There is a show on the Military Channel by an ex-Navy Seal (I forget his name) called Futureweapons that did a really good job of demonstrating exactly what you are talking about here. They were using various dummies in proximity to different kinds of explosives to show the effects of a shock wave on a person. Basically the high explosives needed to cut through support structures wouldn’t burn anyone (anyone who has actually watched them bring down a building would immediately realize that there is no fire involved)…instead, the shock wave (if they were close enough) would either tear them apart or make them look like swiss cheese from the high speed projectiles from the debris.
Y’know, the more I think about it, the angrier I get at the, “It looked like a controlled demolition” crowd. Take a fucking look at those videos. It assuredly does NOT look like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions start from the BOTTOM. In a controlled demolition it looks as if the building is sort of falling into a hole. But the WTC tower collapse looks nothing like that. It is clear that the top of the building is collapsing, spraying a huge cloud of debris that isn’t present in a controlled demolition. The WTC towers collapsed from the top down as is clear to anyone watching the videos. The structure above the crash site collapses, and then each floor under it in turn collapses as the falling material above hits it.
Anyone who watches that clip and then watches a clip of a controlled demolition, and then declares they look exactly the same is someone who cannot be reasoned with.
It is possible, with Low Explosives such as the one used in the '93 bombing and the Oaklahoma City bombing, to be burned. It is considered the 4th likely cause of injury by such weapons. The number of burn injuries and the lack of concussion/blast/fragmentation injuries would indicate that a bomb was not in use.
Yes, you are right…the collapse clearly starts with the damaged floors. And in the video of an actual controlled demolition that they compare it to, you can see that these “squibs” are evenly spaced, from the top to the bottom, and the building collapses at each of these points at the same time…it doesn’t start collapsing at the top and then go down from there. The voiceover says the “squibs” coming out of the WTC are eminating “well ahead of the collapse wave.” This actually indicates to me that it was NOT a controlled demo, for the following reasons:
With real controlled demolition, there is no “collapse wave.” The entire building goes at once.
In videos of controlled demolitions, you see all the squibs at once…they all puff out, and then the building goes down. They don’t start at the top, and then travel down the side of the building as it collapses.
I find it kind of amusing that they show the WTC collapsing, and then this footage of an actual controlled demo. If I were trying to convince someone that the WTC was a controlled demo, I would never juxtapose those two pieces of video…it is so obvious that they are not the same thing.
These people are immune to reason. I got into one of these discussions on another forum. This guy swore up and down that the towers collapsed from the bottom. So I posted a photo that clearly showed the bottom still intact and the top beginning to collapse. Then he claimed that the towers fell “straight down”, so I posted a photo that clearly showed the top of one of the towers tilting as it fell. He never acknowledged his errors; he simply found a new bogus point to harp on and began posting more nonsense. Trying to reason with these people is a fool’s errand. Like a child who, seeing a shiny object, forgets what he was doing 5 seconds ago, these people will happily forget all about any points that were disproven, and return to their favorite blog for fresh nonsense.
The thing is, while you might never convince the die-hard CTs that they’re spouting nonsense, there are a lot of people listening who will buy into these theories simply because they’ve never heard anyone debunk them. I’ve got a lot of friends who aren’t stupid, but don’t make the effort to seek out the other side to a story if the first version sounds good to them. When a few of my friends started getting into 9/11 conspiracy theories, I showed them some of the threads we’ve had on the topic, and it convinced them that the theories were full of crap. So while these debates can’t stamp out these theories altogether, they aren’t entirely useless. There are a lot of people out there who will listen, if they’re given a chance to hear the facts.
A government which is competent enough to pull off this conspiracy would have been competent enough to find WMDs in Iraq, whether there were any there or not.
So, does this indicate that the buildings didn’t really collapse because of the fires or that the simulations didn’t agree with the real world. I’d put my money on errors in the simulations (which appear to have been fixed by “tweaks” to correct the original design errors.)
Not to support the OP, but that is not true. In controlled demolition the squibs are precisely timed to go off in sequence so as to direct the collapse of the building. You can see that in this video.
Thanks…that is interesting. Regarding your post about the explosions being timed, I guess I always thought that it was the placement of the explosives that guided the demolition, not the timing of when they go off. But it makes sense that the timing would be important, too.
What happened was predictable. A steel building designed for the impact of a 707 traveling at 250 knots was struck but a much larger aircraft traveling at twice the speed. During construction of the building they changed the method of insulating the steel beams against fire. Upon impact the insulation was blown off. Substantial damage was inflicted, and large quantities of fuel entered the structure. It poured down the elevator shafts taking the fire with it. The remaining combustible items in the building continued to burn unabated. The fire was fed oxygen by wind flowing through the gaping holes on both sides of the building.
Without insulation the building could not maintain structural integrity. The steel only had to get hot enough to bend. The floor joists (those still remaining) sagged and drew the outer walls in. They snapped in rapid succession causing thousands of tons of weight to slam down onto the next floor (also damaged). The puffs of smoke was the air and debri rushing out from the collapse. It was never “IF” they were coming down but was “when”.
Side note: the reason the Empire State building remained standing was 3 fold: The plane was MUCH smaller traveling at slower speeds, The basic design involved many more support pillars, and the insulation on the steel was basically concrete.
Without the ability to suppress the fires, the buildings were absolutely coming down.
ONe of the things claimed by the CT end of things is that the Engineers who designed it stated that it could take the impact of an airliner. This was true. The towers did survive the impact. However, the engineers had no way of modeling a subsequent fire that resulted. Had they been able to, the data would have been obsolete (modern offices are much more dense and loaded with flammable materials than 1970 offices).
Wait…I’m beginning to see the light. WT7 was brought down by explosives because they had to use the back up plan! That 4th plane wasn’t going to the White House or Pentagon, that was a load of bull made up by the eeeeeevil government. Rather they were supposed to fly into WT7. As DanBlather has pointed out, WT7 was the key to it all and without that linch pin gone they never would have been able to invade Iraq and uncover the planted WMDs.
I wanna know how that “pyroclastic flow” in figure 65c there melted that row of cars but
[ol]
[li]The asphalt is not deformed in any way[/li][li]The cars under the bridge are not deformed in any way (except for being dirty)[/li][li]The CHAIN LINK FENCE is not so much as discolored[/li][/ol]
Apparently, the amazing pyroclastic flow also stopped dead with no heat transfer less than a foot past the last toasted car. Or do you have a better explanation?
Dear lordy belgrano, those conspiracy sites annoy me! Ask a great list of apparently pointed questions, then say whatever you frigging like and pretend it’s the answer.
Do they every do it from top to bottom, the way the WTC fell?