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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was WTC Brought Down By The Controlled Demolition?, 9 minutes video, which shows a lot

Was WTC brought down by the controlled demolition?
Was WTC brought down by the controlled demolition?
Yes [ 25 ] ** [100.00%]
No [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
I've no idea [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Total Votes: 25
Guests cannot vote 
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 22 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Hi,
A colleague from the Czech-Slovak 911 movement have sent me a link to a video (whose original intention was to debunk another debunkers video about WTC7: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI )

But in fact it shows much more than just counterarguments against the above debunkers video.

It shows that from the North tower were during the "collapse" clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core - cut in pieces of size of several floors, weghting probably at least hundreds of tons - to a considerable distance. They were in past notoricaly confused with the perimeter columns - but perimeter columns were much thinner and mounted with much narower distances.







What a force could do something like that? Gravitation?

Ok, and my father is Michael Jackson. salute.gif

The video also clearly shows the squibs at the southwest corner of the WTC7, exploding just exactly during the collapse of the North tower.















Is this ultimately confirming the controlled demolition hypothesis of the WTC 7 (and also Twin towers) fall?

The video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=N0RqVtTpIuk

If the video would be deleted from the Youtube, search for "Pull it down, Larry" from buckeye studio production

Merry Christmas or Chanukah

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 22 2007, 01:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 22 2007, 12:41 PM
Post #2


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Good find tumetuestumefaisdubien. Not that there was any doubt whatsoever that the WTC Towers and WTC 7 were deliberately brought down with pre-planted demolition charges and whatever else the traitors used. And these huge core column sections torn off and blown out of the building by explosives obviously did not hit WTC7.

Pull It Down Larry
Interesting shots from the original What we saw - Bob and Bri video at about the 19:42 time.
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien)






The video also clearly shows the squibs at the southwest corner of the WTC7, exploding just exactly during the collapse of the North tower.







This post has been edited by SPreston: Dec 22 2007, 01:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 22 2007, 01:11 PM
Post #3


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Photos from a static mounted (see guy wire in lower left-hand corner) WTC1 video show the North Tower antenna which weighed 353 tons and was supported by the entire core structure fell first about 10-15 feet and fell 56 feet before the 94th floor began to fall. The core sections were shattered and blown out of the building in the original What we saw - Bob and Bri video at about the 19:42 time which is why the antenna fell first in other WTC 1 videos. Or more likely, perhaps the core columns were also shattered in the sub-basement levels prior to the explosions blowing the large pieces out in the above photos, dropping the antenna first.

Each colored segment is 50 feet


Experienced demolitions expert
QUOTE (Torin Wolf - demolitions expert)
Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th floor doesn't move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we're looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, “This building is not collapsing on the 78th floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th floor falls.”

Edit: The fire line is on the 94th floor

This post has been edited by SPreston: Dec 22 2007, 01:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 22 2007, 01:41 PM
Post #4


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE
It shows that from the North tower were during the "collapse" clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core - cut in pieces of size of several floors, weghting probably at least hundreds of tons - to a considerable distance. They were in past notoricaly confused with the perimeter columns - but perimeter columns were much thinner and mounted with much narower distances.


Building the World Trade Center Towers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 22 2007, 07:15 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The core collapse is certainly demonstrated by the falling antenna, but the other photos showing the square pieces falling and smoking are not of the core columns, but the famous exoskeleton pieces. One ended up on I think Building 5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 23 2007, 07:56 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 22 2007, 06:15 PM)
The core collapse is certainly demonstrated by the falling antenna, but the other photos showing the square pieces falling and smoking are not of the core columns, but the famous exoskeleton pieces.  One ended up on I think Building 5.

No, it is the core remains. For the "exoskeleton" they are too massive, having the column distance mount provingly at least 3 times wider than was in case of perimeter structure (the column distance in chunks, compared to the north face 64m reference, is at least 4 meters, while the distance of the perimeter columns was 1m). Without any doubt what shows the video aren't the chunks of the perimeter.
The chunks of the core, derived from trajectory, ended surely not at the building 5 but in the area of building 6. (If they would finish on building 5 it would be need for them to travel ground distance at least 70 meters, which even in the case of the controlled demolition I find highly improbable.) In comparison with the north face size reference they were at least so wide as 6 floors of the North tower and weighted at least several hundreds of tons. No way they would travel so far outside the perimeter in case of a gravitational collapse. Period.
Also the clearly visible squibs during the North tower collapse prove the WTC7 was brought down by the controlled demolition as well. Lump it.
Somebody who is an "extreme poster" on 9/11 truth site should already know, where the WTC5 was relatively to the North Tower. If not, he is either an ignorant or an disinformator.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 23 2007, 11:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 23 2007, 03:19 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



What energy source moved the core columns that far laterally?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 24 2007, 06:19 AM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 23 2007, 02:19 PM)
What energy source moved the core columns that far laterally?

I don't know.
But surely it wasn't the kinetic energy of a gravitational collapse.
The chunks are already far from the perimeter limit in the height about ~300 meters! - so it looks like they even were originaly ejected horizontaly or even a bit upwards/outwards. Some say at the loosechangeforum that the chunks are the remains of the technical floors, but the 2nd technical floors were in the height ~290 meters (so then the chunks must be ejected upwards/outwards - impossible in a gravitational collapse) and anyway the floor truss even there was much much less massive than what shows the video.
The distance of the beams on the video looks like literally fitting in the proportions of the core mount. Also there were no other so massive structures in the building than the core. So I think it is good assumption the chunks are pieces of the core.
What force ejected them?
I think a good asumption is - that it were literally loads of explosives.
That's maybe why the NIST doesn't want to study the "collapse", because they might come to the very same conclusions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 24 2007, 10:47 AM
Post #9


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien)
QUOTE (amazed!)
What energy source moved the core columns that far laterally?

I don't know.
But surely it wasn't the kinetic energy of a gravitational collapse.
The chunks are already far from the perimeter limit in the height about ~300 meters! - so it looks like they even were originaly ejected horizontaly or even a bit upwards/outwards. Some say at the loosechangeforum that the chunks are the remains of the technical floors, but the 2nd technical floors were in the height ~290 meters (so then the chunks must be ejected upwards/outwards - impossible in a gravitational collapse) and anyway the floor truss even there was much much less massive than what shows the video.
The distance of the beams on the video looks like literally fitting in the proportions of the core mount. Also there were no other so massive structures in the building than the core. So I think it is good assumption the chunks are pieces of the core.
What force ejected them?
I think a good asumption is - that it were literally loads of explosives.
That's maybe why the NIST doesn't want to study the "collapse", because they might come to the very same conclusions.

Looks much too large to be perimeter columns and of the wrong proportions and spacing. At 19:31 in the What we saw - Bob and Bri video, Bri asks if people are jumping and six seconds later the North Tower explodes. Likely those people were blown out by the earliest explosive percussions and those huge pieces seen falling are far away from the building footprint and appear to be falling straight down. They must have been blown upwards and outwards by a huge explosive force. As the Bob and Bri video shows, these huge pieces came nowhere near WTC 7 disproving the many lies we have been told in that direction. cleanup.gif

RDX-class cutting charges cutting through the remaining North Tower core columns - 911 Eyewitness
Core Structure still standing

WTC Demolition Analysis Evidence Based Research

A construction crane mounted on each corner of the core structure


These cranes are not yet mounted on the core structure corners
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 24 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #10


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Actually that piece falling looks like an entire corner section of either the core structure or the perimeter columns, and can be seen more clearly at the 19:42 section of the What we saw - Bob and Bri video. Tilt your head to the left and look at it at that angle. Vertical columns - horizontal floor beams. Looks to be a 4-floor northeast corner section blown much nearer and enlarged by the telescopic eye of the video cameras. Definitely explosive demolitions of some nature. yes1.gif



This post has been edited by SPreston: Dec 24 2007, 11:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 24 2007, 01:33 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Have you read the following paper yet (fairly short at 11 pages)?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...fTwinTowers.pdf

I think it is one of the better papers concerning the Twin Tower construction/design specifics that I've seen anywhere. NIST and ASCE could take a few pointers from Tony IMHO.

From "JOM" [CAUTION: there is some questionable information in this article IMHO]:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
-----
THE METALLURGICAL INVESTIGATION

The Recovery Effort and the Structural Steel Elements

During the recovery effort after September 11, and before NIST began its collapse investigation, volunteers from FEMA, ASCE, NIST, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) worked at the four steel recycling facilities to identify and collect steel members important to the investigation. They focused on identifying pieces that the aircraft struck or were obviously burned, as well as pieces from the fire and impact zone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology arranged to have these pieces shipped to its facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation team members cataloged the items and attempted to identify their original locations in the towers, using their dimensions and markings.

