Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers

[eots]

YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!

ooooh more bullshit videos


that building had a CONCRETE CORE

what building ? there are multiple building fires shown in this video

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQPmmCr6JA]YouTube - Urgent NIST warning to ALL SKYSCRAPER OCCUPANTS[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

My mistake.
This was NOT the second time I posted the question.
It WAS the first.

Now tell me if the interior of the left plate along with the exterior surfaces of the top and right plates are visible in this photo?

No they are not.

Now explain something to me. Why is there slag on the EXTERIOR of the bottom plate, but there is NO slag on the EXTERIOR of the left plate? Please explain.

I don't have an explanation for the lack of slag on the exterior of the left plate.

Yes you do have an explanation. It was cut with a TORCH. Just like everyone says.

The "grooves" match what a torch cut looks like:

The grooves are oriented in the direction that the torch flame cut through the plate. The reason you do not see slag on the outside of the left plate is because the torch created slag on the opposite side of the cut just like we see in the second photo above. That photo above has no slag on the torch side. yet in this photo of the opposite side of that metal block, we see slag:

And here is a photo of a worker actually cutting a column:

Here is one of your "authorities" stating that he thinks thermite DID NOT cut the columns but was used to either weaken them or as a means of detonating conventional explosives:

A number of FG’s straw-man arguments were also identified and dispelled. On May 11, 2009, I wrote to FG: “Nor is your conflation of "thermate" with "nanothermite" valid. Nor did I EVER write or say that thermate alone would suffice to bring down the Towers, but rather wrote that explosives would be needed (in addition).”

During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date.

But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips. Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver, in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel, the sequence beginning near where the planes went in for the Towers and computer-controlled, so that the destruction wave would proceed via explosives in top-down sequence. Thus, this was no conventional (bottom first) controlled demolition, agreeing on this with B. Blanchard, but I never claimed it was! (For the Towers; the demolition of WTC7 appears to be bottom-first and more conventional.) The top-down destruction of the Towers in this model would doubtless require more explosives than would a conventional controlled demolition. Thermate (an incendiary, not an explosive) is not the “be all and end all” explanation (FG’s terminology), nor did I ever claim it was – I have consistently pointed to evidence that explosives were used in bringing down the Towers.

All this evidence and you STILL want to believe that thermite was used to cut the columns.

 

[Gamolon]

How many of those responding regularly to this thread believe there is NO good reason for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?

George,

I believe that there should be an investigation, but not they way you think there should be. I think that there needs to be an investigation into the procedures during that day. People messed up along the lines and are covering their asses. I DON'T think buildings were brought down on purpose or missile were shot into the Pentagon.

People seem to think they find "evidence" of things or see things in photos that prove something without researching further.

I'll give you an example. Terral makes claims about WTC7's column showing thermite residue on some of the columns AND also refers to an angled cut in one of the photos. His annotations are in the white boxes:

Now explain something to me. Terral debunks himself with his own annotations. He claims in one of the annotations that the columns were cut with thermite. Here's the problem. Do you see his other annotations that say certain columns contain "no melting by fire" or "no burns"? How can there be thermite cuts on those columns when he himself sees no "burns" or "melting" on the same damn columns?

See that column circled in red at the top of the photo? Terral claimed that the angled cut was due to thermite as no worker would EVER cut a column at an angle. Bullshit. I worked in construction and that is simply not the case. Anyways, I did a little digging and what did I find? This photo of the same column:

The reason it LOOKED like an angled cut was because there was a piece of debris behind it that created the illusion it was cut AND the beam was at an angle in the debris pile. HE later admitted that he was incorrect about the cut.

Two main pieces of his argument debunked. Now what?

 

[Gamolon]

YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!

Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?

Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?

The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???


Please explain.

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!

Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?

Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?

The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???


Please explain.

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

yeah, and no plane hit that building either

 

[eots]

pieces of a structure collapsing is not the same as the complete collap[se of wtc 1-2and 7 as well the fires and durationwere insignificant in comparison wtc 7 is the only steel framed building in history to suffer such a collapse

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
he structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors

Final World Trade Center 7 Investigation Report On September 11, 2001 Collapse Released

 

[eots]

YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!

Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?

Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?

The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???
rPlease explain.

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

there are many building fires in the video not just the Windsor..which did not collapse btw

 

[georgephillip]

Hold on a second George.

You say the roof-line took 6.5 seconds to collapse, yet freefall happened for only 2.23 seconds of it.

What happened that it didn't free-fall the ENTIRE 6.5 seconds???

Least resistance, right George? So what resisted the other 4+ seconds, if all the beams and connections were cut?

According to David Chandler's calculations the 2.25 seconds of free fall covered a distance of approximately 8 stories.

The destruction of the remaining 39 floors were slowed by 40,000 tons of structural steel and 90,000 tons of concrete not to mention the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles and fire proofing.

Do you think there's any connection between the collapse of the mechanical penthouse and those eight stories of free fall?

Are you saying that the only way to create free-fall is to cut the columns and beams completely and that failing steel columns/beams in a structure, due to loss of strength or thermal expansion caused by heat, cannot cause the same thing?

From Republic Magazine Vol 16 P.23:

"In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free fall could be compatible with its fire induced progressive collapse analysis.

"For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors..."

"Moreover, in what looks like an attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the question of free fall was omitted from the list of changes in its final report."

 

[DiveCon]

According to David Chandler's calculations the 2.25 seconds of free fall covered a distance of approximately 8 stories.

The destruction of the remaining 39 floors were slowed by 40,000 tons of structural steel and 90,000 tons of concrete not to mention the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles and fire proofing.

Do you think there's any connection between the collapse of the mechanical penthouse and those eight stories of free fall?

Are you saying that the only way to create free-fall is to cut the columns and beams completely and that failing steel columns/beams in a structure, due to loss of strength or thermal expansion caused by heat, cannot cause the same thing?

From Republic Magazine Vol 16 P.23:

"In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free fall could be compatible with its fire induced progressive collapse analysis.

"For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors..."

"Moreover, in what looks like an attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the question of free fall was omitted from the list of changes in its final report."

find a credible source

 

[georgephillip]

Refute this content.
If you can.

 

[DiveCon]

Refute this content.
If you can.

what content?

 

[Kat]

Lol

 

[georgephillip]

Refute this content.
If you can.

what content?

"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."

 

[DiveCon]

Refute this content.
If you can.

what content?

"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."

what about it?
how is that relevant?

 

[georgephillip]

what content?

"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."

what about it?
how is that relevant?

David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.

The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

 

[DiveCon]

"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."

what about it?
how is that relevant?

David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.

The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

no, they didnt
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse

why are you going back to already debunked issues again?

 

[elvis]

what about it?
how is that relevant?

David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.

The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

no, they didnt
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse

why are you going back to already debunked issues again?

here's georgephilip's idol, chomsky, on the issue. still waiting for george to listen to him on this issue.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM]YouTube - Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2[/ame]

 

[eots]

Norm Chomsky is a commie new world order shill...

 

[georgephillip]

what about it?
how is that relevant?

David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.

The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."

"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."

no, they didnt
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse

why are you going back to already debunked issues again?

When you use the word "they" are you referring to the 400 structural steel connections that would have had to fail across each of the eight floors for free fall to occur?

Are you disputing David Chandler's observation of free fall for 2.25 seconds?

Do you think the collapse of the mechanical penthouse prior to the straight down descent of WTC7's roof-line occurred without explosives?