Evidence of explosives in South Tower collapse

[demodewd]

It is clear that the top 35 or so floors have snapped off and are toppling eastward. In the above frames, we follow the north-east corner of the tower as this 35 floor section descends. Using the north-east corner as a reference, I have outlined in red, the progress of this 35 floor section as it descends.

The first thing to note, is that the top section itself must be disintegrating, otherwise (as the above frames show) the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly, as yet, unaffected by the collapse.

But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate? And in fact, what could possibly cause the top section to almost entirely disintegrate, before the lower section begins to collapse?

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). Unless, of course, this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition of its own, just a few moments before the lower part of the building was demolished. More... http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/2818_comment.php

[Q3JR4]

1. Interesting....

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Taeger]

2. The possibility is difficult

The possibility of this happening is very difficult to fathom. In order to control a detonation, they would have needed to stagger explosions across a VERY large area. They would need A LOT of detonating wire. The possibility of the detonating wire surviving in a fire like that for two hours is pretty doubtful.

The disintegration of the upper structure is explained by the fact that the building wasn't meant to stand at a 15 degree angle. The upper section basically twisted itself apart.


You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest).

Fire and flame travel upward. The floors above the impact would also have been affected by the spreading fire.


The collapse of the World Trade centers were caused by a pancaking effect. This phenomenon is not unheard of. There was a jack-standing construction technique used once. More than one of them collapsed in a similar way due to fire. As soon as one floor goes, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The forces and energies involved are absolutely incredible.

Beyond this, they would have needed to wire a large portion of the building in order to make the demolition look "believable". They had no way of knowing WHICH floor the plane would strike.

The only interesting issue I've seen was the rapid collapse of WTC 9.

If a structural engineer runs the scenario through a simulator and it checks out, I'd believe it. But this is pure speculation.

[demodewd]

9. some questions

Is this the expected visual of the upper section "twisting itself apart"? Voluminus pyroclastic plumes of smoke and concrete? Why the obvious discernable separation in plume color of the upper floors in contrast with those just below? Wouldn't the top 30 floors come crashing down on the 79 th floor and continue to push its way through the rest of the building pancake style relatively intact at least at the onset? Why isn't the top section tilted at a 15 degree angle taking out 15-20 stories of the east wall? The east wall is still intact when two thirds of the top section has already disintegrated.

[Bozola]

3. You assume too much

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest).

It is "immensely strong" only under certain conditions, and those conditions don't include wildly fluxing stresses in the supports as the building falls.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

4. The whole kit-n-kaboodle

While very interesting this collapse scenario leaves alot of stones unturned. Explosives would not be necessary to cause total core failure and turn the concrete to dust. The video clearly shows that sunlight was indeed shining on the towers as well as the hole in the building from the plane impact. We know that the plane hit sometime in the morning which means that the sun wasnt directly overhead, but at an angle somewhat adjacent to the hole in the building. This sunlight was shining almost directly on the core columns for over a half an hour. The degree to which this massive photon influx warped the steel can only be imagined. The forensic team of structrual engineers, who are painstakingly examining each and every piece of trade center steel, have put forth an interesting hypothesis regarding the fireproofing. It appears the trade center had a massive infestation of silica beetles. These beetles, after generations of gluttonous feasting, managed to eat enough of the fireproofing away so that the sun could shine directly on the columns, giving them a zero photon rating. Once warped, this steel quickly became the consistency of syrup, then the building pancaked. The concrete inside the building, weakened by decades of acid rain, was so brittle that it turned to dust as each floor slammed into the next with the force of a car hitting Marvin Bushes babysitter. It is a credit to the designers, engineers, ironworkers and construction workers of all stripes that this building stood for the half hour that it did, in the face of so much sunlight, acid rain and coleopertas.
:crazy:

[demodewd]

7. Massive photon influx?

:crazy:

[plaguepuppy]

18. I think he meant phonons

Or maybe bosons...

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Paris%20-%20What%20Would%20You%20Do.mp3

[NecessaryOnslaught]

26. Kick that sh*t Paris!

:nuke::nuke: :nuke::nuke:

[BassettWilliams]

13. "ironworkers and construction workers of all stripes"

really should not be ridiculed. It was their rapid response, expertise and leadership that enabled the search for survivors.

[DeadBroke]

38. About that sunlight

I may be wrong, but I think the message is a humorous attack on one of my old messages about how the summer sun will affect steel that is being erected. Truth is the summer sun and heat plays havoc with it.

Steel columns and beams are perfectly straight when they leave the fabrication plant, but by the time they are shipped and delivered to the jobsite they have undergone lots of handling and have been exposed to all sorts of conditions. They arrive on trailers and are hoisted in bundles to the highest floor. This has to be done quickly in NYC. Streets can't be closed and lanes can't be blocked for extended periods of time. The steel framing members are hoisted in bundles for speed, but that bundling often creates problems; twists, bows, and sometimes clips, or lugs get bent or knocked off.

Once the bundles are raised the individual pieces are shook out - sorted for erection sequence. Before they are raised into position each is checked for proper bolt pattern, size, and when the framing member is reversable - a beam for example that can be hung upside down or spun end for end thanks to a common bolt pattern - it will be checked for straightness.

That's done by one of the oldest guys on the job - out of respect. He'll clamp a string on one end of the beam (on the flange) and stretch it to the opposite end and clamp it. He'll then stick a 1" nut on each end between the sting and beam and then use a stick rule to measure in between the ends. He'll mark ( a minus sign - ) where it's less than an inch indicating an upward bow, and mark ( a plus sign + ) where it's more than an inch indicating a downward bow. We'll hang that beam with the bow up. Just like a carpenter would check a floor joist or rafter for bows and nail it bow up.

The funny thing about steel in the summer sun is that it has to also be checked for straightness the other way too, along the web, so he'll have to string check that too.

Those checks aren't done in the winter - that's because the steel won't bow. It's cool and remains rigid and straight - even after we bundle it to raise it off the trailers.

Steel also elongates in the summer. Robert Moses, the Master Builder of New York, the man responsible for founding the Tri-Borough Bridge Authority and for building nearly all of the City's highways, bridges and tunnels was confronted with the problem of expanding steel when he built the huge lift bridges over the East River in the 1930s. The notes, sketches and memos that he exchanged with his engineering staff are still used today and are the basis for figuring and dealing with steel elongation estimations.

I'm not suggesting that the heat from the sun played a role in the 9/11 incident, but if sunlight can give an ironworker fits over fit and finish I'm sure that the heat from a fire played a role.

[Pobeka]

5. Not buying it.

1) The airplane suicide pilots would have to be counting floors while flying a plane they never flew before in order to hit just the right spot so that pre-planted explosives would be in the right position to take the towers down.

2) If you look at the frames, the supposed smoke from the explosive blast is really caused by the upper section of the tower starting its initial collapse -- so all the air in the first floor to be pancaked is pushed out of the building.

[demodewd]

6. dirty smoke vs concrete dust plumes

If the top 30 floors is actually crashing down on the rest of the building why is there such an obvious contrast between the dark gray plumes of smoke generated by the detached top and the whitish concrete dust plumes of the rest of the building? Wouldn't the existing internal smoke of the top end be pushed out with the pulverized concrete below? That does not happen here.

[Pobeka]

8. All the dirty smoke is above that floor.

So if that floor is compressed, and not burning, all you *can* see is the dust generated by compressing concrete, plaster, etc from all that stuff being pulverized.

The dirty smoke from above isn't going to enter a floor which is being compressed generating a positive air flow *out* of that floor.

[demodewd]

10. The top section is the massive force

The dirty smoke from above is noticably separated from the dust below because it is pulverized from above and doesn't for a few seconds enter the below portion's air space.If the top section were actually penetrating the floors below one would see an admixture of the pulverized concrete and the dirty smoke.The compressed air would suck out the exploding floor as well as the smoke from the plummeting top block.? The top section would be the massive force pushing down on each floor in succession. Disintegration would be most profound on the floors below not on the massive force falling to them from above.Isn't it the case that the plume coloring of the North Tower is basically consistent throughout the fall? Why the difference here?

[Pobeka]

12. Does compressed air push or suck?

Think about it...

[plaguepuppy]

17. No counting necessary

And no wiring either. The technology has been around for a long time that would allow wireless remote detonation of charges in any desired sequence (http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html for instance) with a remote transmitter and some simple software. No messy wiring, and no matter where the plane hits you can make the collapse start there.

As for "air being pushed out" accounting for the appearance of explosions, you have to realize that this is happening just as the top is beginning to fall, which under gravitational acceleration means that it is still moving rather slowly. It's pure fantasy to imagine that this crunching together of floors could create high-velocity jets of air, much less jets of pulverized concrete and shattered metal.

Do these really look like "air jets"?

[OudeVanDagen]

22. photo in post #17

is a perfect "pictionary" definition of the engineering and collapse investigation term "drift" thanks pp!

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Snap off????

No, demodewd.

The southeast corner goes first, followed quickly by the northeast corner. The west side of the building stays attached longer, and the top part of the building crashes down into itself. The west side of the building actually keeps the top section of the building from building any lateral momentum. It hinges the top part into the rest of the building.

The exterior of the building belies what's happening inside. It was designed as a sturdy exoskeleton to support the floor supports that stretched out from the center core. Between the core and the exoskeleton was almost literally nothing but air. There was plenty of room for the upper floors to collapse into the bottom part of the building.

