The 9/11 File

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

 

Jeff, watched the video, thanks, he proved that 1/2 steel bends, not melts, at 'jet fuel' burning temperature. Ah that only supports the '9/11 conspiracists'. Why the melted steel at the base of the debris and why then the building can collapse at freefall?

 

That is the crux of the matter. Assuming Jeff's bloke is correct and the 47 core columns and outer steel structure degraded to the point where they assumed plasticity (or even vaporised) and the top of the building fell straight down - let's say 10 floors - at free fall speed, impacting directly on the intact structure below, what explanation can be offered as to why the remaining structure also disintegrated and collapsed at free fall speed too?

Was Issac Newton wrong all along?

Jeff - a Globetrotter forward does a straight leg landing after slapping the basket and collapses in a heap and can't stand up. A radiograph shows a high line fracture of the proximal femur - with the remaining lower extremity sustaining multiple fractures like you would expect to find in a severe crush injury. None of the bone fragments are readily identifiable. The report states multiple fractures due to abnormal impact stress. No other pathology.

Would you concur?

 

Each floor is engineered to carry a certain maximum load. When the floors began to collapse and pancake, the load increased exponentially on the lower floors which is why the building collapses at near free fall speed once the collapse began. Here is a good video explaining the causes of the collapse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

 

Jeff, watched it; found it funny the video claims the 'melting' is a 'conspiracists' straw man whereas the 'conspiracists' claim it is a 'official story believers' straw man, just like the rocket into the pentagon.
Sorry, it doesn't attempt to or even mention free-fall; so it definitely doesn't explain anything apart from the walls, at the very least, sagged/bowed.
Doesnt' freefall require, apart from wind resistance, NO resistance, what about all those sagging beams up high near the fire and all the INTACT beams from there down, mark

 

Och Jeff, I don't think for a minute you really believe that, do you?

Resistance? If the model suggested is accurate and each floor pancaked onto the next, it would take over three minutes for the entire building to collapse and even then, the central core supporting columns would remain intact.

However, the impact of the aircraft with tanks full of kerosene would create an enormous fireball - as the impact had the effect of effectively vaporising the fuel. As a result, all of the fuel was burnt up within a few seconds of impact and the resulting fires were from the office material that were ignited from the initial fireball. There are numerous videos showing people standing at the hole created by the airplanes shortly after impact - and for the remaining period until the towers collapsed. If the heat from the jet fuel explosion was maintained as suggested, how was it these people could traverse the floors to the opening - whilst countless others escaped down the stairs within the core columns successfully bypassing the great inferno?

And please also consider WTC7 - which did not sustain an aircraft impact, yet mysteriously fell also at free fall speed from "office fires" which "weakened one core steel column" according to NIST. By your argument, there are a lot of people working and living in skyscrapers that should be terribly worried....

 

I said "why the building collapses at near free fall speed", meaning that was why the structure collapsed so very rapidly. I did not say it was in free fall. It collapsed under the weight of its own super structure. There was an excellent television documentary about the collapse of the twin towers that explained the design problems with the buildings and other factors that contributed to their collapse.

If you have ever seen a tall building being demolished with explosives then you know that you will hear a series of strategically timed blasts that are orchestrated to weaken the structure to promote the controlled collapse. These blasts are always seen and heard and they precede the collapse. So why are there no blast sounds and visible explosions in the collapse of the twin towers? Because there were none.

 

Jeff

You're kidding. Right? May I suggest you go back and watch the video I uploaded in the first post by Gordon Ross - from 3 minutes in - and then come back with your comments?

Best

Mark

 

Jeff-pretty much a waste of your time, (with all due respect). We all have our own ideas about what really happened, but the only comment that is germane is that opinions are like anal orifices...eveyone has one. The difference is, your opinion, as well as mine, is relevant, while foreigners' opinions are the exact opposite.

 

Hey, right on cue, here comes the calvary! OK Matt, try this...

A patient attends your office with an IGTN and during your examination you notice that one of her 38" DDD breasts is quivering uncontrollably. You mention this to her and as she reaches up to touch it, it collapses completely - in an instant.

Does she:

1. Possess magic powers?
2. Confront her surgeon for using inferior implants?
3. Scream that Craig Payne caused it in revenge for her blogs on barefoot running and demands that we nuke Australia in response?
4. Ask that you send her immediately to someone appropriately qualified to discover what actually caused it?

