posted 02-03-2004 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

In fact, even if the numbers are right, the conclusion is completely wrong.

---

Oh yeah? Prove it!

quote:

---

As a floor fell, it would hit the floor beneath it and the floor beneath it would begin to fall as well. But the floor supports would give way and the floor would start falling long before there would be sufficient force to pulverize it. 30% of the energy was not required to free each floor from its supports to the central core and outer wall and continue the collapse.

---

Oh yeah? Then what force and power completely disintegrated the floors? And how on earth could something fall before force was applied to it? You make no sense!

quote:

---

That discussion is based on the premise that the speed of the collapse was suspicious which, as I have just explained, it wasn't.

---

Well, you have an opinion that is not founded nor proved. Prove that simple pancaking does not produce shuttering and prove that all of the dust and debris was caused by the final collapse. Prove that the fire loosened all the supports at the same time causing gravity to be the only force.

Simple disagreements don't cut it!

posted 02-03-2004 05:50 PM            

quote:

---

InitiallyIhave great difficulty acceptianything from anyone who even remotely thinks that scalar weapons are physically possible. They are not, the fundamental laws of physics prove that. A PhD in physics should know this.

---

He refuted that claim, Larson, he didn't support it. Go back and read.

Letxa -- your logic is weird. His business is solar voltaic tecnology and how does that tie in?

Accept your lame arguments, boys! They ARE lame!

No proof! Just opinions! Doesn't cut it!

posted 02-03-2004 06:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Letxa, you are witnessing the English language in forming its own new word referenced by the use of "pyroclastic cloud"! It is listed on many, many sites referring to the cloud full of debris, dust, smoke, and gases issuing from the WTC buildings! Yes it was originally used to describe volcanic gaseous, rock and lava imbued clouds, but its common use will soon put it in the dictionary as a second meaning.

---

Heheheh. Right.

Are any of those "sites" that are misusing a geological term NOT conspiracy sites? So far I haven't found any non-conspiracy sites misusing the term and I wouldn't count on it being added as a second definition any time soon.

quote:

---

It is similar to a volcanic pyroclastic cloud in many ways.

---

In what ways? In that it's a cloud?

quote:

---

This is another favorite way that you use, Letxa -- take an unimportant and small word and make a big deal out of it!

---

And it's like you to take the bait. In any case, it's pointing out little errors that I wouldn't expect a serious PhD to make.

quote:

---

Well, you have an opinion that is not founded nor proved. Prove that simple pancaking does not produce shuttering and prove that all of the dust and debris was caused by the final collapse. Prove that the fire loosened all the supports at the same time causing gravity to be the only force.

---

Please read what I say, BoomerChick, because you clearly aren't.

I never said that the fire loosened all the supports at the same time. I said that as the floors above fell down it would NOT take 30% of the energy to break the supports of the next floor and continue the collapse. Breaking the supports for each floor would take relatively little energy and, as such, would not significantly slow down the collapse which explains why the collapse was essentially at "free fall" speed.

It is completely illogical to believe that the floors were completely pulverized at the instant the falling floors hit them. They simply broke from their supports and joined the mass falling down. That is why you see the vast majority of the dust cloud form when it all hit the bottom and pulverized, not expanding out from the towers as they collapsed. Or how much of that dust cloud do you see pouring out of the buildings as they begin to fall at the 80th floor?

quote:

---

Simple disagreements don't cut it!

---

posted 02-03-2004 08:26 PM            

ROFLMBO!

Just saying so does NOT make it so! Big boy!

What college did you say you attended? Did you get a BS? Seems like it! No PhD that's for sure! You couldn't give proof of a David Letterman "Does it Sink or Float" problem!

posted 02-03-2004 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
quote:

...wouldn't demolition have caused the building to fall perfectly into its footprint and not tip over at all?

---

Demolition by authorities would not have been initiated until the last possible second.
They would have allowed fire department and police to rescue as many as possible, as long as possible;
and only resort to explosive demolition when the building had already begun to collapse.

As the evidence clearly shows.

If they had not explosively demolished the first tower, it could have spread flaming debris far over the city.

A possible out of control fire with tens or hundreds of thousands of lives lost/
or/ a controlled demolition to save many lives by bringing the building down into it's own footprint?

I would have thrown the switch for the controlled demolition with a clear conscience, given the top floors falling over.

