Getting my mind around the twin towers?

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info
truthseeker
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

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!

I noticed a link that you included. Which led me to Richard Gage videos.
He still believes the (thermite) theory demolition, and pulverisation top down theory> Am i incorrect
with this thinking?

Truthseeker...

disinpho
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

disinpho wrote: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.
To clarify my position; I haven't seen evidence for ANY part of the official story, not terrorists, victims, planes crashing into buildings etc.. The official story is fantastical and is only kept afloat by peoples preconceived ideas and unwillingness to examine actual evidence. That, and perpetual fear-based mind-control (TV/"News").

But, as far as I can tell - using the standards of this forum, we don't have any evidence for "traditional" controlled demolition either.

I have a background as an architect and have carefully examined many photographs and drawings of the towers. Examining the construction alone convinced me it could never have been brought down by either missiles, planes or fires.

It would also have been a humongous task to rig the building with conventional explosives or demolition cutter-charges as well. I'm not saying its theoretically impossibly, but it would have been an extremely laborious and costly undertaking, an amazing feat and a world-record setting demolition.

I can't emphasise enough that the buildings where overredundant and extremely sturdy. When the towers where built they still relied on overredundancy as they did not have the sophisticated stress-modeling tools we have available today.

Here's a few pictures I found during my research, to help put the massiveness of the buildings into perspective:

To paraphrase Judy Wood: Where the F*** did the towers go?

herrnimrod
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

Unless we're bringing in unknown technology, nuclear demolition seems to be the only option. I guess that might fall under the same category too.

Some russian scientist have some videos about it out there. Without being a nuclear physicist they seem somewhat plausible.

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

truthseeker wrote: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!

I noticed a link that you included. Which led me to Richard Gage videos.
He still believes the (thermite) theory demolition, and pulverisation top down theory> Am i incorrect
with this thinking?

Truthseeker...
My paper - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm - is just about basic structural damage analysis and that weak tops cannot crush stronger bottoms of structures carrying the weak tops, etc. Destruction is always from bottom up, i.e. start from the bottom. That I know from analyzing ship collisions.

And that is how the 911 terrorists did it! From bottom. Up! The only way.

I imagine as one possibility that the not very clever 911 terrorists put plenty standard explosives, dynamite, nitroglycerine, etc, in the cellars of WTC 1/2 and arranged it so that the explosive effect was directed upwards inside the towers, so that 110 concrete floors and everything on them were just blown up skywards in a cloud of concrete, etc, dust. That's why very little floors concrete and floors thin sheet panels were found in the rubble. The real thick steel - the wall panels and the core columns - just fell apart and dropped down on Ground Zero to be shipped off to China. GZ had been evacuated before the destructions so nobody was there to get hurt. Nobody saw this as live on TV another Hollywood show was shown with top down destructions with fountains of smoke and dust that spread everywhere - from top/ground/sides + all 'private' footage of same published later to support the psy-op. All pre-fab Hollywood.
OK, OK, some heat escaped at ground level before that and burnt cars and similar in the vicinity but generally the destructions went as Hollywood, GWB, Condi & Co thought convincing. It was to save US arms business from going bankrupt. It needed wars to make money for US and to keep the US armed forces busy killing poor people. Or something like it.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2580
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

disinpho wrote:To paraphrase Judy Wood: Where the F*** did the towers go?
disinpho. We are not fools, and we know where you are getting at. You must be anoter fan of the energy weapons of Judy Wood that, evidently, to you make more sense that simple, tested, safe controlled demolition. Now let me stop you at once: do not even try to promote that theory. We cannot have this discussion over and over again. Wood, whose head must be made of the same material, derive her conclusions from faked pictures. That's enough to dismiss her ramblings entirely.
On your part, suggesting how massive and hard to destroy were the towers by posting big pictures (BTW: we NEED the source of these pictures) of big metal frames will not make the possibility of controlled demolition less acceptable or less probable.
Controlled demolition can tear down anything. Bridges, skyscrapers, anything. If we built it, we can destroy it. Including your massive twin towers. Energy weapons are a kook story meant to distract everyone from the massive use of fakery involved in covering up how really the things went.

truthseeker
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?
by Heiwa » April 6th, 2012, 11:54 am

truthseeker wrote:
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!

I noticed a link that you included. Which led me to Richard Gage videos.
He still believes the (thermite) theory demolition, and pulverisation top down theory> Am i incorrect
with this thinking?

Truthseeker...

My paper - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm - is just about basic structural damage analysis and that weak tops cannot crush stronger bottoms of structures carrying the weak tops, etc. Destruction is always from bottom up, i.e. start from the bottom. That I know from analyzing ship collisions.

And that is how the 911 terrorists did it! From bottom. Up! The only way.

I imagine as one possibility that the not very clever 911 terrorists put plenty standard explosives, dynamite, nitroglycerine, etc, in the cellars of WTC 1/2 and arranged it so that the explosive effect was directed upwards inside the towers, so that 110 concrete floors and everything on them were just blown up skywards in a cloud of concrete, etc, dust. That's why very little floors concrete and floors thin sheet panels were found in the rubble. The real thick steel - the wall panels and the core columns - just fell apart and dropped down on Ground Zero to be shipped off to China. GZ had been evacuated before the destructions so nobody was there to get hurt. Nobody saw this as live on TV another Hollywood show was shown with top down destructions with fountains of smoke and dust that spread everywhere - from top/ground/sides + all 'private' footage of same published later to support the psy-op. All pre-fab Hollywood.
OK, OK, some heat escaped at ground level before that and burnt cars and similar in the vicinity but generally the destructions went as Hollywood, GWB, Condi & Co thought convincing. It was to save US arms business from going bankrupt. It needed wars to make money for US and to keep the US armed forces busy killing poor people. Or something like it.

A great explanation. I,ll buy it...
Truthseeker....

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/05210 ... FFOLEY.mp3
[time code: 22:00 to 53:00]

ALL Manhattan skyscrapers have ready INBUILT DEMOLITION CHARGES...
in anticipation of obsolescence, to be 'pulled' into their own 'footprint'...
but the FACT will never be acknowledged or admitted.

this 1 single 1/2 hour testimony is the real dynamite
that blows the whole 9/11 myth apart...

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

TruthSeeker --

Thanks!
Last edited by HonestlyNow on Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

truthseeker
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

color=#BF0000]Let me say that even thou, real time witnesses saw a different collapse than us on TV.
We can then suppose that the real time witnesses just accepted what they seen later
on TV, as being the same collapse.
Does that make sense?

Truthseeker.[/color]

disinpho
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

nonhocapito wrote:disinpho. We are not fools, and we know where you are getting at. You must be anoter fan of the energy weapons of Judy Wood that, evidently, to you make more sense that simple, tested, safe controlled demolition. Now let me stop you at once: do not even try to promote that theory. We cannot have this discussion over and over again. Wood, whose head must be made of the same material, derive her conclusions from faked pictures. That's enough to dismiss her ramblings entirely.
On your part, suggesting how massive and hard to destroy were the towers by posting big pictures (BTW: we NEED the source of these pictures) of big metal frames will not make the possibility of controlled demolition less acceptable or less probable.
Controlled demolition can tear down anything. Bridges, skyscrapers, anything. If we built it, we can destroy it. Including your massive twin towers. Energy weapons are a kook story meant to distract everyone from the massive use of fakery involved in covering up how really the things went.
I'm not promoting energy weapons, I have not seen any evidence for that either. Everyone who's not (yet?) reached the same conclusions as you is not automatically a shill or I'll-intended. I will try and source those images, but ask that you be a little less-trigger happy on direct or indirect accusations against me. I am only trying to contribute honestly by stating my personal viewpoint, which is nothing like what you describe. I think if you reread my posts, and pretend I didn't paraphrase Mrs. Wood, we would be a lot better off.

One picture source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_bathtub_east.JPG
The rest of the images aren't unique in any way, a lot of WTC construction-photographs can be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... ction.html and on http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+construction

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

In light of the recent probing into the Fake JFK "assassination" and Fake Space and Moon Programs and just about every other major news story out of the USA for two decades -- which we now know to be fabrications, is it not fair to ask if the Towers themselves were an Architectural Hoax? They were built during the time in question, and pointed strongly to the USA's "supremacy" in all matters. Look, we can go to the Moon, so why not build the tallest towers in the world? American Engineering way to go! The fact that they were always presented as Heroic monuments or Icons by the media and Hollywood just like the other spectacular Circus Feats! And tonight Mr Kite is topping the Bill.

Would it have been possible to build something like the Eiffel Tower, (which we know was thrown up for a Trade Fair in 1900 and has stood since), which didn't need 5 sub-basements and 100 metres of concrete thereunder, and Clad it with Aluminium? With a lift to the top and restaurant just like the Eiffel Tower in fact.

The Jules Verne Restaurant.

I don't want to start talking about the tenants as according to wikipedia, we have seen that records can be created. And in fact the 1993 "bombing" might have been done to give the impression that there were actually people working in the building, that it was a functioning thriving place for world banking and investment, when all the time it was just an empty architectural shell.

They had to be demolished under secrecy, the whole world would know they were a clever Box Of Jenga. The floodgates would have opened on all their lies!!

We might have missed the big one! This also might go some way to explaining the "rubble pile" or the lack thereof!

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/wtc12.jpg

Anyhoo just putting it out there!

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

Could have been the "built to demolish" kinda thing? Seems a safe bet now that we'll never know.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

hoi.polloi wrote:Could have been the "built to demolish" kinda thing? Seems a safe bet now that we'll never know.
Yes, I've heard that theory bandied about on LetstRoll I think, but I simply meant that they weren't the one of the Wonders of the World as billed just another part of a giant hoax that is still playing out.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

The hideous Eiffel Tower does seem to just be a giant tourist trap, anyway. And it makes a lot of sense that America would make the cheaper, shittier version and offer it as something "superior" because of its size. My bias about skyscrapers — they are physical hubris, and a waste of resources — I guess is evident in 'The Spire' thread. But again you're preaching to the choir. In my mind, there's barely any point for any of them so it's not a far leap for me to assume there was a contract to keep them empty and lame. I heard some New Yorkers complaining (New Yorkers complaining? What is this world coming to?) that they were a visual eye-sore anyway.

simonshack
Posts: 7002
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Getting my mind around the twin towers?

*
Here's a pre-2001 video by a WTC visitor - who confirms what I also remember from when I went up on the rooftop - many years ago:

"Although most of the space in the World Trade Center complex was off-limits to the public, the South Tower featured an indoor and outdoor public observation area called Top of the World Trade Center Observatories on its 107th and 110th floors."