Answers on a postcard...

 

Another paid lecturer? I'm not sure what you think is so compelling about the video? Let me ask you this, if there were explosives planted in the buildings that could cause a collapse, then what was the purpose of flying the planes into the buildings and why did they wait so long to set off the explosives when doing so allowed many people to evacuate prior to the collapse? Faulty detonator batteries? Had to run to the store for new batteries? Were the perpetrators so brilliant that they determined that the only way to bring down the towers was the combination of the jet fuel, structural damage and the explosives? What team of engineers and explosive experts came up with that plan? Acme explosives and the Wile E Coyote Engineering, Inc.? Is this who planned the attacks?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXI1PDTp5gk

Let's not forget that terrorists previously tried to bring down the towers with a truck bomb in 1993. They failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
So they went out and hired better engineers? And how did they get the explosives into the towers given the heightened security after the first terrorist attack in 1993? Maybe all of the Morgan Stanley stock brokers were in on it and carried the explosives into the buildings in their briefcases for months on end. I'm not buying the conspiracy theorists stories (there are many!) for a second.

 

Mark,

I suggest you watch this video of building demolitions using explosives. The common denominator in all them is that you can clearly hear a series of controlled and sequential detonations which are necessary to bring down the structure in a designed fashion. Why is there not video evidence of the collapse of the twin towers that captures the sound of detonations? Because there were none. The lack of audio evidence just can't be ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy1Gknh9Mx8

 

In addition, it is important to note that during controlled demolitions using explosives, extensive work is usually required in advance to weaken the structure such as the removal of structural members including beams, trusses, walls, etc. so that the building can be brought down by the explosives in a predictable fashion. Without such work, it would require more explosives and the structure might not necessarily collapse in the intended fashion. If the goal in the collapse of the WTC was to cause the most damage and inflict the greatest loss of life, why didn't they have the buildings fall sideways so as to collapse on other structures and people?

 

Jeff

With respect, you have wandered off into the speculative realm - the who and why arena. Let's stick to basic engineering and physics - and the indisputable facts. We will no doubt return to your questions at a later stage.

Three buildings; two hit by aircraft with full tanks of kerosene sustained comprehensive structural failure and collapsed at near free fall speeds into their own footprint. Please try and explain to me how all three buildings literally turned to dust from the impact of two aircraft without additional means?

Can you explain the well documented explosions in the lobbies of both building before the aircraft impacted and the substantial explosions below ground just before each collapse? A firefighter described these as sounding and feeling like two subway trains crashing with a shockwave that blew out all the lobby windows. There are multiple examples of reported explosions from eye witnesses - rescue services and civilians alike.

If you can't accept both towers were destroyed by as yet unknown means, what is your explanation for WTC7?

 

Special favor to you, Mark....I won't even require that you remove your bra. Hope it helps.

 

Nice. I suppose it had to be a Guzzi or Laverda with that surname.

 

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires." http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

Look at the video in the link below of the intense fire just as the collapse of WTC 7 begins and as the news crew runs for safey. Once again, intense fire but no sound of any explosion immediately prior to the collapse. In all the videos I showed you of explosive demolitions, a series of controlled explosions occurs in a predetermined sequence immediately prior to the collapse. The explosions don't occur five, ten, fifteen minutes or seven hours prior to the collapse. They occur immediately before and during the collapse. So in this video of WTC 7 collapsing, why no explosions prior to the collapse. Because there were none.

As for the sounds of explosions being heard by firefighters and others after the planes struck, and having been a firefighter for 11 years of my life, I can tell you it is very loud inside and immediately outside a burning structure. Lots of burning objects pop and explode, including the structure itself. So there numerous things that could explain these types of sounds being heard by others, including debris falling many stories in the elevator shafts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

 

Ok - back to basics...



Please tell me you don't subscribe to the Popular Mechanics article on the NIST investigation. How did the three building fall at close to free fall speed, Jeff? Why has no other high-rise building ever collapsed due to office fires before - in the manner that WTC 7 did? Was it a design flaw?

As for eyewitness testimony...