As did whomever was in charge:
-----Silverstein------
(in context)

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shatoga:
Thanks especially for the link with the illustration showing clearly that the building should have fallen over to the side of greater damage: [URL=http://www.construction. com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp]http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp[/URL]
>One frame from the computer model of the initiation of the collapse of Tower 2 performed by Weidlinger Associates<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that frame is consistent with what we all saw when the tower began to fall.
The top tipped a little but considering the height it did not tip over like a glass of milk.
quote:

---

posted 02-03-2004 09:08 PM            

quote:

---

What college did you say you attended? Did you get a BS? Seems like it! No PhD that's for sure!

---

What difference does it make? You yourself said "Since when does a PhD in one subject reduce one's IQ in his or her ability to think and write about other subjects?? What a narrow perspective!"

So I'm not sure what your point is regarding me having a PhD or not. It doesn't seem to matter to you when it is in regards to someone that promotes a conspiracy theory.

quote:

---

Where's the proof?

---

Already given.

Since you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge the proof I'd like to attempt to determine your position on the facts and comprehension of the article you posted by asking you the following questions. I'd appreciate them being answered on a point by point basis in your own words. No fair skipping or ignoring some points.

Your answers will help me understand where I need to focus on explaining this to you.

1. Is it your position that each floor was completely pulverized into dust (or into a "pyroclastic cloud" ) at the instant the falling building hit each floor?

2. Can you explain the difference between potential and kinetic energy?

3. Do you understand the equation KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2)? Can you please explain it to me to verify that you do understand it.

4. Do you understand the concept of "acceleration due to gravity?" Could you briefly explain it to me.

posted 02-03-2004 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Demolition by authorities would not have been initiated until the last possible second. They would have allowed fire department and police to rescue as many as possible, as long as possible; and only resort to explosive demolition when the building had already begun to collapse.

---

Ok, so you're saying that the airplanes did do sufficient damage to bring down the towers all by themselves? That there was sufficient structural and/or heat damage to cause the towers to collapse? And that the supposed demolition was a well-executed damage-control plan implemented by authorities??

Is that what you're saying?

quote:

---

As the evidence clearly shows. If they had not explosively demolished the first tower, it could have spread flaming debris far over the city.

---

Can you please explain this to me? If the tower had not been supposedly demolished, how could flaming debris have been spread far over the city?

posted 02-03-2004 09:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
And you did that with Jet-A fuel in the WTC?

---

ASME, test burn cited/BTW

The links to that discussion have been posted.
Up to you to prove you visit links and read past topics for a knowledgable footing.
Not up to me to spoon feed you with what you claim to have read already.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
What exactly is your basis for calling three professors statement of facts "opinions?" What is it that should convince me to ignore 3 experts--3 professors--in the field and believe you? You've provided absolutely no proof.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your link supports my observation that: the volume of fuel burning is insignificant. it all burns at the same temperature. Just like the Illini candle explanation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I'll go with the explanation given by the Ph.Ds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I have a hard time believing you are a fire expert if you think that in any given fire every part is burning at the same temperature.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One hundred candles, each burning at the same temperature does not produce a higher temperature than one candle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does provide that temperature over a greater area, thus inflicting more distributed heat damage.

---

Each candle still burns at the same temperature, whether alone or in a group.
My statement stands as a fact provable by experiment.
Anyone can check the temperature of one candle and multiple candles.

Wax does not burn hotter (nor does jet fuel)
just because there is more of it.

many; candles are more likely to burn a building down.
mainly because the odds of wax or flame igniting other materials is magnified by repetition, not temperature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can always find an "expert" willing to put partyline loyalty above integrity and swear to any nonsense.
That does not make their BS believable.
it just exposes them for extremists putting politics above integrity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that virtually all experts agree with the publically accepted version of events...

---

An academic who has no experience in dealing with the real world can make preposterous assumptions.

All experts once insisted the world was flat.
All experts once considered earth the center of the universe.
All experts once knew for a fact the world was only a few thousand years old, and created in six days.

Us Agnostics,
who know what the experts want us to parrot,
yet prefer to observe reality,
deduce theories based on facts and repeatable expriemental results,
rather than dogma;

will probably never be able to accept fairy tales presented as fact by an establishment which seeks only to curry favor with those holding the reins of power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
But if you are asking me to believe that the vast majority of the engineers, professors, and other experts worldwide are agreeing with the publically accepted version of events because of "partyline loyalty" then you are asking me to believe a fairy tale.

