I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this, researching it, responding to so-called "sceptics" and frankly, I've come to the conclusion that the nature of the complete destruction/disintegration of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers on 9/11, from a whole host of angles and perspectives, reveals, in no uncertain terms (except those presented by the horrific implications of the alternative viewpoint ie: the magnitude of evil as a psychological block and thus, as a point of denial), that the official story about what actually happened there, is utter nonsense and a complete and absolute absurdity, which is really indefensible in the face of the reality of the actual occurance of destruction, as observed in all the videos and images.

So I figured it might be appropriate to start a thread about it, the topic being just how self evident is it, namely that these buildings must have been destroyed through the use of explosives, and did NOT in fact "collapse" in some sort of progressive, pancake or accordianlike, floor by floor, gravity driven, cumulative weight loading "compression".

Your thoughts?

I'll share my own as the thread develops. Thanks.

Best,

HH

Precisely my thoughts all along.

People say "prove it" - I'm goin: LOOK -->>> JUST LOOK AT IT!!!

Then I'm just dumb-founded when they can't see

While I have no doubt that the towers were sabotaged, "guaranteed" to be brought down...(even to the Saudi/ISI financiers, they were guaranteed theyd be brought down)

BUT...it cant be proven, it was done in a way to where no physical evidence could be left...and most scientists and public would believe the official story.

Hence why I dont focus in on it.

All I know is NK-44 to me proves explosives were going off before the plane hit, in the sublevels and path trains:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=18745

I can prove 9/11 was an inside job just by showing how US and Saudi elites were orchestrating the whole plot, with ISI stooges and corporations.

there IS something to the towers and pentagon, but its precisely what the "movement" is forced to be merely seen as. All about the towers and pentagon theories.

I have always maintained (and several times posted) that the explosive nature of the destruction of the towers was evident to the naked eye. My avatar on Digg is a stillshot of billows of white stuff as the first explosions were detonated. A combination of slo-motion and select stills is (imho) still the best "evidence" of SCD (secret controlled demolition, with the plane impacts to "sell" the collapse).

Like when I watch the North Tower ah..plummet, there are a number of things that really stand out for me, and I'm sure it's not just me either (and perhaps soon everyone will "see" it). First, the sheer LENGTH of the remaining undamaged structure. The North tower was impacted around the 96'th floor isn't it? So there's this impact gash, some dark smoke, scattered fires, and well, the entire remaining UNdamaged structure below, all the way to the ground. Now are we supposed to accept the notion that this small section literally CRUSHED the rest of the building, in anywhere from 12-14 seconds? -where absolute free fall in nothing but air from that height is about 10-11 seconds?! And at the onset of destruction, there's this huge fireball, and the entire section, in a perfectly horizontal manner, well, the only way to describe it, most certainly isn't "pancaking" but quite literally blowing up, right off the top of the building! - but not a moment before the communications antenna plummets in freefall, what's THAT about - how could the core structure, upon which that antenna sat, simply vanish?! So we see this explosive onset of destruction repleat with fireballs, explosively ejected cement and building material blowing off the top, squibs, antenna free falling through the core, and then, to ah "top" it all off, with the top of the building essentially exploded off the top, the ENTIRE REMAINING LENGTH OF BUILDING - it's just PULVERIZED, while explosively ejecting this truly MASSIVE debris plume, and then the building is shredded, from the top down, at something so close to "free-fall" that the vanishing part, the nothingness remaining above the rest of the remaining structure, and the FOUNTAIN of ejecting material, it chases the leading edge of debris down to within a single second or two, all the way to the GROUND - so how did this pulverization process maintain downward momentum with the entire remaining structure offering no more resistence, or little more, than mere AIR?! WTF?
So all these "scientifically minded" so-called "sceptics", they are asking us to believe that this was a fire induced collapse initiation commencing at around the impact and fire area, and then crushing the remaining building via cumulative weight loading, when just the opposite is what is plainly observed (ejecting debris plume/fountain)? Have they heard of Newton's Three Laws of Motion? I just don't get it, how it is that they consider themselves "sceptics" and yet this is the story they attempt to defend, the whole thing is utterly absurd, like I said in the OP. It's plainly obvious, and it is entirely based on physical reality.

Therefore, how can history and science possibly NOT get this right, in the final analysis..?

And that's my point.

The OCT regarding this event, what it really amounts to, in the absence of a fatally flawed fundamental presupposition about "collapse" due to an apparent direct causal connection with the plane strikes and fires, and in the absence of the explosive demolition hypothesis - is something I call
"The Foot of God Hypothesis".

NIST and "The Foot Of God" Hypothesis
Rob Rice (me)
http://www.911scholars.org/NISTandThe%20FootOfGod.html

That was hastily thrown together from an email exchange I was having with Scholars some time ago.

But doesn't that just describe it, what the JREF's and the US government and MSM are asking us to blindly accept? I think so.

The Foot of God Hypothesis - that's about what it amount to.

Foot of God, in action

Yeah, headhunter you're spot on there, I've always said that it's kinda strange how something like wtc7, for instance (or the towers), even needs to be argued about... it's really that obvious. The fact that it is that obvious might be one of the reasons there are such systematic efforts in play to point at an orange and call it an apple...

But do you actually see what I'm REALLY getting at here..?

It IS that obvious!

How devastating, when viewed through a magnifying lens of increasing historical scrutiny.. on a global scale.

An obvious truth changes everything, and "they" dealt it out themselves, against themselves, and by their own hand, the secret "ace card" of the dark shadow government now CAUGHT red handed in an act of treason, mass murder, and crimes against humanity. It's a Joker card in fact, and the last laugh isn't with them.

And there those towers remain, forever conspicuously absent, in perpetuity, from generation, to generation, and from age to age.

Our movement isn't just a blip on a radar screen. The reality speaks for itself. We don't even NEED a "movement" per se.

This thread right here represents their REAL terror! :o

Now of course what we're saying here, if you are an American citizen reading this, is very embarassing, and very painful, but sometimes, for a true restoration and recovery to take place, in fact in all cases, learning is required, where "that which hurts, instructs." ~ Ben Franklin

There's much learning to be had through a re-examination of the events of 9/11, learning which, once fully appropriated, has the power to unleash a quiet revolution, and a historical transformation, not in military affairs, but in human affairs.

There's still real "justice" to be had for all those who perished, and who perished needlessly in the wake of 9/11, but it resides within what can be learned from it, and then changed by it, by the learning - for the betterment of all humanity, and the straightening out of nothing less than human history itself, because that's what's really at stake here. This isn't George Orwell's "1984", or is it? :unsure:

Gee :blink: why aren't they after him..?

Hi headhunter, I know you have been gone a while and I don't know if you saw this thread. I put this out there literally the day after I thought of it so it is bit incomplete, working on refining it now. It explains how the core seems to vanish and gives a reasonable explanation for the molten metal. To most people here there is really no question if it is a demolition, the question has always been, "how?"

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=13865

Regarding skeptics, you have to wonder why, if the collapse of the twin towers made so much engineering sense, and given their spectacular circumstances that befell the twin towers on 9/11, why have NO engineers and scientists come forth to provide detailed descriptive explanations that reasonably explain what was observed?

What we get are lots of assumptive data, formulas and theories. The Official Conspiracy Theory scientists and engineers never attempt to validate their reams of impressive looking calculations by describing in 'living color' what was actually occurring inside each tower up to and during the collapses.

We know far more about the dynamics of Titanic sinking than we do about the collapses of the twin towers.

NIST, Bazant, Greening etc., the big guns who've perpetuated the myth of the twin towers being natural to-be-expected collapses, have never addressed the major flaw in their theory which collapse initiations were dependent on.

To make it work, you must accept that each upper section, across the complete building cross-section, instantaneously lost column support and allowed a freefall drop through the height of one floor (approx. 10 feet). If the columns weakened and gradually failed, as would be the logical expectation, then their theories would fail. They depend on the big DROP!

No one has ever explained how, even allowing for lost and damaged columns, why at 56 minutes and 102 minutes, the upper sections of WTC2 and WTC1 respectively, were able to overwhelm the complete remaining column support with such rapidity as though they had been "yanked away"?

MM

Here's another way of looking at the same primary issue which is being addressed in this thread so far (though there are many other types of physical evidence all of which reveal the same truth).



So on the one hand, there's absolutely nothing there, and thus a total free fall, where on the other hand, the actual twin towers decent time was anywhere from 1-3 seconds longer than absolute free fall in nothing but air (10-11 seconds because of terminal velocity, due to air resistence, where absolute free fall in a complete VACUUM, is 9.2 seconds).

Thus, it can only be within the difference of 1-3 seconds, during which every single weld, bolt and joint failed or was broken, which in effect describes an almost SIMULTANEITY of "breakage" along the ENTIRE REMAINING LENGTH OF STRUCTURE +/- a second or three.

One Two Three

Once again, let me reiterate.

On the one hand, nothing at all
On the other hand, a steel structure, both core and perimeter wall framework

Difference between nothing at all (air), and steel structure "breakage" time?

1-3 seconds.

Now think about all those welds and bolts and joints breaking in 2 or 3 seconds...

The official story that all these so-called "scientifically minded sceptics" try to defend? It's indefensible, in the face of the truth, and the reality.

Oh they might be able to add another second or two MAX, but it doesn't alter the essential physical reality in accorandance with Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/hi...ewton3laws.html

If it's so freakin' obvious, why are the only ones who can see it a fringe group of Truthers?

To me, it looks like buildings falling. I don't see anything to make me doubt that.

If it's that obvious that it's a CD, then this must be the key to convert the rest of the country to your side. Make a convincing argument, other than pointing out that it's obvious. If it's that obvious, surely you can describe exactly why in a way that would convince others. There's your challenge.

Already met. Read my previous post..

And we can go at this thing from umpteen number of angles and perspectives, and prove it over and over again, as much as is necessary, and as I've pointed out, we have all the time in the world and the rest of history, to do so.

It's not indeterminate, something that is subject only to subjective interpretation.

Both cannot be true.

Yes, JREF, and "sceptics", you defend and act as apologists for an absurd lie, of the farthest reaching historical importance and significance. If anything you should be extremely embarassed..

Two reasons. One, the psychological nature of "the big lie" and two, the apparent causal connection with the plane strikes and fire, which preceeded the two destruction events. I think it's in the first line of the NIST report - to show how the buildings "collapsed" after being impacted by the planes, and after "suffering" from all the fire at the impact area level of the building.

So, one the one hand, we have the central crux of the OCT myth of, "planes hit, the buildings collapsed" and on the other, something unfathonable in terms of the magnitude of the type of evil involved, which must exist "out there" as per the official story re: Osama bin Laden and his 19 merry men..


---------------------
“if anyone has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows, that if you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down...."
- Peter Jennings, reporting on 9/11 when it happened.
That's what most of them were wondering, until the official story about it took hold. There are many more quotes like that, including those made by Dan Rather, who was convinced at the time that it must have been done with explosives.

You were duped "Powerhouse" and even to this day, cannot even "see" it from the perspective being described herein.

Headhunter- your understanding of the collapse of the towers is fataly flawed. The small section of tower above the impact point did not "crush" the much larger section below the impact point. Anyone with a college level understanding would know this.

The small section above the impact point crushed the 1st floor below impact. The mass of all those floors then crushed the next level, then the next, etc etc. Once all that mass got going, it is literally impossible for any one floor to slow down the progression of collapse.

If the tower was one solid block of stone or steel, then yes, the smaller part on top would not crush the larger part below. But thats not what we are looking at.

From the NIST FAQ

I understand what you are trying to get at Arbor, but it would be nice if you'd take the time to read the thread carefully. What I'm saying in effect, is that half way through the "collapse" there was in essence half less building above the remaining half, and that contrary to your accumulating mountainous avalance of material (like an upside down mountain, squashing the remaining structure like a trash compactor floor by floor), just the opposite dynamic was observed to have occured with the massive explosively ejected fountain of debris. And either way, free fall isn't mass dependant, and the three laws of motion still apply. In your "universe" the power of gravity is much stronger than in the one reality inhabits. Me I prefer to look at things rationally, and not just go by what I've been told to accept, or by rejecting what I cannot accept as an alternative. That's just a political wedge. Why should I believe it apiori, the way NIST and everybody else did..? Why should I reject my rational faculty, to try to defend the indefensible? Why act as an apologist for the OCT myth, when reality itself has something else to say about it..?

Maybe because we are intelligent and you are a dumb-ass? :)

Seriously, though... I don't know why people can't see the obvious.

Yes, right, because it is so often that we see buildings falling/collapsing that it doesn't need any more explanation than that... Sure... The buildings just fell. Ho-Hum. Another day in paradise.

It's all too simple.

People SEE what they wish to SEE!

Everyone has a choice about whether they want to swallow the RED PILL or the BLUE PILL!

MM

I disagree. Reality is reality and truth truth.

My point is that many people are afraid of the truth.

They will seize on any explanation that will allow them to sleep at night.

MM

Well I have faith that people in general and scientists in particular, are not fools.

That's why I call the WTC twin towers' conspicuous absense from the New York City Skyline THE number on "smoking gun" of 9/11. We probably just need a little more distance from it, and from this entire chapter of historic insanity, to begin to look at it objectively, on an individual, national, and on a global scale, but like I said, we've got all the time in the world, and in my view, given what's like THERE, in reality, history and science can't NOT get this story straight in the end. This isn't like the magic bullet of the JFK assassination. No, this is two of the largest skyscrapers in the world both doing the same thing on the same day, where the nature of those destructive events is and will continue to be brought into question, and placed beneath a magnifying glass of increasing historical scrutiny, and where the actual historical record of it, is PRESERVED, in video and still photo realism, forever.. think about it. This isn't even about "the 9/11 truth movement". And once people start to really "get" the reality of it, we'd better just get right out of the way, since nobody owns truth and reality..

it's elementary, it is what it is, a thing, unto itself - it's not REALLY a "mystery" at all.

If this thread is about anything, it's about the end of the 9/11 truth movement as a "movement". It's about that point in time and history, when we are no longer needed.. having served our common purpose.. a committment and dedication to the truth and reality at all cost, except at the cost of truth and reality itself.

Blue pills and red pills, rejecting the obvious, this has nothing to do with science.

No that's where you're dead wrong. It has everything to do with science, and nothing to do with subjective interpretation.

What you defend, the official story about this, is utterly absurd in the face of the reality of the actual occurance itself, and that's been clearly presented in this thread so far. Once again, if there's any faith involved here, it's in most people's ability to think things through rationally, and not merely accept, apriori, a story about what to believe.

I don't see this. Halfway through the collapse, the 55 upper floors' worth of material are heading down toward the 54th floor, and they're moving fast. Do you really think that the 54th floor, all by itself, could withstand being hit by 55 floors worth of free-falling material?

Then the 53rd floor gets hit with 56 floors of avalanche; it stands even less of a chance than the 54th floor did!

I'll grant you that some of that upper material fell out to the side instead of coming straight down, so maybe instead of the 54th floor being hit with 55 floors of material, it was hit with 50 floors' worth. BFD. It still stands no chance of slowing down that moving mass by more than a teeny fraction of a second.

You are distorting the reality of what actually happened. The building disintegrated and was pulverized from the top down, and once in motion, the upper threshold of debris WAS in fact an outwardly ejected fountain of debris, leaving nothing above it in it's wake. And once it began, it was not hitting or smashing down from some great height either, as seen in the photo below. That's why I call what you are proposing, according to the official story, the "Foot of God Hypothesis"..


North Tower building photographed while plummeting to the ground with continuous momentum and to within a couple seconds of absolute free fall in air for any freely dropped object from the same height, in nothing but AIR alone...


Could someone please post a series of video links for people to re-examine? Thanks.

Cause he didn't ;)

Isn't that the best prove there is?

We can continue to argue endlessly about the collapse of the twin towers.

Yes it's obvious to some that it was a 'prepared' collapse, and yes for others it was a collapse
that was easy to accept because of the 'shock and awe' of the initial aircraft strikes.

In the case of World Trade Center 1, the North Tower, the top 15 storys;


suddenly collapsed onto the intact structure below like this;



and resulted in this;



in the process crushing outer columns like this as if they were twigs;



and inner columns like this;



were turned into this;



in other words;



another view of what was effecting what;



We are expected to believe this because NIST claims the intense heat from the office furniture fires caused the floor trusses to sag and pull the inner and outer columns inward.



NIST refuses to examine this kind of possibility;

Using encyption-protected digital radio controlled devices like this;



This is but a visual 'taste' of the argument that makes those who support the 9/11 Truth Movement question
the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Is there not good reason to form sufficient doubt and demand a proper unrestricted investigation?

MM

that was such an awesome visual illustration of the absurdity of the official story!

If you can show this part to be true, that midway through the collapse everything from the top half had been ejected sideways so that there wasn't any remaining to fall on the 54th floor, and I'll join you.

My guess is that there's 80 to 90 percent of the interior of the building above (the part contained inside the perimeter columns) left to fall on floors below.

Not much to add to this except to say that to assume that the difference between acceptable and "BFD" is not 2 floors. The amount of debris cascading outwards in all directions is not the difference between 54 and 50, its more like 54 and 20. That is one hell of a lot of material being ejected outwards, not a measly 2-4 floors worth. To claim it was such a small amount is the same as if I claimed it was 54 and 2.

There are ways to quantify just how much material we are seeing cascading outwards; not sure what they are, but if you can estimate the speed the planes were travelling from the video, you should be able to do the same for the ejected matter. When someone does that it will go a long way toward debunking the crush theory to explain what we saw. In my (almost completely ignorant) opinion, it looks as though most of the debris was ejected, not a small fraction of it.

I'd also like to point out what a clever trick it was for them to endlessly play the collapsing towers on the news, so much so that people were screaming into their phones at the networks to "stop showing it, for Christ's sake!" You'd think that this endless snuff film would clue many into the 'obvious fact' that they were demolished, not collapsed; but in fact it had the opposite effect, namely making people turn away from their TV sets when the footage aired, or making them watch the endlessly replaying clips much as drivers can't help but rubberneck as they pass an accident scene. And noone, not me, not you, was in any way dispassionate enough as many or most of us now are, able to examine the banana peeling without imagining the thousands being shattered to pulp in the process.

It is helpful to remember that most Americans to this day can't watch the towers coming down without reverting close to the same state of infancy they were in at the time. It is we who are capable of looking at it at all, to this day, mostly because we have seen the clips over and over; and can compartmentalize to this extent because the stakes are so high; and because we refuse to allow those people to be murdered for nothing, their killers unknown.

Common sense is almost a contradiction in terms. There can only be common sense when all parties have the same information as a starting point.

Well I've been away for a couple of days but I feel this topic is relevant and we can address it as best possible.

Lets get some principles out of the way first:

Can you define "pulverized" here? Obviously the steel didn't turn to dust as Judy Wood claims, and Steven Jones states that the concrete didn't turn entirely into dust (again ala Judy Wood) so what exactly are you using 'pulverized' for here? What exactly do you mean by it?

What evidence do you have for this? How could the upper sections of both towers somehow be entirely destroyed/disintegrated/moved? What possible forces could be applied here?

Thanks in advance.

The only thing that is painfully obvious to me is a portion of the outer shell is being ejected outwards in the area where the upper portion of the building collides with the lower portion. There is nothing in any picture that would indicate to a rational unbiased observer that any great amount of the interior was also ejected.

Powerhouse's statement is right to the point of answering the opening statement.

Why is it that only this same small group of people are also able to understand Newtons laws while the top scientists at schools like MIT and in engineering firms across the world do not.

Miragememories you show that graphic of the WTC with the small (200 foot tall building) had to crush the rest of the building. I am curious if you really believe if you took a 15-20 story building and dropped it from about ten feet above another building it would be stopped before the other building was "smashed like a pancake" against the ground.

how can you possibly believe that once that 100,000 tons got moving the building would be able to stop its fall.

It is probably the same reason that more scientists don't come forward to address the claims about the moon landing or bigfoot.
To the people who understand these things there was nothing unexpected about once the building started to fail the complete collapse was inevitible.

Tom if you actually read my posts, you'd realize that I don't believe the upper sections ever DROPPED!, at least not in the way that NIST and Bazant argue they do via math.

I agree they dropped, but as a result of controlled demolitions and not as you would prefer to believe, fire weakened columns.

The NIST and Bazant 10 foot drop that would allow the upper sections to fully convert their stored potential energy to overwhelming kinetic energy effectively requires a drop zone.

Across the space of a whole floor, we need a virtually instantaneous loss of vertical support.

Any gradual loss of vertical support, something which would be expected if fires were hot enough to sufficiently weaken steel, should naturally result in a gradual floor collapse.
Keep in mind, the fires were not uniformly everywhere at once, they were office furniture fueled and NIST gave each fire a timeline of roughly 20 minutes.

NIST and Bazant expect the gullible to believe that somehow the fires softened the steel columns but the columns mysteriously 'waited' until they were all weakened in unison so they could 'rapidly and simultaneously give out'.

The logical expectation would have a point reached where sufficient columns were fire weakened they would give way under the load above, causing the upper section to lean or topple into that area of weakness.

We can see this occurring with the South Tower (WTC2) which was supporting a 30 story section;



It is clearly toppling into the floor section that was originally impacted and where any undamaged columns, would be expected to weaken from fire first.

Mysteriously though, this topple was 'arrested' and the whole upper section 'rode' downwards on a cascading collapse.

My explanation has always been, and still is, that controlled demolitions undermined the topple.

Skeptics argue no, the complete floor below was over-stressed and completely, rapidly buckled.

When you're desperate to deny the common sense visual evidence, I guess any theory will do?

MM

They are not looking


they are thinking about the news



and the troops

and everytime they bashed muslims and laughed

and oil and how if we dont do this we wont have any...they are brainwashed


they arent really looking at floors blowing out

or lava flowing or everything else

While unlikely 100% as you point out, I do think this image provides ample evidence that there was a whole lotta pulverizing going on!

How could the NIST's and Bazant's argument of 'fire weakening at the impact zones', possibly explain "the upper sections of both towers being somehow entirely destroyed/disintegrated/moved"?

MM

Everyone knows why the Titanic sunk and with far more certainty, yet there have been countless scientific papers, non-fiction stories and novels written, describing in exhaustive detail the technical and human analysis of what occurred to that great ship from the moment of impact to it's final plunge to it's watery grave a few hours later.

I would think that 'your' "people who understand these things" would be more than eager to provide a detailed accounting of the death throes of the Twin Towers.

This vacuum of response certainly cannot be due to lack of public or peer interest in the subject.

MM

I would think so too. I mean how many thousands of skyscrapers are there where this type of free-fall of the buildings could happen again? Since it happened so easily on September 11th, it could happen again quite easily. Perhaps some of these people who understand these things should consider going into each of these skyscapers with some glue guns or something to ensure that the buildings hold up better the next time. :)

Been away a couple days.. nice to see the thread moving forward..

Ok, I don't know about what these so-called sceptics "see", but I know damn well what I see when I watch those building go down.

I see both buildings, essentially erupting in an almost vulcanic "outpouring" of building material, from the top down, with the bottom of the "fountain" or "mushroom" growing ever larger as the "collapse" progressed, and I see the building just imploding (and exploding), with the upper threshold of debris ejection, following or chasing down this steel and cement cascade..banana peel - all the way to the ground, to within a mere two or three seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object from the same height in nothing but air.

That's what's like there. It was a fountain, and it appears to me anyway, that all those steel beams, like so many matchsticks, are not just the outer perimeter steel framework, but like all the steel, raining down from above to form the upper threshold "plume" of debris ejection. And again, this pulverization process or plume of debris (and no e^n, I'm not saying the steel was converted to dust, but most certianly severed into a 1001 little segments), it sits atop the remaining structure, continuing to move down, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum, to within 2-3 seconds or so of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone, and as I pointed out in a previous post, this only leaves a few mere seconds, for every joint and weld and bolt to "fail" or be broken, all the way along the entire length of the remaining steel and cement structure.

Watch the videos of it. It's a FOUNTAIN of debris ejection, all the way down, the upper threshold or crests of it, following down the rest of the material, which was free falling, to within two or three seconds, which in effect means that ALL the "breakage" occured in near SIMULTANEITY!