Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply
ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:11 am

It fell like it did because the steel lost most of its integrity first, putting the strain on the concrete. Concrete doesnt bend.

condra
Posts: 2753
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: Dublin
Contact:

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by condra » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:11 am

ThrowAway wrote:The titanic was designed to hit icebergs.
That was also The Crab People.

ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:16 am

Crab people make me hungry.

Imaulle
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:46 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Imaulle » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:17 am

yes the burning fuel would bring the buildings down. but not the way the towers fell. they were brought down using explosives and thermite

ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:19 am

Imaulle-Explain how it would be different.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11122
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:53 am

glitchrock-buddha wrote: Fuck that "it shouldn't be investigated" stuff (machinesworking this is at you - I usually agree with what you say, but couldn't disagree with you more here). The only way to make sure the truth is never known, is to not bother thinking about it or talking about it.
Honestly I think it's like this, if you cannot or will not ever know the truth, then the more conjecture thrown out there into the ether, the more they can just do things openly, and have people chasing ghosts. What I mean is, and I'm not at all making light of this, what exactly would be the result of conclusively identifying thermite in the WTC dust? Do you then think it's possible to link it to any one party? I don't, the administration or the building owners can blame Al-Qaeda.. story ends.

What happens to the concerted efforts of people if they waste all their time trying to unravel who was to blame for the WTC towers crashing down? Even if it was proven to be explosives, it's highly unlikely that we can prove who planted them, next to impossible. What we can and should worry about is the wars we started in response to all this, and what that very real and visible atrocity means. What we can and should worry about is our basic rights being violated in some absurd national security interest to supposedly prevent terrorism.

Instead people are trying to solve puzzles that implicate them with dumb asses like Alex jones, which I think to a large degree discredits the people looking for answers. I'm not saying that anything fishy happened, but it's obvious that a certain administration got to carry out a military campaign they wanted to do years before being elected into office. They got their new Pearl Harbor. What we get is Alex Jones and people like him making documentaries and riding the fear train.

Murders that aren't crimes of passion, that are for money, or thrill kills. These are largely unsolved. The percentage of success for the homicide departments nationwide, and I assume worldwide, for strategically planned murder is something like 10% last time I looked at numbers on it. What on earth makes people think a real conspiracy wouldn't have an even higher ratio of success?

What I'm saying is we need to look at things we can change, and affect, that's all. Things like getting Obama to stick by pulling out of Iraq instead of buckling, among other things.
I'm basically in agreement with Chomsky on this, and he's arguably the most literate and aggressive voice for dissent we have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbg ... re=related

[edited, because even though I would like to see the WTO in rubbles, it isn't]
Last edited by Machinesworking on Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tone Deft
Posts: 23876
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: SF, CA

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Tone Deft » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:07 am

^ yo, TL;DR (no offense, not that interested) but it's the WTC, not WTO. funny.
"Obsession is a great substitute for talent." - Steve Martin on learning the banjo

Dell Inspiron 15 7000, Live 10.1, Win10 Home, Edirol UA101, APC40, Remote SL, SPD-SX, mic, POD500HDX, JX305, Nova
soundcloud.com/tone-deft

Machinesworking
Posts: 11122
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:11 am

Tone Deft wrote:^ yo, TL;DR (no offense, not that interested) but it's the WTC, not WTO. funny.
Yeah that's funny! I don't think many people would be as upset if the WTO had been hit with a plane! At least listen to what Chomsky has to say about it though. Zeitgeist and the rest are unnecessary distractions IMO.

Emissary
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:27 am

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Emissary » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:14 am

Another fantastic video that brings us a little closer to understanding.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=g ... emb=0&aq=f#


also does no one find it odd that this building ended up as an inferno and only suffered partial collapse, (ie bit falling off here and there)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZkW700Y6s

Machinesworking
Posts: 11122
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:06 am

Emissary wrote: also does no one find it odd that this building ended up as an inferno and only suffered partial collapse, (ie bit falling off here and there)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZkW700Y6s
Because it would be my wild guess that a 757 jet plane didn't hit the building traveling at a couple hundred miles per hour, shattering the infrastructure, and subsequently filling it up with jet fuel? Remember the jets when the WTC was built were much smaller, Zeitgeist fails to mention that.

Green Lemon
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Green Lemon » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:47 am

ThrowAway wrote:Im a structural welder.

And I'm an architect. The way the towers fell is perfectly consistent with what one would expect, I second.

Yes, they were designed to be possibly hit by planes. And if you recall, they both stood up for a good 20 minutes after being hit- they performed as designed.

Steel, like many substances when heated, loses strength. It does not have to melt to lose this strength- it simply has to become hot enough, which is why it is always required to be protected from fire in a building. Steel is vulnerable to fire.

The structure of the WTC consisted of a series of steel tubes to either side of each window- maybe they were only about a foot in diameter, but there were many of them, a structural cage. The burning fuel took time to heat them to the point of structural failure, but once they failed- straight down. All that weight, it's thrust, just like a rocket engine in reverse. Once one floor goes, then you have the inertia which makes the rest of them pancake.

This doesn't make me throw the conspiracy theory out the window, BTW- but there is simply no logic to the statement "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". It doesn't have to. And ignore the concrete. Those buildings were held up by steel.
--
first 1k as chrysalis33rpm.

Emissary
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:27 am

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Emissary » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:11 am

Machinesworking wrote:
Emissary wrote: also does no one find it odd that this building ended up as an inferno and only suffered partial collapse, (ie bit falling off here and there)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZkW700Y6s
Because it would be my wild guess that a 757 jet plane didn't hit the building traveling at a couple hundred miles per hour, shattering the infrastructure, and subsequently filling it up with jet fuel? Remember the jets when the WTC was built were much smaller, Zeitgeist fails to mention that.
hmm building 7? no plane, minimal fire, collapsed symmetrically.

Also if you do some research you will find that the planes actually would have mainly disintergrated on impact with the external shell of wtc 1 and 2, and what we see coming out the other side is a fireball.

this supplies the kind of idea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwAhkRciO7k

Also the jetfuel was all consumed in the initial explosion, as you would have expected. That would have been the hottest it would have got. The remaining black smoke we can see would have been office equipment smoldering away. If anything the fire was going out. even if the core columns had been severed ( a physical impossibility) the top half of the tower would have hit the undamaged sections and fallen off at an angle.

If your going to argue the point of the Nist theory then i suggest you read it. It wont be long until your questioning the utter pseudo science they are babbling.

glitchrock-buddha
Posts: 4357
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:29 am
Location: The Ableton Live Forum

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by glitchrock-buddha » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:14 am

Machinesworking wrote:
glitchrock-buddha wrote: Fuck that "it shouldn't be investigated" stuff (machinesworking this is at you - I usually agree with what you say, but couldn't disagree with you more here). The only way to make sure the truth is never known, is to not bother thinking about it or talking about it.
Honestly I think it's like this, if you cannot or will not ever know the truth, then the more conjecture thrown out there into the ether, the more they can just do things openly, and have people chasing ghosts. What I mean is, and I'm not at all making light of this, what exactly would be the result of conclusively identifying thermite in the WTC dust? Do you then think it's possible to link it to any one party? I don't, the administration or the building owners can blame Al-Qaeda.. story ends. .
Well I think this is where you're wrong. If the presence of explosives is proven then it changes everything - It may demand a real investigation into the matter. It raises far too many questions to be brushed off. For one thing, it would completely discredit the official investigation - at best incompetence (at worst obstructing justice).

I'm not an engineer. I can't say either what the hell happened, but it seems pretty obvious that too many questions weren't asked. The presence of explosives would, at the very least, spur people on to demand a more objective inquiry and demand that more difficult questions be addressed.

ah whatever, maybe they shouldn't have bothered looking into watergate...
Professional Shark Jumper.

glitchrock-buddha
Posts: 4357
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:29 am
Location: The Ableton Live Forum

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by glitchrock-buddha » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:21 am

Above all else, one of the things that convinces me the most, is hearing tape recordings of fire fighters say something to the effect of "we should be able to take care of this with 2 lines...". Firefighters actually up on the floors where the fires were burning assessing how to put it out. On top of that you can see people alive looking out of the holes in the sides of the buildings. This area is supposed to be so hot that it collapses the entire steel structure within the hour? That has never even happened to a building consumed by fire for days, let alone one where people are still living inside and attempting to put out the fire before it falls.
Professional Shark Jumper.

Emissary
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:27 am

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Emissary » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:21 am

Green Lemon wrote:
ThrowAway wrote:Im a structural welder.

And I'm an architect. The way the towers fell is perfectly consistent with what one would expect, I second.

Yes, they were designed to be possibly hit by planes. And if you recall, they both stood up for a good 20 minutes after being hit- they performed as designed.

Steel, like many substances when heated, loses strength. It does not have to melt to lose this strength- it simply has to become hot enough, which is why it is always required to be protected from fire in a building. Steel is vulnerable to fire.

The structure of the WTC consisted of a series of steel tubes to either side of each window- maybe they were only about a foot in diameter, but there were many of them, a structural cage. The burning fuel took time to heat them to the point of structural failure, but once they failed- straight down. All that weight, it's thrust, just like a rocket engine in reverse. Once one floor goes, then you have the inertia which makes the rest of them pancake.

This doesn't make me throw the conspiracy theory out the window, BTW- but there is simply no logic to the statement "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel". It doesn't have to. And ignore the concrete. Those buildings were held up by steel.
Ahh the old pancake theory. You obviosuly havent noticed that Nist debunked the pancake theory themselves. Simple Physics can deduce that as each floor hit the floor underneath, the collapse would have slowed, NOT sped up.

I give you nists babble

"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."

They blame the enitre collapse on thermal expansion. Which is an unobserved and untested theory

hence the wikipdeia article with absoloutley no references (probably written by a member of the governement)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion

I suggest you read through some of these papers

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The conclusion of an actual independant scientific look at the collapse

"We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9
stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt
deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the
absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion
of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors
of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny. "

Post Reply