And so when the west side of the building finally gave way, the momentum was straight down, not to the side. The building collapsed into itself, within the confines of the exterior walls. The bulk of the floors above the impact did not disintegrate - they became a juggernaut that slammed down into the lower floors. That "immensely strong structure" had the momentum to bash its way down into the lower floors, breaking the floors down one by one.

The north building, by contrast, was damaged most severely in its core. The core structure above the impact eventually pulled free of its supports to the outer wall and began a similar process through the guts of the building, with the added mass of that very antenna helping push the dislocated core down through the building.

Again, very little lateral momentum, if any at all.

[demodewd]

15. Lateral angular movement

Lateral angular movement had already been established by the top section's tilt. Enough to push the top floors well beyond the perimeter of the east side wall. Yes, gravity pulled the top section straight down as you suggest but only after the tilt and the top section's new angle had been established. As one can see the east wall from the 79th floor down remains intact while the upper floors begin to implode upwards. If the upper floors were falling onto the rest of the building the east wall would have been compromised. This did not happen. Instead the east wall remains momentarily intact amidst the light grey exploding plumes exiting from floors immediately below the 79th floor. Frame 147 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 79th floor.
Frame 203 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 75th floor.

The middle photos show the dust cloud from the explosions outlined in red.
The end photos show the relative positions of the two lines of dust and debris.

It has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as the floors above collapsed. This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession, but what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another (larger) explosion of dust at floor 75.

The second line of explosives is much more powerful than the first, but the dust cloud from the first line of explosives, and the dust and debris from the upper floor collapse, initially obscure this.

The dust due to the visible explosions is a whitish grey. The dust from the demolition of the upper section (which is disintegrating as it falls) is dark grey. One wonders what caused this difference. http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/2818_comment.php

[OudeVanDagen]

16. Right - Wrong

Right: "It has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as the floors above collapsed." All reports to date agree.

Wrong: "This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession ..." Only if collapse sequence was uniform with a constant speed.

[demodewd]

23. each pulverized floor

"Only if collapse sequence was uniform with a constant speed"??? There's no stop and go point in this alleged process. Each pulverized floor should be accounted for by plumes of dust exploding out of every floor as the collapse achieved its result in not more than one or two seconds more than free fall.

[LARED]

24. I noticed you

failed to address the part of the statement about uniformity.

[RH]

25. Should be? Would be?

The mothod is consumately unconvincing.

It is no use to go to so much trouble to show that a "should be" did not take place but with nothing apart the bald assertion to substantiate it; no experiment quoted; no previous experience cited.

As a matter of common sense a considerable number of variables come into play.

[OudeVanDagen]

28. ... "stop and go ..."

Who said anything about "stop and go?"

Not me ... but look, IS the collapse sequence uniform with constant speed? Is that what the videos and stills posted here show ... is that what the debris grids show? No.

Why are there small single floor sections of exterior beams in the debris fields AND large multi-floor sections of exterior beams in the debris fields ... and why is there a "spire?" The lack of uniformity in the collapse sequence ... the lack of uniform sized debris ... the lack of a constant collapse speed ... the presence of a spire .... ALL point to a drift induced collapse ... not to a controlled demolition.

[Christophera]

120. Delay fuses sequence descent

I have good information that shows explosives were built into the towers as well as wtc7.

The events we witnessed, with the continuous wave of expansion, cannot be caused any other way. The use of a 20 millisecond delay every 2 to 4 floors would achieve what we saw.

[demodewd]

123. Welcome

Welcome to DU,Christophera. Do you have a link or two for your "good information"?

[OudeVanDagen]

14. Some unsolicited free help ...

"It is clear that the top 35 or so floors have snapped off and are toppling eastward." What you are trying to describe is what structural engineers would call 'drift' which is a radical relationship or disassociation of one floor to the floor above and or below. Drift initiates collapse sequences in multi storied structures.

"But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate?" That would be the inability of the disassociated section to dampen itself.

"this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest)." It's not a tree, it's a 200 X 200 foot section of building weighing several thousand tons. Weight wins.

"this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition" But there has been no evidence of explosives found. No residues, no tear-out, no graining, no delaminations, nothing to support that theory.

And some unsolicited free advice ... check the reports and litigation records of prior structural collapses (KC Hyatt Regency, Kemper Arena, and any others I've often listed) ... and find out about the failures of structural connections ... about drift ... about thermal load and dynamic load influences ... and to find out about the process used by investigators. The most recent newsworthy collapse was in Cairo ... web news outlets have offered plenty of fresh info on the protocols of collapse investigation.

[plaguepuppy]

19. Is that Continental Drift?

No, actually structural engineers don't call it drift, They call it toppling eastward - and my structural engineers are better than yours...
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ageng/machine/ae1210w.htm

Fess up, you just make this stuff up as you go along:

"this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest)." It's not a tree, it's a 200 X 200 foot section of building weighing several thousand tons. Weight wins.
...
"But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate?" That would be the inability of the disassociated section to dampen itself."

Sounds a lot like Bozola's "wildly fluxing stresses" Hate to be a party pooper, but the stresses are actually less once the top has started to fall. And even if the floors buckle and allow movement of the core relative to the outer columns there is no explanation for the core columns telescoping on their own lengths. The compressive forces on the columns actually lessen once they start to tilt, if only a little, so why is it exactly at that moment that every column in the top begins to telescope like a folding pointer? Must be those wildly fluctuating undamped stresses, eh?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/flashes.htm

[LARED]

20. and my structural engineers are better than yours...

Huh? Speaking of making stuff up

The link you provided is a paper written by Agricultural Engineers not Structural engineers.

Did you think no one would notice the difference?

And even if the floors buckle and allow movement of the core relative to the outer columns there is no explanation for the core columns telescoping on their own lengths.

I think there is a pretty reasonable explianation. Column strength is very dependent of lateral support. In the WTC some of that lateral support came from the floor trusses for the core and most of the lateral support for the outer column came from the floor joists. Also keep in mind that once the outer columns cease to provide support, (ie the top section starts to topple) the other column must take up the additional load. Also as the core starts to rotate it has now been put in a stress condition it was not designed to handle.

The compressive forces on the columns actually lessen once they start to tilt, if only a little,

How does that happen?

so why is it exactly at that moment that every column in the top begins to telescope like a folding pointer?

What video are you looking at? The top section comes apart from the bottom of it, to the top. As the bottom floors come apart the sections above them lose all structural integrity.

[demodewd]

27. two questions

What force initiates the exploding plumes below the top section? What force causes the massive exploding plumes as the top section "loses its structural integrity" from the "bottom of it to the top?

[RH]

29. Gravity.

B-)

Presumably.

Do I win a prize?

[LARED]

30. What force?

Force = Mass * acceleration

Mass = 23 floors 40,000 square feet of steel, concrete, gypsum, filled with normal office equipment.
Or simply put massive amounts of mass :)

Acceleration = gravity. Pick your units to match your mass

Do the math and you got force out the waazoo. :)

[plaguepuppy]

32. Incorrect use of "force"

Yeah yeah, F=MA, very sophisticated science, but not at all what is being asked:

"What force initiates the exploding plumes below the top section? What force causes the massive exploding plumes as the top section "loses its structural integrity" from the "bottom of it to the top?"

"Force" as used in this sentence is not referring to the gravitational force on the top of the building. It refers to "force" in the non-technical sense of what power or energy source could create the high-velocity jets; and "gravity" isn't a good enough answer.

This is a slight of hand that Lared has used over and over: big mass=big force, big force=pulverized shit flying out at high speed. The part in between is a black box, sort of like the "magic happens" part in the wall of equations in the physics cartoon.

Big numbers, i.e. big quantities of anything, do not automatically make magical things happen (except maybe when you have enough mass to create a black hole). There still has to be a mechanism, a path through the phase space of all possible states of the building that gets you from here to there. In this case the missing mechanism is the one that somehow translates those large forces in the static situation just before the collapse, within less than a second after the onset of the collapse, into high-velocity jets of pulverized concrete.

What exactly is going on in that floor as it begins to collapse: ceiling and floor approaching each other, desks and computers being crushed, floor and ceiling coming together at 10-15 mph , windows broken, floors (if we are to believe the official collapse sequence) already broken in places as trusses have softened and sagged, pre-fab sections of the floors falling away from each other. Exactly where in all this do the concrete floors suddenly turn to dust and go flying out the windows? How do these broken floors somehow act as perfect pistons to compress air? Do the floors just jump up in the air and turn to dust?

[LARED]

43. Slight of hand

Well to a certain extent you may be on to something. The use of science has always be used to fool the uninitiated.

By the way, there is no black box, no in-between, it is just a matter of looking at the reality of the physics. You need to think outside of the box you have built around yourself.

[demodewd]

35. And...

And those 23 floors are doing what? Disintegrating before they collapse into the rest of the building? If true what is the force that creates the light grey plumes on the 79th floor?

[plaguepuppy]

31. Geeze, what a dumb bunny!

OK, </irony>, excuse me for thinking that you might actually get a joke!

For crying out loud, do you think I serious about continental drift too?

[LARED]

40. Jokes

Is that Continental Drift?

Ok, I get that joke.

No, actually structural engineers don't call it drift, They call it toppling eastward -

Is this still part of the joke? If it is, I don't get it because structural engineers do in fact call it drift.

and my structural engineers are better than yours...
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ageng/machine/ae1210w.htm

I guess you got me here. I really thought you thought you found the correct meaning of drift. Cut me some slack though, after all you are the one that at one point (perhaps still do) believed covert energy weapons were used. If you believe that nonsense you could in theory believe damm near anything including that drift is a term use only by Agricultural engineers.

[DeadBroke]

62. About that drift

One of my old Ironworkers apprentice manuals has a section with several referances to drift. A consultant for that section was Mario Salvadori, who was a mathematician, an architect, engineer, author, partner at Weidlinger Engineering, and a professor at the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science. One passage reads in part as follows, and IMHO serves as a good definintion which can be applied to the 9-11 events at the Trade Center: " ..... drift, the deflection of each floor relative to the floor below it ..."

[plaguepuppy]

33. Let us spray (but not drift)

"The compressive forces on the columns actually lessen once they start to tilt, if only a little,"


How does that happen?

It's done with vectors old soul, think a moment and it will come to you. Try calculating the component of gravitional force along the axis of a tilting column - you should find that it varies as the sine of the angle as it tilts away from the vertical.

What video are you looking at? The top section comes apart from the bottom of it, to the top. As the bottom floors come apart the sections above them lose all structural integrity.


How about: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/so_tower_slow-mo.mpeg

And why exactly does the top part "lose all structural integrity"? By the time it leaves the bottom of the frame the top has telescoped to less than half of its original height. That can only happen if the core columns are also telescoping, and merely losing the lateral support of the floors cannot cause this.

[OudeVanDagen]

36. "...the axis of a tilting column..."

Problem with that sentence is the "a" .... theory will not work in multi-storied structures .... action (verticle displacement) on one column ... what you strangely call a "tilt" .... always displaces the column above and below.

[plaguepuppy]

57. Tilting at windmills

Nothing strange about it, and no, I'm not using "tilt" to describe a vertical displacement, just the normal meaning of a formerly vertical object or part of an object that begins to deviate from the vertical. If you claim that nothing like that happened at the start of the WTC-2 collapse it puts you at odds with everyone else I've heard describe the collapse, but feel free to elaborate.

And if you claim that there is really no such thing as tilt in buildings, but some mysterious property called 'drift' that subsumes and negates the normal meaning of 'tilt' then heck, I'd like to know about that too.

Quoting from Chapter 2 of the FEMA report:
(http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf)

"As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the
east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and
progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to
collapse downward (Figure 2-32)."

So how exactly does a vertical object rotating about a horizontal axis differ from tilting?




http://www.utah.edu/ska/uu/nicole/tele.html

[LARED]

41. Drifting away from reality

Thanks for the refresher in vectors, but look at reply 36 for the answer

And why exactly does the top part "lose all structural integrity"?

I think the advice of educating yourself on the concept of drift would be very helpful. Try a google of "structural drift" or I found this link about drift that has some very basic information.

[demodewd]

44. Coming apart

And as the bottom floors come apart they explode into a massive plume of concrete and smoke?

[LARED]

45. I take it you

find this mysterious.

And as the bottom floors come apart they explode into a massive plume of concrete and smoke?

Why?

At what point does the 'plume' become massive? The initial 'puffs' or squibs as you like to call them seen exiting the windows are rather small compared to the size of the building.

Also I would add to the list of plume materials -- gypsum, paper, insulation, ceiling tiles, dust bunnies and the like -- you get the point.

Also please keep in mind those items are orders of magnitude easier to break up than concrete.

[demodewd]

46. whywhywhy

From your analysis how could the bottom floor of the top section disintegrate (explode) on its own when it could not be facilitated by falling floors from above as they are exploding(disintegrating) in succession after the bottom floor has exploded or as you say "disintegrated"?

[plaguepuppy]

48. It's the old hammer and the egg problem

If the top starts to turn to mush more or less in place, as it appears to be doing in the pictures, how can it also behave as a hammer to crush the lower part of the building? Cloud of mush or enormous sledge hammer, you can't have it both ways.

Lots of flying mush, but where's the hammer?

[demodewd]

52. Exactly.

Exactly. Thanks pp. :)

[LARED]

50. Huh?

......how could the bottom floor of the top section disintegrate (explode) on its own when it could not be facilitated by falling floors from above...

Dewd, there was a failure of the structure that started the collapse. Exactly what that was is not entirely known yet. Looking at the video frame by frame, my guess is there was an internal (the core) failure of load bearing columns that initiated a collapse of one or more floors (or visa-versa). Then, or at perhaps the same time, some of the outer columns failed due to being overstressed and buckled allowing the upper section to start to topple (or drift to be technical). The puffs of smoke seen are only the material inside finding the path of least resistance to get out once the collapse started. I strongly suggest you look at the video frame by frame. Try IrfanView. There is a option to create slide-shows of the videos frames

Once the section took on dynamic loads there was nothing on earth that was going to stop it from moving down.

Now for the 64 thousand dollar question, whywhywhy does there need to be explosives to initiate the collapse?

[demodewd]

51. Please..

Please quit obfuscating and answer the question at hand...how could the bottom floor(s)explode on its(their) own when it is apparent to me that the disintegration(explosion) was not initiated from falling floors from above? Thank you ..."Dewd"

[LARED]

53. What makes you think

the bottom floor(s) exploded?

[demodewd]

54. voluminous billows

By the voluminous billows of smoke mixed debis. You say disintegrated...I would say pulverized...exploded. And if the physical properties of the top section are transformed into voluminous billows of smoke,concrete,gypsum and office supplies what mass is crashing down into the lower section? It all looks suspended and dispersed to me.As plaguepuppy questions 'how can the top section that is turning into mush act like a hammer on the building below'? As for the reasons why these buildings would be brought down by controlled demolition? How bout...wanting to have complete control of the operation?How about controlling the area of destruction? How about wanting to create(guarantee) an horrific spectacle for the eyes and minds of the American public?

[LARED]

58. Voluminous gaps in logic

And if the physical properties of the top section are transformed into voluminous billows of smoke,concrete,gypsum and office supplies what mass is crashing down into the lower section? It all looks suspended and dispersed to me

I can't fathom why it looks that way to you nor can I understand why you think anything turned to mush, but I do need to ask this question.

What is lighter a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

[RH]

60. At the very least

there would be a mass of air. At the best of times the Twin Towers would sway in the wind.

Smoke tends to obscure. Because of what would we know what went on within the smoke cloud?

With regard to any complete control of the operation, "controlling the area of destruction" and the creation of "an horrific spectacle" are mutually contradictory.

For that matter is there not something inherently odd about the result of an operation by stealth being so obvious?

[OudeVanDagen]

55. What do you mean HOW?

Just look at the photos posted in messges 15 + 17 .... see that massive drift ... what you call "topple" .... hasn't that action created enough movement to overpower the lower structure's ability to dampen?

**The WTC was at best designed to dampen wind oscillations ... and at worst recover it's stability and equilibruim from a plane impact ... a size of plane that was popular at that time. The WTC was NOT designed .... NO building is .... to dampen and recover stability from a massive drift of several thousand tons and the motion it will cause.**

15 + 17 show it's a section weighing several thousand tons ... certainly not yet the "mush" (mush .... another one of pp's tech terms) as suggested in message 48 ... that drift .... that motion ... that's what overpowered the dampening abilities of the lower portion of structure.

15 + 17 very clearly show .... as I mentioned before .... that the collapse sequence was not uniform and was not a constant speed ... traits associated w/controlled demos.

You wouldn't find the need to be asking these questions if it were a controlled demo .....

[plaguepuppy]

56. If it walks like an explosion and quacks like an explosion...

Sometimes that's what it really is! And as with many other things it's interesting to hear what people who were actually there have to say about it.

To the best of my knowledge this is closest footage that caught the beginning of the south tower collapse with real-time commentary:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912collapse1._high.avi

The announcer is doing a story about the fires and firefighters just as the south tower begins to fall. Notice that he quite spontaneously describes the event as "an enormous explosion," which seems like a reasonable description from what we can see and hear. Rather than the collapse beginning with "buckling outer columns" we see dense high velocity dust jets and large pieces of the outer walls being flung out hundreds of feet to the sides.

The second view of the collapse in this footage (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/south_2.avi) is one of the best views of the demolition wave as it travels down the tower, something much more violent than what I would describe as "buckling." The wave does not really seem to accelerate as it moves down as we would expect if it were gravity-driven, though it seems to speed up at the end because the advancing front of the dust and larger debris thrown away from the building overtakes it and covers it up.

If anyone has trouble with the videos you may need to d/l the Divx codec. For Mac die-hards I could convert it back to mpeg or mov if you can't view it any other way.

[RH]

59. When ever before did a "controlled demolition"

fling large pieces of outer walls hundreds of feet to the sides?

I'd always thought that the main purpose of a controlled demolition was to avoid such an event, and should it not in any case be feasible to bring down a building without such an outrageously obvious side effect?