---

They all put party loyalty and prejudice above the scientific method,
and abandoned integrity for gaining favor with the Reich.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
But if you are asking me to believe that the vast majority of the engineers, professors, and other experts worldwide

---

Seek confirmation of my statement above?
Read foriegn press, or any source other than the RNC and their Blair lapdogs.

The official explanation for the Reichstag Fire was accepted by academics and bgovernment officials in Germany, Vichy France. Italy, et al.

All had a political predisposition to believe that a few foriegn terrorists had invaded Germany.
As many seem believe despite overwheling evidence tot he contrary, in the bush conspiracy theory, that a few foriegn terrorists had invaded America.

Want a link to the Flat Earth society? http://www.rnc.org

posted 02-03-2004 09:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
The vast majority of people in the world, regardless of profession believe the bush complicity theory is far more credible than the bush conspiracy (by a few arabs) theory. Seek confirmation of my statement above?
Read foriegn press, or any source other than the RNC and their Blair lapdogs.

---

I live in Mexico and read multiple foreign news sources in two different languages. I have seen nothing that supports what you say about the rest of the world beleiving Bush being complicit in 9/11.

quote:

---

Me: And you did that with Jet-A fuel in the WTC? What exactly is your basis for calling three professors statement of facts "opinions?" What is it that should convince me to ignore 3 experts--3 professors--in the field and believe you? You've provided absolutely no proof.

---

posted 02-03-2004 10:18 PM            

Read:
CIA Diary
Inside the Company
by Philip Agee
Penguin Books, 1975

to find his list of CIA employees and agents in the back.

You will find many who have become leaders in the government of Mexico listed.

Mexico's "news'

is guided by project Mockingbird.

as surely as Mexico's government is controlled by their cia employers.

A source of cheap labor for the US, is all Mexico represents to the right wing.

Read the book.
Copies are obtainable used quite cheaply.

BTW, best mexican food is found in Sonora.

Best fishing is off Piedras Puntas.

Most secluded getaway is Escollos Alijos.

posted 02-03-2004 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
You are sadly mistaken that Mexico is not merely a subsidiary of the USA.

---

Regardless of whether or not what you say is true, it's totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. I said I read multiple foreign news sources in two different languages, and that's not just limited to Mexico. I still haven't seen anything about the world believing what you suggest to be true. Please provide some links (multiple, since it's apparently a widespread belief) to some foreign media (not foreign conspiracy sites) that support your assertion that most of the world believes in Bush complicity.

quote:

---

You believe a PHD makes one's words holy writ?

---

No, but I'll take the conclusion of three independent doctors over your unsubstantiated conclusions. Especially when you haven't provided any evidence--although you want me to do more busy work digging up what you (or someone else) might have said in some other thread. I've been reading this stuff all day today, I would have been happy to read something else. But you've provided no links.

If you are unwilling to provide links in the current thread, why do you even participate? It's just annoying to have you participating and when pressed for evidence you just say "Go read other threads." Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

quote:

---

A fire chief on a fire site,with his expert eyewitness evaluation outranks thousands of academics sitting safely in their ivory towers.

---

I assume you read Wolf's very rational explanation of why his "eyewitness evaluation" may not be the whole story.

quote:

---

Each candle still burns at the same temperature, whether alone or in a group. My statement stands as a fact provable by experiment. Anyone can check the temperature of one candle and multiple candles.

---

I assume you've read Wolf's multiple explanations of the difference between temperature and heat and which is relevant to the WTC discussion.

quote:

---

Virtually all rightwingers agree with the Bush administration whether they hold a degree or not.

---

And where are all the leftwing civil engineers and fire experts? The sound of their silence is deafening.

posted 02-03-2004 11:03 PM               

The result is noise, noise, noise.

And misdirected energy.

A tiny chink in the armour is opening in Europe at the moment, but we are still consuming energy debating with these creeps here.

posted 02-04-2004 12:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by halva:
The result is noise, noise, noise.

And misdirected energy.

A tiny chink in the armour is opening in Europe at the moment,

---

Misdirected energy - quite true!

