition. theve seen movies where people can walk around being shot multiple times, and when builds take air planes flying into them and are still standing.
In reality the forces from the impact alone can easily tear the surrports to shreds, let alone the the effect of supper heating metal and concrete with turbine grade aircraft fuel plus the shock wave of the compressed gas tanks exploding, its jsut oh i know more than the idependant crash investigators...

I agree with this. I also think there is a deep psychological reaction to the events of that day, call it Post Traumatic Stress if you will.

 

[Tefal]

I agree with this. I also think there is a deep psychological reaction to the events of that day, call it Post Traumatic Stress if you will.

From random unrelated British forum members?

Then they are a tad over-sensitive bunch.

 

[gillywibble]

From random unrelated British forum members?

Then they are a tad over-sensitive bunch.

Some people do have feelings you know. Those images of people leaping to their death to escape fire still haunts me today.

 

[Tefal]

Some people do have feelings you know. Those images of people leaping to their death to escape fire still haunts me today.

there's having feelings and then there's being ridiculously over sensitive. like getting PTS from watching 9/11 on the tv.

and if you found the scene so distressing why did you watch them?

iirc the scene of the guys jumping weren't shown live but shown much later as headline news with quite a few warnings.

 

[Glaucus]

Some people do have feelings you know. Those images of people leaping to their death to escape fire still haunts me today.

I think it's less to do with that and more to do with the believe (hardened by decades of films and media) that only proper demolition buildings fall vertically. even then sometimes they get it wrong. Which makes it hard for people to believe they naturally fell that way. But as we know now, the design of them leads to that.

 

[Rroff]

The way these things work, is you make a theory then see if that theory supports teh evidence. Now weakening the building would leave evidence. Same as explosives. The videos taken do not support your theory. There for uit is not 1-dimensional. it is logical in the scientific method.
For exampled if teh structure was weekend enough to collapse. It would have collapsed on impact, You got any idea the KE transferred to the building.

What evidence do you have for this? not even CT people come up with this. You might think you are trying to take a middle seat but you are not. your theories might not be well thought out, but they are theorys and thus they can be looked at.

As I keep saying I'm not trying to put forward a specific theory tho. I'm only highlighting that theres more than one potential way things could have happened even if my specific examples of alternatives themselves don't happen to stand upto scrutiny.

Here for example

For exampled if teh structure was weekend enough to collapse. It would have collapsed on impact.

Your jumping to a conclusion without covering the middle ground - are you really saying its literally impossible for the structure to be weakened enough to collapse with a controlled mechanism but still strong enough to survive the impact? personally I don't think we have conclusive evidence that this can't be engineered even if it seems unlikely on the face of it.

 

[chumpit]

I think it's less to do with that and more to do with the believe (hardened by decades of films and media) that only proper demolition buildings fall vertically. even then sometimes they get it wrong. Which makes it hard for people to believe they naturally fell that way. But as we know now, the design of them leads to that.

i wonder what would happen if you showed the movie of the bridge in America that had the same natural ress. as the wind blowing against it.


shock mus t be the devil!!!!

 

[Rroff]

I think it's less to do with that and more to do with the believe (hardened by decades of films and media) that only proper demolition buildings fall vertically. even then sometimes they get it wrong. Which makes it hard for people to believe they naturally fell that way. But as we know now, the design of them leads to that.

Yet the design was shoddy enough that the fire proofing came away... so its not unrealistic to question them all falling gracefully in the designed fail mechanism... how often do things really work 100% in real life how they are expect to under abnormal circumstances?

 

[Glaucus]

Your jumping to a conclusion without covering the middle ground - are you really saying its literally impossible for the structure to be weakened enough to collapse with a controlled mechanism but still strong enough to survive the impact? personally I don't think we have conclusive evidence that this can't be engineered even if it seems unlikely on the face of it.

Yes I'm jumping to a conclusion, just like you are jumping to a conclusion. I bet if a scientist ran the numbers. The chance of it happening are 0.000001% success rate.

 

[Rroff]

So your asking people to blindly believe in the conclusion you've come up with just because its the most likely?

 

[Glaucus]

Yet the design was shoddy enough that the fire proofing came away... so its not unrealistic to question them all falling gracefully in the designed fail mechanism... how often do things really work 100% in real life how they are expect to under abnormal circumstances?

ha-Ha, you saying that any building out there will still have fireproofing attached after it is hit by a plane doing 500mph. It is also known before the crash that the fire retardants where shoddily put on.

They where not designed to fall like that, it just happens that they will fall like that, unless theres large other forces acting on it.

 

[Tefal]

Yet the design was shoddy enough that the fire proofing came away... so its not unrealistic to question them all falling gracefully in the designed fail mechanism... how often do things really work 100% in real life how they are expect to under abnormal circumstances?

the fireproofing was designed to withstand fire not explosion. hence why it was brittle and came away when a ****ing huge jet exploded into it at a few hundred mph.

 

[Glaucus]

So your asking people to blindly believe in the conclusion you've come up with just because its the most likely?

Nope, you can read the official reports, the computer simulations and watch the planes hit the building. I can throw it back, you are asking people to question it, with mad hat ideas. because the less mad ideas (conventional explosives) just don't fit the data.

 

[Tefal]

So your asking people to blindly believe in the conclusion you've come up with just because its the most likely?

and you're asking people to blindly believe the most unlikely and overly complicated just because you want to be special and different and disbelieve the most likley/official conclusion?