In typical videos of controlled demolitions most of the dust cloud explosive effects appear some time after the initial sound of the explosive detonations, the exact occurence of which it is impossible to mistake. Never during any video recording of the WTC collapses did I hear such a distinctly precussive sound as that heard when explosives are deliberately set off during an intended demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.co.uk/web/explosive_home/explosive.asp

I am also completely unconvinced that a catastrophic buckling of the outer shell of the building could not have occurred without it being immediately visible from some distance away.

The expansion by heat of the upper parts of the building would presumably tend to force apart the outer shell lower down but without the inner flooring beams in that vicinity expanding so much. For a struture to fail why then would it have to move any more than an inch or two, enough for a hairline fracture to appear because of the stress?

Because of a compression probem of some sort 'south_2.avi' fails to play on my system.

[plaguepuppy]

68. Compression problem

It's probably the evil Divx codec, widely used on the P2P networks where many of these clips were found. The codec is free:
http://www.divx.com/

Direct link for codec-only d/l (no adware, etc.): http://download.divx.com/divx/DivX511Bundle.exe

There are large chunks thrown hundreds of feet laterally, which would probably not have happened if it were a normal overt CD. (If you can really consider anything on this scale routine.) But to make them look related to the plane crashes the demolitions had to be initiated from higher in the towers than the usual ground floor blow-out. Building 7 type collapses in the towers would have looked very strange and raised a lot of questions.

Given that constraint it's harder to keep everything neat: explosions higher in the air will allow pieces to be thrown further out to the sides and won't crumble the outer walls as neatly as a nice progressive collapse beginning at ground level.

[RH]

69. "harder to keep everything neat"

is exacty the problem.

Studying videos of controlled demolitions I hear loud sharp cracks which obviously correspond to the detonation of explosives. There can surely be no mistaking it. They're the sort of sharp bangs to make your heart skip a beat.

Where then in any recording of the WTC events was there anything similar? I notice nothing of the sort, especially before the collapse of WTC7. The edifice would appear to have suddenly decided to collapse of its own accord.

Please explain. How would such a silent detonation be achieved?

I am also wondering why others have not already been asking this very obvious question. It feels like yet another 'Emperors Clothes' fairy tale.

If it is simply not true that explosives were used it can only help the conspirators (whoever they were) to be following a false trail, right?

Thanks for the codec-only compression info.

[OudeVanDagen]

61. quacking ....

It is IMPOSSIBLE to find a structural collapse report .... and there are hundreds of structural collapses investigated each year .... that doesn't have witnesses reporting the sound of explosions.

Q: Why?
A: Because that is exactly what a collapse sounds like.

Reports streaming in from the building collapses in Konya, Turkey last week are full of "explosions" being heard .... looks like an explosion too .. but what actually caused the collapses there? Evidence of another controlled demo because of sights and sounds? No. Associated Press reporter Esra Aygin also describes the 'pulverized' remains of an 11 story apartment complex. Good reporting ...and an excellent investigation underway ... as is in Cairo.

Hartford Civic Center Arena Collapse on January 7, 1978 witnesses across the street at Sheraton Hotel report hearing LOUD explosions .... seeing roof panels and insulation sheets flying .... plumes ... dust clouds .... feeling sudden air pressure pressure against their hotel windows. What was the cause that collapse; snow, wind, design, or controlled demo?

The sounds of a collapse are most frequently described as explosions ...

[LARED]

65. You realize of course

the only conclusion some will reach based on your information is that many building collapses prior, and subsequent to the WTC collapse are part of the BFEE worldwide domination plan. These past "collapses" were planned to train the masses to think the WTC collapsed without explosives.

I mean if the BFEE can plant explosives in the WTC during the construction phase what's to stop them from blowing up a few hundred building in order to fake collapses getting some practice for the big event on 9/11.

[OudeVanDagen]

66. Yes, and ....

... they will dazzle us with 'articulate' and technical terms too ... mush ... tilt ... wet noodle .... telescoping ....

[TrogL]

64. Interesting link about exploding windows

I've seen a window explode.

Once upon a time I owned an older Volvo. I was by no stretch of the imagination the original owner and there was fairly good evidence that it had been rolled at some time in its long and chequered career.

One winter I started up the car, turned on the rear defrost and went forward to wipe snow off the windshield when the rear window exploded.

While I do have the capability to piss people off it's not to the extent of anybody's taking a shot at me (well, lately, anyway), what had happened was that the roof was buckled inward slightly and the glass's expansion from heating was sufficient to cause it to buckle and shatter.

If that little bit could cause that much shattering, imagine the weight of part of a building on a sheet of glass? Remember, automotive glass is supposed to shatter. Building glass is going to explode into big, reflective chunks, that reflect sunlight. Remember the sunlight??

[OudeVanDagen]

21. as I go along?

Do you really think that I am the one making stuff up? Got to ask because I'm not the one suggesting black ops, thermite, crooked cops and firemen, explosive concrete mixes, ray guns, phoney planes, and etc etc ... yawn ... etc. I am the one suggesting the use of common sense long established protocols and proper investigation ..... and the use of proper terminology .... such as the word drift. Look it up in any structural enginnering text ... but you don't have one do ya? I doubt it, and doubt you've been within 10 feet of a structural collapse investigation.

[plaguepuppy]

34. Yes, and you're dead wrong about terminology too

You seem to be the one in need of looking up - "drift" just refers to lateral displacement under stress, so give it a rest. It's not some mysterious term that only refers to building collapses, and has nothing to do with the picture above.

Your tiresome bluster and insult-mongering can't cover the fact that you are an obvious fraud without even a basic grasp of the vocabulary of the field you claim to know. All bluster and hot air, and references to mysterious protocols that no one else can seem to find.

" I am the one suggesting the use of common sense long established protocols and proper investigation..."

All good ideas - too bad that's not how the WTC collapses were handled.

[OudeVanDagen]

37. and YOUR term "telescoping" makes sense ...

... BUT to who besides yourself?

WHAT structural collapse investigation were you at where they found "telescoping?" WHAT structural collapse report confirms "telescoping?" Talk about "basic grasp of the vocabulary" ... geez!

" ... mysterious protocols ..."

My goodness, plaguepuppy, I'm shocked and disappointed that you, a scientist will suggest that there are no guidelines ... SOPs ... policies and practices ... protocols ... call 'em what you want ... for conducting an investigation.

Haven't you read anything at all about the Cairo collapse? Haven't you read anything about the litigations from the KC Hyatt? It's ALL public record ... step by step collapse protocol details ... good job done by the reporters ... it's in the newspapers ... just a click away.

Your name calling doesn't bug me ... been called worse ... all us thick skinned New Yawkers have .... comes with the territory ... I'm just telling it like it is ... what it was ... and in the end you'll see who's right. In the meantime please show me where there's proof of your black ops top secret weapon ... and those "telescoping" columns.

[plaguepuppy]

39. Ah back on the offense I see

Never stopping to acknowledge that you were wrong about something as simple as the term "drift" you just keep raving on and on with the same patronizing line of BS, and never fact one to back it up:

"My goodness, plaguepuppy, I'm shocked and disappointed that you, a scientist will suggest that there are no guidelines ... SOPs ... policies and practices ... protocols ... call 'em what you want ... for conducting an investigation.

Haven't you read anything at all about the Cairo collapse? Haven't you read anything about the litigations from the KC Hyatt? It's ALL public record ... step by step collapse protocol details ... good job done by the reporters ... it's in the newspapers ... just a click away."

It's the same shell game word for word: there are these protocols, and there are all these other collapses, and only a lazy fool could have not found out that these protocols were devoutly followed after 9/11. OK, I'm calling your bluff - show me one scrap of evidence that some specific set of protocols was in place and followed, and stop pretending that there is an unshakable presumption of absolute propriety. Where exactly in the "step by step collapse protocol details" does it specify that control of the site be given to the recyclers while barring access to the voluntary ASCE team, and that 99.5% of the debris be disposed of with minimal to no inspection.

Those were the realities on the ground, your vivid fantasies notwithstanding.

As for "telescope" I use it in the non-technical sense of a long seemingly rigid member shortening on its own axis with no discernible lateral displacement. Those 47 box columns of the core and some 240 perimeter columns had to shorten on their axes for the upper part of the building to shorten the way it does. Say what you will about loss of lateral support from the floors, the top section collapses on itself as if each of those columns was somehow being compressed at exactly the same rate. There is no sign of the twisting and buckling that would be expected if loss of lateral support was really the critical failure mode. Instead the top keeps its nice rectangular outline while getting shorter along its own axis, a remarkable feat if columns are failing in these unrestrained "wet noodle" type collapses.

[OudeVanDagen]

42. OK. You got me ...

... yeah, I confess ... we drove up in our gas guzzling government issue SUVs with blacked out windows ... and in front of hundreds of news cameras forced all the rescuers .... thousands of them ... to destroy evidence, cut up beams, truck them out to Mafia scrapyards, load them onto barges, dump them at sea ... guilty! I confess ... I have seen the light ... but really, it was your "telescoping beam" and "wet noodle collapse" and "black ops" theories and outstanding technical links that finally sold me ... made me come clean!

But back to reality .... if you'll take a few moments and read the newslinks for the KC Hyatt collapse and litigations ... and it's so eazy peezy ... you will see exactly what a collapse protocol is ... and then ... only then ... can you start ... start ... to make sense out of the WTC.

[plaguepuppy]

47. Barge-loads of BS

And the lengths that you'll go to to avoid admitting that you were caught in an obvious fib - care to explain your special secret definition of "drift" without which none of this can be understood?

