WTC1 Collapse From Hoboken - "911truthncDotOrg Debates gadget133"
911truthnc said... What do you think is the cause the explosion seen at 17-19 seconds? What materials in the building would cause such an explosion just as the building begins to collapse?
Can you make any reasonable assumptions?
gadget133 said...What I think the cause was? Blow out.
There were open fires and as the top floors collapsed into the effected floors it forced the flames to blow out.
911trutnc Analysis here
posted by 911truthnc at 7:35 AM
42 Comments:
From my analysis of this video. The fireball appears at 18 seconds. The collapse does not begin until 19 seconds.
Your assumption of Blow Out does not hold water.
Also, you assume large fires where the fireball appears at 18 seconds. Yet, NO flames can be seen before that point. How do you justify your conclusion There were open fires and as the top floors ?
Hmmm...
1) I don't agree that the collapse happened at 19, hence why I proffered the other video. The antennae starts its downward motion first. You cannot see that from the Holboken video.
2) The fires are inside before the collapse, they are shielded from view by the copious amounts of black smoke and, hence, you don't see them until the blow out.
If we are going to discuss this point, please use this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA
With this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA
Please note the following;
1) From start of video keep your eye on the corner of the building that is in the center of the screen. The top of the corner is almost perfectly in line with the view the camera has afforded us. This camera is on a stand, hence, it does not shift up and down.
I want you to play the video and press stop the second you see the corner of the building shift down. It will be at 9 seconds.
2)I want you to replay video from beginning. This time focus on the center of the screen. I want you to watch until you see flames come out of the center. the second you see flames, hit the stop again. look to the top of the screen and you will notice that the corner has already shifted.
I am in the process of downloading this video, placing a timemarker on it, then uploading it. Doing this should show catagorically the the collapse of the building does indeed coincide precisely with the start of the smoke being expelled, than the flames following. This is exactly what you would expect to see from blowout being caused by two floors coming together.
If it had been explosives, the blowout would precede the collapse sequence.
If we are going to discuss this point, please use this video.
I would like to finish discussing this video before moving on.
Gadget, the more you add in each reply. The more slowly this discussion is going to move.
I want to focus before moving on. You provided us with a good clip. It will assist me in understanding your point of view. I will get to the other video. Once I am satisfied that we have addressed my questions in this video.
I don't agree that the collapse happened at 19, hence why I proffered the other video.
From this video which second do you think the tower antennae begins to fall?
The fires are inside before the collapse, they are shielded from view by the copious amounts of black smoke.
This is your assumption. Not a fact. If it is a fact. Prove it.
I claim this IS NOT a reasonable assumption.
My reasonable assumption would be:
If there is a fire burning hot enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse. It would be obvious to see.
We have the 1st buildings history to collapse due to fire. They burn for less than one and half hours.
From a historical perspective there are many examples of fires raging for many hours and not collapsing.
Windsor Building in the heart of Madrid’s business and banking district burned 10 hours.
"There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion. At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html
Yet, you are assuming a fire that burned for less than 2 hours and that is not visible got hot enough to weaken steel throughout the whole 110 story structure to the cause the entire building to fall completely to the ground.
How do you justify this assumption?
I justify it by stating some events that are NOT included in the Windsor, the Meridian or any other building that you use as an example.
1) They are not of the same design.
2) They did not have 220,000 pound planes, flying at 550mph and 450mph respectively, crashing into them.
3) They did not have 10,000 gallons of accelerant dumped on them.
4)Firefighters continually fought the fires you mention, whilst in the WTC's no one could access the towers above the 78th floor to fight them. And even if they did, the hoses had been cut to the effected floors and no water would have been supplied.
You ask me to put historic perspective on it. I did, but you don't seem to be putting the circumstances surrounding the WTC's into perspective.
Now to the video:
I contend that in the video from Hoboken the collapse is initiated at 17/18 seconds. I state this because you can see the smoke at the top corner of the building closest to the viewer start to be sucked down to the building. This happens roughly at 17 seconds. But you visually see the building collapse at 18 seconds.
I cannot believe we are using a video that is shot from so far away to verify the precise moment of collapse. My initial reason for using this video was to point out that there was a substantial amount of the core structure sill standing up to 20 seconds after collapse initiation.
If you want to talk about the fire ball or explosion, please use the other video I offered. It is much closer and you can distinctly make out the chain of events.
I have also made a video of this for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQIk1Qtq-4
Ok... That's it I think
And also:
Please don't put words into my mouth.
I did not, nor have EVER, said that the fires caused the steel in the ENTIRE building to weaken. This is wrong. It does NOT have to weaken the steel in the entire building. And, I suppose the planes had nothing to do with it?
The upshot of this is that I really don't have to justify because I never assumed what you said I assumed.
Also, you state "We have the 1st buildings in history to collapse due to fire."
Really??? No buildings have ever collapsed due to fire?
I know what you are driving at here, but please, choose your words carefully. Buildings collapse due to fire almost every week around the world, if not every day.
The fires are inside before the collapse, they are shielded from view by the copious amounts of black smoke.
This is your assumption. Not a fact. If it is a fact. Prove it.
You missed one.
If you can't prove. Provide evidence of your assumption.
I'll be back!
1) They are not of the same design.
2) They did not have 220,000 pound planes, flying at 550mph and 450mph respectively, crashing into them.
3) They did not have 10,000 gallons of accelerant dumped on them.
4)Firefighters continually fought the fires you mention, whilst in the WTC's no one could access the towers above the 78th floor to fight them. And even if they did, the hoses had been cut to the effected floors and no water would have been supplied.
You ask me to put historic perspective on it. I did, but you don't seem to be putting the circumstances surrounding the WTC's into perspective.
How many buildings collapsed on 9/11/2001?
Image of fires:
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1latefires.jpg
Three buildings I believe.
Is this going to go anywhere? i.e. David Chandler?
1) They are not of the same design.
2) They did not have 220,000 pound planes, flying at 550mph and 450mph respectively, crashing into them.
3) They did not have 10,000 gallons of accelerant dumped on them.
4)Firefighters continually fought the fires you mention, whilst in the WTC's no one could access the towers above the 78th floor to fight them. And even if they did, the hoses had been cut to the effected floors and no water would have been supplied.
All of your exceptions to the unique situation on 9/11 does not apply to WTC7.
How do you justify it's collapse?
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1latefires.jpg
At what time of day was this photo taken?
What color flame is the hottest?
What is the maximum temperature kerosene can burn at?
1) They are not of the same design.
Are you implying WTC1 and WTC2 design was inferior to standard sky scraper design?
3) They did not have 10,000 gallons of accelerant dumped on them.
Does the amount of kerosene increase the max temperature kerosene can burn at?
Have you ever used a kerosene heater in your home?
2) They did not have 220,000 pound planes, flying at 550mph and 450mph respectively, crashing into them.
What evidence do you have that the plane's damage to the towers contributed to their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse?
According to NOVA's description, it was the heat of fire which was the primary reason the towers collapsed.
According to your analysis.
The collapse ensued at 17 seconds into the clip we have been using.
http://911truthnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/911truthncdotorg-debates-gadget133_22.html
Look at my analysis above. The photos point out squids appearing at 9 seconds.
If the collapse did not begin until 17 seconds. The squids could NOT be a result of air pressure?
What's your explanation of the appearances of the squids?
At the same time of the appearance of the squids in the video. One hear can loud noises which sound to me like explosions.
What is your explanation of the sounds?
Is this going to go anywhere? i.e. David Chandler?
All of what I am pointing out will eventually tie back in to Chandler's analysis.
I am to going to ferret out your logic process gadget.
You make grand statements. I going to make you back your shit up.
Wow. You just took a swipe at me for talking about too much stuff and how it would slow the progress of the discussion.
But, here goes.
1) WTC7 collapsed due to numerous reasons. The first being the damage it sustained due to the collapse of the tower. The second being the fires that ignited throughout the building. Third is the buckling of column 79.
2)It was taken 20 minutes prior to collapse or later (ie, closer to collapse time)
3) Blue
4) Strawman argument. Saying something is designed differently does not imply inferiority or superiority. It simply states that it is different. And because it is different, cannot be used to gage the event in question.
5)This is just a silly argument now. No, but the amount of kerosene would dictate how large the fire gets and how quickly. For instance, tipping a bottle of kerosene onto the middle of a floor in the world trade center would do pretty well fuck all. But, lets cut the plane fuel load because most burnt up as a fireball outside the building in the initial impact lets say only 10% (and that is being VERY kind my friend) of the fuel ignited inside the building. That is still a thousand (1000) liters of kerosene style jet fuel. Can I ask you a question? (I know, I just did) But would you tip a thousand liters of kerosene style jet fuel into your house and set it on fire?
Now, about the temperature. Are you disputing the NIST findings of temperatures of around 1300 degrees?
4) Strawman argument. temperature of kerosene??? So the desks didn't burn? The light fittings? The computers? The carpet? The thousands of other things that go into the LIVE loading of a building??? You are seriously starting to ask rather stupid questions now. The kerosene style jet fuel was an accelerant. It only has to initiate the fire. It DOES NOT HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BE THERE. It also does not dictate the temperature of the fire. The fuels that are in the offices complex (LIVE LOADING OF THE BUILDING). Very silly argument you are leading here.
5) Yes, I have used a kerosene heater. They were so much better than the electric ones. Wish I could get one again but in Australia it is illegal to sell them now.
6) You asked "What evidence do you have that the plane's damage to the towers contributed to their WTC1 and WTC2 collapse?"
Please refer to the NIST reports. This question actually begs belief.
7) You keep wanting to say "This ONE thing caused the collapse" Well, sorry, life is not like that. There were numerous things that went into the collapse. Please use NIST and not NOVA if you are going to continue the discussion.
8) The "Squib". It's a hole in the wall that smoke is pouring out of. A "squib" does not stay in the same place for ten seconds. However, smoke coming out of a hole in the wall DOES.
Ok, I can give expert opinion on that. I was a sapper (a combat engineer) in the ADF, 5A regiment. I dealt with explosives quite alot. I am definitely prepared to discuss this topic. I hope you can except it if I give expert opinion.
My expert opinion is that the "squib" in relation to the building is not a squib. If it is an explosive device it would be a major device not a "squib". Blowout from a major device does not last more than 2 or 3 seconds before dispersal of the event plume (the cloud) happens. In the video that you have presented, the Hoboken footage, you have pointed out a cloud that lasts from the 9 second mark until the 17 second mark. In the last frame (17 sec) the event plume in fact grows. This would be an event that I have never seen before and I would ask you to produce an explosives expert who would describe this as an explosion.
For this analysis, I have taken into consideration the wind, which has a dispersal effect, and the length of time that the event plume stays in the same place without a shifting (except to grow bigger when buildings collapse initiates).
9)Err, If the explosions could be heard from Hoboken, then I guarantee you that they would have been on the order of 10 to 20 magnitudes louder at the base of the towers. Please show me a video that supports an explosion from the base or surrounds of WTC complex roughly 9 seconds before collapse initiation. I suggest that it was wind.
Also, if it was an explosion, the sound wave would have reached Hoboken AFTER the plume and not at the same time or, as I see it, before.
It is WIND. The camera has its mic on and is recording the (radio is it).
Do you want me to "back my shit up" yet?
What "grand statements" have I made? I think it is you and your ilk that have made some grand statements. You have still not disputed the fact that I debunked Chandlers "free fall" statement either. Do I take that as conceded? Or is that too grand a statement for me to be making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQIk1Qtq-4&feature=channel_page
Please watch this video
Also, please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8
If there was an explosion, why can't it be seen at this point of the building where that structure twists before collapse?
1) WTC7 collapsed due to numerous reasons. The first being the damage it sustained due to the collapse of the tower. The second being the fires that ignited throughout the building. Third is the buckling of column 79.
Point me to the data to support this statement.
The first being the damage it sustained due to the collapse of the tower.
Show me the evidence that damage to the side of the building 7 was enough to cause weakening of the structure.
All you are doing is parroting the MSM reports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQIk1Qtq-4&feature=channel_page
Please watch this video.
I guess you are going to claim the symmetrical ring of smoke several floors below the antenna is being pushed out by air pressure.
More UNREASONABLE assumptions from gadget.
Why was NIST unable to reproduce these collapses in their high tech labs?
Your line of coincident reasoning DOES NOT HOLD
WATER.
Please, do not reply to this. I'll be back later to rebuke more of your WEAK coincident logic.
I have a life.
When making remarks to my comments.
Put my comments in quotes. Then leave your remarks under the quotes.
The format you are using is very hard to follow for me.
911truthnc - Yet, you are assuming a fire that burned for less than 2 hours and that is not visible got hot enough to weaken steel throughout the whole 110 story structure to the cause the entire building to fall completely to the ground.
How do you justify this assumption?
gadget - I justify it by stating some events that are NOT included in the Windsor, the Meridian or any other building that you use as an example.
1) They are not of the same design.
Saying something is designed differently does not imply inferiority or superiority. It simply states that it is different. And because it is different, cannot be used to gage the event in question.
Then clarify your assumption above. Based on your own reasoning, how can you use a different design as a justification for your assumption?
You seem to contradiction yourself.
continued further discussions here please:
http://911truthnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/911truthncdotorg-debates-gadget133-part.html
WTF?
NO. I DIDNT. YOU DID. You brought up the other buildings. You asked me to reply.
Actually, I'm over it. Your argument so far has amounted to"they did it because I hate them and I'm going to blame them."
You have criticized me for "contradicting" myself. No, sadly you have on numerous occasions.
You just told me that you have a life. Hmmm... so dp I. You have not provided anything extra. You wanted me to "debunk David Chandler and win your heart". I did. The "free Fall" of WTC1. Sorry, it is me who is over irrational, historically misinformed people i.e. you.
I will not reply to you anymore. You have wasted my time long enough.
Your reply to the video proves it. Explosion???
Have you ever heard of emotional investment and the distorted logic it can inflict? Maybe something to think about bloke.
Nice talking to you.
I rest my case.
You are totally full of yourself Gadget.
Like I said.
You CAN NOT BACK YOUR SHIT UP!
You are a NUT!!!!
Gadget is a Immature Brat.
Baaaaa....
Wow.
That really, really, really hurt. You went on my youtube site and wrote really, really, really nasty things about me. I just don't know what to do.
Lucky I'm immature? is that what you called me?
Look, until you provide evidence that actually shows controlled demolition, I will not agree to it.
The fact that I am open to political knowledge does not "contradict" anything. It just means that I can accept that there is circumstantial evidence that leads to it.
I have told you before little boy. Do not call me names just because you can't win an argument without resorting to name calling.
Leave me alone, I will leave you alone nothing more to be said...
... Except you are a little bit of a fuckwit. But other than that, I just don't give a rats arse about your bomb theory or your GM theory or your hollow earth theory or you hollow moon theory or your NWO theory or your ANY theory because I find you to be the most anti-intellectual person I have ever confronted... Except for maybe the fuck knobs on that "Jesus Camp" movie. Are you related to them? Is that your problem? You are a fucktard now because your parents raised you to be a fucktard???
Baaaa??? That's so funny. You don't have an original thought in your head. If David Chandler said 2+2=5, you would believe him yeah? You are a bit stupid little boy. But that's ok, because I will not deal with you anymore.
Once again, please do not contact me EVER again. You have proven that you cannot hold a debate and that you cannot think for yourself. You have proven this by showing that every time you are challenged by a concept, your first process is to start name calling. Remember what I said at the beginning?
"911truthnc said...
I rest my case.
You are totally full of yourself Gadget.
Like I said.
You CAN NOT BACK YOUR SHIT UP!
You are a NUT!!!!"
And
"Gadget is a Immature Brat."
And
"Baaaaa...."
Do you notice that it is you who sounds like all of the above???
You are the one who has wasted our time. You contacted me Twinkle toes.
Baaa...
I believe two planes hit the WTC 1 & two. I believe that these planes were allowed to hit WTC 1 & 2.
Twinkle Toes you are as much of a CT as you claim I am.
What is your theory for why planes were allowed to hit WTC 1 & 2?
Simple.
Someone in the US government knew that there were going to be acts carried out. They probably thought it was a hijacking and a stand off procedure that would have given the government reason to act. The moral ground so to speak. What they didn't know was that those planes were not going to be flown to an airport somewhere, but were going to be crashed into buildings. I think the size and scale of the attacks were just as suprising to the government as it was to you or I.
But, because everyone is chasing planted bombs and no plane theories, no one is asking the serious question of underlying complicity. And if they do as that question, they get batched into the planted bomb and no plane group.
The government fucked up. This is why I truly believe that people give that government (Bush, Cheney) too much credit. These two were idiots of the highest degree who were playing games like little boys in a sandbox not realising the potential catastrophe that lay ahead for their country.
They should be investigated. And, if any complicity is found, they should be imprisoned at the least. I think your country still has High Treason Laws. Those penalties are much harsher I believe.
But I can't prove any of that. And in my view, whilst everyone goes around chasing bullshit theories about planted bombs and no planes, no one will ever find out how much they knew before the attacks.
In short, the planes hit. The buildings fell because of it. Americans (AND Australians - our troops are dying also) died because of it. Face the facts. The REAL facts. Then hunt the dickheads who did it.
You don't need to find a bomb to show High Treason. You just need to show they knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it.
But, that's just my opinion.
You said
"You are the one who has wasted our time. You contacted me Twinkle toes.
Baaa..."
No.
In fact, you replied to a message I left on a video. You contacted me first.
Get your facts right. Don't be an historical revisionist.
They probably thought it was a hijacking and a stand off procedure that would have given the government reason to act. The moral ground so to speak.
given the government reason to act
act to do what?
you replied to a message I left on a video
A video on my channel. Twinkle toes twisting and turning. You made the 1st move twinkle.
You said:
"A video on my channel. Twinkle toes twisting and turning. You made the 1st move twinkle."
You really are lost aren't you?
I replied to another persons comment.
You said:
"act to do what?"
Take your pick.
Internally, Patriot Act. Amazing how such a large document was produced so quickly. Amazing how it would normally take such a document years to be passed, if it would have ever been passed (which I doubt without an internal terrorist act)
Internationally? I think that is rather obvious. Iraq.
A danish scientist Niels Harrit on nano thermite
gadget133 (1 month ago) 0 Reply | Spam
| Remove | Unblock User
And believe me, I whole heartedly applaude that. REALLY. Not taking the piss. I agree that there have been failings with the way things have been investigated. On both sides. I don't have a "warped logic". In fact, I am asking for exactly the same thing that you are. However, I am willing to "accept gummit fairy tales" when those fairy tales are backed by both sound logic and reasonable physical evidence. In this regard, I am a little skeptical of Dr Harrit's modus operandi.
911truthncDotOrg (1 month ago) Reply | Remove
"both sound logic and reasonable physical evidence"
gadget133 - ZERO INVESTIGATON HAS OCCURRED.
YET, YOU CLAIM " both sound logic and reasonable physical evidence"! George Orwell's society makes perfect sense to you. Believe your authority figures.
They are good people and mean you no harm.
Yeah, right! Live in your fairy land gadget133 .
My guess . You don't have the balls to stand up against our lying gummit! They lie about everything. Except 9/11.
Get fucking REAL!
911truthncDotOrg (1 month ago) Reply | Remove
"I am a little skeptical of Dr Harrit's modus operandi."
Oh, George Bush never ever lied to us right gadget13.
You trust the assholes. But distrust actual people who are concerned about our futures.
You are typical example of the sheeple at large.
gadget133 - "Baaa!".
My reply - "Moo".
gadget133 (1 month ago) 0 Reply | Spam
| Remove | Unblock User
Hmmm... Zero investigation has occurred... NIST report.
Ok... They're the "gummit" so their report can't be used?!?
In my experience, just about every disaster around the world has been investigated by the respective government.
Just because I don't believe in "911: an inside job" theories does not mean that I accept anything from any government. In fact, I question my own government, Australian, and the part they took in the Iraq invasion. Please do not put words in my mouth.
911truthncDotOrg (1 month ago) Reply | Remove
gadget133 - I'll tell you what. Go to 911speakout
org.
Debunk David S Chandler's, Physics/Math Teacher, logic and win my heart.
You and your team scientist can't do it!! The pancake theory is total BULLSHIT. You claim it's sound logic.
Twinkle Toes gadget133 can prove it!
I Never Ever had a 911 so-call debunker answer a straight question, in 3 years!
You must forget twinkle. It's on the record.
Keep squirming.
I Never Ever had a 911 so-call debunker answer a straight question, in 3 years!
This statement stills stands as far as a debate goes.
Internally, Patriot Act.
Internationally? I think that is rather obvious. Iraq.
Twinkle, so you believe a hijack planes would be enough to carry out these draconian measures?
So what about the pentagon and flight 93?
I think you live in fantasy land.
What about 7 of the hi-jackers verified to be alive by BBC?
"Major General Stubblebine agrees 911 was an inside job!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bsPQkQMOQw
So Major General Stubblebine is just another CT in your opinion. Anyone who contests the NIST report is just another CT in your opinion?
NIST who is employed by the President's administration has no reason to back up the official version of events.
Gadget you are politically envy.
9/11 occurs now the USA has tens of million people who are all of sudden CTs and are under disillusions if they want unanswered questions answered.
The are too many holes in every facet of the events on 9/11,
You proclaim to be doing investigative journalism and carry an attitude such as yours. God please save investigative journalism.
I did not proof read well enough.
"envy" should say "naive".
911truth.
This is my last post. You can do what ever you like. I just don't care enough about idiots.
You sound like a whinny little bitch who has just realised that a big slab of their life has turned out to be bullshit. So, you cover your arse by calling someone names. By degrading them. By slandering what they do. Here is the point. Not only do you SOUND like a whinny little bitch, but I suspect you ARE a whinny little bitch.
At this point, the only thing that keeps me coming back to this blog is I really like goading you into making really stupid hollow earth NWO type statements. I'm loving this little puppet.
"God help investigative journalism"?
Buddy, it because of people like me that fucktards like yourself can't take any substantial control in this world. For that I am truly glad. Otherwise this world would be a non rational non scientific community that keeps hacking itself apart every time a shadow is thrown.
Have you noticed how every time you start to name call I just close the conversation down? That's because I hate fuckwits that can't argue without making it personal. People who do are generally as dumb as shit on a stick.
Post a Comment
<< Home