The testimonies starting at 15:33 from workers in the basement are compelling, don't you agree? How does a fireball shoot down 1,000 feet in an elevator shaft and destroy steel doors and concrete walls throughout the basement? What direction do flames generally travel?

Finally, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. If you can find another hour or so, I recommend this presentation by US Engineers and Architects that was released last year. I think you will find it addresses all the points you raise.

 

Given that we have some of the finest contributors who have amply demonstrated great application in lower extremity biomechanics, it is perhaps surprising to some, that there appears an overwhelming reticence to comment on this thread. This short video might explain why that is..

 

Could've been a Ducati...which I've owned two bevel-drives. I love the Laverdas...test drove an RGS1000 when I did my senior rotations at LA County....and it blew me away. But the seat is 34" high and I have a 30" inseam...not good. This Lemans is actually a tiny bike when one strips the body work away. Plus...I can perform all maintenance on it myself...a very good thing. Ducatis and Laverdas...not so much.

 

Mark, I found time to watch the first video. These are crude experiments that don't represent the reality of the collapse. At 6:04 in he drops a weight on the planks in his model to demonstrate that the pancake theory is flawed. His methodology is what is flawed. He uses a solid external structure and drops the weight. Not surprisingly the floors (planks) did not pancake. Why, because he used a rigid exterior structure which was incapable of collapsing in his model. His experiment demonstrates what would happen if the floors collapsed but the exterior shell and structural members remained in tact. That is not what happen on 9-11.

At 11:02 he uses firecrackers to demolish a different model to "prove" the out and down theory of an explosive demolition. You can hear the firecrackers explode in a controlled sequence as the model collapses. I submit that this model proves my point that if the structures were brought down by a series of blasts, the sounds of those blasts would be clearly heard. Having stood at ground zero during the reconstruction process, the echoes from the construction could be heard from many blocks way. So why, during the collapses on 9-11 did we not hear a series of controlled explosions just as we do in all demolitions with explosives, including the one in the model you submitted in an attempt to prove the conspiracy theory?

Because the collapse of the twin towers looked similar to a demolition with explosives, some have assumed it must have been the result of explosives. But there is no audio evidence of a series of controlled detonations. This critical missing piece of evidence just can't be conveniently ignored by the conspiracy theorists. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around, does it make a sound? If a building is demolished by explosives in lower Manhattan and there are thousands of people around, it would make a sound. And that sound would be a series of detonations just like in reality and just like in every model of a demolition with explosives.

I'm off to a podiatry conference this week so I may not have time to watch the other videos but I will try to look at them sometime in the future.

Jeff

 

Jeff

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Actually there appears to be plenty eyewitness accounts of explosions from just before the first impact right up until the second tower collapsed. There are numerous firefighter testimonies that were released about four years ago which also make numerous references to explosions - including significant blasts below ground level in the basement. The USGS also released seismic records of the day which also show spikes consistent with the timing of the explosions given by witnesses. The video I uploaded right after the one above references those explosions whilst the presentation by Dr Judy Wood on the first page of the thread shows the seismograph results. I agree the demonstration referenced in the first video is a bit Heath Robinson. The last video by the Architects and Engineers should answer the points you raise.

Enjoy the conference.

Best

Mark

 

No denying there were explosions but not the type that are used in demolitions. The Twin Towers would have huge transformers below ground. Here is a sample of a transformer/power substation explosion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobg

 

How do you know they were not the type used in demolitions?The 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of explosions and the evidence from NYFD was never heard by the panel. Yet there is a growing body of evidence that clearly shows there were other explosions other than the aircraft impact. As for the transformer - assuming you are correct and these things were located in the basement. Why would they explode?

I don't know what brought the Towers down - I've read numerous theories, from nano-thermate to microwave and even a nuclear device - all with supporting evidence. What I do know is that the buildings did not fall down due to aircraft impact and kerosene fires - not the twin towers and certainly not WTC7. The glaring inconsistencies with the official report and the incidents at the Pentagon and Shanksville are even more evident than the NY tragedy - but I would prefer to concentrate on the latter as a new investigation will focus on the engineering and physics. One day the truth will out.

 

I knew I had read about the substation before. It wasn't located in the basement of either tower, but was adjacent to WTC7 and was unscathed. There are countless reports that power was still running in both towers - above and below the impact floors, right up to the collapse. The substation served the entire complex.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

Jeff the video doesn't even mention 'free fall' or even 'near free fall'; how far from free-fall would you be happy with? time it yourself from one of the videos.