"Then and only then" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? I've read several things about the collapse of the KC Hiatt, including some fairly detailed technical analyses. Is there now some magic vault that opens to reveal the secret protocols that were used in the WTC investigation once I read the last word of the KC legal briefs, like in those adventure games? And what's with your fixation on "Protocols" anyway - are you one of those Elders of Zyban people?

"... to destroy evidence, cut up beams, truck them out to Mafia scrapyards, load them onto barges, dump them at sea ... "

Dead on, right up to the "dump at sea part" of course, since there was money to be made selling it to Communist China. I never thought I hear such a truthful statement from you!

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

[OudeVanDagen]

49. The laws ...

... of a civilized society ... both the written laws and the unwritten laws ... require protocols ... policy and procedure ... SOP ....

[TrogL]

63. "immensely strong structure"

Oh, you've GOT to be kidding.

The insane part is that your photographs show the top section NOT disintegrating as it falls through the wreckage of the rest of the building, utterly disproving your own theory.

You just never give up, do you?

The South tower was not a "immensely strong structure" by any stretch of the imagination. Otherwise they would never be able to build it that tall.

The Pentagon is an "immensely strong structure". That's why an airliner struck it and barely left a dent (figuratively).

[plaguepuppy]

67. Are you looking at the same pictures?

"The insane part is that your photographs show the top section NOT disintegrating as it falls through the wreckage of the rest of the building, utterly disproving your own theory."

Since you raise the subject of sanity, could you explain the basis for your claim that the top isn't disintegrating as it falls? The top section does visibly lose about 40% of its height by the time it reaches the bottom of the frame, at which point it has only sunk ~20 floors into the tower below. Do you mean to claim that a steel-frame structure can collapse to a fraction of its size without in some sense "disintegrating"? Does it just "shrink a little" without losing structural integrity? Before I spend too much time on this it would be nice to know if you live in a world where words mean whatever you want them to, or not.

A nice slow-motion view of the beginning of WTC-2 collapse:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/so_tower_slow-mo.mpeg (8mb)

Notice a point on the northeast corner of the tower (the one facing us) and about 1/3 way up from the collapse zone to the roof. At ~6 seconds into the clip there is a definite flash at that point, after which that portion of the corner looks blurry and the top begins to telescope...BTW this is from the NOVA documentary, a direct rip from the DVD.

Non-slo-mo version of the collapse (2.8mb):

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

An interesting close-up from the southeast:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/newsouth/WTC-2%20from%20south_a.mpg

The end of this clip shows especially well how the top crumbles and collapses on itself as it starts to fall as well as showing those damn things that look so much like explosions. Notice how at the very end of the clip the remains of the top, including the roof line, fall back out of the dust cloud after disappearing into it, toppling out toward the viewer near the bottom of the frame. It looks very eroded, and is streaming dust and debris as it falls. And this was the very top of the top section, not the bottom that was supposedly doing the hard work of the hammer's face, so why is it so thrashed?

[OudeVanDagen]

70. Boy Scout Honor

... I will try to be noncombative.

" ... the bottom that was supposedly doing the hard work of the hammer's face ... " is a completely inaccurate assesment of the collapse sequences for this structure ... any structure for that matter.

Those who have viewed collapse videos of WTC ... or even those films made of other structural failures .... believe they can observe what they call the "face of a hammer" ... the dynamic forces causing collapse. But that "face" is, except in very rare cases, actually a couple of steps BEHIND the unseen leading edge of highly destructive forces far ahead ... tension - compression ... unseen and masked by outer walls.

The actual leading edge of the collapse sequence for the lower section shown in the videos in post 67 is well below the very top of the lower section. It is much deeper in the structure ... where the structure struggles to dampen itself ... where it tries to regain stability and equilibrium ... where it tries to overcome violent oscillation ... and that's behind walls - where the camera can't go ...

Yes, the weight and motion of that upper section appears to act as a "hammer" on the lower section ... but the true leading edge of that weight and motion is far below ... not at top as suggested in posts 67 or 48.

Why can't " ... those damn things that look so much like explosions ... " be part of the leading edge of the collapse? In post 32 you suggest a "static situation" .... was there one ... or was there a leading edge of tension - compression, oscillation, drift and a building's struggle to stabilize itself?

Yes ... we're all looking at the same pictures ... but apparently all our different experiences ... beliefs ... and choices ... tell each of us something different.

[TrogL]

71. You're the one who called it "disintegrating"

(fixed link)

Now, suddenly, it's "lose about 40% of its height".

http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/D0272800.html

To become reduced to components, fragments, or particles

I hardly call a structure retaining 60% (your figure) of its integrity as "disintegrating".

[demodewd]

72. re: slo-mo

The second wave of squibs is at least four stories below the first wave on the lower section.

[demodewd]

73. kick time

kick on...forever.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

74. More eyewitness reports of explosions

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/062904eyewitnessreports.htm

[OudeVanDagen]

75. it's important testimony

but witness accounts of sounds ... sounds much like "explosions" ... only confirm that the MOE ... that is the Modulous Of Elasticity ... for the structural framing members of these buildings was being exceeded. Destructive compression and tension energies will make sounds just like explosives do ... collapse sequences are not silent.

What is of great value from witness testimony is that when these time sensitive accounts are all compared we investigators can create an audio time line that with visual tapings allows us to link a sound to a collapse sequence.

Those links ... near perfect matches by the way ... between witness accounts and the oft-seen videos actually remove explosives as a possibility .... as does the complete lack of macro and micro evidence ... and chemical evaluation ... of recovered steel framing members.

Collapse sounds like bombs going off ... always has, and always will.

Heavy rains in the south recently ... this past week .... caused numerous roof collapse at supermarkets, home improvemnet centers, and strip malls. All witness statements include "explosions."

Collapse is not silent. Reading about other collapse incidents ... something I've suggested and asked forum members to do ... repeatedly ... will show that these sounds are common to collapse.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

76. I'll just take your word on that.

How about, for once, providing a source?

[OudeVanDagen]

77. for once

you should try reading about some other collapse incidents ... learn about MOE, structural connections, key structural elements and etc ... I've listed numerous other collapse incidents ... ALL of which well covered by the press and still very much easily available at these news sites. Once you read a little you'll see that WTC collapse ... any WTC building ... sights AND sounds ... was absolutley nothing unusual.

Q: Doesn't your local hometown newspaper carry national news? How about all those rain induced roof collapses at the Home Depot or A&P this week? Didn't those shoppers ... those witnesses ... ALL hear explosions when the roofs let go??

Take my word for it or don't .... your choice ... I'm just telling it like it is ... I was after all, there. At the 9-11 incident and at hundreds of other collapse incidents since WW2. If you were right I'd say so. I don't know about the pilots, the planes, NORAD, or a dozen other things ... BUT I DO KNOW COLLAPSE. Funny isn't it how everything I've been saying about it here in these forums is finally coming out for the public as the collapse reports are being released. I'm old, but I ain't stupid.

[Abe Linkman]

78. It wasn't RAINDROPS falling on WTC heads

Why should anyone accept your premise that the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7
were no more remarkable than "rain induced roof collapses at the Home Depot or A&P"? With all due respect, and to put it mildly, that's a little bit cuckoo.

Why do you avoid the evidence (including eyewitness evidence of NYFD members) of a controlled demolition...complete with NYFD members hearing the explosions?

Here again, as with the miraculous "survival" of certain evidence (passport etc.)...if it supports the "Wacky Cavepeople" Conspiracy Theory, then the public is supposed to accept it...and especially, after self-described experts on the Net chime in.

But, if the evidence DOESN'T support the Official Conspiracy Theory, then we aren't supposed to give it any credence at all.

"Give me consistency, but only when it's convenient to MY side".

[OudeVanDagen]

79. evidence

is what I searched for .... and found, but nothing I found pointed towards the use of explosives.

I have never avoided and I am fully aware of FDNY and other reputable statements about explosions ... but EACH sound ... nearly each sound, 95-96% ... has been accounted for; such as transformers, column failure and so on. Lots of hours and lots interviews. Investigation protocols for collapse always ALWAYS includes ....and sometimes weighs heavily on .... witness statements.

I'd be the first to shout explosives were used if there were any used; but that's the problem there wasn't any. If there was, Abe, there would be macro evidence ... naked eye proof of tear out and delaminations in the steel framing members and connections ... none found. If there were explosives used there would also be micro evidence ... none found. If there were explosives used there would be chemical evidence found .... lots of it too ... but none was found. Without any macro, micro or chemical evidence anywhere how can I agree with the explosive proposals? 60 year old explosive residue from WW2 is all over London, Berlin; but NONE downtown, so what else can I think?

With all respect ... much more than some other folks have shown you ... it's really not cuckoo to view WTC as a normal collapse. While the towers had unique framing systems and relied very heavily upon a key structural member (the roof truss system which connected outer walls and core) the collapse was similar to a rain ladened roof ... cause and effect ... motion. The cause ... an event which creates motion. If motion can not be dampened by the structure it will collapse. All collapse ... every collapse ... is caused by motion.

I don't know anything about any wacky caveman. I'll state again for the record that all I know anything about is collapse ... period. The messages that I have posted in this thread very clearly define a normal ... well typical ... collapse sequence .... exactly what happened at WTC. Buy it, sell it, I don't care ... but that's what happened.

