Top Secret video of WTC explosive controlled demolition on 9/11
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Monday, March 14, 2011 03:46
VIEWED: 11704
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Huh? Nobody disputes this.
Originally posted by Hardware:
...you will see a descending level of destruction as the building collapses into itself.
Buildings exhibit a descending level of destruction and collapse onto themselves in demolition jobs, you know.
What this video doesn't show is WHY the building collapsed onto itself.
Sorry, you're wrong. Actual controlled demo jobs weaken the structure throughout, in advance with manual demo and the final demo throughout with explosives. The biggest charges are placed in the foundation and foot of columns to start the implosion from the bottom up. This allows the weight of the structure falling on the lower levels to impart energy to the demo, like a sledgehammer. Sometimes the footprint of the property or the construction of the building require that sections of the building be handled differently, but you'll see in the following examples that bottom up is the way the industry handles jobs.
Here's a few good examples.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uh... just because sometimes they do top-down and sometimes they do bottom-up doesn't prove I am wrong.
Originally posted by Hardware:
but you'll see in the following examples that bottom up is the way the industry handles jobs.
BTW, the "youtu.be" links don't work for me. But I don't dispute they do bottom-up jobs sometimes.
Here are some top-down jobs if anyone wants to compare it to the WTC collapse.
(Skip to 1:55 when the collapse begins)
So... what we have here are 2 facts:
1. No building has EVER collapsed top down near free fall speed in the history of fires.
2. Buildings routinely collapse top down near free fall speed in the history of demolition jobs.
Why shouldn't we seriously consider the possibility that this may have been a demolition job?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, .... why are we crazy for wondering if it maybe WAS a duck?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your second link is actually a bottom up. If you watch the second story level begins moving downward first, the remnants of the stack on top of it move downward with it. The vertical stacks are separated into sections that rotate as they fall to land in the general footprint of the building.
The first clip is an interesting technique and one that I haven't seen used before in a building exceeding ten feet. But they cut the building at two levels, and let the weight of the upper portion sledgehammer down through the stack. That is very similar to what happened at the WTC.
However, the reason why controlled demo is unlikely is that it fails Occam's Razor. It's less likely that a building employing truss construction would fail due to a government plot to implode it after they somehow engineered a hijack and crash plot. And it is much more likely that a truss constructed building would fail due to fire.
Firemen have a saying; Never trust a truss.
http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/truss-construction-tac
tics-you
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, you're right. Sorry.
Originally posted by Hardware:
Your second link is actually a bottom up.
Quote:Truss failures due to fire do not result in the kind of free fall building collapses we saw in WTC 1, 2, and 7. Remember, NIST has disavowed the pancake explanation.
And it is much more likely that a truss constructed building would fail due to fire.
Occam's Razor has to take into account ALL the complex physical evidence, not just some of it and ignore others for simplicity's sake. Given the speed, direction, pattern, and debris of the collapses, the simplest, most parsimonious, Occam's-Razor-consistent explanation is demolition.
Now who or why or how... those are other questions that are beyond the physical evidence of the collapses. That goes into the area of speculation and conjecture. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to politics and human behavior in the same way as physics because we don't understand human motivations and perceptions sufficiently well to know what the simplest explanations are. People often behave contrary to expectations of what is "simple."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, let me get this straight. So I know PN believes that 9/11 was an inside job, that's not news. But DreamTrove and CTS believe it too? Give me a straight answer here people. You guys actually believe this whole thing? I guess I'm shocked and it might set the tone for how seriously I take you guys in future about other topics. I mean sure you have the right to believe what you choose, but ... .... ....??????
.... ?????? I think for once I'm speechless here.
I'm not trying to be mean, I like you guys and all but .... seriously?
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that Hardware gave a good explanation of why the buildings collapsed, but the type of structural failure isn't why the buildings pancaked. The straight vertical fall is a result of where the initial structural failure occurred. The planes hit the buildings many floors down from the top and so the resulting fire caused the initial failure in that area. If the initial failure had been near the top, the buildings might have fallen sideways, but the massive weight of many floors above the failure point made any side ways forces irrelevant in comparison to the downward force. Generally I think "truthers" can be divided into two camps, the scientifically challenged and the mentally ill and this forum has a good representation of both.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, ok, look...
Imma take it from where I left off and update later cause I am up to my neck busy with the mess in WI, awright ?
Firstoff, in response to the snark, for which at the moment imma give benefit of the doubt, had it come down due to damage it'd have come straight down more-or-less, but not like that.
First the supports on the impact side would have started to collapse, and everything above that point would have noticeably leaned in that direction, then the far side supports would have gone as they were stressed past the limit with a series of shrieks and pops clearly audible from the ground, THEN the top part would plow into the bottom and drive it down into the ground, sure... but you're talkin about a different sequence of events with a wider rubble footprint, and sure as shit it wouldn't have come down in a perfect sequential drop.
Not to mention I was LOOKIN at it, live at the time, and the very moment I saw FLASHFLASHFLASHFLASHflash... and heard CRACKCRACKCRACKCRACKcrack.... I knew exactly damn well what I was lookin at, which was when I turned the TV off and went to drown my sorrows in rum, cause at the time there'd have been no fuckin point in tryin to tell anyone anything, even if I did bash out a couple editorials on the dangers of leaping before looking, which were as expected, ignored.
Hell, I went through *THAT* dance before over Waco, when one of the tanks was crushing the front wall I clearly, CLEARLY, saw a 40mm grenade fly over it into the compound, and when I remarked on it got flamed, called a liar, all that song and dance, for quite some time - especially since the "official story" denied ever using them whatever.
And now we know, they fired over six hundred of the damn things.
For that matter, there was the "Don't Tase me bro!" discussion here, where despite it being right there plain as day, not ONE PERSON here noticed the officer pointing his M26 at the kids HEAD at the beginning of the incident, and more than one who STILL tried to argue otherwise - I tend to notice things, is all.
I don't put much stock in any theories, mind you, not a one of em, but what I do know is that the notion of the plane impact and/or fire taking those towers down is bullshit.
Beyond that, it's up to debate.
As to your notion, Anthony - it don't make no sense to me, neither, but I will say there were quite possibly, elements of our own Gov who wanted those towers to come down, which I'll get to in a moment, but the thing is...
Folks go lookin for one great, grand, all encompassing conspiracy, and in truth there's no such animal - for one, the whole bloody notion presumes government efficiency of a level that's less plausible than the tooth fairy.
No, what you got is a whole plethora of petty little ones, combined with backbiting, backstabbing, fingerpointing, blamestorming and attempts to exploit or take advantage of a situation topped off by a heaping helping of traditional office politics and bullshitting - good LUCK digging through that mess.
In fact, the evidence points to a damned lot of foreknowledge, both on our part and that of one of our so-called allies - but one thing struck me as oddball when looking into it, and that was that not all parties who had some idea of what was coming sat on it, or used it maliciously.
I know of two specific examples where someone used that foreknowledge to place relief or rescue resources in place ahead of time, and while doing so effectively obfuscated the source of those orders and directives.
Hell, I even suspect WHY.
You ever work under a really bad boss ? one that refused to acknowledge a problem which'd be eventually fatal to the business, and pushing the matter would reduce him to a screaming fit and get you fired ?
Now, provided you didn't quit (that whole steady paycheck thing..) what did you do - you worked around it, yes ?
There were at least two individuals who may not have "known", but suspected something was up and acted in a fashion to minimize casualties while placing resources nearby, and covered their track
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
I'd love to hear those logs. Silly men in black, not using encrypted communications so that anybody could intercept and record your transmissions.
You want em, okay - here's some of the excerpts.
It's one thing to bust PN's chops when he's obviously just talkin shit, far and away another to throw tinfoil hat accusations at someone who does know something about this kinda of thing.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, regarding fires, I do believe there's a radio intercept of the firefighters on or near floors 78-79 saying they could knock down the fire with two lines - doesn't sound like a raging inferno to me, so where was sufficient heat to damage even weakened steel ?
Ah, here.
http://www.archive.org/details/911_fdny_dispatches
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, worth a note although I don't necessarily consider it any kind of proof, something that stood out to me.
This is a photo from the book AFTERMATH, look at the column directly behind the firefighter.
THIS is a demo crew laying a cutter charge.
Explain that to me, if you would.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME