Video: South Tower Coming Down...

[wildbilln864]

Chandler video

[whatchamacallit]

1. OCT detachment from reality begins in 3... 2... 1...

:crazy: C T

[hack89]

2. So you really think they put explosives on every floor?

have you ever considered how many tons of explosives that would entail and how long it would take to put in place? And not a single soul noticed all this?

And where are the high pressure waves associated with high explosives?

[whatchamacallit]

3. Since you have no conclusive evidence they weren't put into place

you can't, in good faith, rule it out. I find how the corner of the structure is visibly intact, well above the leading edge of the "progressive collapse", the most damning to the official idiot theory.

[hack89]

4. And you can't, in good faith, rule out the possibility

that no explosives were necessary for the collapse since you have no conclusive evidence that explosive were put in place.

That leading edge of the "progressive collapse" was compressed air escaping as the floors above pancaked - you do agree that when the volume of a single floor goes from 150,000 cubic feet to zero in a fraction of a second that huge volumes of air are being explosively forced out and down? What would be the weakest spot on the floor below that the air would escape out of? The windows perhaps? Since there are no windows on the corner columns that is why you see no air escaping from that part of the building.

[lovepg]

5. Hack you can see the intact corner of the building above the floors where the

"compressed air" is shooting debris straight outward. Since NIST says the collapse was from the outside frame inward how do you explain
the structures corners being intact above the collapsing floors?

[hack89]

8. You misunderstand the NIST report

the initial collapse was due to sagging floor trusses pulling the perimeter walls inwards until the connectors failed and the floors gave way. Once the collapse started, it was the floors pancaking downwards with the core and perimeter connectors failing simultaneously. The perimeter walls stood momentarily before peeling off outwards. This is confirmed by the photos of the rubble pile that show large sections of intact perimeter wall sections.

As for the corner section, remember how the perimeter walls were constructed. Each separate section was nearly 50 feet high and spanned nearly 4 stories. If the collapse hadn't reached where the section was joined to the lower section then it is reasonable to assume that it would stay standing. And don't forget that because the corners were chamfered, there was an additional vertical column every other story to provide extra strength and support.

The fact that the perimeter panels were not cut up into 12 foot sections is evidence that explosives were not used on the perimeter walls. How do you explain the sight of intact 50 foot sections of perimeter wall laying on top of the rubble pile?

[lovepg]

9. So the corner columns were strong enough to initially resist collapse..

but the core columns were not ???
That just sounds implausable to me.

[hack89]

32. But the core columns did resist

remember the pictures of the "spire" as the core momentarily stood before collapsing?

[lovepg]

49. That spire was the bottom of the core that survived the collapse it was so strong.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. I believe the spire was as high as Floor 60, maybe just 50

So it's not accurate to call it the "bottom" of the core.

[SidDithers]

67. The famous picture that Christophera loved so much?...

the one he thought it was evidence of a concrete core?



Sid

[whatchamacallit]

6. Here's what I know

The process you describe, and believe as gospel, has never before been witnessed. Feel free to produce a video, or even a single picture, of another collapsing structure ejecting tons of steel and concrete by compressed air alone.

I also know that whatever is supposedly hammering the top of the collapse down through the rest of the structure, virtually resistance free, doesn't exist (except in a totally theoretical paper, strangely coughed up only 2 days after 9/11).

[hack89]

7. Why are you so unwilling to admit that the WTC were a unique event?

It is basic physics - when the volume of a large space goes to zero in a fraction of a second, tons to air have to be compressed. It can't magically disappear - it has to go somewhere. Where do you think it went? Why wouldn't it have energy comparable to high explosives?

Are you really saying that the mass of the building above the collapse disappeared? Is that really what you believe? Because that is your hammer - hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, concrete plus the contents of the building. All falling straight down on a structure not designed to support such dynamic forces. It is basic engineering - which is why only the truther community is mystified.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Let me break it down for you

OCTers constantly deride CTers for not understanding "it's simple physics", yet when ask to produce another example of these common physics, it becomes "it's unique". So ultimately we end up with "unique common physics". And you call us mystified... It's incredible to me that OCTers actually think it shows more common sense to believe unproven theories (requiring imagined, one-in-a-million-events) then to be skeptical about the prevailing explanations. A couple of guys miraculously blow a paper out their ass 2 days after 9/11 and it's game over. Why should I believe that? Why should you?

