I attempted to "steady frame" this shaky video - what do you think?

[file83]

FIRST VIDEO - normal speed
http://www.file83.com/yeo/steady_frame_nWTC.wmv

SECOND VIDEO - half speed
http://www.file83.com/yeo/slowmo_steady_frame_nWTC.wmv

METHOD:
I used Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 and adjusted, frame by frame, the rotation and positioning of each frame. I did not adjust the size of the frames. That about explains it.

This is from the close video footage of the WTC North collapse. The original footage was VERY shaky, but I attempted to steady frame the footage so it's a little more viewable. It's impossible for me to get rid of the "blurry" frames (I didn't want to delete them) and it's difficult to line those frames up. So, you still see some shakyness, but it's dramatically reduced.

COMMENTARY:
I see 1 main puff of smoke and then 2 other puffs of smoke below the collapse debris cloud as it heads downward.

Whether this is caused by air pressure or explosives I leave up to discussion for you guys. I just wanted to present these videos to you for your analysis/archives.

[mirandapriestly]

1. Excellent job, yes, I see the same jets

I also see a "flashie" on the corner. No way are those jets from air pressure or it would be uniform all the way around. Or at least through more than ONE window; those are jets from charges.

[file83]

2. My opinion on that "flashy" on the corner...

...it seems to me that there is a piece of something (metal?) falling near the corner and that for a split second (as it is tumbling in the air) it reflects (sun?)light. Would that make sense? Would it be possible for that piece of metal to reflect sunlight where it is at? I don't know, but I do see something falling AFTER the "flash".

Or maybe there is a "flash" (lone squib?) and that makes something fall? I'm going to have to look at it a few more times.

[file83]

3. On closer inspection, it seems that there is a "spark" - an orange

spark. That is strange looking. The only "normal" explanation would be that it is metal hitting metal creating a spark. But with so much debris falling, you think you'd be seeing alot more "sparks" if that's what it was.

It doesn't seem to cause damage to the corner - that is to say, I don't see any hole after the flash.

I have no clue what that is.

[Peter Frank]

4. Great job...

Controlled demolition.

[Jazz2006]

5. Oooh flashies and sparkies....

obviously, controlled demos then.

Who the hell needs facts or evidence when you have flashies and sparkies?

FFS

Sheesh.

[Peter Frank]

6. Flashies & Sparkies??? Your terms - not mine...

Nice attemmpt at trivialization. What do you say brought down #2 #1 and #7?

[Peter Frank]

7. No answer?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

17. Yes, I probably was trivializing...

because I've read so many ridiculous "flashie" and "sparkie" type threads here that is seems awfully silly to me to see yet another one.

And to answer your question - I say that fire and structural damage brought down #2, #1 and #7, along with several other buildings that day.

[Peter Frank]

29. Since you're refutations are based on what you say...

...what structural damage do you say brought down #7?

[mirandapriestly]

59. wrong post, never mind..nt

[Jazz2006]

72. Building 7

was hit by debris from WTC1 and was severely damaged. It also had several fires burning on several floors. The firefighters had little firefighting capability to deal with the fires because of broken watermains and they realized relatively early on that the building would not survive. Thus they decided to evacuate it, let it collapse and utilize their resources elsewhere (don't forget, by this time, some 340 firefighters had been killed), as their priority was search and rescue.

They cleared a "collapse zone" and fully expected it to fall as a result of fire and structural damage. It did.

[mirandapriestly]

60. If you think it is silly why are you posting here?

what kind of structural damage brought down #7? Just how did fire bring 7 down & and how did it get there?

[Jazz2006]

73. See #72 n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Good points

I was wondering the same thing (nearly all posts you mention are in this forum). The give-and-take in this forum can be interesting and educational, but, not when posts are soley of the "wise ass" variety.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

13. LOL!

I see what you mean, but I think there is often more to it than simple boredom.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

25. but I think there is often more to it than simple boredom..

like a paycheck, perhaps?

[mirandapriestly]

61. Yes, from OUR tax dollars, grrr...nt

[Jazz2006]

66. Excuse me? Mirandapriestly....

I just saw this post now.