Still with respect I very seriously and strongly suggest you take a little time and read up on collapse ... and, don't laugh yet ... you'll see for yourself WTC was nothing unusual. Motion, key structural elements, structural connections, extreme events, MOE, etc were the ingredients needed for this collapse event ... not explosives.

I shall be moving Abe. My full retirement in a breezy 3rd world beach house is long long overdue and I can not type much more with this pencil jammed Bob Dole style in my hand. I tire quickly. If you have any questions about collapse in general or WTC specific ask away ... I won't be able to do this much longer.

[Abe Linkman]

80. So - you say NYFiremen were fooled. Was Larry fooled, too?

If there was nothing to hide, why was the evidence quickly removed and disposed of?

I think that NYFD personnel know how to distinguish the sounds of a transformer from that made by explosives. But, you don't think so?

Enjoy that beach house.

[OudeVanDagen]

81. no fooling around

what-so-ever. FDNY personell did in fact report explosive sounds and those statements and their complete interviews ARE in fact part of the record and appear in some collapse reports. Transformers in question ... quite a few by the way ... were various sizes with various quanities of oil ... in locations that either muffled or augmented sound. Columns, depending on size, stresses and location also produced various sounds when limits were reached and exceeded. The problem .. if there is one ... is that there were several hundred explosive sounds heard in and outside the structures ... not just a few ... not just when "squibs" appeared ... not just the ones - those links to sounds - offered here. That's a lot of noise ... and in short amounts of time. That's why the audio investions have gone on and on and on. Very nearly all of these sounds ... over 95% can be accounted for. That 5% or so of those hundreds still do not suggest explosives ... especially a fraction of the amount that would be clearly needed.

I very well understand your passionate opinion that evidence ... structural framing evidence for explosives ... was removed, or hidden, or destroyed, or shipped overseas, or dumped at sea, or all of the above ... but it just didn't happen. EVERY piece was logged, marked, and accounted for. It was, Abe, this very same log, mark, and accounting system that made us discover than some columns and beams and collateral framing members were not making it to the Kills ... that some trucks .... due mostly to driver laziness ... didn't arrive at the Kills with the steel and had instead made 'shortcut routes' by dumping it in salavage yards. The start was full of miscues, and it was hard work because of size and scope, people and their personalities made it very difficult at times, but nothing was hid, destroyed or in any way improperly disposed of. Those accounts are false, FALSE and suggests thousands were involved in cover-up.

I will indeed enjoy those beach breezes and will with permission of course will like to dedicate an entire night of drink to you.

[Abe Linkman]

82. Evidence was completely under the control of the Gov't

Saying that the evidence was accounted for is, well, saying it was accounted for. By the Gov't. Doesn't prove or disprove allegations that WTC 1,2 & t were brought down by controlled demolition.

Saying that most of the sounds of explosions can be explained as unremarkable doesn't prove or disprove that some of the explosions were part of a controlled demolition.

Removing and "destroying" the evidence doesn't add any credibility to a report by the "raiding" party or your glib explanations.

Maybe a few liberal libations of a ninety proof nerve tonic will cause you to rethink your position that we should all just rry to get along with whatever the Gov't (and "bolo", "lared" et al.) would have us believe.


P.S. The Warren Commission was also very thorough in going thru their cover-up work, too.

[LARED]

83. Not exactly.

"Evidence was completely under the control of the Gov't"

No. it wasn't. There is lots of public evidence that establishes without doubt that four planes crashed that day; that there is no evidence of explosions; no evidence of missiles or truck bombs or a host of other silliness introduced by the CT crowd.

What I find amazing is the hubris the CT crowd exhibits regarding evidence. Apparently there is no evidence deemed credible by them, yet they cannot provide any evidence to support what they believe happened.

[Abe Linkman]

84. No evidence for the latest "lared" CT, either

You said that "there is lots of public evidence blah blah blah... that establishes "that there is no evidence of explosions". Interesting.
Are you now saying that WTC evidence hasn't been under the control of the Government?

What I find amazing is the hubris of the "Osama & The Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy supporters who have yet to provide one bit of proof that OBL
had ANYTHING to do with 9-11...other than being a Patsy.

Doctored and false videtapes are all that's been offered so far. Do YOU have anything you've been holding back? Aside from your hubris, I haven't seen any postings from you that are persuasive of anything except that you come across like a professional apologist.

[OudeVanDagen]

85. FALSE

"Saying that the evidence was accounted for is, well, saying it was accounted for. By the Gov't." is FALSE ... period.

The government did NOT make an accounting of "evidence" the investigation teams did ... and the "government" was only one (1) of several entities to receive that information.

Here's what happened: Primary investigation teams ... engineers and collapse experts ... were immediatley called in by the NYC Building Department and FDNY; the same people that helped set up, advise and train FDNY Collapse Units. FEMA provided transportation and lodging to those outside the City, and also to the additional teams that the primary teams requested. Standard collapse protocols were discussed and modified slightly for WTC ... obviously due to the size and scope, but investigation was started long before the dust settled. Each team examined, logged location, marked, sketched and photographed EVERY piece of steel framing member, fenestration, stair, stringer, column, beam, etc etc. There are thousands and thousands of photos, hours and hours of video, and stacks of ELAN sketch books and ledgers. These teams exchanged information with one another, held briefings among themselves and had laisons between them and the City, State and Feds but reported to the Building Department. The City held press briefings, the Mayor spoke, The Governor spoke, the Police and Fire Commissioners spoke, and FEMA spoke .. heck, they did the talking while we did the working ... and that was good ... everytime some "big shot" showed up at the site all he/she did was cause delay. If there was a problem with "government" Abe, it was those SOBs letting "big shots" come on site for their photo-ops. They came on site, some with huge escorts ... interefered with progress, stopping work in that area, were handed a hard hat and gloves, photographed and escorted out. I'll estimate one week lost due to all these "big shots" getting their 10 second of fame. That was the ONLY "government" interference we encountered, and the City turned a deaf ear to our bitching.

These were occupied collapse events ... the FDNY and the public behaved as expected; and as in all other occupied collapse incidents the FDNY and public started a frantic rescue effort, but what little they moved wasn't destroyed. When heavy equipment arrived the materials moved were not destroyed. When the ironworkers came with torches and the cut and rigged the steel for lifting those framing members were not destroyed ... just cut in half or cut away from tangled bundles. BEFORE anything was lifted or moved, and BEFORE anything was cut or torched it was examined, logged, marked, and sketched and photographed. I have photocopies of my dozen or so ELAN sketch books.

The steel HAD to go somewhere. The Kills and Craven Point were perfect; large secure areas easily accessable by water and barge. WTC was ruled a crime scene by NYPD and they provided security at these sites, and at the loading piers with support from the NY State Police and later the National Guard.

Nothing was tampered with, nothing destroyed, nothing disposed of ... everything .... EVERYTHING accounted for. No engineer and no investigation team would allow, okay or sign off on any interference. It's never accepted and we would have screamed blue bloody murder had anyone tried ... or even suggested it.

Q: Do we still have every piece of steel?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: As I've asked many times before; How many hookers does one need to see before he realizes he's in a red light district?

Abe, the "government" were spectators on this one ...

[Abe Linkman]

86. "oude" - Those "teams" you talk about weren't from private industry

Saying that the Gov't wasn't in conrol of the evidence, because there were "teams" set up to do "investigations" is hardly convincing.

The "teams" WERE Gov't-sponsored. So, the Gov't DID control the evidence...directly, and via it's agents. Sort of like denying that a Disinformation Agent spinning BS here on DU, is from the Government, simply because they're on the payroll of H & K or The Rendon Group etc.

The Government certainly was in control of the evidence AND the so-called investigation.

[OudeVanDagen]

87. see it as you may

Abe, but you're really splitting hairs .... getting a ride, eats, bed and a place to poop from the government doesn't mean there's strings attached ... especially the type of strings you have chosen to believe were being pulled. Our investigation teams weren't "government" teams ... we were all from our own corporations or universities. No one from the "government" was in "control" of anything .... and you're giving them far too much credit to even think it ... as I said many times before; they couldn't find water if they fell out of a boat ... I am honestly ashamed of the people now in our government .... it's gone downhill so much since I was Army Corps of Engineers after the war ... WW2 ... these people are dumb, DUMB, D-U-M-B!! I certainly won't hold your beliefs against you; I like your spunk and will indeed dedicate at least one night of cool drink and tropical breezes to you real soon, but you're trying to tell me that thousands of people involved in this effort ALL bowed down ... looked the ther way ... and okayed a coverup. Well Abe, that just didn't happen.

[Abe Linkman]

88. Manufactured Consent

Look, you may genuinely feel that you had the freedom to disagree with what your masters wanted you to find, but that's like members of the corporate media who can say, with a straight face: "They don't tell me what I can write or not write about a particular story. I'm free to call 'em as I see 'em." Right. They don't HAVE TO tell them what to say. They KNOW what they're supposed to say.

If you really feel like the Warren Commission Report was honest, and not part of the cover-up, and if you really feel like the 9-11 "investigations" aren't part of the cover-up, I certainly won't hold your beliefs against you. How could I? I have no idea who you are or anything else about you -- and I'm not about to ask. (so, no need to run to Mommy - b,l, or m)

[OudeVanDagen]

89. my masters ?

