markwit Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The invasions are separate thing altogether to be honest. It's important to realise that investigating the events of 9/11 are separate from the subsequent reactive political decisions. Why are they? After all, the US government got their 'Pearl Harbour' and the full backing of a lot of world to steam into Afganistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 When a structural element collapses it 'pops' which simply explains the puffs of dust... not explosives. As for shaking cameras, just because you can't see the outside collapsing it doesn't mean that the process hasn't already begun inside. All of this is a bit irrelevant really because the reality is clear to see. There is no way that a conspiracy of this size could be constructed and carried out. It wouldn't even get off the drawing board, and you certainly couldn't keep a lid on it for 5 years. This ain't Hollywood you know. The puffs of dust were seen many floors below the point of collapse. The camera shook momentarily for few seconds before the tower started collapsing. Surely is the collapse had started internally, the camera would continue shaking. It looked more like siesmic (sp?) activity. Have you seen the video footage? As was mentioned earlier, similar actions were suggested in to 60's to justify an attack on Cuba. No it's not Hollywood - the US government is a lot bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The puffs of dust were seen many floors below the point of collapse. The camera shook momentarily for few seconds before the tower started collapsing. Surely is the collapse had started internally, the camera would continue shaking. It looked more like siesmic (sp?) activity. Have you seen the video footage? As was mentioned earlier, similar actions were suggested in to 60's to justify an attack on Cuba. No it's not Hollywood - the US government is a lot bigger. I looked at the video footage again the other day because of all this. The clouds of dust begin at the point of impact, where the collapse starts. There's no cloud or lower point of collapse that you'd expect with explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I looked at the video footage again the other day because of all this. The clouds of dust begin at the point of impact, where the collapse starts. There's no cloud or lower point of collapse that you'd expect with explosives. There are several puffs clearly eminiting horizontally from the tower many floors below where the actual collapse is occuring. Subsequent puffs appear as the tower collapses, all of them many floors below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 http://www.wtc7.net/ This kind of thing, re above, why was all the debris moved so quickly when there were no bodies left to recover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 http://www.wtc7.net/ This kind of thing, re above, why was all the debris moved so quickly when there were no bodies left to recover The debris was actually all taken to Staten Island, where it was sifted through piece by piece to recover all the small fragments of human remains. What has that got to do with WTC7? WTC7 came down because of extensive damage caused to one side of the building caused by the collapse of the other towers, a raging fire, and many explosions caused by gas canisters that were kept inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Originally Posted by johnbradley wasnt part of the original engineering brief to design the towers in such a way that they could withstand the impact of a large commericial airliner? No it wasn't. Typical engineering design would normally withstand a small light aircraft, but not an airliner. But either way it's into the realms of pot luck to be honest. Actually, the building WAS designed to resist an airliner impact. The criteria was a 707 impacting at relatively low speed (as might be expected if an aircraft were lost with radar malfunction in bad weather). The 767 is of similar mass, but the building wasn't designed for aircraft at max thrust and relatively high speed for low level, impacting with much greater energy than expected in an accidental crash which, combined with the high fuel load, exceeded the design criteria. The truss structure still held, but inability of the fire supression system to deal with around 50 tons of kerosene led to weakening of the metal structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 There are several puffs clearly eminiting horizontally from the tower many floors below where the actual collapse is occuring. Subsequent puffs appear as the tower collapses, all of them many floors below. Yes, there would be - try to imaging the pressure generated as tens of thousands of tons of debris start accelerating towards the ground - the lift shafts act as conduits, transmitting pressure to lower floors. The lift systems don't run all the way top to bottom, many of them only cover, say, the middle third of top third of a building like that, so when the pressure reaches the bottom of a particular lift shaft it will blow the doors open and cause the 'puff' seen coming from certain floors. High explosive doesn't 'puff', it generates wave fronts at Mach 6-10, which are utterly different to signs of overpressure that can be seen in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yes, there would be - try to imaging the pressure generated as tens of thousands of tons of debris start accelerating towards the ground - the lift shafts act as conduits, transmitting pressure to lower floors. The lift systems don't run all the way top to bottom, many of them only cover, say, the middle third of top third of a building like that, so when the pressure reaches the bottom of a particular lift shaft it will blow the doors open and cause the 'puff' seen coming from certain floors. High explosive doesn't 'puff', it generates wave fronts at Mach 6-10, which are utterly different to signs of overpressure that can be seen in the film. But there is no uniformity to these 'puffs'. If, as you suggest, they are caused by "transmitting pressure to lower floors", then surely there would be signs of pressure release all around the building as the floors above collapsed. Have you seen the videos of these 'puffs'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 But there is no uniformity to these 'puffs'. If, as you suggest, they are caused by "transmitting pressure to lower floors", then surely there would be signs of pressure release all around the building as the floors above collapsed. Have you seen the videos of these 'puffs'? Yes, admittedly a while ago. The floor layouts aren't uniform either, and fuilds follow the path of least resistance (air and dust under pressure act like any other gaseous fluid). I've also watched many live and looked at a great, great many pieces of footage of controlled explosions, controlled detonations of improvised expolisive devices (car bombs), missile warheads, iron bombs, sub-munitions and demolition charges as part of my job and can assure you that there's nothing fishy about those puffs. You'll see them on other building demolitions, at various stages and levels, nowhere near the charges and way after the bang as the building collapses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.