What chink? What's going on in Europe - can you divulge the info?

posted 02-04-2004 04:10 PM            

The various theories of possible demolition are as follows:

1. The demolition material was placed into the building as it was built.

2. The demolition material was placed in the building soon after the first attempt and small bombing.

3. The demolition material was placed in the building within the year before 9/11.

Exactly WHEN has not been proven. However, the testimony of the worker involved in producing materials for just that purpose has been a possible evidentiaray contribution to the while-building theory. But this has yet to be corroborated by more evidence such as blueprints, and manufacturer documents. It is only a theory at this point.

The article I posted, written by a PhD in physics was an argument supporting the theory that the building was helped to fall after the air vehicle penetrations with demolition type explosives. It proved that demolition COULD HAVE BEEN used.

The SPINE group of scientists are the liberal scientists that Letxa fails to recognize in his post to shatoga. And there are more scientists around the world who are motivated to study alternative explanations for the uniform and demolition-like collpase from a perspective of freedom of inquiry and research that refuses to believe the government's explanation.
___________________________________

When considering the possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives there is an interesting variation which is worth considering: What if the Twin Towers were designed — or re-engineered — so that they could be destroyed in a controlled demolition if circumstances required?

What circumstances might lead to an order to demolish the Twin Towers? A situation in which it was believed that they were in danger of collapsing in an uncontrolled manner and falling onto the buildings surrounding them in Manhattan's financial district. In such a case, it might be held, better to demolish one or both of the towers in a controlled manner so as to minimize death and destruction in the surrounding area.

A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City after its demolition and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.

So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on September 11th.

It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.

According to this theory, then, the plane (and possibily missile) attacks on the WTC triggered this fail-safe mechanism, and one or more engineers were obliged (in consultation with the owners of the WTC — or perhaps the owners acted alone) to decide whether the damage to one or both of the towers was sufficient that there was a significant danger that they would collapse in an uncontrolled manner upon the surrounding areas, and that it was thus necessary to push the button which would detonate the charges and bring the towers down, which they did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Testifying before a congressional inquiry] Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers — crucial for evaluating the wreckage — until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency [that is, against FEMA]. — New York Daily News, 2002-03-07
Was this because a close examination of the blueprints might reveal clues that the Twin Towers had been engineered to make possible a controlled demolition? And that FEMA was aware of this?

Since it was this very same FEMA which took charge of the "investigation" into the WTC collapse (and which later released a nonsensical report repeating the official explanation) one might be forgiven for suspecting that their "investigation" has been something less than an unbiased attempt to discover the truth of what happened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assume now, for the sake of argument, that a "fail-safe" mechanism as described above was actually engineered into the Twin Towers (probably in the mid-1990s). The explanation given above, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, still leaves open one important question: Did those who demolished the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11th plan in advance to do so? Did they have prior knowledge of the plan to strike the towers and was the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (and the deaths of thousands of people in the buildings) already planned by the perpetrators of the attacks and those who assisted them?

Given the existence of the fail-safe mechanism, a small number of people would have known about it, including officials at FEMA and possibly including the most senior members of the Manhattan business community (especially if such a mechanism was there to persuade them to remain in Manhattan). Even though this mechanism was presumably built in to the Twin Towers hoping it would never be used, some people would know that it was there and that it could be used — provided one had the authority to initiate the demolition procedure and a putatively sufficient reason to exercise that authority.

Who had such authority? Presumably the owners of the World Trade Center (though perhaps they could not have pushed the button without first obtaining permission from FEMA).

Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents — payable to new beneficiaries. — The Blockbuster

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and [Larry] Silverstein the office portion.
The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July — just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.

Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect. — The Blockbuster

The "arguably sufficient reason" was provided by the impacts and the subsequent structural damage and fire. According to this scenario, then, the purpose of the impacts was not themselves to destroy the Twin Towers but rather to provide the "justification" for detonating the explosives which brought them down in a controlled demolition.

It is interesting, in considering this idea, to look at the actual times that the Twin Towers stood after the impacts. As noted in Section 2, the North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m., in a direct hit and most of the plane's fuel entered the building, causing a huge fire. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most burning up outside. In both cases the fires within the buildings died down after awhile, giving off only black, sooty smoke. If the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, and the intention was to blame the collapse on the fires (as the official story has it) then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower. And in fact the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. These times are consistent with the hypothesis that the progress of the fires was being monitored by whoever was handling the demolition, and that they collapsed the towers at the last possible time, just as the fires were dying down.

quote:

---

We arrived on, uh, late Monday night [September 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning [September 11th]; and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site. — Tom Kenny (FEMA), speaking to CBS anchor Dan Rather on September 12th.

---

Millions of people around the world watched the WTC events unfold live on CNN on September 11th, 2001, in near-disbelief. They saw huge clouds of smoke billowing over Manhattan and saw the towers collapse ... in a curious way. They did not fall over; they imploded, in the way that most people have seen when a building is destroyed in a controlled demolition: the building does not collapse in a chaotic way, hurling debris over a wide area; rather it collapses upon itself. This was how the WTC towers collapsed.

That the towers were demolished in a controlled manner was noted immediately by some astute observers:

From: "David Rostcheck"
To: USAttacked@topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing
Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. ...

If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:

- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:

- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ...

- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.

- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.

- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. ...

- The fire in the second building goes out.

- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.

In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition — because that's what it is.

- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.

There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage — those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ...

— davidr (Full text of this message is here.)

This message was posted to the internet on September 11th, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initially the explosives theory suffered from the problem that the mainstream media did not report that anyone heard explosions just prior to the WTC collapse. But in the last year reports have surfaced, and there is now even video evidence available to anyone which shows that explosions actually did occur within the Twin Towers prior to their collapse.

Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.
... One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell ... at that time we all thought it was a fire ... We got down as far as the 74th floor ... then there was another explosion." — Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse

A Danish website offers a 4-hour video containing visual evidence of what happened on September 11th which has been suppressed or ignored by the mainstream media:

Video Clips of the falling Towers were often edited in a manner that prevented the TV viewers in getting the "Full picture" of the entire tower collapse. ... During my 1000 hours of video investigation I have found only very few of such "Full picture long distance shots" which showed the entire tower (from top to bottom). Most of the video-clips we saw on Sept. 11 (and in the weeks that followed) would be edited versions ... [which] did not give any evidence of the numerous "clouds" from EXPLODING Bombs "popping out of the windows" of the WTC facade far below the crash level of the collapsing tower. ... Someone in the "editing rooms" did not want to give us the "Full Picture"!
But some crucial BOMB video evidence did in fact get out! In my video I will show you 5 significant "DUST CLOUDS" from Demolition Bombs exploding INSIDE the WTC Towers. These "Bomb Clouds" were located circa 20 and 40 levels BELOW the "Crash level" of the falling Towers. ... [T]hey give full evidence of a Distinct Demolition Bomb being exploded FAR BELOW the "Crash-Point-level". — Bombs Inside the World Trade Center

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clear video evidence for the occurrence of explosions occurring during the collapse of the North Tower is given at Visual Evidence of Controlled Demolition.

First look at this video (a wmv file, playable in Windows Media Player) of a controlled demolition, and observe clouds of debris ejected horizontally by explosions placed at several levels in the building to be demolished. Now look at this video of the North Tower collapsing. Two of these can be seen clearly before the collapse descends beneath the viewframe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it was not only the Twin Towers which were demolished deliberately but also the building known as WTC Seven.

Not detailed in the monopoly press, some fire-fighters who survived Black Tuesday, contend there were explosions in the buildings, in a portion of the twin World Trade Center towers, separate and apart from the impact of the planes hitting the buildings. ... Were within-the-buildings explosives remotely triggered off to collapse the towers like done with old buildings? And there are good reasons to believe that within-the-building explosives caused the mysterious collapse, late on the evening of Black Tuesday, of World Trade Center Building 7. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Twin Towers collapsed in a very strange manner, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is very strange. Look at all that dust (click on the image for an enlargement and for two further pictures of the clouds of dust). It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The seismograph which recorded this data was operated by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data. They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:

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. — Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News

Christopher Bollyn:
Seismic Evidence Points
to Underground Explosions
Causing WTC Collapse
So if most of the energy of the falling debris was dissipated and was not the cause of the major spikes in the seismic record then what was? Perhaps massive explosions in the lowest (level -7) basements of the Twin Towers, besides the supporting steel columns where they met the Manhattan bedrock? Perhaps even small nuclear explosions? Not Hiroshima-style 15-kiloton blasts but perhaps the sort produced by mini-nukes developed in recent years by the Pentagon? (The term Ground-zero was coined in 1945 at Alamogordo NM to identify the epicenter where the first atomic bomb was detonated.)
This, together with numerous demolition charges detonated at every ten levels or so next to the supporting steel columns, would explain one observation which the official story does not explain: Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true, that the damage was caused by the impacts and fires, which occurred only in the upper floors, and that the floors then pancaked, one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors, to have remained standing, which they did not. But this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of the bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds.

Further evidence for explosives is provided by video evidence of the way in which the South Tower collapsed: The top thirty or so floors keeled over at the beginning of the collapse. If the floors had pancaked in the way that the official story has it then these top floors should have fallen straight down. But if explosives somewhere in the region of the impact level had blasted the steel supporting columns in the core then it is understandable that the top floors tilted over (probably in the direction of the damaged corner where the plane hit).

The explosive devices could have been encased in heat-resistant material so that any of them which were exposed to fire would not detonate. If timing was critical then they could be detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right time. Even if the fires disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires. No wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode. Even a timing sequence may not have been needed — simultaneous detonation of each device in the above-ground levels may have been sufficient to produce the intended result.

The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in about fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a week after the collapse of the Twin Towers there were areas beneath the surface which remained intensely hot.

AVIRIS data collected on September 16, 2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). — U. S. Geological Survey Report

What was the source of this heat? Could it have been residual heat from underground nuclear explosions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Twin Towers were not the only buildings in the WTC complex about which questions can be asked. There were other WTC building "collapses".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A way to prove that the supporting steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives would be to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning". But the WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic examination of the debris was permitted by the FBI or any other government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the ships, thereby removing the evidence. See Debris Mountain Starts to Shrink, an article which shows that Controlled Demolition Inc. (a world leader in the demolition of tall buildings) was apparently keen to have the debris removed and disposed of as soon as possible and was able to come up with a detailed plan for doing so within eleven days of the collapse of the Twin Towers, suggesting that this company had detailed knowledge of the Twin Towers and the entire WTC complex prior to September 11th.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of reports in 2001-2002 that the Twin Towers were demolished by the use of explosives there have been more detailed scientific studies appearing on the web in 2003. See, among others:

Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might be objected that the WTC employed hundreds of security guards and had hundreds of surveillance cameras (supposedly) operating. With this kind of security it might be possible to plant a few bombs but planting many (and especially bombs powerful enough to destroy the foundations of the supporting steel columns) would seem infeasible. However, the ownership of the World Trade Center changed hands eleven weeks before the attack. The new owner was Larry Silverstein. The destruction of the WTC and George W. Bush's declaration of a "War on Terrorism" has proven to be (and could have been foreseen to be) of major benefit to Israel in its brutal repression of the Palestinian people, its efforts to destroy the Palestinian Authority, which it labels as "terrorist-controlled", and its attempts to dominate all its Arab neighbors. The new owners of the WTC might well have been persuaded to cooperate in a scheme of such obvious benefit to Israel. But if eleven weeks is considered insufficient time to plant explosives then how about several years? This possibility will be considered in the next section.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm

There are active links on both pages I posted above. To see the footage from the Danish source you'd have to go to the page for active links.

I'm offering these pages as an overview with some logical thinking. It's not a scientific overview like Grimmer's by any means, but may fill up some holes in the scenario.

Letxa -- The burden of arguing with Grimmer was yours, not mine. You didn't argue nor did you do anything but say "this is wrong." Don't shove your burden onto me, buddy! I'm no engineer! I brought the PhD stuff up because you didn't refute anything the man said with any adequate academic argument at all! Period! Grimmer still holds validity over you any day! Disprove his theories and disprove his conclusions for the possibility of demolition and I'll give you some credit, but so far, you've produced nothing. Don't then throw it back on me! You're projecting precisely onto me the burden that YOU are holding! The burden of argument and proof! Talk about irresponsible! Sheesh!

posted 02-04-2004 04:27 PM            

The questions were:

1. Is it your position that each floor was completely pulverized into dust (or into a "pyroclastic cloud" ) at the instant the falling building hit each floor?

2. Can you explain the difference between potential and kinetic energy?

3. Do you understand the equation KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2)? Can you please explain it to me to verify that you do understand it.

posted 02-04-2004 09:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
I gave you my answer (above) to your inquiries.

---

No, you just demonstrated your ability to copy/paste. But I'm not looking for a copy/paste, I'm looking for answers from you.

So let's try again. Could you please answer the following questions in your own words? Feel free to consult whatever sources you like to answer them, but please answer them in your own words. Copy/pasting someone elses text isn't answering the question and doesn't demonstrate understanding any more than turning in someone elses book report proves that you read the book.

The questions, again, were:

1. Is it your position that each floor was completely pulverized into dust (or into a "pyroclastic cloud" ) at the instant the falling building hit each floor?

2. Can you explain the difference between potential and kinetic energy?

3. Do you understand the equation KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2)? Can you please explain it to me to verify that you do understand it.

posted 02-04-2004 10:48 PM            

Thanks, KNOW THIS! The onus to refute Grimmer's article is on you, Letxa, not my rephrasing or proving to YOU I know the math involved. You were the one saying it was wrong and your simplistic disagreement was not enough to prove him wrong. I have a firm grasp on all your questions but the math one, and I've read responses to Grimmer's article on other boards and no one has been able to disagree with his math, so if you disagree with it-- you must then prove it wrong academically. Just saying "it's wrong" doesn't cut it. Get it? You're barking up the wrong tree here!

Wasting your time once again, proving your inability to focus!

posted 02-04-2004 11:13 PM            

quote:

---

Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

---

Reread! The 30% energy absorbtion was refuted by Grimmer, not supported.

The fall was so short that it didn't allow for any friction, no accounting for cloud and debris interference, and therefore according to this engineer's figures, fell in a free fall manner more similar to demolition than simply collapsing under simple gravity. I too agree with him that the lower floors had to be dismantled before above force was applied in order for the fall to be so fast. The implosion aspects should be considered as well in this scenario of collapse as compared to buildings that fall due to fire or earthquakes, which has been done on many sites showing uneven and outward collapses and never footprint perfect ones. Concrete does not turn into dust completely in a simple collapsing scenario and the amount of rubble left behind in a simple collapse would have been much higher than what was left of this huge building. I cannot verify the math with my own knowledge of math. I trust that a PhD engineer would not publish something that would invite those with math knowledge to refute his numbers. The rest of the scientific team involved in SPINE also reviewed his article before publication and I trust they would have caught any mistakes. You however disagree with something here and YOU, not me, are responsible for refuting his numbers, his physics or anything else you claim is "wrong." But you haven't as yet. Now you're trying to put some kind of refutation onto me, when I have no disagreement with him.

I'm beginning to think you are a distracting element here. This means, you are distracting from your own responsiblity and placing it somewhere else where it doesn't belong. This could be construed by board members here as simple distraction techniques and not true, sincere argument. I'm wondering about you at this point.

If you post your questions to me again, I will report you!

bc

posted 02-05-2004 12:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
If you post your questions to me again, I will report you!

---

Oh boy! Those questions were not even directed at me, and I found it annoying to have to view them repeatedly. I believe BC could have easily scanned back to the questions on her own. That display was highly inappropriate and quite pushy! Sheesh!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is similar to a volcanic pyroclastic cloud in many ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letxa: In what ways? In that it's a cloud?

---

I realize this question goes back in thought a bit, but I wanted to clear up this definition. Letxa is correct that a pyroclastic cloud typically refers to a cloud produced by an erupting volcano. It is a high-speed cloud and is full of gas, rock, and small dust particles. But (and there is a BIG but here) in a case such as this, a pyroclastic cloud would simply mean a high-speed cloud full of debris and dust particles.

posted 02-05-2004 01:16 AM            

quote:

---

If you post your questions to me again, I will report you!

---

Calm down. I was simply trying to determine if we have any common ground before proceeding. This whole thing is time-consuming enough without spending time on matters that we may already agree on. If you'd answer my questions we will be able to spend time on those points we have differences on. If you'd rather decline to answer the questions, fine, I'll go on without you.

I'm preparing what I consider to be a very thorough and well-researched response to this whole thread. I hope to post it tomorrow (Thursday).

posted 02-05-2004 05:02 AM            

Boomer adressed me with a bunch of cut and paste i have already read, it didnt answer my question the first time, im thinking it didnt answer the question the last time either.

once again its back to grade school discussions around here.

The conspiracys makers say its the debunkers that have to prove something and the people that live mostly in reality are telling the conspiracy makers to prove to them that their absurd theory can hold water after being shot down like flight 93.

What gives, boomer chick not to single you out shug but i have to say warning lexta about 4 simple questions doesnt speak much for your part!