" ... what your masters wanted you to find, ..." makes no sense.

We had NO masters ... we called the shots ... we were SOBs to the firemen looking to rescue and later recover loved ones and SOBs to the ironworkers because we had them stop and wait until we could examine what they needed and wanted to lift or move or cut or load. We were NOT SOBs to the press ... they got what they came for ... news reporters and camera crews had full access for days and days and later had pool cameras mounted all over the place. It was hard to pee without the world knowing about it ... so how did these "masters" pull it off?

I'm not trying to tell you what to believe ... I'm just telling you what happened.

By the way .... I never believed in the Warren Report, the Gulf Of Tonkin, or scores of other things the knuckleheads in power at the time wanted us to believe ... hey, I'm in my 80s and have seen it all ... certainly a whole lot more than you .... but I only know collapse .... that's been my job ... that's all I can speak to. I know what I did and I know what I saw.

[Abe Linkman]

90. Dodge Ball

All right, so you've essentially confirmed what I was talking about:
Manufactured Consent. You didn't have to be TOLD what conclusions you were supposed to reach.

Did you examine WTC blueprints? Oh. Why not? Right. They said you didn't really need them. Yup. Turns out, you DIDN'T need 'em, did you?

[OudeVanDagen]

91. blueprints

were in fact provided to investigation teams ... it is SOP .... an investigation protocol. Who, what, when, where, why and how did someone say blueprints were not needed ... refused .... or not used? Without blueprints it is impossible to properly identify the components in steel frame buildings ... not all column and beam markings survive. Steel frame buildings are easier to evaluate than masonry ... timber ... masonry/timber or wood ... but blueprints are always needed. No one is that good to know just by a look. WTC did not have a constant collapse speed, was not a uniform floor by floor collapse, and was spread for blocks and impaled in other structures. Floor 67 wasn't under 68 ... this was no easy task ... and as for "conclusions" .... why are you suggesting than everyone agreed? My team does not agree with the floor truss propostion. Ours focused on key framing elements ... specifically the roof truss which connected the outer wall to the core and which stabilized motion. Ours points to that system failure.

If you take some time to read about collapse incidents ... and litigations ... you'll find that their are always ... well almost always .... differing opinions among experts, and not just the hired guns either. Where did you get the idea that we all agree?

[Abe Linkman]

92. Yep. And INdependent investigators don't support the Gov't storyline

I thought that WTC blueprints were being withheld, but maybe I'm wrong.
Or, is it that Gov't-sponsored "investigators" could see them, but not the general public?

And thanks for the tip, but I've noted more than once on these forums that apologists for the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory always prefer to argue about a technical point, because they have access to as many experts as they need, and can always find one who can make a plausible-sounding case for the opposite of what is fairly obvious.

From the Warren Commission to 9/11...from Arlen Spector to NIST. Magic bullet -- to magical collapses. The road goes on forever, and the Party never ends.

[OudeVanDagen]

93. technical points

is all we engineers have to argue ... we're stuck ... all we have are technicalities ... and it ain't easy. Example: did that twisted column get that way from drift, from thermal exposure, from decending impacts, from ground impact or collateral ground impact? Is it one of the above, two of the above or all of the above? Techically speaking of course ... guesswork isn't allowed; a civilized society demands answers. It is not my intention to be combative but I need to steal some of your wording 'more than once on these forums' I've noticed folks with no collapse experience what-so-ever who have also not read anything about any collapse incidents speaking about .... and broadbrushing ... fire temps, building components, telescoping columns, and other technical issues. The devil IS indeed in the details.

A while back ... and apologies if I'm wrong ... you stated you could reduce the cost of building demolition by simply starting small office fires. Well, in all honesty you are on to something ... beacuse it works .... arsonists have been doing it for years; buildings aren't as indestructible as thought, steel isn't as strong or resistant to heat as it is being given credit for, and most of those connections in steel buildings act as hinges NOT supports after an extreme event induces motion to a structure. It's technical, not guess work, not gut feelings, not what we're told to say (never happens) and not always the obvious.

There are ... worldwide of course ... collapse incidents everyday and too few investigators to evaluate them. There are plenty of lawyers and doctors, but far too few collapse investigators. Why is that? Bad pay and too much travel to lousy 'don't dare drink the water' countries? Maybe ... but collapse investigation is a technical field that takes time ... TIME ... that's why FEMAs rush to judgement collapse report is crap.

When there is finally some kind of resolution to the proprietary issues of WTC collapse reports and more become public you'll see two things; disagreement among the investigation, and ... you guessed it .... no explosives. No magical collapse ... just technical talk.

[Abe Linkman]

94. NOT what we'll see

We'll certainly see disagreement among the investigators (Gov't supporters all singing from the same hymnal - and INdependent investigators patiently debunking Gov't propaganda).

As in the Warren Commission Report, we'll see enough to know that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition...despite the best efforts
of those whose consent to the Gov't's Conspiracy Theory has been manufactured.

When you ignore the evidence or try to dismiss it or paint over it with a non-substantive brush, you don't do yourself OR your government sponsor any favors.

Care to name some high-rise buildings that collapsed due to "small office fires"? Doesn't happen. That's one of the main reasons why the WTC evidence had to be quickly taken away and destroyed.

[OudeVanDagen]

95. technical terms again Abe so

define "high rise" building ... it's semantics, but we got to be on the same page to understand each other .... if by "high rise" you mean "skyscraper" well then no ... but a high rise is generally a structure with more than five (5) stories, or fifty (50) feet in height ... so then yes. Lots of mid rises destroyed by collapse from fire too.

I really don't understand why you insist on stating evidence was destroyed ... taken away quickly yes, it had to be ... it was like putting 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag ... but destroyed, no. How could evidence been destroyed when steel is being sent all over the US and the world for testing? If the evidence is gone Abe, what's in all those piles out in Staten Island and JFK? If it's all gone what are the mayors from all over the US looking at when they pick out steel for their 911 monuments?

I admire your passion Abe, but you're way way off and wrong on this issue.

In conclusion I also really don't understand your "government"-v-"independent" .... My PC investigated WTC ... we're independent, it ... 9/11 ... delayed my retirement ... I wasn't out playing golf when the crap hit the fan like Bush ... and I haven't been paid one cent by the government ... FEMA can stick their money where the sun don't shine ... but my findings and my report were ... as I explained before ... pooled and exchanged and shared with the other teams. We weren't in it for the money .... it was simply the right thing to do .... and that's why I'm certain nothing was destroyed because keeping it was the right thing to do.

[Abe Linkman]

96. Like police "investigations" that find INsufficient evidence

One reason for having a so-called independent investigation is that you can control what all is investigated. Cops who don't want to bust someone (99.99% of the time it's another cop or someone "connected")
conduct "investigations" that inevitably find "insufficient evidence to sustain charges".

You can say that you didn't have any pre-determined conclusions in mind, and that may well be true. And, you can say that you conducted a thorough investigation, and that may also be true. The problem is in how you define "thorough".

Sorry, I don't accept your conclusions. At the very least, you could have used the cop-out of "we thoroughly investigated AND refuted ALL of the evidence pointing to a controlled demolition", but you didn't say that. What you did was things like dismiss the evidence of explosions by outright denying they could have been anything more than "transformers". I'll trust the collective wisdom of highly experienced NYFD personnel over a sham U.S. Gov't-sponsored "investigation" any day.

[OudeVanDagen]

97. your choice Abe,

and I've said that all along ... but lets be honest about it; I stated that transformers were just one of the sources for those explosive sounds, and added that columns and beams exceeding MOE were also accountable for some of those sounds .... AND it was I that admitted 4-5 percent of the explosive sounds can not be linked to a known event. I fully believe FDNY personell and other witness accounts and I explained what I knew and believed beyond any doubt were the source. Protocol requires investigation into subversive acts such as arson and bombs. Did we look for subversive act? Yes, it's part of the job, just as sure as a doctor takes your BP each checkup. Sorry, no bombs. No tear-out ... no delaminations ... no residues .... no bombs. I've laid all my cards on the table Abe, that's much more than others can say.

My investigation and those that were conducted by other PC and by universities followed every established collapse protocol. There are steps to the process; having yourself mentioned blueprints and witness accounts, it's clear to me that you're obviously familar with some of our protocol. It's thorough alright, Abe very thorough. I've offered to answer any specific questions you may have about WTC ... if I don't know it ... I'll find out.

There's LOTS that I do not know about WTC. I don't know about passports being found, I don't know what type of plane(s) those parts are from, I don't know what all was inside the molten aluminum pulled from the subfloors, I don't know why photo-opers showed up for 5 minutes and then left; but later ran their mouths about how messed up - or how wonderful - things were, and I especially don't know why "volunteers" .... student lab rats ... showed up from "professional associations" unannounced with lasers and gadgets and then got pissed when we wouldn't stop to let them play.

WTC wasn't a smooth operation, but the invetigation teams present did outstanding work .... probably the best that has ever been done.

