Now see... this kind of thing becomes difficult for skeptics...

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989528' date='May 24 2006, 11:01 AM']
What would be the purpose of creating an explosion prior to a strike from an aircraft?
[/quote]

Choreography.

Think about it.

You might get it.

[quote]
WTC was not the first highrise to collapse or become a collapse hazard due to fire, and it might not be the last, considering new construction techniques, which value money over firefighter's (and occupants') lives.
[/quote]

I don't think that's historical fact.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='jezic' post='989525' date='May 24 2006, 10:57 AM']
it hasn't been 60 years since Vatican II
[/quote]
Sorry, I guess it's something like forty...

[quote]
and

WHy would you want the government to do an investigation? If something happened they are likely in on it...
[/quote]

There's no way the entire Congressional body was involved... if that's the case....

AAHHH...!!!

FLEE FOR THY LIVES!!!

Edited May 24, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Winchester]

I did think about it. It's ludicrous. It's unneccesary. While one may say this points in the direction of government action, considering their penchant for such actions, it's not for that reason people say there were secondary devices or primary explosions.


February 1991 at One Meridian Plaza, a serious fire that killed three firfighters, a structural engineer warned there was a pissiiblity of collapse. (11 hour fire) The building did not collapse, but it was torn down due to the damage inflicted. It was a collapse hazard. Other buildings of more heavy weight construction have been exposed to similar stresses and not needed demolition.

In 1970, a medium weight office building the steel members sagged 18 inches, requiring replacement. In a lightweight building, such as WTC 1 and 2 and 7 such sagging can overburden the other members to the point of collapse.

My error, no highrise has collapsed in total pancake. Usually the collapses are localized due to construction techniques. However, WTC 1 and 2 were not of the usual contruction--they were core constructed, leaving vast expanses of floor without load bearing members to localize collapse.

Again, once the fireproofing was removed from the load bearing members, they were exposed to intense flame. These load bearing members were lightweight steel trusses. In truss construction, the removal of one member is enough to cause total collapse. In the case of a heavy floor collapsing onto another, weight alone can cause collapse.

The other two buildings struck by aircraft in New York were of much different construction.

The command staff at the fire discussed the possibility of collapse and came to the conclusion they ahd to get as many people out as possible, and that they weren't going to be able to extinguish the fire. For those who understand building construction, the collapse doesn't need any more explanation than the planes and resulting fires.

(Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics, 3rd edition by John Norman) I will note John Norman was present at the WTC fires as one of the chief officers.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989567' date='May 24 2006, 11:46 AM']
I did think about it. It's ludicrous. It's unneccesary. While one may say this points in the direction of government action, considering their penchant for such actions, it's not for that reason people say there were secondary devices or primary explosions.[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]
My error, no highrise has collapsed in total pancake. Usually the collapses are localized due to construction techniques. However, WTC 1 and 2 were not of the usual contruction--they were core constructed, leaving vast expanses of floor without load bearing members to localize collapse.

Again, once the fireproofing was removed from the load bearing members, they were exposed to intense flame. These load bearing members were lightweight steel trusses. In truss construction, the removal of one member is enough to cause total collapse. In the case of a heavy floor collapsing onto another, weight alone can cause collapse.

The other two buildings struck by aircraft in New York were of much different construction.

The command staff at the fire discussed the possibility of collapse and came to the conclusion they ahd to get as many people out as possible, and that they weren't going to be able to extinguish the fire. For those who understand building construction, the collapse doesn't need any more explanation than the planes and resulting fires.

(Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics, 3rd edition by John Norman) I will note John Norman was present at the WTC fires as one of the chief officers.
[/quote]

You do realize that what you have just described is the leading "collaspe theory," and that the evidence proposed to support it is still under dispute by engineers and physicists all over the place, don't you?

[Winchester]

The first part was sort of a joke.

Think about it.

Maybe you'll get it.


I realize that what I've stated conforms to everything we know about structures exposed to fire. Who is debating this? What are their names? In my experience and my professional studies, I have found that advanced computer models merely confirm the theories of seasoned firefighters.

[Desert Walker]

The reason for secondary devices is to pulverize the whole darn building WHILE it is APPEARING to collapse under its own weight. The reason I used the word"choreography" is that, whoever, set the hypothetical demolition charges, positioned them, and detonated them according to a finely tuned, predetermined sequence, which would create the illusion that the Two Towers were collapsing due to structural failure in the impact zone. If the demolition hypothesis" is true, the whole disaster was an expertly choreographed deception.


Google "Scholars for 911 Truth" to see a list of the disagreeing ones.

[Winchester]

it is unneccesary. The construction of WTC 1 2 and 7 was such that no secondary devices would be needed. Maybe some understanding of the integrity or lack thereof of lightweight truss construction would point this simple fact out to you.

The collapse did in fact start high in the building. That's easy to determine. I don't think you grasp the amount of heat at those upper levels or the concept of total involvement of floors uninterupted by any sort of fire wall. Take a look at pictures of the structure prior to putting in suspended ceilings (not known for impact resistance, but considered a form of fire protection nonetheless, as evidenced by sprinklers installed below but not above them)

The charges are not neccesary. They're superfluous. It needn't be choreographed. The jets were enough.

[Desert Walker]

All the experts agree that the fuel burned up completely within five minutes after the initial explosion. Furthermore, everyone agrees that 50% of the jet fuel was EJECTED from the buildings in the fire-ball of each impact. In addition, the smoke, from whatever fires were still burning, was black. Black smoke, as any fire expert will tell you, is a sign that a fire is suffocating.

Right before the collapse of (I forget which tower exactly), one of the firefighters radioed to his chief on the ground that he had located a sum total of TWO small spot fires at the IMPACT ZONE. He then requested water lines. Apparently the fires at the IMPACT ZONE were controllable, NOT the blazing inferno that everyone now believes in with so much faith. The "inferno theory" is false on its face, because there were at least two people photographed INSIDE the impact zone who were unharmed. Those people would not have been able to survive where they were standing if the temperatures at the impact zone were hot enough to damage the steel framing. Their skin would have melted. And the people who jumped, jumped because of the toxic smoke, not intense heat as was believed. They couldn't BREATHE.

The steel frame was VASTLY over-engineered; some sections possessing 2000% extra load-bearing strength. One of the construction reports states that you could have knocked out WHOLE FLOORS worth of trusses and the buildings would have remained standing in over 100 mile an hour winds.

The weld points had 90,000 pounds of load-bearing strength.

And why in the HECK does the top section of the tower (I forget which one) DESINTIGRATE in mid-air after falling off the building?! And if the top fell off, why does the building continue to annihilate itself at the same speed as the falling top section?

Something had to break apart the central support columns. Pancaking should have left the central support structure mostly intact. BUT THE WHOLE FREAKIN BUILDING CAME DOWN...! The only way that could have happened was if the central core system was being broken up by explosives, AT THE RATE OF FREE FALL.

Choreography.

[hierochloe]

If there were detonations powerful enough to achieve such structural failure, wouldn't those be visible on the exterior? Like they are during planned building demolition? I don't see that in the videos that I've watched. Or, could the "explosion" sounds and the "smoke explosions" audible/visible outside the towers be merely a manifestation of structural failure rather than actual detonations? I dunno - some of the testimonies are pretty spot on for demolition detonations, but a lot are not.

I've read about the whole black smoke/white smoke angle and it's bollox. True that black smoke [i]generally[/i] occurs with low oxygen/partial combustion which only [i]sometimes[/i] indicates a dying fire, but it provides very little indication as to temps in and around the blaze. You could have a cold fire burning material containing a lot of water vapor and the smoke would appear white. Smoke color is just not that reliable and is lame to point out to prove a conspiracy IMHO.

A smoke explosion is also called backdraft, when the temps get so hot that the uncombusted material in the smoke itself ignites. Very dangerous, usually white smoke is an indicator of risk for one to occur, but not a prerequisite.

Finally, even if there were "choreographed" detonations of explosives to aid in downing WTC towers, I would still not be entirely convinced our own gov't had anything to do with it. Who's to say it wasn't part of the master plan by al-Qaeda? It's not like they haven't been successful in the past at strikingly similar ventures....

I just don't see what even the most self-serving in our gov't would benefit from such an act - it defies all logic (unless we have Al-Quaeda in our own gov't). The CTB ratio is WAY off no matter how you run it.

Edited May 25, 2006 by hierochloe

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='990351' date='May 25 2006, 10:24 AM']
If there were detonations powerful enough to achieve such structural failure, wouldn't those be visible on the exterior? Like they are during planned building demolition? I don't see that in the videos that I've watched. Or, could the "explosion" sounds and the "smoke explosions" audible/visible outside the towers be merely a manifestation of structural failure rather than actual detonations? I dunno - some of the testimonies are pretty spot on for demolition detonations, but a lot are not.
[/quote]

I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. A building as large as the towers has never before been demolished with explosives. If you notice, the largest pieces of metal in that pile at ground zero were the EXTERNAL framework, which would not have been blown up. If explosives were used, they were used to crack the support columns, deep inside and out of sight, and also, presumably somewhat muffled by the rest of the building. However, there is one video taken from a stationary camera tripod set on the roof of a another building. Seconds before the first collapse, the whole camera vibrates as though a tremor had run through the earth and a large piece of debris falls from the hole in the building. Something BIG was obviously detonated before that building began to collapse.

[quote]
Finally, even if there were "choreographed" detonations of explosives to aid in downing WTC towers, I would still not be entirely convinced our own gov't had anything to do with it. Who's to say it wasn't part of the master plan by al-Qaeda? It's not like they haven't been successful in the past at strikingly similar ventures.... [/quote]

I've definitely considered this. But their motives are far less understandable than those which our our current government would have.

[quote]
I just don't see what even the most self-serving in our gov't would benefit from such an act - it defies all logic (unless we have Al-Quaeda in our own gov't). The CTB ratio is WAY off no matter how you run it.
[/quote]

It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."

Read Gore Vidal. His knowledge is imperative.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. A building as large as the towers has never before been demolished with explosives. If you notice, the largest pieces of metal in that pile at ground zero were the EXTERNAL framework, which would not have been blown up. If explosives were used, they were used to crack the support columns, deep inside and out of sight, and also, presumably somewhat muffled by the rest of the building. However, there is one video taken from a stationary camera tripod set on the roof of a another building. Seconds before the first collapse, the whole camera vibrates as though a tremor had run through the earth and a large piece of debris falls from the hole in the building. Something BIG was obviously detonated before that building began to collapse.
I've definitely considered this. But their motives are far less understandable than those which our our current government would have.
It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."

Read Gore Vidal. His knowledge is imperative.
[/quote]
With all due respect, Gore Vidal is a raving left-wing lunatic (as well as a militant homosexual and vehement anti-Christian). (He wrote a "funny" novel, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140231196/qid=1148606280/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"][i]Live from Golgotha : The Gospel According to Gore Vidal[/i][/url], mocking the Church, and portraying St. Paul and the early Church as flaming homosexuals.)
Why is the "knowledge" of this man "imperative"? What hidden secrets does he possess?

(And what has George W. Bush gained personally by blowing up the WTC according to you? How has it enriched him?)

Besides, we all know the interdimensional space lizards are behind all this with their Reptilian Agenda.
Read [url="http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/"]David Ickes[/url]. His knowledge is imperative.

(And btw, Winchester is a professional fireman. He knows what he's talking about.)

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. [/quote]
I'll concede that. I've seen tons of demolitions, first hand and in videos (hooray for discovery channel). True, it would be nearly impossible to see the flashes on such a building with a consolidated exterior.

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."[/quote]
"...every reason imaginable..."? I don't even know how to respond to that tbh...

I will say, far be it from ME to hang my hat on ONE person's analysis of historical facts, altho I'm sure we could develop a nice list of guys like Vidal so meh. It's irrelevant.

If Gore Vidal was that accurate, then he would surely be unfortunately dead. And if you are correct in your assertion that he is 100% spot-on, then that defies all logic as well. In which case that reminds me, I need to change out the batteries in my transponder out in the San Luis Valley so I don't miss out on my quarterly abduction and all the joys that go with it. :

Nevertheless, if 9-11 were indeed a psy-ops attack, the CTB ratio is still WAY off when reviewed from the standpoint of deliberate gov't involvement. I think one could achieve the same at half the cost and twice the return, not to mention far more plausible deniability, doing something different. And you never know, maybe they will.

[I only brought up the backdraft term because most people (including a former FF ) won't recognize the term. Oh and it's darker smoke puffing out of an enclosed area that is the critical warning sign, having thought about it awhile now...]

Edited May 26, 2006 by hierochloe

[Winchester]

Well well well.

[quote]In addition, the smoke, from whatever fires were still burning, was black. Black smoke, as any fire expert will tell you, is a sign that a fire is suffocating.
[/quote]

"Black smoke suggests the presence of petroleum products"
"Reduced amounts of oxygen produce large amounts of dark grey or yellow smoke"
Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics by John Norman

[quote]All the experts agree that the fuel burned up completely within five minutes after the initial explosion[/quote]

"likely burned off in a matter of 10-15 seconds" ibid.

That's another expert, and less than five is pretty beaver dam far from 10.

[quote]Right before the collapse of (I forget which tower exactly), one of the firefighters radioed to his chief on the ground that he had located a sum total of TWO small spot fires at the IMPACT ZONE. He then requested water lines. [/quote]

South tower:
"It took almost 55 min after their arrival for Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, Fire Marshal Ronnie Bucca, (both marathon runners) and the members of Ladder Company 15 to ascend from the 44th floor to the 78th floor (where the plane impacted the South Tower). Radio transcripts show these members had just begun to operate a standpipe line in an attempt to protect a stairway, when the South Tower collapsed..." ibid.

Firefighters did not ascend alone and did not have to call for lines. They brought them along. That's how highrise tactics work. I've heard the actual transmissions. I've listened to them. I've heard the last transmissions before the first collapse--the final words of these men you are dishonoring with vagaries and misinformation. The transmission would have indicated the floor, not "impact zone," unless said firefighter had broken with proper communication. Floor numbers are concrete, words like "impact zone" are not.

I also point out two spot fires would not have produced the volume of smoke coming from the towers.

At high rise fires, the wind plays a factor. We are very careful about breaking windows because opening one on the windward side can create a blowtorch effect. "Multiple 2 1/2 handlines operating from the staircases have been unable to advance."
2 1/2 inch lines can develop 250 or more gpm. Dealing with these fires involves massive amounts of personnel. I will repeat that the command staff had decided they could not extinguish the fire. The tactics were set up for evacuation, not suppression. They were very succesful, rescuing "all but approximately 200 people below the impact points." I mentioned before the chiefs saw collapse as a possibility. This is without thinking there were explosives. These are experts, my friend. I dare say it is shocking to you to see such a large building collapse. You are grasping at straws. You cannot handle the notion that fire is so powerful and that construction is so pitiful. You want buildings to be strong--so do I. I go into them under those conditions. You and your ilk proffering these claims are distracting us from real construction problems.

[quote]Apparently the fires at the IMPACT ZONE were controllable, NOT the blazing inferno that everyone now believes in with so much faith. [/quote]
"They all agreed on their primary objective, "to get as many people out of the building" as possible and "let it burn up,...we ain't putting this fire out." " ibid.

Had the fires been controllable, FDNY would have controlled them because nopt doing so was giving up on those above the fire. Your statement, hopefully unwittingly, says FDNY donated lives. We in the fire service do "donate property" in an attempt to get ahead of it. We do not donate lives. The best way to save lives is to suppress the fire. That's what we do in high rises to save those above the fire. FDNY did not mount a fire attack in an attempt to extinguish the fire because it was not deemed possible. Whoever offered you this information deserves a sound punch to the nose.

[quote]The "inferno theory" is false on its face, because there were at least two people photographed INSIDE the impact zone who were unharmed. Those people would not have been able to survive where they were standing if the temperatures at the impact zone were hot enough to damage the steel framing. Their skin would have melted. And the people who jumped, jumped because of the toxic smoke, not intense heat as was believed. They couldn't BREATHE.
[/quote]

Smoke is plenty hot, first of all. It takes heat to produce it. Where are the photos? Who are these people? And this proves little if you've any experience in search and rescue, since at the floor level, it is sometimes tenable. Total involvement could have been absent in impact zones with intense fire in other areas. All it would prove was that in that area, there was a tenable atmosphere.

[quote]The steel frame was VASTLY over-engineered; some sections possessing 2000% extra load-bearing strength. One of the construction reports states that you could have knocked out WHOLE FLOORS worth of trusses and the buildings would have remained standing in over 100 mile an hour winds.
[/quote]

Which report? Where is it? I've seen construction reports describing fire walls that were not true fire walls. Contractors aren't angels, my friend.

"pictures of the WTC's large open floor spaces clearly showing the lightweight bar joist floors." ibid.

"lightweight concrete and bar-joist floors" ibid.

a 100 foot steel beam will expand 9 1/2 inches when heated to 1000 degrees. at 1500 degrees, it will sag. Common office furniture can burn at 1300 or more degrees, with ceiling temperatures at or above this. Add the air flow from an elevated position with openings made by a jet. Less ventilated warehouse roofs under less load than the floors of WTC regularly collapse in early stages of fires.

Shock loads are far worse than dead loads. A floor collapsing on another is a shock load.

Welds hold joints. they don't help sagging joists. I've seen intact but failed structural members.

Pre WWII buildings were overengineered. Newer buildings are not because wer have a better idea of how much we can get away with.

[quote]And why in the HECK does the top section of the tower (I forget which one) DESINTIGRATE in mid-air after falling off the building?! And if the top fell off, why does the building continue to annihilate itself at the same speed as the falling top section?
[/quote]

I see it disappear into the dust and smoke. The bottom is striking the lower floors. Impact hurts objects. The top cause the bottom to fall, and each successive fall cause the next. It makes sense they would fall at the same rate. Also, falling objects fall at the same speed. There's nothing about lower floors that would make them fall faster.

[quote]Something had to break apart the central support columns. Pancaking should have left the central support structure mostly intact. BUT THE WHOLE FREAKIN BUILDING CAME DOWN...! The only way that could have happened was if the central core system was being broken up by explosives, AT THE RATE OF FREE FALL.
[/quote]

Fire is completely capable of breaking down the support strength to the point of collapse. WTC 1 and 2 were not curtain wall construction, so the damage to the outer supports from impact would have placed a greater load on interior members. The interior members were further weakened by heat--greater load, less capacity to support load. Weight of floors above the impact area striking, weight of floors pulling...plenty to pull down interior of building.

Core construction relates not to support columns, but to service placement, allowing for large floor spaces. Putting elevators, bathrooms, stairs, in the center is core construction.
[quote]
When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

[/quote]

[quote]In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.

[/quote]
[url="http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html"]Vincent Dunn webpage about collapse[/url]

Please read this. Vincent Dunn is a NY firefighter. After commenting on this fire, you owe it to me and all other firefighters to read this. He's one of my heroes, and he's been preaching the problems of lightweight construction for years. He's a great man, and one of my brother firefighters.

[Winchester]

Heiro,

I have to slightly disagree (perhaps)

I think smoke color (and intensity) is reliable enough to make several tactical decisions.

Thick black smoke violently moving out of the building does indicate a significant fire, so you'd need the highest flow practical from your handlines. You'd also want horizontal or vertical ventilation as soon as possible.

I think we can hijack this thread into a fire tactics discussion, don't you?

[Desert Walker]

I admit I'm no "expert" on any of this stuff.

But riddle me this:

Why are there over NINE separate explosions that can be heard echoing all the way over to Hoboken while the towers are burning?

?

Why has no one explained that fact?

Why after the first of these explosions is huge cloud of smoke seen rising from the base of the towers on the streets of lower Manhatten?

How do 12 foot high floors collapse on each other at a rate of 10 floors per SECOND?

How does a fire near the top of these buildings break up the core support system on ALL FLOORS?

Ya'll really should watch this video:

[url="http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.442"]http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/con...php?content.442[/url]

Socrates,

Ad hominem attacks about what you believe to be my hysterical "conspiracism" do not answer any of the questions that so many rational people have about the events of September 11, 2001.

But if it comforts you, I won't respond to your references about alien abductions and the like. SO i'll neither dispel nor confirm such suspicions. That way you can continue feeling secure in your belief that I'm a kook.

Believing that government conspiracies such as the one I am considering here are impossible doesn't make their possibility go away, no matter how hard you believe it.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Desert Walker