I'm one of these "crazies" who doesn't believe the top 1/4 structural mass could crush it's way straight down through the remaining 3/4 structural mass by the force of gravity only. I'm open to having my opinion changed, all you have to do is stop copping out with the "unique" bull, and show me. BTW, where was this magic "pile driver" when the dust cleared? For the top section of the tower (the hammer) to not be intact at the bottom, it must have been losing mass on the way down. Even if you bought this absurd notion, you'd have to ask; what crushed the bottom floors?

[SDuderstadt]

11. "For the top section of the tower (the hammer) to not be intact at the bottom...

it must have been losing mass on the way down"

Really? Can you explain that? Do you understand what mass is? Jesus. This is why it's so pointless to try to reason with most "truthers".

[whatchamacallit]

13. Alright Mr. Ad Hominem

Instead of your typical empty bluster, how 'bout you explain to me how it actually works.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Point to the ad hominem....

dude.

As far as your request, it's been explained to you over and over and over. What reason is there to believe trying to explain it to you yet one more time will achieve a different outcome?

[whatchamacallit]

17. How would you know?

I don't believe you've ever actually tried to explain anything to me (other than what an ignorant douche bag I am). As far as I can tell, your job down here is to be the junkyard dog.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Please point to ANY post in which...

I have referred to you as an "ignorant douchebag", dude. You pull stunts like this all the time and it's quite transparent. It's also silly that you can't even pretend to debate on the merits, instead being reduced to trying to smear me as a junkyard dog.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. through the remaining 3/4 structural mass - there's one of your problems

All the descending force has to do is destroy the structure below, not the mass below.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Ah, well that ends that

It all makes sense now. Thanks Bolo!

[SDuderstadt]

16. Bolo's explanation makes perfect sense...

not that I'd ever expect you to see it.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. I don't believe you, Winston. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. a few things

1. In some ways the event is unique, in other ways not. Bazant and Verdure cite several examples beginning with Ronan Point. While only a corner of the Ronan Point building failed, it's still a pretty vivid example of progressive collapse beginning near the top of a tower.

2. When the "couple of guys" are experts in the field, you might be wise to consider the possibility that their arguments require actual refutation, not just handwaving about "miraculously blow(ing) a paper out their ass." I don't think unsupported mockery makes you look "skeptical." (Of course, it's not just the couple of guys -- it's all the other experts in the field who don't appear to share your incredulity.)

3. Bolo's point, roughly, is that the top 1/4 structural mass didn't have to do anything to the remaining mass except to destroy its support, floor by floor. Although the analogy is very crude, your position seems somewhat akin to incredulity that a single domino could knock over thousands of others.

4. The top section of the tower doesn't have to be "intact" in order to wreak havoc on whatever it falls upon. How safe would you feel in an avalanche?

[whatchamacallit]

20. Sure man

1. In some ways the event is unique, in other ways not. Bazant and Verdure cite several examples beginning with Ronan Point. While only a corner of the Ronan Point building failed, it's still a pretty vivid example of progressive collapse beginning near the top of a tower.

A stretch at best I'm sure, but I'll take a look.

2. When the "couple of guys" are experts in the field, you might be wise to consider the possibility that their arguments require actual refutation, not just handwaving about "miraculously blow(ing) a paper out their ass." I don't think unsupported mockery makes you look "skeptical." (Of course, it's not just the couple of guys -- it's all the other experts in the field who don't appear to share your incredulity.)

There's nothing to refute. They presented an idea, in what I believe was a criminally short period of time for a serious scientific paper. Plenty of smart people with letters after their names have made mistakes. IMO a 2 day old paper is suspect at best. But as it supports your bias, I'm sure you're willing to overlook that.

3. Bolo's point, roughly, is that the top 1/4 structural mass didn't have to do anything to the remaining mass except to destroy its support, floor by floor. Although the analogy is very crude, your position seems somewhat akin to incredulity that a single domino could knock over thousands of others.

Worthless. Show me how with dominos stacked vertically, the top 1/4 of the stack can pass through the rest, practically resistance free. Then we'll talk.

4. The top section of the tower doesn't have to be "intact" in order to wreak havoc on whatever it falls upon. How safe would you feel in an avalanche?

Wow, you'll try anything to prop up the lie. Mostly, the leading edge of an avalanche passes through air, not thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Why do I bother?

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. ah, now I remember why I usually don't try this

A stretch at best I'm sure, but I'll take a look.

Did it ever cross your mind that even if you've made your mind up before considering the evidence, it might look better not to proclaim this fact from the rooftops?

There's nothing to refute....

You're arguing that you're justified in ignoring the paper because they wrote it too quickly? Then I suppose us mere mortals who write our comments in a matter of minutes might as well dispense with the trouble, eh?

Seriously, what are you saying here?

Show me how with dominos stacked vertically, the top 1/4 of the stack can pass through the rest, practically resistance free.

Why do the top floors have to "pass through" the rest?

Wow, you'll try anything to prop up the lie.

See my first comment above. I might as well just link to your post next time you complain about supposed ad hominems, right?

Mostly, the leading edge of an avalanche passes through air, not thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

Please pay attention. The question is what happens when the leading edge reaches you. Or, if that sounds sadistic, let's make it me. Do I just get sort of gently bathed, or do I get pummeled and crushed?

Are you suggesting that the top has to pass through thousands of tons of steel and concrete? Not at all. It just has to dislodge them (ETA: floor by floor or section by section), whereupon they fall as well.

[whatchamacallit]

22. There's nothing meaningful enough in this post to even respond to

It barely makes sense.

[hack89]

24. You do realize that the "pile driver" gains mass with every floor?

The 10th floor was crushed by the weight of 100 floors. Basic math - another truther weakness.

You really think the top would be intact? Really? It was a relatively inflexible lattice that would have been ripped apart in the collapse. Just how much flexibility do you think all those joints have? But guess what - even in pieces it all still fell straight down. And all that mass was still there. Do you think that a wall weighs less than a stack of bricks if you take the wall apart? Really?

[whatchamacallit]

25. Bullshit

Don't talk to me about truther weaknesses, you and most of the other OCTers simply regurgitate theories that you honestly don't understand yourselves. Sure sounds good though...

[SDuderstadt]

26. Do you really not understand Hack's post?

If you don't, you are WAY beyond hope, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

27. I understand that it's bullshit

hack is wrong and no amount of the frothing nonsense you bark will change that. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

28. How in the fuck do you figure that Hack is wrong???

Can you possibly explain that? You deny that the piledriver picks up mass as it falls? Are you fucking kidding?

That's like denying 2 + 2 = 4, dude. Fucking unbelievable.

[whatchamacallit]

29. If you believe that the top floors acted as a "pile driver"

with sufficient force to cream the rest of the structure, then I guess you could make the argument that it gained mass. Of course the tons of material ejected out of the building as it fell, work against that argument. Truth is Mr. Dude, I don't need to argue whether the "pile driver" gained mass, as I don't know there was one. And the fact is you don't either. You've never witnessed such a thing before 9/11 or since. You have no empirical knowledge based on real-world research or experiments. You only know there was a pile driver because you were fucking told! Until you can bring something you actually intellectually own, your game is nil.

[hack89]

30. It only had to cream one floor at a time

and after every floor it gained more mass, more momentum and more energy.

The pile driver is simply a bunch of stuff falling. As it frequently pointed out by truthers, the WTC fell in their own footprints. How is that possible unless all that stuff fell straight down?
t

[whatchamacallit]

33. So says the magical 2 day old paper anyway

Funny how for the longest time you guys would scream bloody murder whenever a CTer would say "straight down into it's own footprint". Now that you think you can use it, you're all about it. Listen OCT, the theory you cite as fact was formulated on the notion that the buildings must have collapsed naturally. From day one any other concept was verboten and got no serious consideration. Given the way the buildings fell and the arbitrary restriction that no engineered forces were involved, the "Pile Driver" is simply the only thing they could dream up. It doesn't make it true or fact. Deal with it.

[hack89]

36. What is an engineered force?

are you making things up again.

[whatchamacallit]

37. I'm referring to man-made forces

but you knew that.

[hack89]

38. People like you

make it very clear why the truth movement is fading into nothingness.

[whatchamacallit]

39. People like you

make it very clear why we will never run out of wool.

[lovepg]

52. If you believe that why do you spend all your time in here????

Come on really. Why do you find it necessary to jump on every thread like its a ember from some
conspiracy campfire you must stamp out?
Actually more and more people are getting the message about building seven and explosives ect.

