Interesting View of the collapse

Take a look here, pretty cool, let's you go through one of the collapses frame by frame:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...ts_frames.html

Pay particular attention to frames 3 and 7. There appears to be highly concentrated blasts of energy exiting the building several floors below the current location of the collapse. I would guess these are shooting out about 20 feet, but that's just a guess.

Anyway, the collapse is officially blamed on pancaking. If this is the case, what are these blasts of energy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

Take a look here, pretty cool, let's you go through one of the collapses frame by frame:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...ts_frames.html

Pay particular attention to frames 3 and 7. There appears to be highly concentrated blasts of energy exiting the building several floors below the current location of the collapse. I would guess these are shooting out about 20 feet, but that's just a guess.

Anyway, the collapse is officially blamed on pancaking. If this is the case, what are these blasts of energy?

---

That blast of energy is called air. A skyscraper is something like 70% air space. As the building is falling it has to push the air out.

No, the blasts are far too concentrated and consistent to be air escaping from the building from pancaking. Besides, it's several floors below where the pancaking is supposedly occurring.

Each floor supposedly slams into the lower floor, pulverizing the collapsing floor to dust in the process. How can that cause concentrated jets of energy several floors below?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

No, the blasts are far too concentrated and consistent to be air escaping from the building from pancaking. Besides, it's several floors below where the pancaking is supposedly occurring.

Each floor supposedly slams into the lower floor, pulverizing the collapsing floor to dust in the process. How can that cause concentrated jets of energy several floors below?

---

I am sorry but I would tend to differ. You can not see what floors are pancaking. Als what you say is speculation that it is far to concentrated to be air escaping. If it were an explosion as you are trying to imply. You should be able to see a flash form the blast.

some HOT chicks on here!!!!
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146

I am sorry but I would tend to differ. You can not see what floors are pancaking. What you say is speculation "that it is far to concentrated to be air escaping". If it were an explosion as you are trying to imply. You should be able to see a flash form the blast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

I am sorry but I would tend to differ. You can not see what floors are pancaking. What you say is speculation "that it is far to concentrated to be air escaping". If it were an explosion as you are trying to imply. You should be able to see a flash form the blast.

---

It is speculation that pancaking caused the collapse. In any event, the collapsing floors are definitely above the location of the concentrated blast. There is nothing else going on on the floor except the blast, the collapse is several floors above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

It is speculation that pancaking caused the collapse. In any event, the collapsing floors are definitely above the location of the concentrated blast. There is nothing else going on on the floor except the blast, the collapse is several floors above.

---

I have looked at it again. What you are saying is speculation there is no way you can make that claim. As a Fire Investigator I can tell you, that you could not do anything but speculate from that footage. I also would speculate that that it is air pushing out drywall and concrete dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

I have looked at it again. What you are saying is speculation there is no way you can make that claim. As a Fire Investigator I can tell you, that you could not do anything but speculate from that footage. I also would speculate that that it is air pushing out drywall and concrete dust.

---

But if it was a random event like air pushing out drywall, don't you find it a little too consistent? There are two separate events happening in relatively the same location only on different floors. It is not blowing out in a POOF of smoke, but rather a steady stream of I would guess about 20 feet.

The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do, but it shoots out in a jet suggests there was a lot of power behind it.

It happened twice, identical except in their location a short time before the collapse reached the floor it's happening on. I know this is just a theory, of course it can't be proven by video alone, but it's just too consistent to be random events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

It happened twice, identical except in their location a short time before the collapse reached the floor it's happening on. I know this is just a theory, of course it can't be proven by video alone, but it's just too consistent to be random events.

---

i'm assuming we're talking about the World Trade Center Shoah here, and you are incognizant of the construction history in NYC at the time the WTC was built:eek:

Besides the nefarious proclivity builders have to cut corners, our beloved Sopranos further cut corners to pad their coffers!!! There are no post-Fifties buildings in NYC built with the integrity of the Empire State building, which was completed in 13 months. There is no "coated rebar" or any other such plot, just good ol' Amerikkklan greed:mad:

Osama was surprised at the results...and now the terrorist world KNOWS that our babelous towers of arrogance are basically house of cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

But if it was a random event like air pushing out drywall, don't you find it a little too consistent? There are two separate events happening in relatively the same location only on different floors. It is not blowing out in a POOF of smoke, but rather a steady stream of I would guess about 20 feet.

The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do, but it shoots out in a jet suggests there was a lot of power behind it.

It happened twice, identical except in their location a short time before the collapse reached the floor it's happening on. I know this is just a theory, of course it can't be proven by video alone, but it's just too consistent to be random events.

---

That is the problem here you are making an assumption. You have taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. How do you make this claim without some sort of knowledge or proof. I would assume that you are blaming the goverment of some sinister plot?

Why don't you view some of the other threads in this forum?

There are other aspects to 9/11 besides the HOW... Like the WHY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

That is the problem here you are making an assumption. You have taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. How do you make this claim without some sort of knowledge or proof. I would assume that you are blaming the goverment of some sinister plot?

---

What do you mean I'm making an assumption?

I'm discussing two blasts shooting out of one of the towers that don't jive in my mind with a pancaking building. These are theories and questions I have. There is no proof that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 either, yet everyone seems to accept that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

What do you mean I'm making an assumption?

I'm discussing two blasts shooting out of one of the towers that don't jive in my mind with a pancaking building. These are theories and questions I have. There is no proof that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 either, yet everyone seems to accept that.

---

This is an assumption....
"The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do"
It does exacty what I think a cloud of dust is going to do. There is little doubt in my mind that you are trying to make facts fit your theory.

This is my theory:
1) You have a problem with the US Government.
2) You think anything the US Government does is wrong.
3) You would much rather believe that there is a conspiracy than to weigh the facts.

You can not be an unbias person by looking at still photos and saying that you think it should like this. You have to weigh the facts into that. Example of this is, you telling me that there were explosives in the building. there is not one fact that backs that up.
Facts:
There is no flash from an explosion.
I do know that two aircraft hit the WTC.
I do know the heat could have gotten to a tempature to warp steel.
Dust samples that were taken form the WTC did not indicate there was explosives used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

This is an assumption....
"The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do"
It does exacty what I think a cloud of dust is going to do. There is little doubt in my mind that you are trying to make facts fit your theory.

---

Actually it is you who is trying to make facts fit your theory.

You state those blasts are exactly what a cloud of dust to look like. A cloud of dust by definition should look like a cloud. Those are high pressure streams of dust. Now, you have to minimize what those blasts might be to make it fit your theory that pancaking caused the collapse.

Like I said, those two blasts in the video are too consistent and controlled to be random events like drywall and concrete breaking. The collapsing platforms are still several floors up and are not yet 'pancaking' the location where the blasts are occurring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

This is my theory:
1) You have a problem with the US Government.
2) You think anything the US Government does is wrong.
3) You would much rather believe that there is a conspiracy than to weigh the facts.

You can not be an unbias person by looking at still photos and saying that you think it should like this. You have to weigh the facts into that. Example of this is, you telling me that there were explosives in the building. there is not one fact that backs that up.
Facts:
There is no flash from an explosion.
I do know that two aircraft hit the WTC.
I do know the heat could have gotten to a tempature to warp steel.
Dust samples that were taken form the WTC did not indicate there was explosives used.

---

Let me tell you something about myself, I agreed with Bush when he was lobbying for war in Iraq. I foolishly believed his propaganda like everyone else. Since then I have realized what is really going on, however when you say I hate everything the U.S. gov't does, you're wrong, I was a backer at one time.

Since then, I have weighed ALL the facts and made my own decisions accordingly. I'll ask you if you have weighed all the facts. Have you seen the Truth & Lies of 9/11?

I made this thread to discuss the collapse shown in this video, I wondered how long it would take for it to be reduced to personal attacks and it looks like it only took 2 pages.

It is typical of people on your side of the fence to resort to name calling and finger pointing rather than just discussing a topic. We can each have an opinion on a subject without feeling threatened, your accusations suggests you can't accept this.

I'll ask you to weigh all the facts before accusing others of not doing so.

The Truth & Lies of 9/11 by Michael Ruppert available here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the topic at hand.

The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the topic at hand.

The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

---

Osama bin Laden, who was quite adept in the construction business, did not expect the whole building to collapse!!! The answer, therefore, must be in the materials used to build the towers.

The construction industry during the 60s and 70s was full of corrupt building inspectors, and when you consider the rate of inflation back then, lawd knows what kind of crap went into building the towers:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

---

This is an assumption:
"The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle."
There is not one fact in that statement.

This another assumption:
Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

Kerosene is all you are assuming was burning. Kerosene was the accelerant. Other things burn tables chairs desks carpet and other building matl. In that statement you are assuming that the steel melted it did not melt to make the building fall it became distorted. I have seen many metal buiding fires aftermath and you can see the steel beams that warp.

Show me the Photo of the people. Not some fuzzy photo either, something clear where you can see it is a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EminemsRevenge

Osama bin Laden, who was quite adept in the construction business, did not expect the whole building to collapse!!! The answer, therefore, must be in the materials used to build the towers.

The construction industry during the 60s and 70s was full of corrupt building inspectors, and when you consider the rate of inflation back then, lawd knows what kind of crap went into building the towers:eek:

---

The buildings did withstand the impact of the airplanes at 500 MPH, I was surpised they didn't topple at that point. Turns out they were designed to survive a plane crash. They also were designed to withstand 160 MPH winds. One of the buildings suffered a fire in the 70s. Another survived a bomb in 1993.

Pretty strong buildings in my book.

They were also full of asbestos. Not sure when asbestos became outlawed, but I don't doubt you when you say there were some shenanigans going one when they were built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

This is an assumption:
"The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle."
There is not one fact in that statement.

This another assumption:
Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

Kerosene is all you are assuming was burning. Kerosene was the accelerant. Other things burn tables chairs desks carpet and other building matl. In that statement you are assuming that the steel melted it did not melt to make the building fall it became distorted. I have seen many metal buiding fires aftermath and you can see the steel beams that warp.

Show me the Photo of the people. Not some fuzzy photo either, something clear where you can see it is a person.

---

Your right, regarding my assumption that the building is hiding a flash, but it is perfectly feasible and possible that a small explosion would not be visible at that angle. Saying you don't see a flash and therefore it wasn't an explosion is incorrect.

The lack of a visible flash does not rule out the possibility of an explosion.

Regarding the other burning materials such as tables, chairs, etc. The official story states the intense heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports and caused the collapse. If you are saying other materials caused the intense heat to weaken the steel, I'd have to disagree with you. Never has fire brought down a steel framed building. As I said earlier, one of the towers suffered a fire in the 70's and didn't come collapsing down.

Additionally, only two small fires were reported in one of the buildings by the firefighters that had climbed all the way up to the impact location, therefore the theory of intense searing heat weakening the steel supports is simply hogwash.

Here's an image:

http://www.911-strike.com/VTS_01_3001.jpg

This is the impact location on one of the towers. There are two people visible, one is laying down and another is leaning over. This is actually a blow up of a bigger picture which shows at least one more person looking out.

This picture tells us a couple of things, first of all, the fire was not hot, at least in this location. A fire hot enough to weaken steel would have incinerated these people. As you can see, these people look fine, their clothes are fine, their hair isn't singed. Furthermore, a large hot fire will require significant oxygen. If such a fire existed, the air would be funneling in through this hole to feed the fire.

Secondly, these people are leaning out the hole 90 stories up. If there had been any indication of structural damage from the plane crash, there is no way they would venture out this far. Picture a creaking, wobbly building, ready to collapse. Would you venture out to this point 90 stories up?

By the way, a lot of what I'm saying is assumptions and theory, but that's the point of this. Taking a look at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence and common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

Your right, regarding my assumption that the building is hiding a flash, but it is perfectly feasible and possible that a small explosion would not be visible at that angle. Saying you don't see a flash and therefore it wasn't an explosion is incorrect.

The lack of a visible flash does not rule out the possibility of an explosion.

Regarding the other burning materials such as tables, chairs, etc. The official story states the intense heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports and caused the collapse. If you are saying other materials caused the intense heat to weaken the steel, I'd have to disagree with you. Never has fire brought down a steel framed building. As I said earlier, one of the towers suffered a fire in the 70's and didn't come collapsing down.

Additionally, only two small fires were reported in one of the buildings by the firefighters that had climbed all the way up to the impact location, therefore the theory of intense searing heat weakening the steel supports is simply hogwash.

Here's an image:

http://www.911-strike.com/VTS_01_3001.jpg

This is the impact location on one of the towers. There are two people visible, one is laying down and another is leaning over. This is actually a blow up of a bigger picture which shows at least one more person looking out.

This picture tells us a couple of things, first of all, the fire was not hot, at least in this location. A fire hot enough to weaken steel would have incinerated these people. As you can see, these people look fine, their clothes are fine, their hair isn't singed. Furthermore, a large hot fire will require significant oxygen. If such a fire existed, the air would be funneling in through this hole to feed the fire.

Secondly, these people are leaning out the hole 90 stories up. If there had been any indication of structural damage from the plane crash, there is no way they would venture out this far. Picture a creaking, wobbly building, ready to collapse. Would you venture out to this point 90 stories up?

By the way, a lot of what I'm saying is assumptions and theory, but that's the point of this. Taking a look at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence and common sense.

---

I said not a blurry picture. You are able to tell those are people? The person that is standing has some very straight legs. Let me show you a picture.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/images/n...tc4_11_200.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

I said not a blurry picture. You are able to tell those are people? The person that is standing has some very straight legs. Let me show you a picture.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/images/n...tc4_11_200.jpg

---

Here's some clearer pictures:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ance_small.jpg

I stole it from this site:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

Here's some clearer pictures:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ance_small.jpg

I stole it from this site:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

---

Unidentifiable would be the terms for those photos.
Approximately 100 people jumped from the first tower. You are going to tell me that they chose to jump, even though their life was not in harms way? As a firefighter you learn that people will jump when they have a choice of burning to death or jumping. This would tell me that these people that jumped were getting pretty warm and knew the two options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foobar

Unidentifiable would be the terms for those photos.
Approximately 100 people jumped from the first tower. You are going to tell me that they chose to jump, even though their life was not in harms way? As a firefighter you learn that people will jump when they have a choice of burning to death or jumping. This would tell me that these people that jumped were getting pretty warm and knew the two options.

---

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...-area_zoom.jpg

There are definitely people in these pictures, sorry its not clear enough for you.

The people that jumped were definitely in harm's way, but people will burn at much lower temperatures than what would provide any sort of danger to steel beams. It'll take 100s if not 1000s of degrees of heat to weaken steel, people will obviously burn at much lower temperatures.

Let me ask you something since you're a firefighter. What are the signs of a hot fire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

The buildings did withstand the impact of the airplanes at 500 MPH, I was surpised they didn't topple at that point. Turns out they were designed to survive a plane crash. They also were designed to withstand 160 MPH winds. One of the buildings suffered a fire in the 70s. Another survived a bomb in 1993.

Pretty strong buildings in my book.

They were also full of asbestos. Not sure when asbestos became outlawed, but I don't doubt you when you say there were some shenanigans going one when they were built.

---

An inexperienced pilot travelling at 500 mph:eek: ??? The probability of such a pilot hitting the WTC would be about a billion-to-one...and two such pilots accomplishing the same feat is like finding a specific single grain of sand in the Sahara!!!!

Being designed to do something and actually doing it are two completely different animules. As for the 1993 bombing...it happened in a sub-basement. Logistically that was the stupidest attempt ever. Something beneath the WTC would have to be able to sustain a bomb blast simply because it would have to be Uberreinforced in order to keep all that weight above it standing. Since you're probably not a native of NYC, you don't realize that the WTC was built on reclaimed land, and therefore they had to build a bowl to keep the Hudson and East rivers from reclaiming the land on which the WTC was built...water has a tendency to seek its own level, you know.

The building that hosted the Triangle Shirt Factory fire at the beginning of the 20th century also "survived" a fire...and logic would dictate that more than half a century later building would be built better as technology advanced:(

We will never know what kind of shoddy workmanship went into building the Twin Towers, nor will we ever discover the illegal and explosive cargos both planes were more than likely carrying. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that planes destined for California travelled down the Hudson corridor, passing Stewart Air Force Base and West Point!!!

Since my mother lives 5 minutes from Stewart and north of West Point, how the fuck could not ONE but TWO planes so obviously off course could be allowed to fly over military airspace unchallenged!!!

And when was the last time an unidentified plane flew over DC???!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EminemsRevenge

An inexperienced pilot travelling at 500 mph:eek: ??? The probability of such a pilot hitting the WTC would be about a billion-to-one...and two such pilots accomplishing the same feat is like finding a specific single grain of sand in the Sahara!!!!

Being designed to do something and actually doing it are two completely different animules. As for the 1993 bombing...it happened in a sub-basement. Logistically that was the stupidest attempt ever. Something beneath the WTC would have to be able to sustain a bomb blast simply because it would have to be Uberreinforced in order to keep all that weight above it standing. Since you're probably not a native of NYC, you don't realize that the WTC was built on reclaimed land, and therefore they had to build a bowl to keep the Hudson and East rivers from reclaiming the land on which the WTC was built...water has a tendency to seek its own level, you know.

The building that hosted the Triangle Shirt Factory fire at the beginning of the 20th century also "survived" a fire...and logic would dictate that more than half a century later building would be built better as technology advanced:(

We will never know what kind of shoddy workmanship went into building the Twin Towers, nor will we ever discover the illegal and explosive cargos both planes were more than likely carrying. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that planes destined for California travelled down the Hudson corridor, passing Stewart Air Force Base and West Point!!!

Since my mother lives 5 minutes from Stewart and north of West Point, how the fuck could not ONE but TWO planes so obviously off course could be allowed to fly over military airspace unchallenged!!!

And when was the last time an unidentified plane flew over DC???!!!!

---

Plus the crash at the pentagon, even experienced pilots would find that extremely difficult.

bump