IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Explosion Occurs Just Priot South Tower Collpases New Video

Paul
post Oct 27 2010, 09:34 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hi there folks i found this new video which has just been recently released it is from the massive NIST culumunus database
the video is titled Jim Huibregtse clip_15B NIST South Tower and is from the Jim Huibregtse Folder in the database and the link
to the posted video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLsM6BS2r0...layer_embedded#! in this video just shortly
into the start of it there is quiet a big explosion just as he pans the camera over to the south tower what I find most compelling about
this piece of footage is that the explosion occurs just before the tower begins to lean and fall down onto itself as with most tradional CD's
the explosions always occur just before the buildings begin to collapse with a split second delay as it the same with this video when you
take into account the distance the sound has to travel to reach the camera man you can tell that this explosion has occured about maybe
a second or 3/4 of a second before the tower begins to tilt and collapse down onto the lower section i am not sure about how far exactly he
is away from the south tower when the explosion occurs i would say maybe around 800ft or metres not sure which one but it would like to
be able to get the eact distance he is away from the south tower when the explosion occurs then figure out how long it would take sound to travel the distance to get the exact time the exploson occurs before the towers begins to collapse.

Another thing my brother told me when i showed him this video and asked for his opinion is that he said that the sound cannot be due to floor
collapsing elevators crashing to the ground a beam or large chunk of debris itself is because the sound of the explosions is louder than the collpase
itself so if this sound where caused by some part of the internal structure giving way the sound would not be any louder than the collpase itself simple.

Also what makes the video appear to me more compelling evidence of a deliberate implosion is the small flash that occurs on the corner of the building as it begins to fall there is also a lot of eyewitness accounts of on some of the news clips from the database about an explosion prior
to both towers collapsing i have found a few and i cant upload them to youtube atm because i went over my download quota and the coonection is to
slow.

Also in this new clip from the database they talk about a basement ground level explosion just prior to the south tower collapsing
it more like they speculate about it, and i strongly believe that the female news reporter is mistaken in believing that this explosion
occured in the basement it could have just as easily occured at the top of the tower and someone got it confused and it can be really hard
sometimes with these news clips taken from 911 to confirm or prove anything.


CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIvm0GDbCQ...player_embedded

So what do you guys think about this new video is it strong evidence of a controlled implosion of the south tower or not?
And if not how do you explain the the explosion what do you think has caused it what is it's most likely source?

It would be great to get a real engineers opinion on this one, because it always needed when video's like this pop up rather
than listening to the opinion of people who have not much of an idea like me for example or youtube posters who really are not
qualified to speak on these issues and give final judgement, and expert informed opinion is always needed.

I look forwarding hearing your feedback as always have a good day and take care.

Cheers Paul
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 28 2010, 06:31 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



This is very simple, this is how it goes, "Explosion + Delay + Collapse = Controlled Demolition"

Question how do you account for the sound of the explosion when the building has not even begun to collapse?
Magic i guess right guys? Let me guess little magic fairies made the explosion happen just prior to collapse or maybe it was magical
exploding fairly dust from the fairies little wands.

whistle.gif whistle.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Oct 28 2010, 06:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2010, 06:58 AM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



This is interesting audio information but I can't tell whether it is an explosion or not. Also consider the time delay of the sound as related to the distance of the mic from the towers. There is definitely a loud sound which is heard before motion is detected. My sense is something happened, was it a huge collision of the floors inside the facade when a series of columns failed and 30 floors were set loose and the collapse was initiated? I would think a single explosion which would set of the collapse of the top would make a massive booming percussive sound. Think of blasting of rock for road construction or mining. Time delay needs to be considered - sound travels much slower than light.

I don't have any personal experience with explosions except one which was many years ago... 30 or more at the Federal building in lower Manhattan, actually not far from the WTC site. I was having dinner in a nearby restaurant and a bomb was set off and I believe attributed to Puerto Rican or Cuban terrorists. I can't recall. But it was an huge BOOM and it certainly didn't bring the federal building down. It blew out windows and so forth.

In the CDs I have watched on video the explosions used are more like "pops" than huge "booms". The are set at multiple column locations. The sound in this video is a single event ... it could be multiple explosions going off at once, but it could be the sound... perhaps... of the top crashing down as a result of smaller explosions or cutter charges etc. What would it sound like if 30 stories dropped down on the 78 floors below? I don't know.

Once the collapse got going I don't hear explosive sounds, but the thunder of an "avalanche" roaring. But even that I have no experience with.

Bottom line... this audio is inconclusive to my inexperienced ears.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 28 2010, 08:13 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 28 2010, 08:28 PM) *
This is interesting audio information but I can't tell whether it is an explosion or not. Also consider the time delay of the sound as related to the distance of the mic from the towers. There is definitely a loud sound which is heard before motion is detected. My sense is something happened, was it a huge collision of the floors inside the facade when a series of columns failed and 30 floors were set loose and the collapse was initiated? I would think a single explosion which would set of the collapse of the top would make a massive booming percussive sound. Think of blasting of rock for road construction or mining. Time delay needs to be considered - sound travels much slower than light.

I don't have any personal experience with explosions except one which was many years ago... 30 or more at the Federal building in lower Manhattan, actually not far from the WTC site. I was having dinner in a nearby restaurant and a bomb was set off and I believe attributed to Puerto Rican or Cuban terrorists. I can't recall. But it was an huge BOOM and it certainly didn't bring the federal building down. It blew out windows and so forth.

In the CDs I have watched on video the explosions used are more like "pops" than huge "booms". The are set at multiple column locations. The sound in this video is a single event ... it could be multiple explosions going off at once, but it could be the sound... perhaps... of the top crashing down as a result of smaller explosions or cutter charges etc. What would it sound like if 30 stories dropped down on the 78 floors below? I don't know.

Once the collapse got going I don't hear explosive sounds, but the thunder of an "avalanche" roaring. But even that I have no experience with.

Bottom line... this audio is inconclusive to my inexperienced ears.


Why do you need explosives lower down the building as i understand it all you need to do set explosives so the top section drops
down onto the lower section and will crush the building all the way down to the ground, there is nothing that could stop the collapse
once it gets going.

And how do you explain the flash that seems to occur almost in perfect timing with collapse? What could explain that small explosive
like flash?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2010, 10:59 AM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't support the idea advanced by some researchers that there were blasts in the basement which were part of the plan to collapse the towers.

What we observe is the tops "break" loose - how we don't know, but it certainly could be explosives and incendiaries and then apparently collapse into / onto the lower section which then progressively and very rapidly collapse in a thunderous roar.

I don't know what the flashes could be at the onset of the collapse of the tops. Perhaps - a guess - they were flames blasted out when something up above cam crashing down at the beginning of the initiation of the upper parts coming down. Or they could be from explosives associated with that initiation. I can't tell as I have no experience in such matters.

We can see flames exploded out at the "impact zone" as the top of the towers begin their collapse down. This is seen in WTC 1 very clearly. It makes sense for fire to be pushed out... along with dust and debris.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 28 2010, 05:57 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 29 2010, 12:29 AM) *
I don't support the idea advanced by some researchers that there were blasts in the basement which were part of the plan to collapse the towers.

What we observe is the tops "break" loose - how we don't know, but it certainly could be explosives and incendiaries and then apparently collapse into / onto the lower section which then progressively and very rapidly collapse in a thunderous roar.

I don't know what the flashes could be at the onset of the collapse of the tops. Perhaps - a guess - they were flames blasted out when something up above cam crashing down at the beginning of the initiation of the upper parts coming down. Or they could be from explosives associated with that initiation. I can't tell as I have no experience in such matters.

We can see flames exploded out at the "impact zone" as the top of the towers begin their collapse down. This is seen in WTC 1 very clearly. It makes sense for fire to be pushed out... along with dust and debris.


But how does blasts in the basement help a CD that starts from the top and goes down i dont get your reasoning i thought you would only use explosives in the basement of the towers
if you wanted the demolition to start from the bottom up which would defintly be a bad idea considering you want your CD to mimic a natural collapse which is why the choose to use the
weight of the top section tocrush the lower section so it wouldnt look like an obvious CD, anyhow as far sa breaking column connections causing that bang just before collpase idk i will
ask my brother he is a fully qualified diesel mechanic who works for a busline he is no structural engineer but has a good mind for things related to engineering much better than mine anyhow
and another thing if snapping column connections under stress could cause such a big explosion type sound wouldnt every connection that broke in the massive 47 steel columns make a loud explosion type sound as the building collpased to the ground under it's own weight with the bolted core connections to on another twist buckling snapping and breaking apart as the core failed caused a bang every time
a connection gave way?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2010, 06:36 PM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I don't think the sound is snapping columns. I think it may be the sound of the floors colliding. Assume for a moment that you could silently remove the entire set of 36' tall 3 story columns at the 93rd floor in an instant... the entire top from 96 to 110 weighing something like 80,000 tons would com crashing down on floor 92. What would that sound like?

The collapse was not gradual and the initiation of it was not... as AE911T says there was a "sudden onset" of the collapse. Was this an explosion or the crashing of the top into the bottom?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 28 2010, 09:33 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 29 2010, 09:06 AM) *
I don't think the sound is snapping columns. I think it may be the sound of the floors colliding. Assume for a moment that you could silently remove the entire set of 36' tall 3 story columns at the 93rd floor in an instant... the entire top from 96 to 110 weighing something like 80,000 tons would com crashing down on floor 92. What would that sound like?

The collapse was not gradual and the initiation of it was not... as AE911T says there was a "sudden onset" of the collapse. Was this an explosion or the crashing of the top into the bottom?


Are you serious if one floor colliding with another could make this sound imagine how the whole collapse itself would sound with 110 floors crash then being turned into a fine powdery dust,
if this where true all you would heard it all the way down as the building collapased you would just hear bang bang bang, boom boom boom, of each of the floors colliding with one another, i think this theory
is bunk, do you agree? I think we are left with only one possible conclusion left and i wonder what the could beeee nowww.

If i where a duh bunker i wonder how i would debunk this i think i would be pretty hard pressed to find a valid reason to explain away the sound. I hate de bunks, i hate them all, hate them hate them hate them arrrgghhhhhhhhhhh and all of the duh bunkers to especiallly the annoying the govt loyalist site ones why cant they all just dissapear.

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Oct 28 2010, 09:53 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

SanderO is not saying that no explosives were involved. He thinks that some were, and otherwise agrees that the collapse was the product of more than just the OCT version that "hot jet fuel fires" caused the collapse. The issue he raises is just the relative degree to which explosives were involved versus the natural force of gravity. Remember that even one percent of explosive involvement destroys the OCT.

SanderO does not try to quantify those relative degrees. I still think that the collapse was more than half driven by explosives, while he says or suggests less than half. I think he says less than half. But that does not mean that his theory of less than half is demonstrably wrong, so what he thinks deserves its place at the table as one man's viable explanation of what actually occurred..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Oct 28 2010, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



In a nut shell I would say that the initiation of the collapse was likely engineered but the collapse itself (after the tops essentially were broken apart) was the result of gravity and with little additional engineered intervention except perhaps at the mech floors just below the strike zone.

Whatever caused 7 to collapse - it was a gravity driven collapse (after initiation) and we saw it descend much like a conventional CD.

The twins were different. The tops were destroyed much like a traditional CD... or so it appeared. But then the destroyed tops provided the mass on the lower section's FLOORS, not the columns, and then floors collapsed from the top down driven by the same gravity that took 7 down and the tops of the twins.

People who engineer demolitions RELY on gravity to do 95% of the work. Why would they do it differently at the WTC assuming it was done by professional demo experts? They wouldn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Oct 28 2010, 10:27 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi SanderO!

So I smoked you out my friend! 95 percent gravity, 5% explosives? I agree that might be the case in a standard CD, where (1) they are concerned about safety and property damage so minimize the explosive involvement and (2) want it to go right the first time, but can avail themselves of a "do-over" if they had too little explosives the first try. But neither were the case at the WTC's. They didn't care about killing people and indeed wanted to kill a lot, and had no chance at a "do over" because the plane strikes were a one time preplanned and co-incidental opportunity. Thus I think they were driven to load the equation in favor of explosives. or at least weigh explosives much more heavily than in the case of a legitimate CD..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 29 2010, 04:21 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Oct 29 2010, 12:57 PM) *
Hi SanderO!

So I smoked you out my friend! 95 percent gravity, 5% explosives? I agree that might be the case in a standard CD, where (1) they are concerned about safety and property damage so minimize the explosive involvement and (2) want it to go right the first time, but can avail themselves of a "do-over" if they had too little explosives the first try. But neither were the case at the WTC's. They didn't care about killing people and indeed wanted to kill a lot, and had no chance at a "do over" because the plane strikes were a one time preplanned and co-incidental opportunity. Thus I think they were driven to load the equation in favor of explosives. or at least weigh explosives much more heavily than in the case of a legitimate CD..


Even though i am no expert on any engineering subjects the only field i am knowledgeable in is IT which doesnt have anything to do with 9/11
which doesnt make my opinion a very valid one when it comes to these topics but i still say this newly released video shows concrete evidence
of a deliberate implosion of wtc 1 now where is an expert opinion when you need one, it seems that whenever you need an expert qualified opinion
that the experts are always somewhere else doing something else, who could we ask that would give us their expert opinion after looking at this video as to whether there is any evidence of a controlled implosion in this video, who can we ask i dunno about richard gage could we ask him?

Isnt there any good building engineers on this forum who can answer my question isnt there anybody who visits this forum who has had any experience with explosives?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 02:55 PM