[hack89]

65. Entertainment

step into the real world - 911 truth movement does not exist outside of a tiny corner of the internet. The Birthers have more prominence than you ever had.

[lovepg]

69. Well if the government PAYS people to hang out on Forums like this...

There must be something to it LOL!

[hack89]

70. Why do you think the government would waste time on you?

serious question. Where can you show that the Truth movement has had one iota of influence on the real world?

[lovepg]

72. Hey they send FBI informants to church anti war rallys full of little old ladies..

Prove to me what the "real" world is we can talk!
I bet you think you know what it is!

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Yes, to infiltrate and lead astray into illegal actions or goofy theories.

They don't send them there to argue the government position.

So who fits the COINTELPRO model here at DU? Who's the most likely to be a government agent trying to derail the debate by expressing silly conspiracy theories?

[lovepg]

74. Hey the official story is pretty damn goofy!

[hack89]

75. The real world as in politics, news, culture, entertainment, songs, etc

apart from the fringe of the internet, just where has the truth movement had any impact on America? Just who is paying attention to you at all?

[lovepg]

76. Thats for YOU to find out LOL!

[hack89]

77. Like I said - no one. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

31. You can't argue from a position of "know-nothingness" and claim to seek truth. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

34. Funny

you argue from a position of "know-all-edness" and still miss the truth by a country mile.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. I don't argue from a position of "know-all-edness", WTF that is

I try my best to know something about what I'm saying, and start from the notion that such knowledge is possible.

[SDuderstadt]

41. We're very receptive to your presentation of math that would...

support your position, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

42. So if I don't auto-gobble the OCT like you

I'm required to provide why in mathematical terms? You live in goofy world Mr. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude...if you claim that the consensus...

scientific/engineering conclusions are wrong, why can't you produce the math that shows it? Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to admit you can't provide convincing evidence of your position, dude? All you're doing is embarrassing yourself further by denying science, engineering and math.

Your science denial embarrasses this forum and DU, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

47. There is no fucking consensus

except in your addled mind. You've got 2 day Bazant, the NIST report, and the 9/11 commission. All crap as far as I'm concerned. God I hate ignorant untruthers!!!

[SDuderstadt]

51. If we're so "ignorant"...

how come we've got math and you don't?

BTW, I think you left out a few things, didn't you? Do you have the guts to list all the peer-reviewed papers from "our side"? Of course you don't, because it would expose your absolute dishonesty. I'll save you further humiliation by giving you the opportunity to list them first. I'm trying to help you save face here, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

53. *You* have no math

You have co-opted the work of someone unlike you (someone smart) and now brag about it as if it was yours. It's like being an intellectual parasite really. You get a fucking free ride, but I'm supposed to offer my own mathematical proofs before I'm on your level. What a fucking joke. Talk about dishonesty.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Dude....

show mw where I ever claimed that I developed the math. After that, show me where I ever said you had to develop your own math.


Can you produce the math or not?

[whatchamacallit]

55. No I do not have a two day old paper I can coast on.

Good for you.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Dude....I'm not referring to the Bazant paper.

Do you have any math that proves your claim or not?

[whatchamacallit]

57. Let's start here; what exactly is "my claim"?

What is it that you are requiring me to prove?

[SDuderstadt]

58. You claimed the piledriver would NOT gain mass with every floor...

You must have some math that shows differently...or not.

[whatchamacallit]

59. No, if read to the next post

you will see I agreed that if you buy the pile drive theory it is plausible it gained mass. But I don't buy the basic premiss, so it's a pointless thing to argue. Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

61. No, dude...

the piledriver is proven mathematically. If you're going to deny it, then produce the math that refutes it. Unless, of course, you don't have it.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Remember this?

For the top section of the tower (the hammer) to not be intact at the bottom, it must have been losing mass on the way down

Your exact words, dude. Where's the math that proves that?

[whatchamacallit]

62. My point was that the big hunk that supposedly started it off at the top wasn't there at the bottom.

I know you can also find the post where I agreed it is possible if you buy the theory. I don't

[SDuderstadt]

63. Dude...

So what? why in the world would you expect it would be intact by the time it reached the ground?

