Trade center demolition

[Clarence]

@ Webjudi

If this is so far out there, why do you argue with such venom? There's obviously nothing to see here, what is your motivation for joining this thread?

[webjedi]

Quote by: PH WTC 7 is the smoking gun.

That doesn't refute even one thing I said. All the engineering and thermodynamics stuff is debatable by people who are experts in those fields, and nobody here is a physicist or structural engineer. But common sense we all have expertise in, so if you can come up with an answer to my common sense questions let me know.

Quote by: Clarence If this is so far out there, why do you argue with such venom? There's obviously nothing to see here, what is your motivation for joining this thread?

I like to argue. What's it to you?

::

[Clarence]

Quote by: webjedi I like to argue. What's it to you?

you enjoy conflict?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Chris ok there is more to a building than just concrete. most of the walls were made of sheet rock. You believe what you want to believe though no sweat off me.

Y'know, Chris...I think that is likely the reason for the huge volume of microfine dust. In a typical demolition job, the vacant building has most of the sheetrock walls pulled out. Reason? They act as braces, forestalling the gravitational action.

But at the WTC implosion, that never happened due to continuous occupancy. Consequently, the need for a large increase in the explosives used. This resulted in the spectacular and telltale jets of mushrooming dust and high-speed ejecta. They used too damn much explosive. A legit job on the WTC buildings would have used far less.

I was reading this mainstream article on demolition, an interview with Stacey Loizeaux, scion of the premier implosion family in the USA (some would say worldwide!) NOVA Online/Kaboom!/Loizeaux Interview

Generally we don't do the preparation work. We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. The second thing we do is drilling. Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to geotextile fence around buildinghelp fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces. Other preparatory operations are covering—wrapping the columns with chain link fence and then in geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. We also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers. That's really where your liability is.

The conspirators also weren't able to do the test shots they normally do. Their answer, IMO, was to simply place a lot more explosive than usual for the job. I still think it was the Dancing Israelis who did a lot of the demolition work.
Al Jazeera

How could any person of sound moral character not be enraged at witnessing this horrific act of barbarism? To read about some faraway, long-ago genocide in a newspaper or a book is distressing enough. But to actually witness the mass murders of what was, at first, believed to have been tens of thousands of innocent people is truly heart stopping and traumatic. I barely slept for two nights afterwards and suffered nightmares. Polling data would later reveal that 65% of Americans actually shed tears on 9-11. But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were being detained by the FBI. Here’s what Gordon told Yediot America: "On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers…. "Anyhow, the three left the roof, took an Urban truck, and drove to a parking lot, located about a five-minute drive from the offices. They parked, stood on the roof of the truck to get a better view of the destroyed towers and took photographs. A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck. They copied and reported the license plates. When the photos were developed, they revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. According to ABC’s 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their outrageous and highly suspicious behavior, the five also had in their possession the following items; box-cutters, European passports, and $4700 cash hidden in a sock. Why were these Israeli agents so happy about the horrible massacre that was unfolding right before their very eyes? What evil spirit could possess people who are supposed to be America's "allies", and who receive billions of dollars in financial and military aid from US taxpayers each year, to publicly rejoice as innocent people (including many American jews) were burning to death and jumping out of 110 story buildings? Could it be that these happy Israeli army veterans were in some way linked to this monstrous attack?

:eek:

[PatrickHenry]

Here's another analysis that agrees with mine in believing that the amount of explosives used was in excess of that normally used for such a job. Re WTC7:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...Demolition.pdf

It is also worth noting that the behaviour of the dust cloud after the collapse was unusual. It rolled rapidly away hugging the ground, suggesting that it was denser, and thus more propelled by gravity, than is normally observed in controlled demolitions. This is clearly reminiscent of the energetic dust clouds rolling from the twin towers, though the effect is not as pronounced. One suspects that more explosive than usual was employed in all three buildings to guarantee that the collapse would be well controlled and thus would exhibit no hesitation or tendency to lean. The extra explosive would pulverize more of the concrete than usual and so produce a denser dust cloud than seen in commercial demolitions.

It is inconceivable that fires could heat the structural supports so uniformly throughout the height of the building that the collapse would encounter uniform vertical resistance. Fires by their very nature tend to creep from place to place as they run out of fuel and move to fresh sources, leaving the burnt out area to cool down. Steel regains strength as it cools. There is also the question of uniformity across the length and breadth of the building. Again we encounter the problem that fires are not normally uniform. Only if the entire flammable contents of the building had been ignited simultaneously would there have been a chance of obtaining the required uniform weakening of the steel. This clearly did not occur. It is argued in the official reports that the fires were severe but we have seen from the video and photographs that there was not much fire on the near side. That means that if there had been a severe fire it must have been mainly on the far side and would thus have been supplying a source of heat which was anything but uniform. This would ensure that the supports on the far side would soften first, which would cause the building to lean away. The centre of gravity would move in that direction which would increase the load on the weaker supports while reducing the load on the stronger supports. Having survived a higher load the near supports could not now buckle so the building would inevitably topple over. This was not observed: the video shows that the building came straight down with extraordinary precision. The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented. The falsity of the three official investigations in denying the use of explosives, given that explosive demolition is so obvious, is prima facie evidence for complicity of some part of the administration of the USA in the events of 9/11 and cries out for review.

[gr8fuldaniel]

What a coincidence that the WTC had been condemned prior to 911.

What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common? What do the Statue of Liberty and WTC Towers have in common? The Statue of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed. """The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as and Volta had discovered a century earlier.""" In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went. Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so. The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day. That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down. That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members. There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did. I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988. http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_el...rosion_figures http://www.npl.co.uk/ncs/docs/the_el..._corrosion.pdf http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/galvdefi.htm see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above Galvanic corrosion of the Statue of Liberty ▲ cont'd...

But the outer walls (weakest link) did not drop first. The CORE of the towers were sliced. Watch the video ....focus on the antenna dropping before the outer wall....and suck the building INTO its own footprint. In a controlled demolition. This contradicts that the outer walls were the weaker link caused by years of electrolysis; the outer walls of cast aluminum were directly fastened to steel floor joists (without insulators {bozos!!})
The floors should have folded down like flaps a hundred years before that dense core system of iron should fail.

[Chaossaber314]

So this was planned since 1988 or before?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Look at the last paragraph again (I abbreviated it)

....... a 1989 meeting ...<snip>.... "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" (1999 - 2001) "blow it up and start over".

But that ("blow it up") would not not fly. Towers that size would have to be disassembled piece by piece. And.......
All 3 towers had asbestos fireproofing that would have to be safely removed by haz mat crews. Very time consuming. It was more profitable to have "terrists" do it.

[Chaossaber314]

Yes, but the MIB reference seems to imply some malicious intent as of 1988 unless I'm totally misreading it.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Look at the last paragraph again (I abbreviated it) But that ("blow it up") would not not fly. Towers that size would have to be disassembled piece by piece. And....... All 3 towers had asbestos fireproofing that would have to be safely removed by haz mat crews. Very time consuming. It was more profitable to have "terrists" do it.

Its amazing how they made it fall almost straight down without having it topple over significantly. I agree that it was a situation where it was like killing two birds with one stone, cause they got to demolish a building without all the costs that come with it.

[Chaossaber314]

You're just talking about WTC 7 right because the others certainly didn't topple straight down.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1...g?t=1167448107

[Clarence]

They did topple straight down. nice photo btw, there was an angle. It looks slightly exaggerated in yours for various reasons. So explain this.

The falling top floors would deal a glancing blow to the remaining structure below. How does the building fall? How fast? straight down? Does it all fall? Shouldn't one corner of the falling piece struck first and propelled the top of the piece further out of the radius of the building? It didn't happen that way because it fell into an already falling building. fast like a demolition. That is unless the footage changes

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Yeah thats why I said "almost straight down". Whoever designed this plot didnt think it through. They should have just planned it as a bomb attack instead of a plane attack. Im sure no one would have noticed. Besides, Im sure Ill be poisoned from talking about this soon.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Clarence They did topple straight down. nice photo btw, there was an angle. It looks slightly exaggerated in yours for various reasons.

Any angle however slight on the fall of a 100+ story building is going to be problem. And if it falls on an angle at all, it's not straight down.

So what does that make this? A "slightly" controlled demolition where they only blew out the majority of supports but not all?

@Plasma Snake, there's nothing "almost" about that.

[Clarence]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Any angle however slight on the fall of a 100+ story building is going to be problem. And if it falls on an angle at all, it's not straight down.

straight down.

]So what does that make this? A "slightly" controlled demolition where they only blew out the majority of supports but not all?.

a controlled demolition. A planned catalyst. It's all right CB, we all did it. If you want to debate on this topic, come on with the points. I don't mean a picture with huge crayon lines on it meant to enhance angles. Even if the bend was that extreme, it would only prove my point. An even more glancing blow..

Shouldn't one corner of the falling piece struck first and propelled the top of the piece further out of the radius of the building? It didn't happen that way because it fell into an already falling building. fast like a demolition.

I know you'll just squirm another way. It's ok because you don't know. Neither do I. For instance from the NIST pretty much denies the validity of its own physics in disclaimer. Who knows? no really, who knows what happened that day? Who would've had to know or know by now?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

"Who knows? no really, who knows what happened that day? Who would've had to know or know by now?"

Yeah people know. Its sad that whoever planned this didnt count on there being smart people out there. I kinda knew there was something weird, but I never would have figured out what the deal was without first seeing some videos on the internet. Oh well.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Clarence straight down.

Interesting rebuttle, but sadly no. Not straight down.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1...g?t=1167548213

Controlled demolitions don't damage surrounding buildings.

a controlled demolition. A planned catalyst. It's all right CB, we all did it. If you want to debate on this topic, come on with the points. I don't mean a picture with huge crayon lines on it meant to enhance angles.

So attempt to minimalize photographic evidence and be condescending and say it was done with crayons (evidently of the Photoshop variety) because you can't refute it. Ok, I guess.

I never was any good at geometry but I don't remember them saying that the thickness of the line you drew had any bearing on the angle itself.

Also, I'd ask that you identify your last quote since it wasn't by me.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Yeah, thats why i said ALMOST straight down.

[Chaossaber314]

That's a pretty big margin of error to be considered "almost" don't you think?

[Clarence]

The last quote was mine. from the post you were supposedly responding to.