Comparing ....

[wildbilln864]

demolitions vs WTC collapses:
short video link.

[wildbilln864]

1. cutting with thermit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUkWeCYM3lI

[Bolo Boffin]

2. BWAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA!

:rofl:

Oh, man, that's priceless. First, the video has clips of shaped charges being placed on columns that are NOT using thermite, not at all, and then it cuts to pictures of cut columns at the WTC site that are 100% known, no question whatsoever, to have been cut by torches during the cleanup.

:rofl:

You are too much, wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

3. Glad you enjoyed that. So tell me bolo...if you can...

what those shaped charges do use. What compound is used in them? And how do you know? :popcorn:
As far as the cut column goes, I haven't seen any person confess that he personally cut that column. As I remember it, the photographer speculates that it was cut by cleanup workers. Maybe so.
So show me the admission of the cutter please.

[hack89]

4. They come with with either RDX, PETN or HMX

http://www.dynaenergetics.com/en/dynawell/products_lsc.html

http://www.dynaenergetics.com/en/dynawell/products_lsc_2.html

[wildbilln864]

5. And thermit!

linky :popcorn:

[hack89]

6. So why can't I find a company that sells and markets thermite linear charges?

and while you are at it, can you show thermite charges ever being used for CD?

[wildbilln864]

7. Perhaps your search techniques are limited? Perhaps it is not a publicly marketed item?

I don't know but you see the video speaks for itself.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Purebred unicorns are not publicly marketed items, either

For remarkable similar reasons.

[wildbilln864]

10. that should read.....

"remarkably" not "remarkable" shouldn't it? :eyes:

[hack89]

9. I saw rebar being cut

That doesn't prove that a huge building could be brought down perfectly. It doesn't prove that thick steel columns can be cut. That's what never makes sense about thermite - why use it? Especially combined with HE - seems like needless complexity and chances of failure. Thermite has no advantages over HE and many disadvantages - a big one being since it has never been used to demolish a large building before, how do you know what results you will get? Three perfect demolitions using thermite for the very first time? Pull the other one!

[wildbilln864]

11. "perfectly"!?

WTF? :crazy:

[hack89]

13. What would your definition of perfect be?

they fell faster than free fall and within their own footprints - isn't that what the truth movement has been telling us all along?

Care to tackle the question of why they even needed thermite in the first place?

[wildbilln864]

14. My definition of perfect?

Flawless. But nothing is perfect. Everything has a flaw however minute or insignificant.

[wildbilln864]

12. well enought thermit...

and you get alot of melted steel! It may not make sense to you but equally kerosene fires don't make sense either to me. Our opinions of course.

ETA: and one advantage might be noise level. Not sure what you're referring to with HE so ...

[RC]

15. Starting at 8 minutes and 25 seconds, the video shows

the building collapsing from the TOP of the building down. The collapse going down through the damaged area!
Proof positive this building was demolished. To collapse from the air craft hit, the area above should have stayed intact, with the collapse starting at the impact area. That is obviously not what happened.

For a better view, you can simulate your own slow motion by rapid clicking on the Play/Pause button, starting at 8:25 into the video.

[SDuderstadt]

16. And you know this how?

Please provide the math for your claim, otherwise it is just one more "truther" miscalculation.

[RC]

17. More misdirection from the blind.

You are watching a video. What math is involved? Or can't you tell time yet?

[SDuderstadt]

18. I'm asking you to mathematically model what you think you saw and your claim...

about where the collapse should have initiated. Why should the top "have stayed intact"? Please tell us why you believe that and back it up with math.

[RC]

19. A normal person would watch the video and maybe post their impression of what they saw.

And some want to hijack the thread and/or derail it.

What? No mention of the video showing the tower collapse, starting from the very top of the building, going uniformly down through the damaged area, instead of starting just above the damaged area, with the undamaged upper stories staying intact till it hit the ground?

This is one of a very few videos showing the start of the collapse. (8 minutes 25 seconds into it) Most videos cut to and start showing the collapse when it get to the damaged area, missing the real start of the collapse. Or the video is electronically zoomed to show the damaged area at the top of the picture, cutting off the upper stories so it does not show the start of the collapse.

[wildbilln864]

20. thank you, thank you. nt

:hi:

[RC]

21. No, Thank you for finding this video.

Most of the videos that show the real start of the collapse don't stay up long enough to pass around. I expect the local tag team is working to get this pulled now.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Again, why would the upper portion stay intact?

Can you explain that? Why should we expect that?

[RC]

23. Because it wasn't damaged?

Because it was still a rigid, intact unit.
Think of all the reasons the TWC would collapse uniformly from the roof line down. Only one reason fits. Demolition charges taking out the supports in such a way as to cause the buildings to collapse progressively from the top down.

Give it up. bu$h is going away and his administration won't be able to stonewall the investigations into the events leading up and including that day. 9/11 has the attention of too many people. Too much of the government's many changing stories about the events surrounding 9/11 does not add up. It is not going away till the real truth comes out. It may take 5 years, 10 years or even 20, as those that benefited monetarily from 9/11 die of old age. But the truth will come out.

It is getting harder and harder to maintain the illusion we were blind sided by a bunch of guys with box cutters who managed to level three steel frame buildings in a uniform, controlled looking manner.

Go back and watch the video, paying particular attention starting at 8 minutes, 25 seconds into it. You explain to the readers here what you see happening starting at that point. You already know what the rest of us see, because it is quite obvious what is happening. Why can't you admit it? That is the $64 question here.

[SDuderstadt]

24. You don't think fire heavily damaged at least a portion of the building above the impact zone??

Unfuckingbelievable. There's no point in carrying this further.

[RC]

26. No it did not.

In fact the fire could not burn hot enough to damage any steel supports enough to bring it down. That was just the government's propaganda to explain the collapse. Nothing more.

Bye. :hi:

[hack89]

25. Just how rigid do you think it was?

it was a relatively brittle, inflexible grid of steel beams. Just how many degrees and/or inches of flex do you think any of those joints had? With all the chaotic forces applied to that structure it was not going to stay intact for long.

[RC]

27. The steel used was not brittle, the grid work was not inflexible,

If the steel was brittle, the building could not sway as was needed to absorb the wind stress. Because the buildings were designed to sway, the grid of steel beams had to be flexible. This flexing, swaying was also the reason the WTC towers could take plane hits without falling over.

"...they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 visco-elastic dampers between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion."
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm

Back to the OP's video. What do you see 8 minutes, 25 seconds into the video? I see the collapse starting at the top of the building.

[SDuderstadt]

28. You do realize that the ability of the towers to "sway" had nothing to do with...

the "brittleness" of the steel, right? All you are doing here is demonstrating your ignorance of structural engineering, materials engineering and physics, just to name a few off the top of my head.

[RC]

29. Really? Imagine the Twin Towers made with glass instead of steel then

My ignorance you say? :rofl:
There is a difference between being stiff and being brittle. Structural steel flexes which means it can not be brittle.
The flexible steel allowed the towers to flex in the wind. Brittle steel would soon crack and fail under those conditions.

BTY, what did you think of the video 8 minutes and 25 seconds in?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. hack did not say the steel was brittle. n/t

[RC]

31. OK, relatively brittle compared to what?

The steel used in all other buildings? Doubtful. The steel used in springs? Not really.
Steel supports in large buildings are useful precisely because the steel used is stiff, yet flexible. There is no brittle about it, relatively or other wise.

Your post was nothing except another attempt to derail this thread, which brings me back to the question I keep asking about the video. What do you think about the video in the OP, starting at 8 minutes, 25 seconds into it that shows the tower collapsing, starting at the very top?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. My post was an effort to get you to read hack's words.

Instead of beating this "brittle steel" strawman, why don't you take a look at what hack actually said?

[RC]

34. Why don't you translate for him.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Why don't you READ what he says and go from there? n/t

[RC]

36. That's what I thought, you don't know what he was trying to say either.

BTY, Back on track, I still haven't gotten an answer to my question about the video, starting @ 8 minutes and 25 seconds in showing the building collapsing from the top.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. BWAAAAhahahahahaha.

Here's a hint: brittle is an adjective. What is the noun that "brittle" is modifying in hack's post?

[RC]

39. Parts of speech have to do with what here? Hi-jacking the thread?

Anyway, back on track, I still haven't gotten an answer to my question about the video starting @ 8 minutes and 25 seconds in, showing the building collapsing from the top.

There are 47 core columns. They would have all had to have failed at the same time as the perimeter columns on the same level, starting at the top and failing uniformly at each level, all the way down? Ya sure, ya betcha. Hey, Wait a minute, that is what happened, with the help of... wait for it... Thermite! Yeah, Thermite means it was an inside job. The government stonewalling and sidetracking investigations means they knew about it. Can you say Treason? No wonder the bu$h government doesn't want you to know what really happened on 9/11.

Bu$h's tenure is about up and he will lose his power to stop any real investigations into 9/11. The truth will come out. Too many people are looking into it. Too many people have figured out the real truth.

P.S. Don't forget to view the OP's video starting at 8 minutes, 25 seconds in. Then explain to the lurkers here just how something so uniform was caused by "...all the chaotic forces applied to that structure..."? (hack89's post #25)

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Parts of speech have to do with reading comprehension.

You should try it sometimes.

[hack89]

43. See post 38 nt

[AZCat]

41. IIRC brittle and stiff...

are as follows: stiff has to do with the Young's Modulus, and brittle has to do with how much strain energy per unit area a material can absorb before failure. It's been a long time since I took any materials science, though.

[hack89]

38. No - what you see the the core collapsing first

which would make sense - they were damaged by the impact and the fires. The first sign of the core collapsing would be the antenna falling - doesn't mean the antenna failed first. Remember - the core is not visible.

[wildbilln864]

44. how were the cores below the impact damaged?

why didn't the undamaged 47 core columns hold up below the impact areas, hack?

[wildbilln864]

45. so you don't know? nt

[hack89]

72. How could they hold up without any lateral support?

it's not that hard to figure out.

[William Seger]

42. "video showing the tower collapse, starting from the very top of the building"

No, it does not show any such thing. It shows the WTC1 collapse starting at about floor 98, just above the center of the plane impact:



The green lines on these video captures also shows that, contrary to many "truther" assertions, the top did not "disintegrate in mid-air". In fact, for the first few seconds before dust obscures everything, this video supports Bazant's "crush-down" phase.

[wildbilln864]

46. "crush down phase"

that's so hilarious. Ridiculous but funny. Thanks! :hi:

[greyl]

47. Do us a favor, wildbilln864?

List the people you've persuaded to join your ranks by posting weak-ass responses on the internet.

[wildbilln864]

48. Why are you asking me to break rules here greyl? nt

[greyl]

51. There's no rule against silently comprehending a rhetorical question

and seizing the opportunity for epiphany.

[wildbilln864]

52. there are rules about being off topic ....

I myself hope mods will delete off topic subthreads here.

[greyl]

53. True, but irrelevant.

My post #47 was a direct commentary on the quality of your non-persuasive post #46.

[wildbilln864]

56. fair enough, though I'm sure....

nothing anyone could prove would persuade you.

[greyl]

58. How can you be sure when there's never been a proper investigation? nt

[wildbilln864]

60. thanks for admitting there wasn't one. nt

[greyl]

61. There was no investigation to support your official story in post #56. nt

[wildbilln864]

62. End of subthread.

ETA:
Okay, this should have read
End of my participation in this subthread as this edit will be. I should have known greyl would have to have the last word, lol. Small victories. :shrug:

[greyl]

63. Incorrect again.

At least you seem to now be trying a little harder further down.

[William Seger]

49. I can appreciate that you don't understand the physics

It's harder to understand how you can deny what the videos show. Have you been hypnotized into just accepting what "truthers" say about them and can no longer judge them for yourself?

[wildbilln864]

50. I do understand the physics!

Nice try.:eyes:

[William Seger]

54. No, you don't

You just said the "crush down phase" was "ridiculous but funny." You can't now claim to understand the physics. Nice try. :eyes:

But anyway, I see that you still don't have any excuse for why you deny what the videos clearly show. :eyes:

[greyl]

55. His blog linked in his profile sheds a little light.

"Nobody needs to know physics to see the towers were demolished!"

http://nero29341.blogspot.com/

[William Seger]

57. Maybe he thought I said "psychics" (n/t)

[wildbilln864]

64. Wow man!

That's really desperate! That's not my blog! Nice try though. Now who might have published such a fraud? Hmmm.

