9/11 WTC beyond explosives?

[Einstein700]

For me its more or less obvious WTC collapse was an inside job, the planes were just distractions/scapegoats for what was really going on. There is no way on Earth those buildings fell to dust like they did without some secondary explosive measure. Also, the amount of evidence to suggest explosives were the cause of the collapse is far greater than the latter.

I heard this guy Jeff King (some M.I.T professor) and a few others speculate that the twin towers could of been brought down by something slightly more powerful than your typical demolition explosives. He suggests it may of even been some secret new type of explosive or possibly even an energy weapon that may of been used to assist the collapse. It sounds pretty far fetched at first but his reasons for believing this does have some interesting grounds.

Firstly its the anomaly of the main wtc core apparently seeming to disintergrate or vanish in a cloud of vapor. Some experts believe it would just be too difficult to rig with conventional explosives, the amount of heat and energy required would be so enormous. There is a good video 9/11 eyewitness which shows the whole event with audio unedited! it pretty clearly shows the entire collapse (including the sounds of massive low frequency rumbles which appear to be edited out of all the major news network broadcasts). If you watch carefully it looks like the core evaporates globally just after the concrete and outside framework has fallen. Its almost like the core gets stripped of its shell from top to bottom, then you see the core for about 5 seconds which appears to disintergrate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11

second, how not only the concrete but exotic metals like computer chips was pulverised to fine dust, and the actual degree of how fine this dust actually is, like 100 microns across (!). What seemed strange is there needs to be a mechanism for that sort of thing. How do you get from fires in a building to that sort of devastation approx. 10 seconds without some massive catalyst to do it.

Also, in the 9/11 eye witness video, you can really hear the 3/4 massive low frequency rumbling booms (which co-insides with the hundreds of witnesses reported hearing BEFORE the towers collapsed!) You will notice the booms are very low frequency (think sub woofer range) which is a very important factor to why these booms werent picked up on many recordings. Also, the fact that they are sub frequencies would make them barely audible and easily removed. EQ sweep the bottom end and it just sounds like shattering (news network audio). Remember, Bass travels far because of its long wavelength, which is why it could be picked up across the water. The actual stretch of water would of given the bass a better chance to form. Anyone close to the scene may not of noticed it quite as much. I find it quite shocking how little audio there is of these explosions, but also the nature of bass frequencies would probably make it un audible in certain locations, whilst amplified in others.

Personally, i doubt an energy weapon could of been used but perhaps some new type of chemical explosive cocktail is not out of the question?

Also, I heard the military have something called Thermate, which is like a purified versions of thermite. I heard speculation that thermite would be used as a possible cutter charge, but you would need so much thermite it would be unrealistic, but the guy discussing it i dont think was aware of thermate is potential much stronger.

Another interesting theory i heard, was a thermite reaction took place because the building was rusty and the plane was aluminium, and it was the thermite reaction that may of softened the building enough. But to me it still looks like the building explodes, and thermite doesnt rumble / make huge sub frequency waves.

[lazserus]

Read this (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=101018&postcount=5) where I demolish the explosives theory. I've heard testimony from dozens of experts that say the planes were more than enough to bring those buildings down. If you've actually seen how the WTC towers were constructed then the planes make more and more sense. When they impacted with the building they took out a series of supports. From there the fuel burned at temperatures so hot steel could have easily been melted. Couple them together and the floors above give way and collapse. A building of that height will "pancake" down.

And an energy weapon? You have got to be kidding me. That's the most absurd theory concocked yet. You could hit the towers with cosmic rays, the mostly energetic force in the universe, and it still wouldn't knock the towers over. Plus, it'd kill everyone in New York. Any form of energy weapon, though scientifically unreasonable, would cause a different form of destruction other than a pancaked collapse.

Chemical weapons are a bit more plausible, but still don't fit because the use of chemical weapons would have a reaction from the witnesses near by. A chemical weapon doesn't go off near people with out harming them.

Stick with the planes.

[Einstein700]

Lazserus, I dont really see you demolishing the explosives theory in that thread.

Watch the video in the post above and give me an explaination for the massive explosions heard before the collapse.

Watch the whole video and all the issues it raises. Then give me explainations as to why a controlled demolition is not taking place, tell me why there are huge explosions in the audio captured before the building starts to collapse. Its undeniable there is 4 huge explosions. The audio can tell you much about the nature of the sound. It isnt the building failing or trusses giving away, its massive explosive charges being detonated!

Watch the video, start to finish then re-evaluate your opinion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11

edited link ^

[lazserus]

I looked at the site the video came from and their evidence is pretty shiesty for demolitions. For starters it mentions that the black smoke indicated the fires were out so there was no reason for the building to collapse. The hotter fires burn the darker the smoke gets. As the fires grew hotter from burning of the fuel and the smoke was recycled within a contained area it gets black. I've seen this done in experiments over and over.

Now, I can definitely agree that controlled demolitions cause buildings to fall straight down. That is their purpose. However, I've witnessed dozens of demolitions of large buildings and there are a few key factors. For starters, controlled demolition explosions are very visible to outside observers. Another thing to consider is that there's no way to secretly install that much in demolitions. Now, the "explosions" heard could not really be evidence due to the fact that when demolitions are used, there are instant results. The explosions are consecutive and the building doesn't react. That building wouldn't come down several minutes later if demolitions were used. Now, the vide points out the smoke coming from the base. Well, that smoke was coming from the base in the video before the first "explosion" is heard. None of these things add up.

Honestly, this is just as compelling as the Apollo 11 moon landing hoax skeptics use. Of course, the evidence they use can easily be recreated to debunked, but WTC collapses can't. Only via computer recreation. I'm still not convinced.

[Justice]

I looked at the site the video came from and their evidence is pretty shiesty for demolitions. For starters it mentions that the black smoke indicated the fires were out so there was no reason for the building to collapse. The hotter fires burn the darker the smoke gets. As the fires grew hotter from burning of the fuel and the smoke was recycled within a contained area it gets black. I've seen this done in experiments over and over.


My barbeque smokes a lot until it gets going and then when I put it out by dumping water on the fire it’s breaks out into smoke again. Smoke is produced by un burnt carbon and gasses and in the twin towers this was smoke was due to a lack of air inside the building, nothing unusual at all but it was very unusual that they came down, the first skyscrapers in the world to succumb to fire and don’t tell me about 100 tons going at 500mph is more energy than 140mph winds acting on the whole side of the building being the reason the fire melted the steel, hear that one before and simple mathematics says it’s not true.

[Havoc Angel]

There's quite a difference in effect between facing a tornado gust and facing a bullet. Even if the bullet might have less energy involved it'll cause more damage than the gust.

[Now]

There's quite a difference in effect between facing a tornado gust and facing a bullet. Even if the bullet might have less energy involved it'll cause more damage than the gust.

This still doesn't explain WTC7. It collapsed in identical fashion to the towers....but no plane.


Now.

[Justice]

There's quite a difference in effect between facing a tornado gust and facing a bullet. Even if the bullet might have less energy involved it'll cause more damage than the gust.

Yes but when did a bullet last bring a tree down ?

fact is the core that holds the building up is more stresed by high winds than a plane hitting it. How often does a car crash where it hit's a tree and then bring the tree down.

was the impact to be as large as some imply then all the glass in the building would have come out, this is not the case but the lobby did have broken glass some 70 floors below the impact and we all know what happened their.

[donniedarko]

fact is the core that holds the building up is more stresed by high winds than a plane hitting it. How often does a car crash where it hit's a tree and then bring the tree down.

High-winds don't compromise the structurally integrity of the systems designed to resist them.


was the impact to be as large as some imply then all the glass in the building would have come out, this is not the case but the lobby did have broken glass some 70 floors below the impact and we all know what happened their.

I am assuming you are discussing WTC 1 and 2 (this is an important point). Experts agree that given the nature of the fall, a piston-like compression of air on the lower floors would cause the windows to blow-out. They could have also been broken by debris falling from higher floors of the adjacent tower.

[lazserus]

and don’t tell me about 100 tons going at 500mph is more energy than 140mph winds acting on the whole side of the building being the reason the fire melted the steel, hear that one before and simple mathematics says it’s not true.
Physics much? E=mc^2. You agree? Yes, there is a difference. 1 ton at 500mph has more force than a wind at 140mph. Mass is involved, thus impact is greater. A tornado spinning at 60mph has a significant force, but the CAR it flings impacts with MORE force.

At the same time, I never once said (including structural engineers) that the impact brought the towers down. The jet fuel helped. Yes, the initial impact caused significant structural damage, but the burning of the fuel melted what was left. If you look at the structural plans of both towers you can see how this is plausible. I've seen computer models to support this by people who aren't in the US. So I don't see "conspiracy" anywhere.


High-winds don't compromise the structurally integrity of the systems designed to resist them.
Donnie, you rock. This is a very significant factor. Let's also consider the testimony of ONE fella who works on part of the construction. He testified on film that the towers were designed to withstand an impact of a 707 jet. The towers were completed in 1972. At that time there were no attacks consisting of airliners aside from those that crashed into the sea. I see more flaws than facts in this theory.

[Einstein700]

Yes but when did a bullet last bring a tree down ?

When did a bullet turn a tree to dust more like!

[stewey]

This still doesn't explain WTC7. It collapsed in identical fashion to the towers....but no plane.


Now.

Considering the proximity to the other two towers, it isn't implausible that it would fall. It was hit by a LOT of debris and there was a LOT of fires in there. One fire cannot bring it down, but fire + debris high up in a big skyscraper can bring one down. You have to remember that the towers were rather skinny, which means a fire high up could lead to a crash down.

[Einstein700]

steel frame high rise buildings (and everything in them) do not get annihilated into dust particles 100 microns wide in 10 seconds flat by things like truss failure, fire damage, or aircraft collisions.

There would need to be a mechanism with some massive force and energy involved to achieve that in the way that it did, and so quickly.

http://212.69.207.173/images/site1085_clip.jpg

tell me that doesnt look like an explosion! A massive force is symetrically tearing through the building, top to bottom ejecting massive clouds of concrete, metals and other materials upwards and out. It looks similiar to quarry blasting when the explosives are deep inside a rock surface are detonated and it pushes all the material out, you dont see glowing orange explosion because it is consealed deep within the rock structure (you do get tremendous dust clouds though, unsurprisingly). Also i find it amusing how quick skeptics point out it doesnt look like a typical building demolition, well its not! Because this would be a very special operation and wouldn't look like a typical demolition on a building, this was more like a guaranteed and complete eradication of a building and everything inside it! Like they didnt want a trace of anything left. (which is what they got)

WTC7 actually fell quite differently, instead of a demolition wave ripping up the building from top to bottom it fell like a more convential demolition where the building just falls down into itself at the base/bottom of the building.

[Justice]

Physics much? E=mc^2. You agree? Yes, there is a difference. 1 ton at 500mph has more force than a wind at 140mph. Mass is involved, thus impact is greater. A tornado spinning at 60mph has a significant force, but the CAR it flings impacts with MORE force.

And buy the same token you would say that a bullet has even more but the scientific facts are that winds at 140mph coming up against several thousands meters of the building side contains a lot more energy than a plane doing 500mph with a weight of 100 tons and I’ll even ignore the cripple zone of the planes nose before the main section of wings and engine made contact with the building.

Maybe you should see how cars come off when they hit trees at any speed and then go and look what happens after a major storm to the same trees for a fuller answer to this E=MC^2 question. Does air has any mass :bubble:

i keep telling my son that all them sweets will rot his teath but he won't listen

Stewey


Considering the proximity to the other two towers, it isn't implausible that it would fall. It was hit by a LOT of debris and there was a LOT of fires in there. One fire cannot bring it down, but fire + debris high up in a big skyscraper can bring one down.

Can it now then you won’t mind giving me a link to other skyscrapers that have succumb to such dreadful end.


You have to remember that the towers were rather skinny, which means a fire high up could lead to a crash down.

And it seems you have forgotten about the building between the twin towers and building number 7, it didn’t come down

[Einstein700]

this is ridiculous simply because controlled demolitions exist.

Think about it, why do we need 'controlled demolitions' ? To make sure the building collapse correctly and totally. Controlled demolitions can take many months of careful planning and prep.

Why bother with carefully controlled demolitions that takes months of detailed planning when we can simply fly a jumbo jet into a building one afternoon and it will take care of itself an hour later?

Why bother with controlled demolitions when we can simple throw some random debris at a building (ala WTC7) and it will collapse perfectly and symetrically straight down into its own basement?

Doesn't this put controlled demolitions out of a job? I am sorry but WTC7 would not of collapsed in the way that it did without some demolition prep and explosive munitions.

But even controlled demolitions do not pulverise buildings into fine dust particles on the order of 100 microns across and less!