We're independent ... my PC refused FEMA reimbursements as part of our 'screw you' and 'we don't need no stinkin badges' 1960s old radical independence ... but we were also "Boy Scouts" and shared our data .... it was the right thing to do .... so was coming forward with our presentation about the roof truss framing element. How many other collapse reports agree with us on our presentation? How many collapse reports are currently locked away due to proprietary rights? That Abe is a question no one besides myself in these forums has spoken about. I wonder why .... isn't that problem? Is it right for insurance companies and governmant agencies to claim ownership of these important reports or to block their release pending litigation? Isn't the public's right to know first and foremost? Why yell about bombs that didn't exist when your rights to get information are being trampeled upon?

[Abe Linkman]

98. Yep. Best work since....The Warren Commission & Iran-Contra

The "LOTS" you say you don't know about WTC is too important to simply brush aside. Limited investigations produce limited, INconclusive results at best.

[OudeVanDagen]

99. agreed!!

nothing should be brushed aside .... nothing ... and I am angry and disgusted that I can not obtain that info ... someone has it; that I know for sure ... I've been in discussions .... overall the investiagtion ... as a whole is anything but limited. My role was/is limited because of expertise .... I don't know anything about aircraft for example so can't posssibly offer anything on the aircraft parts recovered. As a whole ... and that's what is key ... the process was all inclusive.

No offense, but I'm surprised that you and other very active forum members haven't commented on proprietary issues around so many of the collapse reports. I guess that this extremely important issue of the public's (that's you, me and everyone else) right to know takes a back seat to the "no blueprint" and "destroyed evidence" etc etc chants. Shocking!

[Abe Linkman]

101. It's a sham & nothing is gained from playing along w/a bogus investigation

That's a game for suckers. Thanks for bringing it up, though.

[OudeVanDagen]

103. sure, no problem

and I'm sure you agree that the public has a right to see those reports; but those collapse reports are most critically needed by engineers .... most of whom plan buildings of the future incorporating beauty with function ... best case scenario making them occupant safe and hopefully energy efficent ... worst case scenario making them cheap and building them fast.

Everyone in the engineering community wants to plan and build new buildings and bridges ... but too few want to pick apart the bones of collapse to look for causes and to seek methods for prevention. Building new can not be done properly unless one understands what happened to the old.

These reports should of course be made available to the public ... it's our right, but the negineering community needs them as guidance to prevent future catastrophic collapse events.

WTC collapse reports presently shrouded in proprietary restrictions detail fire protection and suppression, metalurgical reactions to thermal conditions, occupant egress, structural elements and connections .... all critical to the design of future structures. These collapse reports can be used to prevent future loss of life ... but they're shelved amid proprietary issues.

My corkscrew is packed ... I'm outta here!

[Abe Linkman]

104. Sure, right. Can't let the public get even close to knowing the truth

It took about 60 years for the truth about Pearl Harbor to come out to the general public, and I'm sure that the same thing will happen with
the truth about 9-11. Maybe even longer, given how many Disinformation Agents and PR flacks are working the story.

[Abe Linkman]

105. Are you familiar with the postings of "mercutioATC"?

You use some of the same language & say some of the same things as s/he does. Are you also "mercutio"? Just wondering. It would save a lot of money.

[MercutioATC]

107. Why so afraid of professionals with pertinent knowledge, Abe?

I'd think the views of a professional engineer would be valued here, even if those of a professional air traffic controller weren't. It's kind of interesting how everybody with any technical knowledge finds holes you could drive a truck through in your theories. It's also interesting how you react to their sharing of their knowledge...personal abuse.

Abe, ALL of the professionals on this board can't be completely wrong, can we?

(BTW, I'm a "he", not a "she"...just thought I'd clarify)

[Abe Linkman]

108. Do you have a twin? I think I know who it is.

And, when will you answer the question that I've asked you about Osama?
Just to jog your memory (not that you would intentionally try to pretend that you've "already answered that question)... the question was/is:

WHAT training did the CIA give Osama that has anything to do with 9/11?

[MercutioATC]

112. Answered it just now, Abe. Look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13982#14103

Unlike some people, I actually answer questions put to me...

[LARED]

110. Of course they can, they are all disinfo agents

But it is worthy to note that those possessing credentials to speak to some of the 9/11 issues are routinely dismissed as disinfo agents, but those doing the dismissing never seem to muster the honesty to state their CV.

[MercutioATC]

113. I've asked that question numerous times, LARED...never get an answer...

I think we all know who the MIHOP players are here. Do ANY of them care to show their credentials? I'm just curious. If they have some specialized knowledge, I'd love to know.

[Abe Linkman]

114. You said they had foreknowledge and chose to ignore it. Agree, lared?

"lared": Do you agree with merc on that point?

Let's just stick with that one, for right now.

[MercutioATC]

115. You posted that to me, not LARED, Abe...

BTW, that's not exactly what I said. I said that I BELIEVED that the administration had foreknowledge and chose to ignore it. I expressed an opinion. I did not present it as a statement of fact.

[LARED]

116. foreknowledge

You mean like prescience or knowledge of an event before it occurs ? -No.

Foreknowledge like knowing the US was a target - Yes.

[Abe Linkman]

117. You'd have to ask your partner, merc what HE meant. HE said it.

mercutio said that he believes that bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 and deliberately chose to ignore it.

Are you now his spokesperson?

[MercutioATC]

118. Again, Abe, that's not an accurately representation of what I said.

I believe that Bush had foreknowledge of the possibility or probability that planes would be used as "flying bombs" against the US on our own soil (as the CIA report stated). I believe he chose, for whatever reason, to ignore that information.

I don't believe that he knew 9/11 was going to happen in a specific way. I believe that he knew of the probability.

[Abe Linkman]

121. You're spinning what you actually said before. Get off bolo's wheel.

Now, if you aren't concerned about being confused with someone else, make some comments about the WTC controlled demolitions evidence. Also, the so-called investigation of those amazing collapses. Surely, you have some thoughts and opinions about that, and I know how much you enjoy sharing your expertise and your opinions, too.

[MercutioATC]

125. Abe, there IS no controlled demolitions evidence here.

The thread subject article is the opinion of one person (with no stated qualifications) who's looked at videos of the collapses of the WTC towers. That's not evidence.

Show me residue from charges.

Show me pieces of the bombs.

Show me a few competent structural engineers who have BEEN to the site who'll say it was brought down on purpose.

I can watch the videos and claim that the trolls who live under New York were angry and did it with troll magic. That's not "evidence", that's "opinion".

Is there actual evidence that you'd like to present or is the opinion of a layperson who's watched some videos the extent of it?

[Abe Linkman]

127. Evidence was quickly hauled off and sent far, far away. (to a cave?)

Video evidence is very compelling, though. Much more so than the latest version of the Warren Commission. You're familiar with that "study", aren't you? You've talked about it.

[MercutioATC]

128. Video evidence is sketchy at best, and the "evidence" here is

interpreted by a layperson. You're really going to tell me you consider that reliable "evidence"?

[demodewd]

129. Tell me layperson..what's happening here?

[MercutioATC]

130. Looks like fire to me. That's about all I'm qualified to say.

Structural collapse is a pretty technical science. I'd imagine that's why you have to go to school to be an engineer.

[MercutioATC]

136. Do you mean evidence like THIS?:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtcinx.asp

It's an NRDC analysis of the components of the dust from the WTC tower collapses.

What's suspiciously absent? Components of explosives...

[NecessaryOnslaught]

100. Demolition squibs l----)

[OudeVanDagen]

102. fundamentals

The uppermost photos show 'blow-out' or the release of energies which induced motion creating collapse .... the lower photos show 'venting' or a release of energies which was induced by motion during collapse.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

106. Wheeeeee!

Keep spinning.

[Abe Linkman]

109. Wonder if they all use the same Spinning Wheel. Think so?

It might be a two-seater. I think that's all that's needed. I just figured out which two are the same. One person; two spinners! Two for the price of one. Hope the Gov't is getting double-billed.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

111. Its humbling

All the time and money spent on "refuting" crazy conspiracy theorists. Does the job pay per hour or per post?

[MercutioATC]

119. What specific issues do you have with OudeVanDagen's posts, Abe?

It's easy to throw that "spin" word around, but I'm curious as to what qualifies you to write off an engineer's technical explanation of the physics involved in a building collapse as "spin".

[Abe Linkman]

122. I thought you said you work in ATC. Was that wrong?

Which is it? ATC? Engineering? Maybe both? Yeah, that COULD be the ticket. Right?

[MercutioATC]

124. Reality check, Abe. I'm an ATC, he's an engineer.

You're having problems comprehending this?

Now how about answering the question?

[Abe Linkman]

126. ATC Engineer?

Is there such a thing? Why not? At least, ATC AND Engineer.

[MercutioATC]

131. You got me, Abe.

Actually, there's only you and me on this forum. I've singlehandledly created all of the other personas just to confuse people...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

132. Actually, that does raise an interesting identity question

In the interest of not giving you a legitimate reason to run to mommy, I won't state the obvious point about who created whom. The important thing is that 1 = 2.

[MercutioATC]

133. I'm also Joe Biden, Rip Torn and Selma Blair...

...keep it under your hat, though...

:tinfoilhat:

[Abe Linkman]

134. You might be. But, why didn't you mention the MAIN one in question?

The way you are dealing with this makes me all the more convinced. This may well be a breakthrough here at DU. 1 = 2.

[MercutioATC]

135. The "MAIN" one?

You have a conspiracy theory based on ME?

Abe, I'm touched...

:hug: