HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » NOT Cutter Charges in the...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 04:08 PM

NOT Cutter Charges in the North Tower

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is a real controlled demolition "squib":



Notice that the smoke cloud appears very suddenly and then uniformly slows down. That's exactly what's expected for a cloud of smoke driven by an explosion.

Here is what David Chandler claims is a "squib" from the North Tower:



In this video, the smoke cloud appears much more slowly and then speeds up and slows down three times AFTER exiting from the building. That simply can't happen for a cloud being driven by an explosion. It happens because the cloud is being pushed by air rushing from the building, which is changing speed because the internal pressure is changing.

Chandler also makes a point that the cloud of smoke does not fall with the building and claims that's suspicious, which is an amazingly stupid thing for a physics teacher to say.

23 replies, 3454 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply NOT Cutter Charges in the North Tower (Original post)
William Seger Mar 2012 OP
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #1
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #2
William Seger Mar 2012 #3
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #4
William Seger Mar 2012 #7
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #14
William Seger Mar 2012 #19
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #5
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #6
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #8
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #12
Bolo Boffin Mar 2012 #13
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #15
Bolo Boffin Mar 2012 #16
hack89 Mar 2012 #17
ryan_cats Mar 2012 #18
NoMoreWarNow Mar 2012 #9
William Seger Mar 2012 #10
ryan_cats Apr 2012 #21
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #11
William Seger Mar 2012 #20
karlaa Jun 2012 #22
apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #23

Response to William Seger (Original post)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:42 AM

1. Chandler makes mountains out of molehills.

Chandler makes mountains out of molehills.

He makes a big deal about the 'squib' 'exploding' through the corner of the building (the same video you posted, 2nd. one) saying that that is the weakest spot and implies it's structural steel that the 'squib' is seen exploding through when it's really an aluminum facade piece which he mentions in passing. If you see the whole sequence of that piece, it's obvious it's from overpressure from a collapsing 110 story building.

One problem is that before either tower collapsed, there were pics of the corners without their facade pieces. In fact, I think the one they're saying has molten aluminum pouring out it is missing its facade piece to the left of the molten metal.

Chandler is a physics teacher? I can accept this b.s. from Dylan Avery but not from someone who should understand physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 12:20 AM

2. Ok then

Explain this. At the 7:25 mark and sooner the side of the building starts popping all over the place, many stories below where the impact was. And also this video shows smoke coming from the ground of the tower, but the camera guy doesn't get a real good look. The WTC was electric, so they didn't store gas tanks. And we know people who were inside of the buildings heard explosions. But I guess you guys just ignore all that. They were ONLY there. LOL! This video is 14 minutes, but after the second impact, he basically sets the camera down and theres's not much to see. I mentioned the 7:25 mark because that is when it starts popping more. And the buildings are still standing, and it was before the 15 minutes or so before the second impact, so how is all this damage happening minutes after impact? Where's the fires?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 10:54 AM

3. Why do you think that's hard to explain?

First, it's easy to say what those little puffs aren't: High explosives such as those used for controlled demolitions, since they neither looked nor sounded nor caused seismic spikes like CD cutter charges, and of course the building did not fall until much later.

As for what they are: It appears that you are laboring under the misconception that the damage was only to the impacted floors. If you will please read the NIST report sections 2.3 and 2.4, you will see that the initial impact caused broken windows and interior wall damage all the way down to the lobby, and that jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts caused explosions that blew out elevator doors and walls and started small fires all the way down to the basement.

> And we know people who were inside of the buildings heard explosions. But I guess you guys just ignore all that.

Actually, no, "we guys" apparently need to explain over and over and over that not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion, that not all explosions in a building fire are caused by high explosives, and that it's ludicrous to suggest that demolition charges sufficient to bring down the towers would only have been heard by people inside the building. They would have easily been heard in New Jersey, and they would be heard on virtually every video of the collapses, and they would have left an unambiguous seismic record. This is the exact reason that the "truth movement" invented the idiotic "thermite" theory, completely ignoring that thermite could not have caused the "squibs" and sudden coordinated collapse that they previously claimed "proved" a controlled demolition. "Truthers" are the ones who need to do a lot of ignoring in order to maintain their controlled demolition fantasies.

In anticipation of the typical next phase of the discussion: In order to make the extraordinary claim that those little puffs must be evidence of a controlled demolition, you need to have some rational reason to reject the obvious and mundane explanation, and your personal incredulity won't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:31 PM

4. The rational reason is

Buildings don't collapse due to fire. But you guys even ignore that. Remember WTC 7. No plane. Just fires on a few floors. So what are those pops many floors below the impact? There aren't any raging fires. And where we do see fire, no windows are popping out. NIST left out why WTC 7 collapsed so they aren't reliable. Their pancake theory would put 50 stories of debris, with the inside columns standing in the middle. These building were pulverized. ALL 3. Just watch their little cartoon of the building collapsing. The core is still there in their fantasy. But that illustration is fine and dandy with you guys. You guys will do anything to deny that it was an inside job. Even ignoring the lack of 50 story debris and standing cores according to NIST. LOL!

Oh and explosions were heard outside of the buildings. I remember that one video where the building is starting to collapse, and the reporter says " We just heard a huge explosion, and now the building is collapsing as they ran for their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 05:10 PM

7. Nonsense

> Buildings don't collapse due to fire.

Really? Then why do you suppose fireproofing is required in steel buildings? Hint: It's because your claim above is patently false. No doubt, you've read on "truther" sites about the Windsor Tower (Madrid) fire and the claim that if it didn't collapse after a longer fire, then that implies that the WTC buildings shouldn't have collapsed, either. But the steel part of that building did collapse; the part that didn't collapse was reinforced concrete. In the real world it's well known that fire weakens steel and weakened steel structures can collapse. It's also well known that buildings that differ in construction should also be expected to differ in their reaction to trauma such as plane collisions and fires. Getting all of your information from "truther" propaganda sites puts you at a considerable disadvantage in this discussion, but the point is that your vacuous claims based on nothing but incredulity and lack of understanding is not a "rational reason" for rejecting the simple and obvious explanations for what happened. The NIST theories are based on actual evidence and sound science, which doesn't guarantee that they are 100% "truth" but it does put them in a class far beyond claims that occupied office buildings must have been rigged for controlled demolition because "buildings don't collapse due to fire."

"Truthers" have yet to produce a shred of evidence that can't be explained without resorting to such a ridiculously implausible theory as controlled demolition.

> But you guys even ignore that.

Bullshit. The vulnerability of steel structures to fire is yet another of those things that apparently needs to be pointed out over and over and over as more gullible people swallow what they've been told on "truther" sites and then come here to "inform" us.

> Remember WTC 7. No plane. Just fires on a few floors.

... and a completely different explanation for why it collapsed, requiring only "fires on a few floors."

> So what are those pops many floors below the impact? There aren't any raging fires. And where we do see fire, no windows are popping out.

Assuming you're back to the towers, I gave you a plausible reason: jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. I also gave you some reasons why the "squib" theory makes no sense.

> NIST left out why WTC 7 collapsed so they aren't reliable.

There was a separate report on 7 with a very plausible explanation. Your knowledge seems to be several years out of date.

> Their pancake theory would put 50 stories of debris, with the inside columns standing in the middle. These building were pulverized. ALL 3. Just watch their little cartoon of the building collapsing. The core is still there in their fantasy. But that illustration is fine and dandy with you guys. You guys will do anything to deny that it was an inside job. Even ignoring the lack of 50 story debris and standing cores according to NIST.

Back to the towers, or what? I can't figure out what you're trying to say about "50 stories," but I really can't see any good reason to try to untangle it. The "pancake theory" was early speculation about what initiated the tower collapses, but it was not substantiated by analysis of the design and the evidence. If you want to argue against the NIST theory for the tower collapses, don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't even know what that theory is.

> LOL!

I think I understand the NIST explanations for the collapses fairly well, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoned rebuttals. Apparently, you don't have any. LOL back atcha.

> Oh and explosions were heard outside of the buildings. I remember that one video where the building is starting to collapse, and the reporter says " We just heard a huge explosion, and now the building is collapsing as they ran for their lives.

Again and again: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion, and not all explosions are caused by high explosives. Please, go find some videos of actual controlled demolitions on YouTube and listen to them, then come back and try to explain why there isn't a single WTC video that sounds anything like that, and why there is no seismic record of any such explosions, either. If you're going to just keep repeating the same claims and ignoring what I'm telling you, then there's no reason to continue this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 10:35 PM

14. I'm sorry I get flustered at times

The 50 stories of debris is towers 1 and 2 because WTC 7 was 47 stories. If they are going to show us how it happened, isn't a good idea to see the real end result? Their "pancake theory" doesn't make sense. That is what the "debunkers" always go to. The floors fell on top of one another. That in itself would take a while to happen, and there would be resistance. Those buildings fell 10 stories a second, you know free fall speed. Like WTC 7.


&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 08:59 PM

19. Huh?

I still have no idea what you're trying to say about "50 stories of debris." It would help if you would clearly state what you are taking as facts or premises and what inferences you are drawing.

> If they are going to show us how it happened, isn't a good idea to see the real end result? Their "pancake theory" doesn't make sense. That is what the "debunkers" always go to. The floors fell on top of one another.

I have no idea what you are referring to as "they are going to show us," but again, the "pancake theory" means a specific early theory about what initiated the tower collapses, which was not substantiated by analysis of the design and the evidence, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. After the collapse started, the floors certainly did "pancake" down, as proved by all the failed floor connections found in the debris.

> That in itself would take a while to happen, and there would be resistance.

You don't know what you are talking about. Of course there was resistance, but the impulse forces delivered by the falling debris was so large that the floor connections could only resist for a tiny fraction of a second. When they broke free from their supports, the debris was in free-fall to the next floor.

> Those buildings fell 10 stories a second, you know free fall speed. Like WTC 7.

"Free fall" is an acceleration, not a speed. The floors of the towers were destroyed at an accelerating rate, but the rate was only about 64% of free fall. What rate should we expect? On the one hand, we have precise mathematical models performed by people who know how to calculate the resistance of the structure and the accumulating momentum, which agree well with the rate that was seen in the towers. On the other hand, we have the incredulity of people who don't know what they are talking about.

As for your stale propaganda video from 2006, I'm not interested in wasting time on it, but others already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:36 PM

5. Easily

Q: The WTC was electric so they didn't store gas tanks.
A: So, what did the emergency generators run on?

You do of course realize that several elevators fell to their pits and not all at once. If the ones dedicated to serve the top 1/3rd of the building fell to their pits around what 78 or so? They would create an overpressure like the building collapsing only smaller not to mention a nice bang.

I trust you have not seen the pics that show the entire floor pan, steel and concrete shown sagging in the windows on the floor below? I would assume that when these structural connections failed, they made a nice explosive 'sound' but were not explosives.

It has been what, eleven years, still newly minted truthers come here with their already debunked to the Nth. time 'theories'.

If you had started college on 9/11, you could be a practicing neurosurgeon by now, so what have you accomplished these oh so many years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ryan_cats (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 03:41 PM

6. I trust you saw the lobby pictures

Where it looked like a bomb went off. But floors above it were intact. And I have been at this for over 10 years. Not newly minted at ALL. And you of course realize pancake is stacked right? Where is this pancaked stack debris?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:25 PM

8. Ever hear of the meteor?

I trust you saw the lobby pictures Where it looked like a bomb went off.

Lets see, the building swayed several feet both directions, I guess the glass and cladding couldn't handle it. You also know that an elevator landed in the lobby and it was so gruesome, one of the Naudette brothers wouldn't film it.

Just where did you expect the over 6 foot sway of the buildings from the impacts went to, did it stop at the floor below the plane impact zone? Of course not, the energy was such that the whole building swayed probably starting in the basement and then swayed back.

Did you not read of numerous survivors trying to open doors that had been sprung due to the deflection and twisting motion from the plane?

Ever hear of the meteor? Look it up, it is several floors compressed together.

If your sources are Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery, I'm surprised their enormous brain power hasn't solved the hot fusion problem yet instead they're wasting time on WTC conspiracies; unless it's for publicity but that would be cynical of me. If you are getting ANY info from Dylan Avery, then what are you thinking? Is he an engineer, architect, structural engineer, explosives expert or a demolition expert, no, if you listen to him, he sounds vacant, like his beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ryan_cats (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:53 PM

12. I guess the janitor who worked there

For 20 years who felt and heard an explosion in the basement before the impact means nothing either. The 9/11 Commission took out his testimony. He went to the basement, and saw what looked like to him like a bomb went off. And then another explosion. But then again, he was ONLY there. All I know is, NO buildings collapsed like the WTC due to fire before or after. And nobody has said anything about the official "pancake theory". Even their own illustration shows a different result, but you guys still take it as truth. I don't have to be an engineer or architect to see their own theory is flawed. But I guess we just poo poo that away too. Pancake means 50 stories of debris piled on top of one another with the center core in the middle. How is that like what happened? Oh wait, I bet someone here knows why. LOL! I guess we will always disagree about 9/11.

My sources are videos of the day. People who where there, things in videos like the one I posted which to me clearly is explosives going off. But to each his own. You want to believe terrorist took planes from Boston to NY and cross over all those military bases instead of taking off from NY ok. Or that the Pentagon had 40 minutes since the second tower was hit to react, and they did NOTHING. Again, believe what you will. I look at more than squibs and UFO's in these videos. I look and wonder how it's acceptable for our biggest and baddest DEFENSE building gets hit. Even before 9/11, I'm sure I couldn't just take a stroll on their lawn anywhere without being escorted out. Why didn't they defend us? Aren't they DEFENSE? And I'm leaving out the ace pilot that only could have done such a feat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 10:13 PM

13. You're talking about Willie Rodriguez.

And that "explosion" was as the plane hit the building, which is better explained by the fuel explosion traveling down the elevator shafts rather than bombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 10:38 PM

15. No, Willie said

He felt the explosion first in the basement then a few seconds later the impact. And only one elevator shaft went all the way down from illustrations I have seen. I've never been there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 10:44 PM

16. One elevator shaft is all you need to let the explosion get down there.

And there is absolutely no way for Willie to identify when the impact happened from the basement. Please get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 10:11 AM

17. So explosives were set off in the basement to cause a collapse an hour later?

a collapse that starts at the 78th floor? Care to explain how that worked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 03:33 PM

18. His name is Willie Rodriguez.

His name is Willie Rodriguez and he was a hero that day. However, his story changed several times. One thing people get stuck on is a statement by him that a 50 ton press just 'disappeared'. The problem being that no one on the truther side knew what a 50 ton press looks like.

50 ton press:


Please note, it doesn't weigh 50 tons, it's able to press 50 tons of force to put on a rear wheel bearing or something.

If you have seen how the WTCs were built, their steel framework went to bedrock, I think 6 stories below the lobby so when the building flexed, it flexed all the way to bedrock. I think people think the lobby level is where the swaying stopped not including the basements, parking garages, etc. so they don't understand how the plane impacting the building affected the sub level Willie Rodriguez was on.

Now I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure one (maybe two) of the enormous freight elevators went all the way to the bedrock so burning fuel could easily reach all of the sub levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:29 AM

9. your analysis doesn't prove anything

 

the WTC top is falling as the squib goes out, which would explain the smoke jet accelerating. This doesn't disprove that the initial squib was from a demolition charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:12 AM

10. My analysis doesn't prove it isn't an orc smoking a cigar, either

... but it DOES prove that this video IS NOT EVIDENCE of a controlled demolition, since no aspect of the puff resembles a "squib": In the first frames, it is moving at a fairly constant speed, completely unlike the "squib" in the first video, and the rush of air that later accelerates it carries identical-looking smoke. If you prefer to believe that there was a demolition charge involved somehow, inexplicably set off after the building was already falling, despite having no credible evidence for it, knock yourself out. Just don't offer this video as evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 02:10 PM

21. What, no defense of your 'theory'?

What, no defense of your 'theory'?

This doesn't disprove that the initial squib was from a demolition charge.

Neither does it prove it. I still don't see how all those charges managed to go off when such a chaotic and completely un-modelable event happened. I mentioned un-modelable because no doubt somewhere someone has the theory that some TLA was able to determine exactly the damage the planes would do and plan the planting of the explosives and their detonators so they would be unaffected.

Explosives go off because another explosive starts it. Explosive power is because of brisance. If there were charges, the plane impacts should have set some off. It's even possible that ( I know very little about explosives) they might have initiated a pulse (I don't know the correct term) through the det cord and then triggered even more explosives.

As for the squibs, they are easily and realistically explained away as what happens when one acre of air is compressed and forced out the windows and every floor was an acre in size. That air had to go somewhere, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:24 PM

11. I guess no matter what we are going to disagree

I tend to believe that our government would protect us after all. But yet the Pentagon had 40 minutes since 2nd tower was hit and did NOTHING. No protecting D.C. No protecting themselves. But yet we spend billions of dollars on defense, and they can't even defend us. What part of that is believable? Perhaps they were too busy giving tours, because they certainly were not defending us. But then again, what would the Pentagon do. They only spend billions of dollars and hours on DEFENSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 09:17 PM

20. "no matter what" ?

If "9/11 was an inside job" then it should be possible to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, with credible evidence. After more than 10 years, the "truth movement" has not produced anything resembling that, and in fact they can't even convince each other what did and didn't happen. Why should any rational person believe such an implausible theory without good reason? Go find a good reason to believe it, and then we'll see whether or not we disagree. You seem to be admitting that you don't think that's going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Tue Jun 5, 2012, 04:00 AM

22. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:10 PM

23. kick! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread