Proven: Towers had no explosives

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
The whole controlled demolition issue bores me to death with a
littlebit of common sense and looking into the main arguments of
the CT crowd.

However: There´s a pretty good Video that shows how the outer
columns of the South Tower are getting pulled inwards before and
during the initial collapse, which shows that there were no explo-
sives involved to start the collapse:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


So now there is the good old question how the towers could fall
this fast. To me this isn´t very surprising anymore if i imagine all
the weight on top of the damaged zone and if i imagine, that the
force from such an amount of weight crushed everything below.
Compared to this force, the part of the Towers on top was like a
avalanche that eleminates everything in it´s way.

You have to imagine that the Towers were not like a massive Rock
but like a pretty fragile construction compared to the force from
the falling weight. A construction made of millions of single parts
that simply couldn´t withstand - no matter how stable they looked
compared to our human point of view.

This Video explains what happened and even if i´m no expert, it
sounds pretty logical to me. If you see flaws in it, please feel free
to discuss them:



I apologize that this has been posted before in another thread but it
was off-topic and deserves an own thread.

Also i would like to add the original footage from the "trinity church
collapse" to my WTC collection. I would appreciate if someone could
send me the file or post a link to an .AVI or .MOV File.

Cheers,
Oliver
 
I hadn't seen them anyway, interesting that you can literaly see the columns folding inwards. I was aware of nists conclusion but I didn't realise it was all happening so fast.

The second video seems to be an excerpt from a longer video, does anyone know if its on youtube or google video in its entirety, or at least the name of it?
 
xerox said:
I hadn't seen them anyway, interesting that you can literaly see the columns folding inwards. I was aware of nists conclusion but I didn't realise it was all happening so fast.
Click to expand...

The bowing happened long before the collapse but
you can see how the trusses finally fail. And if i see
it right, it´s also the reason for the "tipping".

xerox said:
The second video seems to be an excerpt from a longer video, does anyone know if its on youtube or google video in its entirety, or at least the name of it?
Click to expand...

I never saw the part of the documentary before
until 28th Kingdom brought it up. You may ask
him if you´re not on his "Ignore List".
 
I have problem with the animation shown at 1:17 in the second video. I cannot believe it is possible for the exterior columns that are deflected inward to snap back and protrude outward once the truss connection fails.. if they are already deflected in they would have to lift the entire top of the building to snap back straight and then outward. I cant hear the audio today because I broke the sound control on my 5.1 desktop theater when the damn thing got snagged in my recliner. So I don't know what the narrator is saying. Also the animation @ 0:24 of the trusses dropping one at a time is improbable. as they had truss bridging fed through them tyeing them all together. I think more accurate representation would be the truss connections breaking in a cascade or zipper collapse. As one broke free and sagged the adjacent ones would assume the load and then fail and so on. In the NIST documents they show a photo of what I am describing. An entire floor sagging in the middle with the connections to exterior columns broken.
 
Oliver said:
So now there is the good old question how the towers could fall
this fast. To me this isn´t very surprising anymore if i imagine all
the weight on top of the damaged zone and if i imagine, that the
force from such an amount of weight crushed everything below.
Compared to this force, the part of the Towers on top was like a
avalanche that eleminates everything in it´s way.
Click to expand...

About the time of collapse, I again offer this post, the only really good thing I wrote out of discussion with 28th Kingdom, as a quick explanation of the apparently rapid nature of the collapse.

What the calculation shows is that the number of seconds it took to fall is likely to be short no matter how strong the building was. A collapse time of a mere 20 seconds means that 79% of the gravitational energy was needed to destroy the already damaged structure. 30 seconds gives you 91% expended destroying the structure.

In other words, the rapid collapse is normal. The building will either (a) stay standing, or (b) collapse in a hurry. Anything in between requires an extremely delicate balance of forces, something that would be impossible to design for and will probably never happen in practice.

I remind you all -- have you ever seen a skyscraper collapse, CD or otherwise, that happened slowly? I haven't.
 
A W Smith said:
I have problem with the animation shown at 1:17 in the second video. I cannot believe it is possible for the exterior columns that are deflected inward to snap back and protrude outward once the truss connection fails.. if they are already deflected in they would have to lift the entire top of the building to snap back straight and then outward.
Click to expand...

(For the record, I can't listen to the audio either.)

At 1:17 it clearly shows that the sagging trusses took a chunk of the exterior columns into the buildings. The broken columns wouldn't need to lift anything.
 
A W Smith said:
Also the animation @ 0:24 of the trusses dropping one at a time is improbable. as they had truss bridging fed through them tyeing them all together. I think more accurate representation would be the truss connections breaking in a cascade or zipper collapse. As one broke free and sagged the adjacent ones would assume the load and then fail and so on. In the NIST documents they show a photo of what I am describing. An entire floor sagging in the middle with the connections to exterior columns broken.
Click to expand...

The earlier animation was for the now-discarded "pancake" collapse theory. They were comparing the old theory to the new with the two animations.

When you get your audio fixed, you'll hear them explain it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
(For the record, I can't listen to the audio either.)

At 1:17 it clearly shows that the sagging trusses took a chunk of the exterior columns into the buildings. The broken columns wouldn't need to lift anything.
Click to expand...

I meant to address that. The floor column connection would have failed at its weakest link which would have been the bolted connection with the truss on the ledger plate. It certainly isn't going to snap two segments of 15 inch square column out. The trusses bearing on only every other column

What I am trying to say is I believe once the floor and trusses and slab started to sag it pulled the columns off center, they became eccentrically loaded, and folded into the building. which can clearly be seen in the first video. I also believe it pulled the core horizontal girders with their bearing plates outward compromising the integrity of the core structure. I got three other computers to hear sound with so lemme pull it up on them. BRB
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
I have problem with the animation shown at 1:17 in the second video. I cannot believe it is possible for the exterior columns that are deflected inward to snap back and protrude outward once the truss connection fails.. if they are already deflected in they would have to lift the entire top of the building to snap back straight and then outward. I cant hear the audio today because I broke the sound control on my 5.1 desktop theater when the damn thing got snagged in my recliner. So I don't know what the narrator is saying. Also the animation @ 0:24 of the trusses dropping one at a time is improbable. as they had truss bridging fed through them tyeing them all together. I think more accurate representation would be the truss connections breaking in a cascade or zipper collapse. As one broke free and sagged the adjacent ones would assume the load and then fail and so on. In the NIST documents they show a photo of what I am describing. An entire floor sagging in the middle with the connections to exterior columns broken.
Click to expand...

The first animation shows the initial believes about how
it must have happend. The second animation is explained
but you should listen to it first. Too bad that your soundcard
failed - i take a look for a transcript...

Found it! :)

BTW: It´s the documentary: "Building on Ground Zero"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3311_wtc.html

SHYAM SUNDER: When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have.

NARRATOR: By creating computer-enhanced images of the exterior walls, N.I.S.T. discovered that the truss connections did not fail. In fact, the trusses stayed connected to the columns even as they sagged from the heat. They pulled on the columns, bowing them inward, nearly five feet in some areas, until the columns reached the breaking point.

SHYAM SUNDER: Suddenly the columns snapped, and, as a result, the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall, because kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge.

NARRATOR: After months of analysis, N.I.S.T. concluded that the World Trade Center had no structural flaws that could account for its collapse. It was the interplay of impact damage and fire that brought the towers down.

SHYAM SUNDER: It was the combination of the impact, the fireproofing that was dislodged, and the jet fuel fires that caused the buildings to collapse. These buildings were sound, well designed, highly innovative, and there was nothing that could have changed the outcome on 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
You have to imagine that the Towers were not like a massive Rock
but like a pretty fragile construction compared to the force from
the falling weight. A construction made of millions of single parts
that simply couldn´t withstand - no matter how stable they looked
compared to our human point of view.


Cheers,
Oliver
Click to expand...

That first video still gives me the chills everytime I watch it. I can't imagine how it must have felt actually being there.

The quote above is a critical point that most CTs tend to overlook. In all honesty though, it is indeed difficult to see the towers as something other than a solid object. They were so large and so strong, it was indeed very hard to see them collapsing.

Compared with the amount of weight and kinetic energy involved in the collapse, those massive steel beams and all of the structural integrity of the towers is basically meaningless. It like making a 5 foot building out of Knex, and then dropping a bowling ball on it.

CTs always seem to view the towers as some sort of solid fortress. This is a major error on their part and it can be seen in every one of their theories. Once the kinetic energy inside those towers was released, total collapse was inevitable as NIST said.
 
OK heard the narration on another computer. They say the columns "snapped'. hmmm. dunno?. Wonder where architect stands on this? I think the columns folded in and failed at their staggered bolted connections but went inward not outward. You can see them in the trinity video. if thats the initial mode of failure you would be able to see that in the video. looks to me like nothing fell or snapped out. only after it started moving did stuff spring back or telescope over the exterior columns. JMHO
 
good finds, Oliver. I posted a link to the first video on the CD thread I started at screwloosechange.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1233

Funny how the CTists are flaming me all over the rest of the board but all I get in that thread is
619745a54bbe44f13.gif
 
I think all previous timing of the collapses began at the point that motion was detectable from whatever distance the filming camera was at. That first video seems to show that the collapse actually initiated a good 1 to 2 seconds before everything gave out, much like the first mechanical penthouse to collapse into WTC7 indicated the actual beginning of the building's collapse...

I wonder what that does to the CT claim that they fell at near-free fall "speed".
 
Watching the first video I'm reminded how absurd the notion is that the collapsing section should have continued to rotate off the side of the building ala juryjone's post according to some CT'ers, they really do live in a deluded fantasy.

On a side note, I found the video a tad disturbing with all the people screaming and running etc but what annoys me the most is the woman with the blonde hair dressed in black that runs in front of the camera at ~36sec looks like she is laughing, did anyone else get that impression? :mad:
 
Oliver said:
Found it! :)

BTW: It´s the documentary: "Building on ground zero"
Click to expand...

Thanks, it looked interesting so I'm gonna see if I can track it down and watch it.


A W Smith said:
I have problem with the animation shown at 1:17 in the second video. I cannot believe it is possible for the exterior columns that are deflected inward to snap back and protrude outward once the truss connection fails.. if they are already deflected in they would have to lift the entire top of the building to snap back straight and then outward. I cant hear the audio today because I broke the sound control on my 5.1 desktop theater when the damn thing got snagged in my recliner. So I don't know what the narrator is saying. Also the animation @ 0:24 of the trusses dropping one at a time is improbable. as they had truss bridging fed through them tyeing them all together. I think more accurate representation would be the truss connections breaking in a cascade or zipper collapse. As one broke free and sagged the adjacent ones would assume the load and then fail and so on. In the NIST documents they show a photo of what I am describing. An entire floor sagging in the middle with the connections to exterior columns broken.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I thought too, but looking att the video again I doesnt it look like some of the columns actually snap back again just before the dust obscures everything? Or maybe thats just the weight of the top pressing everything outwards?
 
Spins said:
On a side note, I found the video a tad disturbing with all the people screaming and running etc but what annoys me the most is the woman with the blonde hair dressed in black that runs in front of the camera at ~36sec looks like she is laughing, did anyone else get that impression? :mad:
Click to expand...

[CT]Incontrevertible evidence that she is an actor and this is a govt produced video to fool us all.[/CT]

I'll cut her slack, people sometimes laugh to deal with incomprehensible things. I laughed when I heard about Dahmer.

Lurker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom