An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen

[Skywatcher]

@ivan_astikov

@Grumman

How bloody obvious to anyone that has a high school understanding of chemistry. In layman’s terms, thermite is made up of a highly reactive metal like aluminium and rust. If you think the presence of aluminium and iron in a skyscraper is suspicious, you really need to put more thought into your attempted gotchas.

But don’t you see that to someone who knew all that, it enables the residue of a thermate device to be hidden in plain sight?

Like the barium nitrate that Steven Jones didn’t find?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

[quote=“ivan_astikov, post:452, topic:547182”]

And finally.

1

Or, to be more exact -“We didn’t even look for any…oops, was that a mistake?”

Any update on this information yet?

How many times have you had this explained to you on this thread? Blast events have very obvious, very easy to spot evidence that anyone with 20 seconds training could spot. A simple examination of the materials in any demolition would show signs of this stuff.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@ivan_astikov

From question 6.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Another seemingly contradictory paragraph.

What is the problem? Part of the core remained standing after the rest of the rest of the building fell down around it (shown to great effect in the OP’s VIDEO). So what is the problem?

Seriously, Ivan, all this quotage is basically you saying ‘I can’t read for comprehension and it is NIST’s fault’.

[Randy_Seltzer]

Very interesting video; I hadn’t seen it before. Though the OP reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to post for a while now. I’m not going to read through the whole thread, but I just wanted to provide a little lesson on
POSTING LINKS TO PARTICULAR POINTS IN LONG YOUTUBE VIDEOS

If there’s a long video, and you want to draw particular attention to one bit of it, it can be a problem. If you just link to the video, it can be tricky to fast-forward fifteen minutes. But you CAN link to a particular point in the video. Here’s what you do.

Step 1) Figure out the URL of the video itself. Often if you got there through a link, there’ll be extranea appended on the end like “&feature=something”. Get rid of that. You want your URL to look like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk

Step 2) Add #t= at the end of the URL, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk#t=

Step 3) Add the time you want the video to start in the format XXmYYs, where XX is the minute number and YY is the second number. So for 19 minutes and 30 seconds, it would be thus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk#t=19m30s

That’s it. Try it. Now people can get to the bit you wish to discuss without having to load the whole thing and fast-forward to that point. If you also wish to discuss the video as a whole, or the context of the bit, you can post the original URL as well.

[BlakeTyner]

Thanks for the tutorial! I knew it could be done, but never thought to look it up. I’ve saved the method so I can use it in the future.

[ivan_astikov]

@Mr.Miskatonic

@ivan_astikov

From question 6.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Another seemingly contradictory paragraph.

What is the problem? Part of the core remained standing after the rest of the rest of the building fell down around it (shown to great effect in the OP’s VIDEO). So what is the problem?

Seriously, Ivan, all this quotage is basically you saying ‘I can’t read for comprehension and it is NIST’s fault’.

My point regarding the core remaining standing is this - we’ve been told time and time again that once initiation started, it was absolutely impossible for the structure below to resist the weight above. If that was the case, it would seem to me that there should have been nothing left standing at all… not even for 20 seconds, or whatever time it was. This leads me to wonder whether the core was sabotaged somewhere above the height remaining and below the impact zones of the planes.

[GIGObuster]

@ivan_astikov

My point regarding the core remaining standing is this - we’ve been told time and time again that once initiation started, it was absolutely impossible for the structure below to resist the weight above. If that was the case, it would seem to me that there should have been nothing left standing at all… not even for 20 seconds, or whatever time it was. This leads me to wonder whether the core was sabotaged somewhere above the height remaining and below the impact zones of the planes.

No, saying that about the core is moving the goal posts. But at least it acknowledges some change in the point of view.

The point of the initiation of the collapse not being able to be stopped stands, the peculiar design of the structure allowed for that.

What I did notice was that some parts of the core remained, but it looked like the core was less stripped as the exterior fell down, giving the impression of a conical shape remaining, if anything it would look as if someone did blow the bottom of the core a few seconds too late. Once again, if one still insists on this being a controlled demolition this makes no sense, the timing used by the would be demolition men was off on many occasions.

BTW one can notice that several huge pieces of the exterior of the building did crash into WTC7.

[Bryan_Ekers]

As a thought experiment, just how much thermite would one need to take down a building the size of a WTC tower? Where would you place it? How would you install it without being noticed by the thousands of people working in the building? How would you trigger it? How would you prevent a premature burn?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@ivan_astikov

My point regarding the core remaining standing is this - we’ve been told time and time again that once initiation started, it was absolutely impossible for the structure below to resist the weight above. If that was the case, it would seem to me that there should have been nothing left standing at all… not even for 20 seconds, or whatever time it was.

In a perfect system, that might have been the case. In reality, there are millions of other factors that could lead to a portion of the core remaining up fora brief time: extra structural renforcement in that area (due to extra elevators?), the area of collapse initiation, deflection of momentum and a horde more that can be part of it.

This leads me to wonder whether the core was sabotaged somewhere above the height remaining and below the impact zones of the planes.

So rather than consider the chaos of the system you go immediately to sinister human causes?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Bryan_Ekers

As a thought experiment, just how much thermite would one need to take down a building the size of a WTC tower? Where would you place it? How would you install it without being noticed by the thousands of people working in the building? How would you trigger it? How would you prevent a premature burn?

I’d start with a way that thermite could burn a vertical column.