So the design problems would allow the building to 'near free-fall', amazing

Ahh Jeff there were have you not been looking at the videos supplied? and no I've never seen a building collapse, other on videos about 9/11

 

That takes the most moronic post of this thread award matt; why are 'foreigners' opinions any less relevant than yours? What happened led to the invasions of Afghanistan, the death of over 26,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence; and the resultant surge in Middle Eastern terrorism against the 'Coalition of the Willing' participants. The Australian prime minister at the time, John Howard, has a lot of 'blood on his hands. So no Matt my opinion is as relevant as yours.

And they are only opinions, only maths can be proven

I'm sure Jeff appreciates your support

not that my opinion is relevant, beautiful bike, my two eldest and I have always loved Moto Guzzis

 

I remember Fred Dibnah being asked about the collapse of the towers when he was filming an episode of his TV show at the Forth Bridge. A passenger jet was on the north landing circuit for Ediburgh airport when someone asked if the bridge could withstand an impact as clearly the towers couldn't.

"You think an aeroplane caused it? Don't be so bloody daft."

That was in 2003 - just as we were pulverising Iraq in revenge. You couldn't make it up, huh?

 

I think the effect was more profound and wide reaching. One of the problems with inducing a state of cognitive dissonance through repeated manipulation, is that, eventually, the subject goes on to develop other behavioural and cognitive disorders. It would be too simplistic to say they are just in a state of denial - it is far more complex than that, but the principle remains the same. You can see the same difficulties in different fields - such as parental alienation syndrome (PAS) where one parent seeks to influence a child against the other parent - usually following a difficult separation between the adults. Eventually, it is the child that becomes severely impaired - especially if they retain good memories of the target parent.

I had a good idea at the start of this thread that it would be met with the response it has - that's been no surprise. The implications and consequences of an alternative explanation are almost too difficult to comprehend. It is much the same as someone with devout religious beliefs contemplating the prospect that everything they hold true is in fact the opposite.

Far from being the unifying factor some had hoped for - a "new Pearl Harbour" - to quote Wolfowitz - 9/11 will most likely go down as the most divisive and destructive event ever foisted on the human race. So far.

What is interesting is that we now have a growing body of professionals and academia taking a stand against the official position - with engineers, architects, pilots, doctors, physicists and others whose area of expertise offer a particular insight. Given all the wonderful discussions we have had on Pod Arena over the years debating abnormal stress and forces and their impact on known structures and function, one would think this knowledge and logic with the scientific method would assist in reasoned debate. Gotta take the blindfold off first and have an open mind!

As the younger generation may come to tell us in the future - "ignorance is no excuse".

 

The answer is simple, then...you vote the way you see fit in your country, and I'll do the same here in the US. Your opinion is only relevant in those terms, everything else is balderdash.

 

So you don't think we should be allowed to discuss these events because they took place on US soil - and if we do, our conclusions and opinions are irrelevant? Very good.

The floor is all yours, Matt. One question. Do you believe the official report that 18 muslim terrorists flew hijacked aircraft and crashed them in four locations, killing everyone on board (except the 9 hijackers who are still alive and well, of course) and as a result of the impacts, three buildings defied Newton's third law and disintegrated. whilst at two other locations, the aircraft simply vaporised? If your answer is yes, please refute the arguments supplied by this foreigner, my namesake in the outback - and all the scientists, engineers and architects (many of whom are American) in the videos.

Take your time....

 

I'm not sure what internal voting national matters have to do with the Twin Towers atrocity and your 'gagging foreigners' clause seems to fly in the face of reasoned international debate (not balderdash).

I note your given first name 'Mathew' and surname 'Hunt', however, I wonder if your first name is really Isaac?

I will now grant you your desire and desist from further comment in this thread.

kindest regards

(English, not Aussie - although I'd be happy to be considered such if only they could play cricket -) Bill

 

Interesting people you vote for, that's for sure. :empathy:

Just think, Matt; if scientific evidence is accurate and these buildings were destroyed by means other than jet fuel and office fires - if nothing else - then that would negate the official report completely. The implications being that there was forethought and careful planning by some who had authority to carry their plan through to fruition - and that being the case, it would suggest that some in your elected government were at the very least, complicit. If you consider the evidence in its entirety, I would suggest the case for a planned operation against your fellow citizens by a party other than Islamic terrorists, is irrefutable.

Can I ask if you have ever read the 9/11 Commission Report? If you haven't, can I suggest you tear yourself away from this months Massive Mammaries or whatever's on your bedside table and have a read? You might notice that there was only one short section on the events of that terrible day - and this simply read as a narrative of the official line. Even the chairman of the Commission admitted that the investigation had been set to fail. It was only allocated a paltry $3 million initially, eventually increased to $15 million after repeated pleas. The Challenger Disaster investigation cost $300 million and the Lewinsky investigation topped $30 million - and there was no mention of WTC7. C'mon!

I only hope that your fellow Americans will one day wake up to the nonsense they have been fed for the past 15 years and take a stand. The rest of the world is counting on you.

 

Matt

Here's final thought on this most appropriate of days. Whoever is ultimately found responsible for the 9/11 atrocity, their nationalities will be mostly irrelevant. It is the ideology that will define them. They are likely to be living and working across the globe as their form of globalism supersedes the economic principles of mere capitalism. I'm not a historian like Bill, just a mere observer but despite an inherent, if recently acquired sense of scepticism, I find myself not only distrusting but disgusted at the mire we have been led and manipulated into. Everything is about money; money is power; power corrupts and absolute power...

I apologise if I come across as rather harsh, Matt, in respect of your previous court business. I'm sure it was harmless and well-intentioned but I fail to see any circumstance where I would counsel any of my female patients - or male ones for that matter - in self breast examinations. It conjured up an unpleasant image in my mind which I'm sure was misplaced, but we have, sadly, experience over this side of the pond of practitioners who do similar for more nefarious reasons. Usually power, in a non monetary form.

As I say, I'm only an observer, but with a little experience, which is probably one of the reasons where I am today.

Happy Easter.

 

Then by rights then your opinion on any matter outside the USA is irrelevant; by the way there is a 'world' outside of USA, a world the USA has been interfering with / invading ; in the Middle East it started as early as 1948 when USA 'influenced' / coerced several of the UN General Assembly countries to vote for Israeli's statehood; the 1953 CIA inspired coup of the democratically elected Iranian leader, Mossadegh, and helping to install the Shah (with the dreaded Savak); to countless other scenarios; so Matt get real

 

If the resident historian was still in the room he would probably correct you with the confession that is was us Brits who undoubtedly started the ball rolling in 1917 when Arthur James Balfour annexed Palestine to Israel in a letter to Walter Rothschild, which would later be termed the Balfour Declaration.

The British have a far greater pedigree than their colonial offspring in subversive and illegal foreign debacles and there will be many in the establishment who are equally covered in the same ordure as the more feted suspects.

 

Jeff:

it's a short one; but explosive nonetheless

 

Jeff, there were reports of ?explosions? in the basements before the collapse.

The purpose, and this is the big issue, is it appears on face value the ?terrorists? did it and in such a dramatic fashion. I?m sure planes into the building before the collapse is better than just a collapse for shock value, agree?

See above reply

Cannot compare the two; the 1993 used a urea nitrate explosive located in one site, compared to, if it was a demolition, many sites used with demolition explosives.

Security that allowed personnel into the buildings on the two weekends previous to 9/11, and which were reported.

There are many because of the straw-man arguments put there to discredit the ?conspiracy theorists?, and does this mean any evidence presented to you will be automatically ignored?

Ahhh I think whoever responsible got their desired effect, and 3,000 people I think is serious

Ahh, there were reports of ?explosions? before the collapse.
Have you seen the video posted by the English foreigner re seismic wave recordings?

There was, NIST refused to allow them as they fell below the audio levels set by NIST.

This is a valid point. Certainly if this is correct that structure must be removed then the conspiracy theory regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7 being in part / or totally as a result of controlled demolitions invalid. Will now go look there.

 

Have been called many things, but that really is a new low - even by this forum's standards.

 

Apologies mark, should have said, "the other foreigner". I take it you're from the 'Scottish clan Russell' rather than from the Anglo-Norman line