ETA: it is funny though.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. That's not your blog? Then why have you linked to it in your profile? n/t

[wildbilln864]

71. I registered one with that address...

but don't have time to spend on it. So I deleted the few posts I did make and had forgotten about it thinking maybe later. Should have deleted the link in my profile but rarely look at my profile so I didn't till now. So I guess it is my blog technically but I made none of those posts on that are there now! Someone has hacked it.

ETA: Or it's expired maybe and someone published under the same url? All I know is Those aren't my posts.

[greyl]

76. They sure do look like your posts.

It's a good thing the person that signed up at your expired address wasn't mean-spirited, eh?
You should really be more careful about the links you throw around.

[wildbilln864]

78. Yes, I see I should have deleted the link but...

never expected that.
Hell, I could start a blog and call it greyl.blogspot or some other poster here if I wanted to but I don't need to ridicule anyone to boost my ego. A perceived petty victory for some looser I guess. Not something I'd want to do though.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Oh, my. Wildbill's got a blog.

Wildbill, just a suggestion. I'm sure that you can download the DU animated smileys to your own computer, and then upload them to your blog's storage. That way you don't have to hotlink to DU servers.

Surely you aren't that much of a drain on DU resources, but still it is considered common courtesy to at least link to images from your own blog or someplace like Photobucket.

[wildbilln864]

83. Again, it's not my blog bolo.

And actually, I'm wondering if what's been done isn't illegal. :dilemma:

[Bolo Boffin]

84. You will notice, wildbill, that this is the first post I made on the subject

well before you made it clear you hadn't had that address for a while.

But don't let that stop your persecution complex.

[wildbilln864]

85. lol...

okay bolo. You're correct, I didn't notice that.

"But don't let that stop your persecution complex." Thanks for the laugh BTW. :hi:

[wildbilln864]

95. kick. nt

[wildbilln864]

59. Sure I can!

But I guess that depends on your interpretation of what you call the "crush down phase". And what you understand about "conservation of momentum".

What are you claiming the video clearly shows? I acknowledge that for a short period the upper section would crush some floors. But the undamaged lower part of the building would be much stronger than the damaged section that began to fall. The fall would be arrested or deflected off to a side. Something took out the support columns for the two towers for them to have completely collapsed to the ground. Otherwise there'd be other buildings in history that would have completely collapsed from office fires but there are none!

NIST admits that their report:
“does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”
(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Nobody will go into the details of the building's collapses after collapse initiation. Until they can and do, CD remains a possibility! I do hope I am wrong and those buildings collapsed as we've been told. But I don't think so. If a team had had access to all the wreckage, before it was hauled away, we'd know the truth. I do hope you or someone convinces me that nine eleven wasn't an inside job! I really do. I'm open for it. But right now I believe it was.

[William Seger]

65. Baloney

The videos clearly show where the collapse began and at least the first few seconds of what happened before everything gets obscured by dust. Any valid hypothesis needs to explain what we see. The NIST hypothesis does. If you have an hypothesis that also explains what we actually see but requiring demolition charges, you certainly haven't presented it. Instead, you just misrepresent what the videos show and then explain that misrepresentation as a demolition.

> "But the undamaged lower part of the building would be much stronger than the damaged section that began to fall."

The undamaged part immediately below the part that fell would only be slightly stronger than the lower part of the part that fell -- just strong enough to carry one or two more floors (depending on whether the initial collapse was a single floor, or more likely, two floors). But as Bazant explained, after the first floor or two collapsed, the forces on the remaining top and bottom sections were not equal: The difference was the mass and the momentum of the debris that was just created by that collapse, and the difference got larger rather than smaller as the collapse proceeded. That's the reason for the "crush down" phase, and you don't even need the math to understand it. But Bazant did the math, too, calculating both the forces and the ability of the structures above and below to withstand those forces. On the other hand, you just keep pecking on your keyboard with empty claims that you understand it better than a guy who writes textbooks on structural mechanics.

> "The fall would be arrested or deflected off to a side."

The only thing that could arrest the collapse would be a structural strength greater than the forces applied. Bazant and others have repeatedly shown with real physics that that condition did not exist. On the other hand, you have shown jackshit to support your claims. And since the force of gravity is strictly downward, the only thing that could cause a top section to fall off to the side would be one side of the building resisting the collapse while the other side collapsed enough to allow the center of mass of the top section to rotate outside the footprint -- i.e. a vertical displacement of over 100 feet. And since the top would actually be trying to rotate around its center of mass while that was happening, the standing part of the building would need to withstand lateral forces in the opposite direction at the same time that it was withstanding the vertical forces. Specifically, it would need to withstand the "equal and opposite" force necessary to push the top mass 100 feet laterally. The fact that the tops of both towers did tilt shows that one side of each tower did briefly resist the collapse, but once those sides also gave way, there was no way the tops were going to fall over the side, your imaginary physics notwithstanding.

As I said, you can't say stuff like that and also claim to understand the physics. You obviously do not.

> "Otherwise there'd be other buildings in history that would have completely collapsed from office fires but there are none!"

Gotcha. Nothing can happen unless it's happened before. Which means nothing can happen. Which is obviously why it hasn't happened before, huh.

> "Nobody will go into the details of the building's collapses after collapse initiation."

Since this started with your sneering at Bazant's "crush down phase," I'm sure you know that isn't true. I can believe that you aren't aware that Bazant isn't the only one who had done precise physics-based analysis, but why do you claim things you know aren't true?

[wildbilln864]

66. "No thanks. I'll pass on your baloney.

"The videos clearly show where the collapse began and at least the first few seconds of what happened before everything gets obscured by dust. Any valid hypothesis needs to explain what we see. The NIST hypothesis does."

I see three buildings completely collapse to the ground. NIST does not explain what happened to the 47 columns below the impact area! You see that upper section started leaning. It's center of gravity changed. It should have continued leaning further unless something removed the core columns below it allowing it to continue down at that angle.

[William Seger]

67. Yes, "something removed the core columns below"

Overwhelming force. See Bazant's calculations.

[wildbilln864]

70. You believe the smaller damaged mass...

overwhelmed the much larger undamaged structure below? Maybe I misunderstand you?

[William Seger]

73. Yeah, you understand the physics, dontcha

Neither the size nor the mass of the lower structure have a damn thing to do with anything. The buildings collapsed totally because the falling masses delivered more impact force than the strength of the lower structure could withstand. At any given level of the building, the structure was designed to have a carrying capacity of perhaps three times the expected dead and live service loads -- a very reasonable safety margin under normal conditions. By Bazant's calculations, the falling mass delivered at least 8 times that much force. The reason that the only structural engineers who have signed up for the "truth movement" are a tiny handful of crackpots who don't seem to know what they're talking about, is because most structural engineers know that very, very few buildings could possibly withstand that kind of disaster. And here's some real 9/11 truth for you, wildbill: There is exactly one reason why buildings are not designed to withstand that kind of disaster: the cost.

[wildbilln864]

74. Yes I do!

The buildings were:
47 massive steel core columns running vertically from the foundations up to the tops.
surrounded on the outside perimeter with Al clad steel columns running vertically from the foundations up to the tops.
Linking these on every floor was a floor system of trusses with 4" concrete poured onto corrugated steel decking panels like these.
As the buildings collapsed, huge chunks are seen falling off the sides of the building in all directions.
Reducing the mass of coming down on the undamaged lower part. Also the upper section leaned changing it's center of gravity. Reducing the force on part of the building. Some of that force becomes lateral reducing the vertical force more.
Saying "The buildings collapsed totally because the falling masses delivered more impact force than the strength of the lower structure could withstand." just doesn't explain it. What caused the core columns to give way all the way to the ground? The upper section was destroyed as it fell.

Did the core columns keep snapping all the way down? All of them one floor after the other? No!
Did they buckle all the way down? If so, why doesn't it show the attached floors pushing the outer perimeter columns outward as it fell? How do you see those core columns reacting as it fell all the way down to the ground?

Or did they go into the ground like nails penetrating after being struck by a hammer? Nope. They did not.
Enlighten me?
Please.

[William Seger]

75. No, you do not

> "Saying 'The buildings collapsed totally because the falling masses delivered more impact force than the strength of the lower structure could withstand.' just doesn't explain it."

Yes, it does explain it -- to anyone who understands what those forces were and what the lower structure could withstand. I've given you a short qualitative description -- a structure that was designed to carry three times its expected load was hit with a dynamic force about eight times that much -- and Bazant's paper gives the precise quantitative justification for that description. In fact, Bazant's analysis is a simplified model that represents the best possible (but unrealistic) scenario where the structure put up its maximum resistance to the collapse. In reality, the building failed mainly by being ripped apart at its structural connections, and the lost structural integrity meant that the collapse required even less force than crushing the columns.

Your inability to understand these things is nobody's problem but your own. Even though you don't have the first foggy notion about either the forces involved or what the structures could withstand, you keep claiming Bazant must be wrong because it doesn't fit your totally imaginary physics, which were invented for the sole purpose of rationalizing your demolition delusions. And even though you won't be able to find a single qualified engineer who can write a peer-reviewed quantitative analysis agreeing with you, you'll keep saying it. But you're never going to convince anyone you're right except for equally ignorant people. And even if there is eventually another 9/11 investigation, it won't take long to dispense with this sort of demolition silliness, because it's based on bullshit.

In short, you are a perfect example of why the majority of the "truth movement" is hopelessly stuck in the mud and has nothing but a very sad and disappointed future ahead of it.

[wildbilln864]

77. such hostility!

:rofl: at you! Your desperation is very telling.
You can't explain what happened to the columns. You completely avoid commenting on them. So you launch into the usual slander of my understanding the physics. I'm not surprised.
That always happens when you guys can't explain something.

[William Seger]

79. LMAO, yeah, it's "desperation" wildbill

... or maybe that's just another delusion? Sorry you seem to have missed it (duh), but I did explain what happened to the columns in my post, and you obviously have no cogent response to what I said. Nothing at all. Instead, you try to pretend I didn't give an explanation, even though it's right there? Amazing (and not in a flattering way).

I bet I explained at least a dozen times to petgoat what happened to the columns, too, and I'm pretty sure you read all of those, but let's do it again: The loss of structural integrity meant that the columns were mainly pushed aside and broken at their connections. They didn't need to be crushed, although as Bazant and others have demonstrated, there was more than enough force to do that. Your imaginary physics are completely irrelevant, as is your inability or unwillingness to understand.

You argue your nonsense as disingenuously as petgoat did, and even though you are rapidly becoming as pointlessly annoying with your willful ignorance as he was, I'll just keep rubbing your nose in it for as long as you like. If that persona suits you, knock yourself out and post some more bullshit, then roll around on the floor.

[wildbilln864]

80. So which sentence in your post mentions specifically...

how those columns reacted william? I must have missed that one. :shrug:

[William Seger]

81. You seem to miss a lot

In the specific post you replied to:

Yes, it does explain it -- to anyone who understands what those forces were and what the lower structure could withstand. I've given you a short qualitative description -- a structure that was designed to carry three times its expected load was hit with a dynamic force about eight times that much -- and Bazant's paper gives the precise quantitative justification for that description. In fact, Bazant's analysis is a simplified model that represents the best possible (but unrealistic) scenario where the structure put up its maximum resistance to the collapse. In reality, the building failed mainly by being ripped apart at its structural connections, and the lost structural integrity meant that the collapse required even less force than crushing the columns.

Perhaps you missed it because, everywhere except in the last sentence which I've bolded, I referred to "the structure" instead of just the columns. That would be because the theoretical carrying capacity of a column was not relevant when the structural integrity was lost (i.e. the structural stability provided by the floor joists and beams, which held the columns vertical). And that would be exactly the point I was making, because it's the answer to your befuddlement over what happened to the columns.

[wildbilln864]

82. Sure, I miss things sometimes.

"...In reality, the building failed mainly by being ripped apart at its structural connections, and the lost structural integrity..."

That's a hoot William!
"Had Dr. Bazant only looked a little further then perhaps he would have begun to see through NIST's set-up.

Perhaps then he would have gone on to search for a collapse theory which did actually conform to the evidence and the real phenomenon identified during the collapse, evidence which was deemed unfit for inclusion in the NIST report."

[William Seger]

86. LOL, Gordon Ross

Gordon Ross is neither a structural engineer nor a physicist, although he's much better at spinning a technical-sounding yarn than any of the other "9/11 scholars." Still, there must be some reason that he hasn't had any papers published in a peer-reviewed technical journal, as Bazant and Greening have. Maybe it's because he doesn't know what he's talking about...

http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/05/failure-of-truth-movements-engineer.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3174952&postcount=190
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2748783&postcount=6

[wildbilln864]

87. Newton's Bit.

One alledged engineer?
and Mackay!? nuh uh!

the fourth link with no evidence of anything!
the fifth seems to be talking about the seismic evidence. irrelevent.
same for the last link! unproven assertions.

So basically you're relying on the unknown character, Newton's Bit. And who the heck is he?
One unknown blogger proves nothing.

[William Seger]

88. Nope. Bazant writes textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles

Gordon Ross publishes on a propaganda site called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice," and even an "unknown blogger" (who actually is a structural engineer) can spot errors in his analysis, which even non-structural engineers like myself can see and understand once they're pointed out. Sorry, wildbill -- it's no contest.

[wildbilln864]

89. Well, I have no argument with that....

and I would like to see Ross answer those issues.
But I still want an investigation of 9/11. Even if Bazant is right, no one was permitted to investigate the debris thoroughly enough to establish that's exactly what happened.

"The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the
forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a
total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the
steel columns to very high temperature." link

How long is required to establish the temps required for Bazant's scenario?
And how does he know that temperature was indeed reached for the required time?
If a building can collapse after only burning for less than an hour, then why haven't other buildings followed suit?
Can Bazant explain that? I don't think so, maybe you do.

The main reason I have always wanted to see an investigation is because the collapses do look like CD. That's reason enough for me to want a real investigation when considering all that has happened and been revealed during the Bush admin years.

So until there is an investigation, then it's just Bazant's educated opinion.
CD could also be the reason for the collapses. Bazant just shows why he thinks it was kerosene/office fires.
His math can be right in his math and he can still be wrong about what happened.

There are too many unanswered issues with 9/11 for me to accept Bazant's opinion when he wasn't there examining the debris himself.

[LARED]

90. Question willbill864

Why the fascination with the debris? What do you think would have happened differently if Bazant, or you, or I had the chance to personally examine the debris?

Much of the debris was sorted out and experts got to pick out interesting pieces for their analysis. I know not every single bit of debris was available, but so what?

[wildbilln864]

91. It was a crime scene and should have been treated as such...

as long as it didn't hinder rescue efforts. Lared.

[Realityhack]

92. Even if we agreed on that...

you seem to be implying that now that the 'crime scene' no longer exists we can never demonstrate to your satisfaction that the buildings did not come down as part of some controlled demolition.
Based on the fact that you think they look a lot alike.
And backed up with absolutely no math because the math says CD wasn't needed.

Why would anyone think that you would accept the findings of any group with respect to 9-11 if said findings don't back up your pre-drawn conclusions?

[LARED]

94. Can you answer the question? nt

[wildbilln864]

96. I did! nt

[Realityhack]

93. If...

"If a building can collapse after only burning for less than an hour, then why haven't other buildings followed suit?"
Come on. That is a silly question even for you. How many other buildings of the same design have been hit by airplanes?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you 'just ask questions' of that caliber?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[dlaliberte]

97. Excellent visibility of flashes

This is an excellent video that shows flashing in many windows above the impact area, and below in a few cases during the demolition.

Also visible much more than in other videos I have seen is the large number (several dozens) of flashes in the clouds soon after they explode out of the building, and on the steel core structure, as if they fired a bit late, or their explosion was triggered by the blast that ejected them. This late firing of charges might be fairly likely in this kind of demolition (starting from the middle, and trying to appear like a collapse), but I expect it is not used very often.

So I am curious why the flashes stand out so clearly in this video? Was there some video processing technique that was used?

It seems very unlikely that the flashes or sparks would be paper or glass. How could it survive the blast (or crush, if you prefer) and then suddenly flash just once? Static electricity might make more sense, but it is not uniformly distributed as one would expect. Has there been any evidence of static electricity in other demolitions/collapses?