Getting my mind around the twin towers?

[truthseeker]

I need help.
I cant seem to connect the dots on the demolition of the two towers.
Do we think that missles hit the towers, and then they were brought down from the bottom first?
If so why didnt people see them come down like we saw building seven come down.
Or was there a major smoke screen first, and then the demolition.
We all know they didnt come down, top first.
HELP !

[nonhocapito]

I need help.
I cant seem to connect the dots on the demolition of the two towers.
Do we think that missles hit the towers, and then they were brought down from the bottom first?
If so why didnt people see them come down like we saw building seven come down.
Or was there a major smoke screen first, and then the demolition.
We all know they didnt come down, top first.
HELP !

We don't know what happened. But here's my general idea on it (as I learned it by studying and joining the research):

The towers, emptied out of people, were brought down by traditional demolition and in the safest way possible in order not to damage the surrounding buildings out of the WTC complex. This event was not showed to the public. Nobody outside of those involved in the scam has seen the actual towers falling. Not from up close, anyway.

Everything else was faked (planes, burning towers, falling people, drama etc). No fires. No missiles. No extra bombs, etc. Probably fake billowing smoke and possibly fake explosions to simulate from afar the points of impact.

Now, why did they not fake a more "credible" spectacular falling down of the towers, showing them in pieces, crashing down on other buildings?
Because such effects had to be reflected in the reality of Manhattan!
But since no buildings had really to be damaged outside the WTC complex scheduled for demolition, they had to invent a ridiculous collapse that looked like the odd, dramatic result of the planes impact and fire, and yet showed the towers falling on their footprints without damaging anything else.
= MEGA FAIL.

Voilà.

[nonhocapito]

Now, imagine seeing all the way from New Jersey or Brooklyn the towers being brought down by traditional demolition. I believe many must have glimpsed something of this event (that very likely happened in sync with the fake images of the collapse showed on TV). But what, exactly?

Because traditional demolition starts from the bottom, not the top, you would simply see the height of the towers diminishing before your eyes, and disappearing into a billowing cloud of smoke and dust.

Now, not incidentally, the fake videos of the pancake collapse are still consistent with the image of the towers diminishing in height, and thus they can be superimposed in people's minds with what they might have glimpsed from afar and trough the smoke probably deliberately risen to cover up the most of the scene.

TV did the rest by telling everyone what they had seen.

"TV is very powerful" ~ James Burrows

[truthseeker]

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?
by nonhocapito » April 5th, 2012, 3:40 pm

Now, imagine seeing all the way from New Jersey or Brooklyn the towers being brought down by traditional demolition. I believe many must have glimpsed something of this event (that very likely happened in sync with the fake images of the collapse showed on TV). But what, exactly?

Because traditional demolition starts from the bottom, not the top, you would simply see the height of the towers diminishing before your eyes, and disappearing into a billowing cloud of smoke and dust.

Now, not incidentally, the fake videos of the pancake collapse are still consistent with the image of the towers diminishing in height, and thus they can be superimposed in people's minds with what they might have glimpsed from afar and trough the smoke probably deliberately risen to cover up the most of the scene.

TV did the rest by telling everyone what they had seen.

"TV is very powerful" ~ James Burrows

Great reply nonhocapito

I get all you posted!
I wonder if we will ever "connect" ALL the dots?
a. Actual innocents that were killed.
b. Possible deaths of any passengers that MIGHT have been loaded onto an airplane. If so where are they now?
Dam so many unanswered questions, which i guess is why were here.
Truthseeker...

[disinpho]

Now, imagine seeing all the way from New Jersey or Brooklyn the towers being brought down by traditional demolition. I believe many must have glimpsed something of this event (that very likely happened in sync with the fake images of the collapse showed on TV). But what, exactly?

Because traditional demolition starts from the bottom, not the top, you would simply see the height of the towers diminishing before your eyes, and disappearing into a billowing cloud of smoke and dust.

Although it seems like the conclusion making the fewest assumptions, knowing what we know at this point (occams razor), this conclusion still bothers me.

Why create a fake-truth movement complete with architects and physicists around the traditional demolition hypothesis? I'm pretty sure you agree with me that most members of the mainstream truth movement are being extremely dishonest and misleading, so aren't they being dishonest about the method of destruction?

The 3 buildings that vanished on 'ground zero' where immense and constructed in a redundant and extremely sturdy matter. In any case it must be the largest controlled demolition ever attempted. I'm still skeptical that it could have been achieved with anything like conventional demolition-cutter-charges.

[Heiwa]

The 3 buildings that vanished on 'ground zero' where immense and constructed in a redundant and extremely sturdy matter.

This is correct and the three buildings could therefore not 'collapse' into a heap of rubble due to some small fires up top or somewhere. Anyone suggesting that sturdy buildings with plenty redundancy suddenly can 'collapse', e.g. from top down, is a simple terrorist.

[lux]

Can anyone estimate how much rubble there should be after the collapse of two 110 story buildings? That is, should the rubble pile be, say, 10 stories high? Twenty? More?

[nonhocapito]

Why create a fake-truth movement complete with architects and physicists around the traditional demolition hypothesis? I'm pretty sure you agree with me that most members of the mainstream truth movement are being extremely dishonest and misleading, so aren't they being dishonest about the method of destruction?

They do not suggest "traditional demolition". They believe the images of the collapse are real, and assume weird, improbable, unprovable unorthodox methods of demolition (thermite, energy weapons, mini nukes, magics, whatever). Hence they waste everyone's time all the while supporting the reality of the fake images and the idea of uncontrolled violence and death brought to the heart of the city. It couldn't get worse than that...

[nonhocapito]

I get all you posted!
I wonder if we will ever "connect" ALL the dots?
a. Actual innocents that were killed.
b. Possible deaths of any passengers that MIGHT have been loaded onto an airplane. If so where are they now?
Dam so many unanswered questions, which i guess is why were here.

a. Have you ever heard of any that didn't turn out to be faked?
b. What passengers? What plane? The sleigh of Santa has more chances to be real than planes on 9/11.

[pov603]

Can anyone estimate how much rubble there should be after the collapse of two 110 story buildings? That is, should the rubble pile be, say, 10 stories high? Twenty? More?

There is information on the 'net as to what construction materials went into building the towers [certainly wtc1&2 not sure about wtc7].
Therefore going on the premise of 7850kg/per cubM of steel and approx. 2t/per cubM of concrete you could take a fair guess at the expected rubble pile.
Unfortunately, with the 'collapse' falling into the basement levels it would seemingly be unclear as to if the rubble pile was 'reflective' of those 'intact' buildings having actually collapsed the way we are told.
One thing that comes to mind which always puzzles me is the paper.
How is it that people do not seemingly show or have on the internet copies of 'interesting' letters/pages that they came across that day.
No letters of appointment about to be sent out that morning to a new starter.
No letters of so-and-so about to be fired.
No statements of such-and-such company having so much money in assets.
I am pretty sure anything you found on that day [if you were allowed in near the inner sanctum so to speak] would be classed as 'windfall' and not necessarily subject to some of the laws of privacy [any lawyers reading that could throw some light on this issue?].
Another thing, which others have pointed out, is the distinct lack of anything resembling an office.
What about the number of photocopiers there would have been? Safes? [I've worked on building sites which contain heavy duty/fire-resistant safes but we are talking pre-eminent offices from downtown Manhattan here!].
Steel filing cabinets which are usually fire-proof.
Carpet! Have you ever tried to destroy 'Axminister' carpet?
Airplane engines and wheels anyone?...

[truthseeker]

To say that no missles were used is a strange statement?
Let us consider that Simon suggested in "Sep Clues", that there could have been missles.
I believe that is what was stated?
We here, do know that we were shown a prescripted movie that didnt live up to it,s billing,
I thought the moon landing movie was better even after 32 years of improved technology.

Truthseeker....

[nonhocapito]

To say that no missles were used is a strange statement?
Let us consider that Simon suggested in "Sep Clues", that there could have been missles.
I believe that is what was stated?

That's true, in part, and I believe this forum records somewhere myself asking the same thing a while ago. I think that the missile is a possibility that Simon rightfully considered. Above all it demonstrates that, even if the witnesses had been reliable, it was still possible to fool them and make them believe they were seeing a plane. The idea of a missile is also helpful because it makes us see how things can be staged, in so many ways. Nowhere Simon states that this is how it went or that there is any proof of this. It is simply a possibility and as such it was right to consider it.

As I said, ultimately we don't know how exactly it all happened in all its aspect. I tend to believe there was no missile because ultimately there was no use for it. Why running a risk? Witnesses can be faked, and putting things in can be more dangerous than leaving things out, when you control the media and can fill up the story with all the inventions you want.

[truthseeker]

That's true, in part, and I believe this forum records somewhere myself asking the same thing a while ago. I think that the missile is a possibility that Simon rightfully considered. Above all it demonstrates that, even if the witnesses had been reliable, it was still possible to fool them and make them believe they were seeing a plane. The idea of a missile is also helpful because it makes us see how things can be staged, in so many ways. Nowhere Simon states that this is how it went or that there is any proof of this. It is simply a possibility and as such it was right to consider it.

As I said, ultimately we don't know how exactly it all happened in all its aspect. I tend to believe there was no missile because ultimately there was no use for it. Why running a risk? Witnesses can be faked, and putting things in can be more dangerous than leaving things out, when you control the media and can fill up the story with all the inventions you want.

I tend to (agree) that no missles were used at all. What if a missle launch had a "flare out"?
Meaning missed the target and caused GREAT damage elsewhere. YES! Why use anything but
the most reliable script avilable to pull the caper.
One thing that keeps coming back to me about CNN. This would be the shot of Aaron Brown
on the rooftop. A prestaged scene? The fact that Aaron Brown had gotten out of the news
industry not that long afterwards. Could he be ridden with guilt?

Truthseeker...

[truthseeker]

A side note. When Aaron Brown left CNN they owned him for sometime. This is a quote from his bio.
"Brown was under contract with CNN until June 2007, which prevented him from doing interviews or returning to television". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Brown) Just a thought.

Truthseeker....

[Heiwa]

Can anyone estimate how much rubble there should be after the collapse of two 110 story buildings? That is, should the rubble pile be, say, 10 stories high? Twenty? More?

A certain professor Z. Bazant of Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, has written many peer reviewed, scientific papers about this and he says that the average density of the total volume of the intact buildings, tops C and bottoms A, incl. everything was 0.25. It means that the weight of one cubic meter of the building was 250 kilograms. To be compared with one cubic meter of water that weighs 1000 kilograms.
You can conclude that the buildings were quite light as they contained mostly air.
Same professor, a stupid terrorist in my eyes that US Dept of War should imprison at Guantanamo at once, suggests that the average density of the rubble B of the buildings after 'collapses', when top C compress bottom A and itself C into rubble B, is 1! One.
It means that a 410 meters tall square (the footprint is square) building compresses into a 102.5 meters tall square rubble pile (with same foot print) when 'collapsing' (crush down + crush up) as follows according Bazant:

that then becomes a pyramid of rubble B - same density - with bigger bottom foot print and less height.
The US Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, has published a scientific analysis by me - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm - of this strange phenomenom!