Are you seriously suggesting that I am being paid by the government to post here and that I am therefore being paid by your tax dollars to do so?

[Jazz2006]

18. Oh, how clever and witty.

Knock yourself out.

I realize that this forum is not particularly friendly to those who do not conform to the tinfoil hat brigade way of thinking.

Nonetheless, I will continue to post where and as I see fit. Thanks for your input.

[petgoat]

20. Reasoned arguments are rarely flamed.

Facile and irrelevant one-liners get irritating.

I'll suppose a lot of new people are here because the 9/11 news leaking out
into the MSM has disturbed them. I'll suppose some of them are dismissive and
jokey because they don't want to admit to themselves that their complacency is
crumbling.

[file83]

22. Listen, WE CAN'T DISCUSS 9/11 ANYWHERE ELSE BUT IN THIS FORUM!!!

Believe me, if we could go anywhere else on the DU to get out of your way, we would. But alas, we can't.

But you can! And that's the beauty of it. You see, if you think this forum isn't friendly, and you find yourself in complete disagreement with our "conspiracy theories", then YOU HAVE THE CHOICE to go spend your time ON FORUMS THAT ARE MORE TO YOUR LIKING. I mean, if your mind is so made up, why bother? You're never going to convince us of anything by making wise ass comments.

Are you getting the hint yet? If you want to stay, JUST BE RESPECTFUL TO US, and we'll be nice to you. But if you are going to be making smart ass comments to EVERYTHING we say, then don't expect us to be hospitable towards you.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with people that agree with the 9/11 Commission Report, as long as they stick to the arguments in a respectful way. But being a jerk off isn't going to get you points in ANY forum.

[Jazz2006]

26. You seem to have bad habits...

of knee-jerk reactionism, aimless posts, strawman building, and name calling.

I'll consider all of that when reading your future posts.

[Generarth]

30. Right with you Jazz

ever since he advocated that nukes caused the Iranian earthquake, I've avoided taking any notice of his points.

[Jazz2006]

31. I missed that particular post.....

so I won't take it as gospel but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Jazz2006]

27. Oh, I seem to have missed this one....

yet another example of your dishonesty, knee-jerk reactionism, aimless posts, strawman building and name calling.

Got it, now.

[file83]

9. Check out this .gif I made of the orange "flash"....

[mirandapriestly]

16. Man, what is that? white smoke to orange

is a trait of thermite according to Jones. Could that be it? The video doesn't show damage afterwards but there are photos of gaping holes on the corners.

[seatnineb]

19. Great observation File83! n/t

[Jazz2006]

32. Yes, naivete is contagious, it seems. Well done, indeed. n/t

[seatnineb]

33. Denial is also contagious!

In the words of WTC janitor William Roriguez:

"On the 39th floor the police officer who was with me on the lower levels met me from the opposite stairwell ....there were 3 stairwells ....A,B and C ....and he came from the A staircase ...we met practically in front of...uh..the doorframe.He was with 2 firemen...and at that moment we were talkin' about what was gonna be the next course of action...when boom!....

We hear the impact of the other building....now we did not know that it was another plane because we were inside the stairwells..so we have no idea what was going on...we here the boom on the other building....

All of a sudden we here boom,boom,boom,boom,ba, ba!.....on our building!

And on the radio we hear "We Lost 65 ,we lost 65!"...meaning that the the 65th floor collapsed one floor on top the other,inside the building up to the skylobby which was the 44th floor.

[Jazz2006]

67. Uh huh... Have you read his affidavit?

Someone posted it on another thread - if you have the time, read it, and then get back to me about crediblity.

[seatnineb]

68. Is that the best ya got?

In the words Of Fireman Lou Cacchiolli:
“Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang - huge bangs – and surmised later it was the floors pan caking on top of one another."

Sounds somewhat similar to Rodriguez's testimony...does it not?!

In the words of WTC janitor William Rodriguez:
"All of a sudden we hear boom,boom,boom,boom,ba, ba!.....on our building!"

[DemInDistress]

41. clearly the signature of a controlled demo..wow..great catch

I missed that. I want to take that to my interview on my local cable Bronx channel. love it..
all those 911 debunker's could choke on that. !! what is the url to that ? btw, there are others like that at
terrorize.dk 911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv (watch this a couple of time and count the flashes) then check out this page http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/ and take notice of the 5 views of WT2 closeup from the east. No doubts white flashes of thermite (imo) the slow motion video is awesome. add this to your orange flash.

[mirandapriestly]

53. when are you going to go on your local cable show?

Let us know how it goes.

[DemInDistress]

56. definitely..I was told to call them and arrange a date.

I am excited about this and hope to advance the 911 movement. I find many people here in the bronx receptive to "some government complicity" in the attacks of sept.11. I just need to make them question that "ludicrous"
Official 911 Report. My best evidence is WT7. that's a nasty loose end that can't be explained away with spin. Still i am looking for more good clips to show. they would need to be about or up to 30 seconds, I have some good photo's and factual documents already.
its just I am an average guy with a passion to learn all I can about 911. I once trusted king george the imbecile that was on 911 he said,"I don't know who crashed those buildings" and will conduct a full investigation. in the weeks and months that followed I grew suspicious and found him and cheney to be complicit in some way. today I am all MIHOP what with the numerous videos In Plane Site, Eyewitness to 911, and Loose Change I feel the evidence is overwhelming.
I will surely let you know and thanks for any encouragement.

DemInDistress

[Jazz2006]

58. Be sure to show that photo that you keep insisting is the "entry hole"

for Flight 77 at the Pentagon on another thread.

That will really boost your credibility.

Hee hee.

[Debunking911]

14. What the video does prove...

What this video proves is the towers never fell at free fall. The perimeter columns are FAR outpacing the speed of the collapse.

As for the puffs, You can see the puffs growing in intensity as the building gets closer. An explosion would violently eject smoke and debris then taper off. If this is an explosion you have to ask yourself what explosion works backward getting more and more intense as time goes by?

[file83]

21. The debris falling from the initial collapse point is definitely

falling faster than the initial collapse wave. However, this particular video is incomplete and doesn't show the acceleration of the collapse wave, which we see in other videos, AFTER we see those "puffs" of smoke.

As far as the timing of the "puffs" go, it doesn't make sense that we would only see 3 puffs if it was caused by the "pressure" from the collapse field. If you believe in the pancake theory, then there would be two different things you'd observe. A) There would be a floor by floor ripple effect of puffs (many more puffs) moving down the building B)The puffs would only occur where a floor was actually collapsing.

And what is very clear is that the floors are NOT collapsing where/when we see the puffs of smoke in this video.

[Debunking911]

23. Show me the video...

ALL the debris falls faster than the collapse except the very light aluminum cladding. This was special cladding made by Alcoa to be light and not add wieght to an already heavy building. Throughout every video you see heavy debris outpacing the debris clouds which is also outpacing the collapse. The Loose Change video deceives the viewer by stopping the video when the columns hit the ground. The building is still 50-40 stories high.

Of course the building collapse speed up but never to free fall speed. It just never happened. There is no video showing this. I've seen them all. Total collapse time was somewhere around 13-15 seconds. We have enough videos to prove this from almost under the collapse.

What you see above is the pancake. The puffs aren't pancakes. That's a conspiracy site straw man. No one said the puffs are the pancaking floors.

The building is about 95% air. The tube in a tube design allowed for more office space leaving the elevators, staircases service conduits and such were the middle of the building. The elevator shaft's and stairways were encased in 3 layers of fire rated gypsum. Keep this in mind...

There were many large elevator shafts which needed air vents to pull air in and out of the shaft as the elevator went up and down. During the collapse, it's not unreasonable to predict the elevator and/or massive elevator motor to free fall down the shaft, impact and cause ceiling tile/concrete/drywall dust to eject. As the debris continues to fall and the building comes closer the debris speeds up out of the vent pushed by the plunger effect of the compressed air being pushed into the core. Remember, the windows were tight together so for about every PSI that couldn't go out the window there was a psi available to push debris down the elevator shafts/core.

The problem with an explosive here is the fact that the puffs increase with speed as the building falls. How does an explosive do that? Any explosive would violently eject first then slow down, not slowly eject then increase with speed slowly.

The other problem is the size of the puffs. These are very weak puffs to do any kind of damage to the building. They were supposed to cut some of the largest columns made by man? Think about it...

[file83]

24. As you said, you've already "seen them all" - I can't change your

interpretation of them.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

35. :)

:)

[mirandapriestly]

52. what a great trick!

post long winded "responses" of irrelevant information and link TO YOUR OWN DISINFORMATION SITE to back it up. Then claim victory when the other poster doesn't play your game. I thought,"Maybe I should do that", then I thought , "no I want to learn something here, not play games..."

[DemInDistress]

42. file my friend..where do all these new 911 debunker's come

from? are they paid hacks? (lol we also have hack). their forever denouncing good finds.they seem to shit on the dead of 911 and are willing to buy that "LUDICROUS OFFICIAL 911 REPORT". what is their game? are they disruptor's?
I'd like to know your opinion.. I see some newbies here

thanks

Jimmy from the Bronx

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seatnineb]

70. All the 911 debunkers here are sub standard and rank amateurs......

Perhaps they should be called Failing_to_debunk_911_Kers

:-)

[file83]

74. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was out of town...

All good questions. I've decided to no longer address the "distraction posts" - that is, the posts that are just obviously bullshit. We should ALL stop feeding those trolls. I don't mind the posts that have valid questions, those I'm okay with. But there are a few newbies that are going on my "ignore" list because their goal is shift our focus away from the important discussions we should have amongst ourselves, and I'm not going to let them distract me any longer. I suggest a lot of us do the same. :thumbsup:

[Chomp]

34. It seems to me that...

...the collapse of a bulding of this size is a deeply, deeply complex matter when it comes to the specific mathematics/engineering/physics/chemistry/applied mathematics of the thing.

It is not in the least bit surpriseing to me that during such a cataclismic event, a vast number of rarely seen, ambiguos, seemingly implausible things happen as the event unfolds. There are so many interconnected elements at work here - heat, pressure, materials, gravity - that they combine to throw up a thousand and one seemingly anomalous events.

But attributing these extraordinary events to things that the layman can easily understand - demolition charges for example - seems to me self-evidently facile (I don't mean that in an insulting or pejorative sense).

This approach also tends to treat each element of the trauma in isolation, ignoring the interconnectivity of all the forces at work.

[Beam Me Up]

36. Why assume the buildings collapsed?

That is the assumption you are beginning with. Why assume that? The "collapses" are, themselves, the MOST "rarely seen, ambiguos, seemingly implausible things," witnessed. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, why would anyone begin with that assumption?

All three of those buildings did precisely what they were DESIGNED NOT TO DO: They fell down--at near free-fall speed. Ten floors per second. Moreover, not only did they "fall down" their steel cores and frames were mostly reduced to manageable lengths while hundreds of tons of the buildings' contents were reduced to 10-50 micron dust INSTENTANIOUSLY. You can see the pyroclastic dust erupting from the first instants. Moreover, long afterward, high temperatures and molten steel were evident in sub-basement levels.

It takes enormous quantities of energy to produce these phenomena. Where did that energy come from? Not the jet fuel, and not the burning contents of the building. Absent explosives of some sort, the only thing we're left with to account for these "rarely seen, ambiguos, seemingly implausible" phenomena is the potential energy in the upper stories themselves. You say, "attributing these extraordinary events to things that the layman can easily understand - demolition charges for example - seems to me self-evidently facile." I say, no, it is just common sense. Steel frame buildings don't just "fall down." Never have, never will. They are BROUGHT DOWN with careful planning and with a lot of high-energy explosives correctly positioned.

[Chomp]

37. Yes

I am starting from a MIHOP-Sceptic position. Some points on your post:

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.

I see this stated repeatedly, but it is mischaracterisation of the MIHOP-Sceptic position. My understadnong is that the buildings fell due to a combination of 3 main factors: fires, damage from plane impacts, exacerbated by a peculiar building design. No one says a fire alone caused the collapse.

All three of those buildings did precisely what they were DESIGNED NOT TO DO: They fell down--at near free-fall speed.

Well, we know that the free-fall issue is contentious. So I will pay you the courtesy of not saying you are wrong if you will pay me the courtesy of at least agreeing that this is a subject open to debate. Deal?

As I have not seen quotes or literature stating that the WTC were designed specifiacally to withstand what happened on 9/11, I am not in a position to speculate on your statement about the design of the building.

their steel cores and frames were mostly reduced to manageable lengths while hundreds of tons of the buildings' contents were reduced to 10-50 micron dust INSTENTANIOUSLY. You can see the pyroclastic dust erupting from the first instants. Moreover, long afterward, high temperatures and molten steel were evident in sub-basement levels.

What do you mean by your use of the word "manageable"? "Manageable" in terms of easy to get rid of after the event?

I'm sure lots of dust was created instantaneouslty, and I'm sure lots more was created as the building fell. But this does not prove anything other than that the building was falling to pieces. And besides, were the explosive devices powerful enough to pulverise hundreds of tonnes of concrete? That's some pretty powerful explosive!

The amount of heat generated in the collapse is enough to explain the heat in the hole. And anyway, how would explosions 80 floors up the bulding add heat in the basement, post-collapse? How is that heat transferred from say the 80th floor down to the basement? Bombs cannot account for that heat, unless the bombs were nuclear.

It takes enormous quantities of energy to produce these phenomena. Where did that energy come from? Not the jet fuel, and not the burning contents of the building.

Ok, for the sakes of argument let's say that there was the need for "enormous quantities of energy". Are you saying that a few humble demolition charges were enough to produce just such a huge energy serge? Or were there a very large number? Because I'm sure demolition charges have fairly modest power: they only really knock out supporting walls in buildings that have already been gutted pre-demolition. Or was there some other form of explosive device in play?

Absent explosives of some sort, the only thing we're left with to account for these "rarely seen, ambiguos, seemingly implausible" phenomena is the potential energy in the upper stories themselves.

Well I think this is a perfectly good explanation. The amounts of potential energy were enormous (self-evidently) and they obviously reached their tipping point. I contend that the tipping point was as a result of fire/structuiral damage/building design. You say it was demo charges/bombs.

Steel frame buildings don't just "fall down." Never have, never will.

This one didn't just fall down either. It suffered a trauma, and then fell down. Again, we agree here if you think about it - the building suffered a trauma and fell down. So no need to repeat the purely rhetorical "don't just fall down" line.

high-energy explosives correctly positioned.

What are "high energy explosives"? Genuine question - I don't know what those are. As regards positioning, as I mentioned above my uderstadning is that demolitions only work because condemned buildings are besically gutted before demolition so that all that's needed is a few well placed charges near supporting walls and bingo. As there is clearly no suggestion that the WTC was gutted, how did the demolition work so well?


Cheers.

[Beam Me Up]

38. Do you actually believe what you posted or are you just being

argumentative?

Do you actually believe the planes damaged the buildings sufficiently to cause total structural failure? I have seen no evidence to support that claim. The buildings did not list or sag or even move with the impacts. They did precisely what they were designed to do: Absorb the impact with little to now loss of structural integrity. The idea that the fires had any effect on the structural components is absurd.

Do you actually believe concrete and office contents can be turned into a fine, silting powder within fractions of a second simply due to weight? Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete into a powder fine enough that it can remain airborne? You should try it. All you need is a block of concrete and a sledge hammer. It takes a very rapid, high energy blast to do that. One floor 'pancaking' onto the one below it won't do it--and floors 'pancaking' (complete loss of structural integrity) at the rate of ten a second is an physical imposibility--without the added heat and energy from exposives.

As for 'free fall' speed: I don't care whether we're talking 10 seconds of 15 seconds, the point is the structure was designed to support the weight above it and would offer considerable resistance if that weight began to move downard--yet clearly it did not. Why not? This is what you and other "MIHOP sceptics" have to explain. Why, as all the potential energy of the floors above were being converted to dust and falling debris, didn't lower structural supports remain largely intact? The buildings collapsed to dust and a pile of rubble no more than a few stories high.

There is one simple explanation for this and it is the one you refuse to acknowledge.

Good luck in your dream world.

[Chomp]

39. It really

saddens me that you feel the need to sign off on an insult: "Good luck in your dream world". Why did you feel the need to do that?

I respcted your post enough to enter into a detailed, civil conversation about it, but sadly you did not reciprocate. I read your original post carefully, responded to it politely and with lots of genuine questions, and you come back at me with insults.

But as you fired back a load of questions, and although you answered none of mine, I'll again do you the courtesy of answering all your points and questions again:

______________________________________________________________________

Q: Do you actually believe what you posted or are you just being argumentative
A: This is a rhetorical question so it doesn't need an answer

Q: Do you actually believe the planes damaged the buildings sufficiently to cause total structural failure?
A: No. As I mentioned in my post above, it was a combination of fire, structural damage and the design of the building.

Q: The buildings did not list or sag or even move with the impacts. They did precisely what they were designed to do: Absorb the impact with little to now loss of structural integrity.
A: How do you know they suffered no loss of structural integrity? And how do you know there ws no listing or sagging? How can you make such definitive statements?

Q: Do you actually believe concrete and office contents can be turned into a fine, silting powder within fractions of a second simply due to weight?
A: How do you know that "office contents" was turned into dust? There is no suggestion of any such thing. Indeed, plenty of it patently did not turn into dust: there were papers and all sorts strewn all over Manhatten. On the other point, yes I can believe that concrete impacting with thousands of tonnes of metal and concrete can crete a fine dust. Furthermore, I seriously wonder how powerful an explosion you'd beed to pulverise concrete. Could demo charges pulverise concrete? I asked this question above, but you never answered.

Q: Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete into a powder fine enough that it can remain airborne?
A: No. Have you? What was the result?

Q: All you need is a block of concrete and a sledge hammer. It takes a very rapid, high energy blast to do that.
A: It is an absurdity of epic proportions to suggest that any such experiment would prove anything about WTC.

Q: One floor 'pancaking' onto the one below it won't do it
A: How do you know? Is there not an enormous amount of energy in a very heavy object falling?

Q:--and floors 'pancaking' (complete loss of structural integrity) at the rate of ten a second is an physical imposibility--without the added heat and energy from exposives.
A: How do you know it is a physical impossibility? Are you saying that explosives made it fall DOWN faster? Or were ther chages on every floor that went off in perfect succession as the building fell?

Q: Why, as all the potential energy of the floors above were being converted to dust and falling debris, didn't lower structural supports remain largely intact?
A: Surely you are answering your own question: it couldn't cope with all the weight and rapid transfer from potential to kinetic energy (which can also explain the heat in the basement.

Q: The buildings collapsed to dust and a pile of rubble no more than a few stories high.
A: What else should they have become other than rubble and dust?

Q: There is one simple explanation for this and it is the one you refuse to acknowledge.
A: Why would I "refuse" to acknowledge a simple explanation? What would my motives be and why would I want to refute a "simple explanation"?



That's all your points and questions addressed extensively in my 2 posts. I'm not saying I am right. I'm just explaining my position. Now it is up to you to answer at least 1 or 2 of the dozens of questions I asked in my 2 posts.


Cheers.

[Debunking911]

43. I could say the same thing about your post...

If you haven't seen the evidence it's because you haven't been looking as I have. There are more than enough structural engineers who not only think the building collapsed due to the trauma but who argue AGAINST controlled demolition. Not only the civil and structural engineers but real controlled demolition experts.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/civil.htm

376 5/8" BOLTS, 188 TRUSS SEATS, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 GUSSET plates were holding a floor up and also tying the perimeter to the core. This was the weak point in construction. This is where the failures occurred. You can clearly see this in many ways. One is the large sections which were left standing after total collapse. They had gusset plates ripped clean off the columns. The other way is in the large sections of column which fell flat and seemingly in one piece.





The failures were at the bolt level above the impact and spandrels below. Most likely due to the twisting of the columns stressing the bolts above while the wieght of the building crashing down stressed the spandrels below.

The concrete was in a 500,000 ton grinder when it collapsed. Concrete has a very high strength under compression but a much lower one under compression. It shatters like glass under tension. That plus the massive chaotic grinding effect falling down the perimeter tube can make the thin concrete seemingly disintegrates into small pieces.

When the 4 inch reinforced concrete fails under compression loads, it does so explosively - shattering into fragments along the failure plane. The higher the strength of the concrete, the more sudden and explosive the failure. Stresses accumulate inside the section until a failure plane results and then it REALLY lets go. This is something any STRUCTURAL engineer would know.

There is a reason why not one structural engineer in the world, not even the ones from contries that hate us think the buildings were blown up. That's because there is no REAL evidence they were.

[mirandapriestly]

47. I hate those ridiculous posts

that you have to answer or they will they are "right", but they are so long that it will be a total waste of time. A very sophisticated form of disruption, actually.

[Beam Me Up]

63. I agree.

I just put a bunch of people on ignore. Some will say, 'What, don't you want to debate?' and the simple answer is, no, damn it, I don't. I'm WAY beyond that and as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to debate the MIHOP issue is either completely ignorant of the many, many inconsistencies in the official story, in complete denial or wants to keep us chained to a perception of reality that legitimates the most lawless and corrupt 'government' (tyranny in fact) to ever step onto history's stage. My god, these people want to nuke Iran--regardless of the consequences--and there is no doubt in my mind that they will do precisely what they intend unless someone or some thing more powerful than they are stops them. Moreover, their Achilles Heel is 9/11 and they know it. They will do everything in their power to keep the truth from becoming more public than it already has because they know what is at stake--their ability to determine our future.

The good news is, this issue transcends party lines. Transcends many of the issues they have used to divide us for so long. This is not a right/left issue, it is a truth/lie issue and a right/wrong issue and a justice/injustice issue. There are a lot of angry conservatives with their eyes wide open right now. Some of them are still 'dazed and confused' but they are no longer taking the bait hook, line and sinker.

[Debunking911]

40. I'm not assuming it collapsed...

I have been researching this for some time and I can't come to any other conclusion. There is not one sherd of evidence it DIDN'T collapse.

As for your "First time in history" argument...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm

[mirandapriestly]

45. exactly , that is the purpose of these threads

trying to find explanations for anomalies that might answer some questions. Sure is hard to do with constant disruptor's.

[Jazz2006]

46. By "disruptor's" (sic), do you mean anyone who doesn't agree with you? n/t

[mirandapriestly]

48. I explained what I meant

people who know a lot about this disagree with me all the time and I try to respond to the best of my ability. I'm talking about "nuisance" posts like this one.

[Jazz2006]

51. edit: never mind.

not worth the time or effort so I self-deleted.

[Chomp]

71. Is that addressed to me Miranda?

My "nuisance" posts?? Because I answered questions put to me by Beam me Up? Who let me remind you STARTED THE DEBATE in the first place. What a crock of dishonest shit that is.

The rejection of reasoned debate is just fascistic. And presumably you call yourself a liberal? It is a sick fuckking joke. Come onto a message board and then complain about the "nuissance" posts that don't agree with you. Unbelievable.

And Bean Me Up your posts above are not only rude but also ludicrous. You believe in something passionately, but you won't debate it. You are SO committed to your cause that to answer questions is too much for you? If that is the case then you are a coward.

And how do you EVER hope to win your argument without even discussing it? Fascists stifle debate, liberals engage in it.

_____________________________________________


And just for fun, and although I have ZERO expectation of reasonable answers, here are all my questions that I asked across my 2 posts above that you refused to answer:

1. What do you mean by your use of the word "manageable"? "Manageable" in terms of easy to get rid of after the event?
2. Were the explosive devices powerful enough to pulverise hundreds of tonnes of concrete?
3. How would explosions 80 floors up the bulding add heat in the basement, post-collapse? How is that heat transferred from say the 80th floor down to the basement?
4. Are a few humble demolition charges were enough to produce just such a huge energy serge? Or were there a very large number?
5. Was there some other form of explosive device in play?
6. What are "high energy explosives"?
7. How do you know they suffered no loss of structural integrity?
8. And how do you know there ws no listing or sagging?
9. How do you know that "office contents" were turned into dust?
10. Could demo charges pulverise concrete?
11. Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete into a powder fine enough that it can remain airborne?
No. Have you? What was the result?
12. Is there not an enormous amount of energy in a very heavy object falling?
13. How do you know it is a physical impossibility? Are you saying that explosives made it fall DOWN faster? Or were ther chages on every floor that went off in perfect succession as the building fell?
14. What else should they have become other than rubble and dust?
15. Why would I "refuse" to acknowledge a simple explanation? What would my motives be and why would I want to refute a "simple explanation"?


Never mind though. I'm sorry that your strong convictions don't allow you to address such triffling "nuissances".

[DemInDistress]

49. check out these "flashes,sparkies" this is the real deal

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/flashindex2.php

look at the upper northeast corner of WT2 about the 100th floor. watch it a few times. count the number of
flashes. I see at least 3 maybe 5 different flashes and its not aluminum that reflects the sun..

get back to me on this one please.

jimmy from the bronx

[Jazz2006]

50. I have watched it several times....

I don't see whatever it is that you seem to see.

[mirandapriestly]

54. Here's the still versions of that video

For some reason it shows up better.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/#demolition.northeast.8

[DemInDistress]

55. yes but did you look higher up..about the 100th floor.

check again and follow the breakup. what I saw was a thermite cutter charge on the northeast corner section.
below that is the link you posted,,look higher up and follow the collapse..
get back to me. did you notice that jazz dude/dudette didn't see it..Lol rotf. these people couldnt see the forest (trees are in the way).

thanks miranda. btw that's one great page from terrorize.dk. a four star website.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

62. Yeah, I love terrorize, the guy is really nice too.

He is working on changing the text to English, but it is taking awhile.
Maybe it's my computer but it's hard to see on that video. I have seen vids that appear as though charges or some other heat based "flash" is cutting it off in a solid line along the floor, then low and behold it sort of snaps off. I heard the audio from the people who were on 105th and it was ONLY smoke and heat no fire!! That is why they did not want to release them not because of the "family".

(Remember deal with harassing posts through the proper channels;))

[mirandapriestly]

64. Is this a close up of the same info?

That corner is seen in many pictures, always something going on. I believe they must have had something placed there, it is a key spot.

[Jazz2006]

65. Suuurrrre.

Neither the photos or the video show any evidence whatsoever of "thermite cutter charges" no matter how many times you choose to repeat the lie.

But knock yourself out.

Again.

[Debunking911]

69. There are other explanations.

The question is why can't you see that happening anywhere else? Why does it exist ONLY where the aircraft just happen to come to rest?



You also have to explain why we see it in one window then moves to another. A pool of Aluminum can find different channels to flow as the floors buckled but a thermite bomb wouldn't walk around.

There was also oxygen canisters and generators all over the airliner. Did they play a roll in melting the airliners aluminum? Airliners melt very easily when they're on fire...

As you can see, this airliner just skidded off the runway and into the grass and survived almost intact. It was the fire which melted it to the ground.





Now imagine the airliner hitting the world trade. It's not hard to imagine the aluminum melting even easier.

Something the conspiracy sites don't like to address is the TONS of thermite which would have been needed. How would they have been able to put it on every floor unseen? The man hours in wiring? They would have had to put it directly on the columns and on every floor. It takes a team of men months to do a small building when they really do a typical CD. They also never use thermite.