Anyone remember “TruthBurn”? That was classic.

[ivan_astikov]

@Mr.Miskatonic

I’d start with a way that thermite could burn a vertical column.

You’re asking how highly placed rogue members of the nation that put a man on the moon and also announced “mislaying” $2.3 trillion the day before the towers came down, could manage a technical achievement like that? Seriously?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@ivan_astikov

@Mr.Miskatonic

I’d start with a way that thermite could burn a vertical column.

You’re asking how highly placed rogue members of the nation that put a man on the moon and also announced “mislaying” $2.3 trillion the day before the towers came down, could manage a technical achievement like that? Seriously?

1. Putting a Man on Moon is a different technical challenge.

2. Read harder: the ‘mislaying’ was nothing of the sort. Missing Trillions - 911myths

3. I’m not seeing any answers, and the whole weight (such as it is) of the truth movement has been trying to handwave or explain that problem away. The problem with your thermite is that you are asking gravity to pull it sideways. Not gonna happen.

[tomndebb]

@ivan_astikov

To someone with their head up their arse, maybe.

Knock it off and do not repeat this behavior in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@ivan_astikov

NIST talking bollocks again.
. . .
How convenient.

You know, they did not test for magic pixie dust, for neolithic peoples sawing away on the girders with flint tools, or the presence of Voldemort in New York, that day, either.

You, of course, find it “convenient” that they note, (being thorough), that the presence of thermite would have been difficult to detect, while ignoring the very strong case they made that the quantity of thermite required in conjunction with the fact that there was no way to hold it up against the girders long enough to support a burn made such a scenario impossible.

In other words, they noted why thermite could not possibly have been used, then acknowledged that it would have been hard to detect, and you seize on the last factoid as an excuse to ignore their actual evidence.

So why are you not screaming that they failed to look for pixie dust?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@tomndebb

So why are you not screaming that they failed to look for pixie dust?

Pixie hugger!!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ivan_astikov

@Mr.Miskatonic

I’d start with a way that thermite could burn a vertical column.

You’re asking how highly placed rogue members of the nation that put a man on the moon and also announced “mislaying” $2.3 trillion the day before the towers came down, could manage a technical achievement like that? Seriously?

Well, he wasn’t, I was. And yes… seriously, how could it be done with thermite, how much thermite is needed, where was it placed and how did it go undetected. I trust the taking down of a pair of 110-story towers is somewhat more involved than a demonstration project involving one girder.

There’s no mystery to the Apollo program, after all - the methods are a matter of public record. Why should there be any mystery to a thermite-demolition?

[Skywatcher]

@Bryan_Ekers

seriously, how could it be done with thermite, how much thermite is needed, where was it placed and how did it go undetected.

And how did the survivors from Stairwell B manage to not get burned by any thermite, which burns at 2500° F, or hear anything other than the building collapsing above them?

[outlierrn]

I, for one, welcome our new Pixie Overlords.

[Gregg64]

@ivan_astikov

@Garfield226

You have no idea what you’re talking about here. Do you realize how big a scoop it would be if any reporter had solid, documented evidence that the U.S. shot down its own civilian plane? Do you have any idea how big a deal that would be for the reporter, editors and news organization in question? No reputable newspaper in the country would kill a story like that if it was documented solidly. Not a single one.

There is no “the press”. There is no declaration from on high to the thousands of newsrooms across the land dictating what to cover and what to stay away from. There is no cabal of people who review each week’s story budget and kill the ones that scare the government.

Talking about “the press” is sometimes useful shorthand. When you begin to think “the press” is some monolithic entity that thinks and acts with one voice, in one manner, for one purpose – you’re just plain wrong.

Are you trying to tell us there are no “stories” - I repeat; none whatsoever - that “the press” are told to back off from?

You’re very trusting, aren’t you.

I know one, a big one and it demonstrates the point he’s making. In the invasion of Sicily during WWII George Patton slapped at least 2 soldiers in hospitals (some say 3), and within a few weeks Eisenhower found out about it from his Doctor who knew one of the Doctors who witnessed it. Word got out around his headquarters and Eisenhower didn’t want the story out because he felt he needed Patton that bad. So he asked the press assigned to his HQ to not report it and told them why, and not one of them did.
Within another few weeks, letters from other witnesses at the hospitals to home folks had made it known in some places in the US, and one of these people let one of those letters get to Drew Pierson, who ran the story, and almost cost Patton his career…

so you see, you can’t cover these things up unless they happened in a room with 2 people in it and one of them died…

[Gregg64]

@psikeyhackr

And what does VERY LARGE mean in physics? The plane was less than 200 tons. The building was more than 400,000 tons. That is less than one half of one tenth of one percent. Doesn’t seem VERY LARGE to me. It is large compared to most other planes but not the building. You can compute the weight of a concrete floor slab from the dimensions and density of the concrete, 600 tons. So one floor slab was triple the weight of the plane and there were 84 in each tower. The other types of floors weighed even more.
psik

The 200 tons of airplane didn’t hit the 500,000 tons of building, or even the 600 tons of one floor. It hit a large section of glass window, a few beams of steel, a little section of non structural concrete floor and some assorted office furniture. And it hit all of them in a direction to which they not designed to hold any real load, oh and then all the material from the stuff that burns burst into flames, which either consumed or weakened everything left. A little bit of airplane even made it all the way through.