[SidDithers]

68. Bazant also published in 2008...

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Sid

[lovepg]

71. Questions about Pissants paper.....

He admits without the fireproofing being stripped away the building does not collapse.
He says NIST comes to this conclusion as well. This would also imply the tests done on steel weakening
were done on steel that did not have fireproofing on it.
SOOOO his whole premise rests on if the fireproofing came off of a sufficient amount a columns for them to weaken
enough to cause collapse. His proof that this indeed occurred?
Well it must of because it collapsed and my idea of how it collapsed is right so therefore that must be what happened.
SCIENCE AT ITS FINEST !
This is your proof?????

[wildbilln864]

84. you refute your own statement. nt

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude....you can't refute the math that shows there was or...

you would have done so.

Are you honestly claiming that all the mass of the upper floors was ejected? Do you realize how stupid that is?

[whatchamacallit]

43. So you claim

whatever math was provided to support the theory, is absolutely correct beyond all doubt? Is that what you are babbling about now?

[hack89]

44. Since the truth community has provided no alternative

after 7 years, it seems to be more correct than anything you have.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Well, it must be insofar as you're concerned, otherwise...

you would have produced the math that refutes it. Of course, you can't.

BTW, you've been directly challenged regarding your claim that the pile driver's mass wouldn''t increase as it hits the floors below. Where's your math for that, dude?

[whatchamacallit]

48. Get a

fucking life.

[lovepg]

50. You just argued it was gaining mass as it desended while ripping apart on the way down.

Good trick,

[hack89]

66. Ripping apart does not make mass disappear

unless you want to argue that all the rubble at ground zero weighed less than the intact towers. You are venturing into Judy Woods territory here.

Draw a line at the collapse front. Above it is the 'pile driver' moving downwards, below it intact floors. As the collapse progresses, do you agree that there are fewer intact floors below the collapse front? Which means that the mass of the newly collapsed floors are above the line and are now part of the 'pile driver'. Which means that the 'pile driver' gains one floor worth of mass every time a floor collapses. Intact or not the mass is still the same. And gravity is taking straight down.

[lovepg]

78. I am saying quite obviously mass is being spewed out the sides in a spectacular manner.

And in addition "air" is being expelled as many as twenty to thirty stories below in some places.
How does the piledriver force air out that many floors below in a very small section as only the air from the floor below is being acted apon
by the piledriver?

[hack89]

79. The heavy pieces went straight down

Besides, you are not seriously saying that they used charges large enough to fling heavy pieces of steel great distances, are you? This is what is used for CD:



http://www.dynaenergetics.com/en/dynawell/products_lsc.html

It would cut a neat line in a column or girder. It would not produce a massive explosion. You have seen too many movies. And of course Thermate doesn't create an explosion at all.

As to the air, have you considered all the elevator shafts in the core? All lot of that air was forced downwards - if an elevator lobby is 30 floors below the crush zone then that's where the air will come out.

Here's a an obvious question you seemed to have not considered - why have visible explosions on the perimeter wall at all? A handful of shaped charges on the core columns is all you would need to bring the towers down. Why go through all the effort to install a huge number of unnecessary explosives? Especially when they would leave such obvious clues?

[lovepg]

80. Heres question you may have not considered....

If they planted large shape charges on the core columns THAT would create large obvious explosions.
My understanding of nano thermite is that it could do the job with a little more subtlety.
If explosives were planted the object would be to make it look like a collapse not a demolition.
As to the air in the elevator some obsessed 911 idiot out there like me actually checked to see if the
air was forced out below the collapse points on elevator lobby floors.
Most were not. Plus an elevator shaft has elevators in it. This would inhibit air expulsion
And the pile driver is less effective without the floors above to pile drive down the air.
The elevators were tube construction without floor by floor ceilings to force air down.
Remember your premise now is that the core stayed standing and resisted collapse.
This would mean the elevator shaft retained its form.

[hack89]

81. But that's my point - you don't need large charges at all

shaped charges focus all their energy at the steel - it is not an omni-directional explosion. With the charges facing inwards and 60 feet from the perimeter they would never be noticed. Besides, you don't need explosives on every floor - why not every 10? Or why not stagger them so you don't have all the charges concentrated on one floor? You seem to believe that they put explosives on every floor in quantities that are excessive. It makes no sense.

[lovepg]

82. Hey I do not KNOW how they did it or even who THEY is thats why I want a new investigation..

Still many unanswered questions. Even if you exclude the towers collapse. Just the money trail alone needs a new investigation.

[sabbat hunter]

83. do you have any evidence

that there WAS explosives in place? Any eyewitnesses of people installing explosives?