In all, NIST cataloged 236 structural steel elements:

* Ninety exterior column panels, of which 42 were unambiguously identified. Of those identified, 26 came from the fire and impact floors, and four of these had been struck by the airplane that hit WTC 1.
* Fifty-five core columns, of which 12 were unambiguously identified. Four of the identified columns came from the fire and impact zones.
* Twenty-three pieces of floor truss. Unfortunately, these elements had no identifying marks, so their original location in the towers is unknown.
* Twenty-five pieces of the channel that supported the floor trusses at the core; all are of unknown location.
* Forty-three miscellaneous pieces including bolts, pieces of aluminum facade, and elements from WTC 5.

Although many of the individual recovered elements are rather large, the collection represents less than 0.5 % of the more than 200,000 tons of steel used in the buildings. It does include, however, representative samples of all the relevant steels necessary for estimating properties for the impact and collapse models. Given the difficulties in locating, identifying, and safeguarding elements in the field, the extent of the collection is impressive. As an example of the coverage, Figure 1 shows the location of the recovered exterior columns surroundingthe impact hole in WTC 1.

Room-Temperature Strengths and Standards
The sidebar “The Construction of the Towers” describes the construction of the three relevant building subsystems: the exterior columns, the massive core columns, and the trusses that spanned the opening between the exterior wall and the core and supported the floors.

Because of their high strength, the steels used in the exterior wall columns are not ordinary construction steels. A typical high-rise building might use steel of only three strength grades, based on minimum yield strength (FY). In contrast, the WTC structural plans specified steels that began at a minimum yield strength FY = 36 ksi and increased from FY = 40 ksi to FY = 85 ksi in 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) increments. Corner elements in the exterior wall often used FY = 100 ksi steels. Contemporaneous construction documents indicate that the lowest strength exterior wall column steels were supplied to the ASTM A 36 standard, but all the steels with strengths above that value conformed to proprietary grades that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the building owner, authorized. Yawata Iron and Steel, now Nippon Steel, supplied most of the steel plate for the exterior wall columns. The plate that faced the interior of the building usually came from a domestic mill, however.

Japanese and British mills supplied most of the steel for the core columns. These plates and hot-rolled, wide-flange shapes were mostly FY = 36 ksi ASTM A 36. Little information survived about which steel mills supplied the core beams.

The floor truss angles and webs were specified to a mixture of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242. The latter is a high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steel, though the composition limits in the WTC construction era differ from those of the standard today. Even when the plans called for A 36, the mill often supplied an HSLA steel with substantially higher yield strength.
-----
My notes on above:
4/55 "fire/impact" core columns = 0.0727272727 or 7.3% fire/impact core columns
0.0727272727 * .005 = .000364 or <= .036% of the core column steel was categorized as fire/impact damaged (47 core columns at factor of safety ~ 2.2 = 220% per NIST)
http://www.911research.com/papers/trumpman...alysisFinal.htm

26/42 "fire/impact" perimeter columns = 0.619047619 or 61.9% fire/impact columns
0.619047619 * .005 = .003095 or <= 0.3095% of the perimeter steel was inspected, identified, and categorized as "fire/impact" damaged. (236 perimeter columns at factor of safety ~5.0 = 500% per NIST)

4/42 of the perimeter columns were from WTC1 North and were "struck by the airplane that hit WTC1" = 0.0952380952
0.0952380952 * .005 = .000476 or <= .0476% of the perimeter columns were shown to have been "struck by the airplane."

NOTE: No steel identified from WTC7.
No steel identified as struck by a plane from WTC2 South.

Yup, that's certainly conclusive evidence of fire-weakened steel leading to total, catastrophic structural collapse. It was thoroughly investigated by "volunteers from FEMA, ASCE, NIST, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)." rolleyes.gif

d

EDIT: Well this would explain a few of the things I found in the JOM Article- the apparent authors were hidden waaay down in the references:

"S.W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, and F.W. Gayle are with the Metallurgy Division and J.D. McColskey, C.N. McCowan, and T.A. Siewert are with the Materials Reliability Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899."

I couldn't get the figures in the article to open either.

EDIT2: If I follow
"Editor’s Note: For a much-cited, early metallurgical analysis of the World Trade Center towers collapse, see “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” in the December 2001 issue [of JOM]."

the author is apparently:

"Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

So we have the "NIST investigation team" gathering steel for studies done by FEMA, ASCE, and NIST based on MIT and Purdue computer simulations to support the final NIST report being supported by articles written by NIST and MIT personnel. How cozy... Why again aren't ISO audits done in this manner?

This post has been edited by dMole: Dec 24 2007, 02:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chucksheen
post Dec 24 2007, 04:43 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 4-November 06
Member No.: 208



thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 24 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It seems to me the most efficient way to bring down the building would be to NOT have to waste the energy to move the central core laterally. It wants to fall straight down, why move it sideways?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 27 2007, 12:39 AM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 24 2007, 09:18 PM)
It seems to me the most efficient way to bring down the building would be to NOT have to waste the energy to move the central core laterally.  It wants to fall straight down, why move it sideways?

Just an hypothesis - I'm not a govt. demolition expert: To give way to the uper part of the building to attain the velocity-momentum to help crush all below.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 27 2007, 12:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 27 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Nor am I a demolition expert, government or otherwise.

Rather than move them laterally, a 45 degree slice properly placed allows gravity to do the moving, far enough to the side--the width of the column--to allow gravity to overcome and force it to the earth.

It would take a significant amount of explosives to move such a big section to outside the building. It would take a smaller amount to blow pieces of the exoskeleton out that far. And we know that some pieces were blown up to 500 feet laterally.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 28 2007, 12:07 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 27 2007, 10:30 PM)
Nor am I a demolition expert, government or otherwise.

Rather than move them laterally, a 45 degree slice properly placed allows gravity to do the moving, far enough to the side--the width of the column--to allow gravity to overcome and force it to the earth.

It would take a significant amount of explosives to move such a big section to outside the building. It would take a smaller amount to blow pieces of the exoskeleton out that far. And we know that some pieces were blown up to 500 feet laterally.

But apparently the chunks are undoubtedly not remains of the perimeter and most likely they are remains of the core - so they apparently blew that lateraly.
Yes it would need a huge amount of an explosive force to do something like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 30 2007, 09:00 AM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 27 2007, 10:30 PM)
Nor am I a demolition expert, government or otherwise.

Rather than move them laterally, a 45 degree slice properly placed allows gravity to do the moving, far enough to the side--the width of the column--to allow gravity to overcome and force it to the earth.

It would take a significant amount of explosives to move such a big section to outside the building.  It would take a smaller amount to blow pieces of the exoskeleton out that far.  And we know that some pieces were blown up to 500 feet laterally.

There is now the article I wrote about the video no 911blogger.com ( http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/13159 ) and also the discussion where emerged some photographs where some of them in my oppinion, with all honesty, can impugn the core columns claim. So please have look at it to see and tell what you think about.

This photograph which was posted to the discussion on the 911blogger.com looks like it can well be the same chunk (the pattern of the bottom part on the photograph realy well fits to what is seen in the video) as on the video and it definitely is a piece of perimeter.


I think now, that the core columns claim from the video is probably dismissed.
So now what about the squibs?

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 30 2007, 10:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 30 2007, 11:12 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The large relatively square piece falling on the left side of the photo looks very much like pieces of the exoskeleton to me. And the clouds of debris shown make it clear there was an explosive event, NOT a gravitational collapse.

The squibs are consistent with explosive events common in controlled demolition, so claim the experts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 1 2008, 07:25 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I've just unfortunately came to the conclusion the whole thing is a red hering including the WTC7 squibs:

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/13159?page=1

It is most probably from a fake video that sources with WTC7 squibs, because in high resolution 911Mysteries there the same footage is used - and there are no squibs visible even in better quallity than the Chen's sources - but what is there in the very same footage visible is that the chunk the Chen is calling "core" columns is clearly a piece of the perimeter.

So I'm appologizing to all who losed their time with this bogus story. It looks like the agents are faking now not only the planes, but squibs on the WTC7. It's a mess...

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 1 2008, 08:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 1 2008, 11:01 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



No apology necessary. This is good public dialogue! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 23rd October 2019 - 10:04 PM