Stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look whats going down...

DriftingByTheStorm

What IS that sound?
You tell me.

This is gonna be fun.

EDIT: LINK CORRECTED (doh)

DriftingByTheStorm

Wow.

You know folks,
no one ever said the truth was going to be pretty.

But you can't just cower in the corner and close your eyes.

What gives?

Surely someone wants to respond,
at least to tell me, "It could be columns snapping. You have know idea what that is. We will never know. 911 is a distraction. You're crazy."

DriftingByTheStorm

fast forward to the 4:11 mark

Why is there a mass of white smoke rising from the street just about 15 seconds before the building collapses?

Think about that while you watch the top video of "explosions" before collapse.

Any one have any questions?
Not even one?

DriftingByTheStorm

And here is your SMOKING GUN moment of fucking zen.

Clear booming rumble heard that coinsides PRECISELY with white smoke rising off the street (look at the zoom on right side of screen) ...

WTF ???

Brisk.

very interesting but is it me that you cant really see the white clouds of smoke :S - on the first vid

im loading up the 2nd

upina2001

young people speaking their minds.

DriftingByTheStorm

I BrisK I wrote:

very interesting but is it me that you cant really see the white clouds of smoke :S - on the first vid

im loading up the 2nd

The smoke in the OP video can be seen if you move your position slider to move back and forth between the 3rd and 4th "explosions".

The smoke can be seen starting IMMEDIATELY after the 3rd and in to 4th seismic events.

The zoom in subseqent videos certainly helps.

Watch it again here, and watch the camera shake.

Thats how big the noise was.
It shook a camera in jersey.

Brisk.

yaya i see

so the thought is that there were explosions before the planes hit?

Brisk.

PEPPER wrote:

I always thought like all skyscrapers the Twin Towers are similar to a stack of pancakes...levels upon levels...and in between each level is air. When each level collapsed due to the weakening from the jet fuel fire the floor fell...the air has to go somewhere so it took the path of least resistance....the window (this is the white smoke you are seeing). As for the explosions we supposedly are hearing, I believe that this is the middle of the floor collapsing as it implodes on itself…seconds before each level fell on itself bringing the whole thing down.

I am always game for a good conspiracy theory but you 9/11 nuts are way out there for me….why not go after the true lie…we never landed on the moon.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend.

oh wow are you completely serious about the moon landing?

how would someone plant explosivces at the bottom, surely that would take months of planning and doing? and people wold notice?

chopitdown

so there are weird sound peaks in in a video of a tower that had recently had a jet liner fly into it and thats your proof? couldn't the change in the sound characteristics be because the building was getting ready to fall w/o the use of explosives? or would the tower not have made any unusual sounds when a 500,000 ton building collapsed b/c of weakening of it's structure by an airplane??

DriftingByTheStorm

PEPPER wrote:

I always thought like all skyscrapers the Twin Towers are similar to a stack of pancakes...levels upon levels...and in between each level is air. When each level collapsed due to the weakening from the jet fuel fire the floor fell...the air has to go somewhere so it took the path of least resistance....the window (this is the white smoke you are seeing). As for the explosions we supposedly are hearing, I believe that this is the middle of the floor collapsing as it implodes on itself…seconds before each level fell on itself bringing the whole thing down.

I am always game for a good conspiracy theory but you 9/11 nuts are way out there for me….why not go after the true lie…we never landed on the moon.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend.

a. "path of least resistance" and "pancake collapse" are diametric opposites. A pancake collapse is the path of GREATEST resistance.

b. We are not talking about collapse. We are talking about PRE-collapse.

That white smoke you see is rising from the base of the building BEFORE the building starts its collapse sequence.

You people that are denying that white smoke eminates from the base of the building in PRECISE concert with a LOUD seismic event are the nutty ones, not me.

You're akin to holocaust deniers, in my opinion.
J/K

Chopitdown, are you serious?
So what EXACTLY do you think those three loud booms are, at least one of which is visibly linked to smoke at the ground level?

Are you saying that the trauma of the plane impact caused a massive column failure in the basement?

If so, what do you think the smoke is from?

???

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

wow, you had to reply to your post 3 times before anyone bit. people care less and less about your bullshit every day.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Not to mention all the people that heard explosions coming from the basements, and people coming up from the basements all cut up and bloody with their skin hanging off.

Explosions did happen in the basements. I don't think it's really contested at this point, except for those unaware.

one of many out there...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448824/sub_basement_explosions_in_world_trade_center_first_hand_accou/

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

wow, you had to reply to your post 3 times before anyone bit. people care less and less about your bullshit every day.

The wrong link was posted. If you don't give a shit...then proceed to not give a shit in a constructive manner. People do it successfully all the time...

Collin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

That white smoke you see is rising from the base of the building BEFORE the building starts its collapse sequence.

You people that are denying that white smoke eminates from the base of the building in PRECISE concert with a LOUD seismic event are the nutty ones, not me.

How do you know it's coming from the base of the building? It could be coming from in front of the building as well.

So what EXACTLY do you think those three loud booms are, at least one of which is visibly linked to smoke at the ground level?

It could very well be a coincidence. The smoke could come from debris that fell and was still smoking. Debris that fell on cars, other fires caused by debris.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

As to the those erroneously concluding why no one is coming forward or speaking out.

You need to become aware of who this guy is and what he heard, saw, and felt.

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

He is supposed to be dead, but miraculously survived.

chopitdown

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Chopitdown, are you serious?
So what EXACTLY do you think those three loud booms are, at least one of which is visibly linked to smoke at the ground level?

Are you saying that the trauma of the plane impact caused a massive column failure in the basement?

If so, what do you think the smoke is from?

???

i think the smoke is from the building. It could be from explosives, it could be from a weakened structure, it could be from the cars underneath the building exploding if there were fires in the basements or in the parking decks below the building. It could be from anywhere. This much we know. planes flew into the towers. They fell. This much is impossible to prove (not impossible to believe)...explosives were planted to bring the building down.

DriftingByTheStorm

PEPPER wrote:

I do not understand...

if you clap you hands together you hear get a clap sound...now besides the noise, if you put the hands near your face you will feel a rush of air...that is the least resistance I am talking about

If you are basing your theory off of a camcorder picture that was scaning over a mile away that is not very scientific. That white smoke could be anything...I have been to New York and from a tour I took I learned that place is sitting on pipelines full of steam and if you ask any New Yorker they are ALWAYS blowing out (due to being ages old). Now is it possible one blew due to the building being hit yes.

You are stretching the term, though i understand what you are implicating (that the AIR took the path of least resistance, but what about the STEEL?).

THIS is path of least resistance.

Notice how the building falls outside it's footprint, AWAY from all of its supporting infrastructure?

WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell STRAIGHT THROUGH the path of GREATEST resistance.

THIS is the path of greatest resistance.

Buildings don't fall through the center of their massive steel supports, and they certainly don't do it falling at an increasing speed, mimicking gravity.

9.8 m/s/s is NOT pancaking.
That is FREE FALLING.

Free fall equals ZERO resistance.

DriftingByTheStorm

MrSmith wrote:

wow, you had to reply to your post 3 times before anyone bit. people care less and less about your bullshit every day.

way to address the issue.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

way to address the issue.

the issue was addressed about 500 9/11 threads ago.

chopitdown

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html
He described the issue in a nutshell: “Because of their unique design and the use of the so called “steel bearing wall” tube structural system, which as far as we know has never been used before or after its application in the WTC towers, the buildings essentially showed no resistance to the impact of a medium-sized plane flying into them at about 450miles per hour.”

Elaborating on the novelty of the design, he said that the notion of a ‘structural framing system’ simply didn’t apply in the case of the twin towers. “Rather than traditional columns and beams, the designers employed a steel bearing wall tube system for the perimeter and steel truss joists in the floors that connected the gravity load-carrying inner core columns to the outside perimeter steel bearing walls. The relatively thin steel bearing wall pre-fabricated units of the perimeter bearing tube were bolted together in a Lego-like fashion to expedite construction” he explained.

He also noted that designers chose to fabricate many of the building columns out of very high strength steel [90 ksi steel as opposed to the more typical 36-65 ksi steel]. “This is not allowed by the structural design codes then and is still notallowed in current codes,” he stressed. “But the World Trade Center did not need to obtain a permit from City Hall. Because of special status as Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, they could make such choices outside the prevailing codes.”

This choice, he argued, allowed builders to use less steel in the columns [two to three times thinner than typical columns] presumably to save cost.

But by using high strength steel and thin cross sections, he pointed out, on impact the plane was able to cut through the outside steel bearing wall and enter the building--delivering thousands of gallons of jet fuel to the interior. During the ensuing fire, he said, the thin outside columns of the steel bearing walls were quite vulnerable to the rapid rise of temperature in them and reduction of their strength as a result of rising temperature of the steel.

“When the fires started, they heated up the steel. In my opinion, the truss joists collapsed first, leaving the exterior columns of probably two floors in the impact area with no bracing but still under gravity load from the floors above. As the columns heated up and reached temperatures of nearly 1,000F, their strength was reduced to less than half the design strength and they started to buckle. When the columns buckled, the top portion of the building, losing its supports, was pulled down by gravity and dropping on the floors below, pancaking the floors one after another and leading to progressive collapse in an almost perfect vertical direction of the pull of gravity force.”

In a 2001 article Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, published in the Journal of Metal, MIT Material Engineering Professor Thomas Eagar and Graduate Student Christopher Musso concluded that the failure of the steel resulted from loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire and the loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from non-uniform temperatures in the fire. They did not comment on the type of steel used in the design.

In that paper, they concluded that the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, and that “no designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.”

Astaneh-Asl says that the reason for undertaking his studies is not to implicate the designers, but rather to look into the design and answer the basic question that has bothered him since September 11: “Why did these towers collapse so quickly and so completely while other steel structures, including skyscrapers, under intense fire for hours, have not failed?”

He says that he feels he is closing in on the answer. “These structures were so unique that their collapse does not represent the performance expected of any other existing steel high-rise structure subjected to the same scenario,” he says.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

YWTC 1, 2 and 7 fell STRAIGHT THROUGH the path of GREATEST resistance.

THIS is the path of greatest resistance.

Buildings don't fall through the center of their massive steel supports, and they certainly don't do it falling at an increasing speed, mimicking gravity.

9.8 m/s/s is NOT pancaking.
That is FREE FALLING.

Free fall equals ZERO resistance.

Good video. Explains it well. The official story explanation fucked up a lot of people's heads. Precisely what it was meant to do.

DriftingByTheStorm

chopitdown wrote:

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html
He described the issue in a nutshell: “Because of their unique design and the use of the so called “steel bearing wall” tube structural system, which as far as we know has never been used before or after its application in the WTC towers, the buildings essentially showed no resistance to the impact of a medium-sized plane flying into them at about 450miles per hour.”

Elaborating on the novelty of the design, he said that the notion of a ‘structural framing system’ simply didn’t apply in the case of the twin towers. “Rather than traditional columns and beams, the designers employed a steel bearing wall tube system for the perimeter and steel truss joists in the floors that connected the gravity load-carrying inner core columns to the outside perimeter steel bearing walls. The relatively thin steel bearing wall pre-fabricated units of the perimeter bearing tube were bolted together in a Lego-like fashion to expedite construction” he explained.

He also noted that designers chose to fabricate many of the building columns out of very high strength steel [90 ksi steel as opposed to the more typical 36-65 ksi steel]. “This is not allowed by the structural design codes then and is still notallowed in current codes,” he stressed. “But the World Trade Center did not need to obtain a permit from City Hall. Because of special status as Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, they could make such choices outside the prevailing codes.”

This choice, he argued, allowed builders to use less steel in the columns [two to three times thinner than typical columns] presumably to save cost.

But by using high strength steel and thin cross sections, he pointed out, on impact the plane was able to cut through the outside steel bearing wall and enter the building--delivering thousands of gallons of jet fuel to the interior. During the ensuing fire, he said, the thin outside columns of the steel bearing walls were quite vulnerable to the rapid rise of temperature in them and reduction of their strength as a result of rising temperature of the steel.

“When the fires started, they heated up the steel. In my opinion, the truss joists collapsed first, leaving the exterior columns of probably two floors in the impact area with no bracing but still under gravity load from the floors above. As the columns heated up and reached temperatures of nearly 1,000F, their strength was reduced to less than half the design strength and they started to buckle. When the columns buckled, the top portion of the building, losing its supports, was pulled down by gravity and dropping on the floors below, pancaking the floors one after another and leading to progressive collapse in an almost perfect vertical direction of the pull of gravity force.”

In a 2001 article Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, published in the Journal of Metal, MIT Material Engineering Professor Thomas Eagar and Graduate Student Christopher Musso concluded that the failure of the steel resulted from loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire and the loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from non-uniform temperatures in the fire. They did not comment on the type of steel used in the design.

In that paper, they concluded that the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, and that “no designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.”

Astaneh-Asl says that the reason for undertaking his studies is not to implicate the designers, but rather to look into the design and answer the basic question that has bothered him since September 11: “Why did these towers collapse so quickly and so completely while other steel structures, including skyscrapers, under intense fire for hours, have not failed?”

He says that he feels he is closing in on the answer. “These structures were so unique that their collapse does not represent the performance expected of any other existing steel high-rise structure subjected to the same scenario,” he says.

This article is not only misleading, it is full of outright lies.

1. Like all "Pro-Official-Story" articles, it TOTALY IGNORES THE CENTRAL COLUMNS. The WTC towers were not some flimsy "tubelike structures" with no central columns, as this article clearly implies. "Rather than traditional columns and beams"? THE TOWERS HAD 47 MASSIVE CENTRAL COLUMNS!

2. It grossly mistates the load carying capacity of the exterior support structure, which was designed to PREVENT a collapse from happening, not HELP it.

3. The article states that the building designers "simply didn't account for a 90,000 L molotov cocktail" when this is an outright blatant lie. THEY EXPLICITLY DESIGNED THE TOWERS TO WITHSTAND THE IMPACT OF MULTIPLE 707 AIRLINERS, which are actualy almost identicaly comparable with a modern 747.

WATCH THIS SOMETIME

The guy is a liscenced structural engineer and he makes some VERY IMPORTANT points, and walks you through some of the gross mistatemetns and blatant lies and trickery in the NIST reports, etc.

For example, the load bearing capacity of that external frame was designed to carry and ADDED LOAD OF 2000+ % ... that means if any of the steel was damaged on the outer frame, the remaining structure could absorb TWO THOUSAND PERCENT MORE load than it was carrying before any damage.

Now, the NIST report would have us believe that a TWENTY FIVE PERCENT increase in load was responsible for a MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC MIND FUCK OF A FAILURE.

?????

2000 vs 25

TWO THOUSAND vs TWENTY FIVE

????

The Waiting Trophy Man

What song is this?? I can't think of it......

fuck

Eddie Better wrote:

What song is this?? I can't think of it......

Buffalo Springfield- For What it's Worth

DriftingByTheStorm

PEPPER wrote:

Building 7 is not an issue...no one was inside it so if the governemt decided to blow that up who cares...they had I believe 6 hours to blow it up and it was structually unsound

As for the towers...how many floors was that thing? All of you footage links you gave were all from buildings not even half the size of the towers so they cannot be compared.

Just answer me this, then I think I will be done, if we blew it up from the bottom, why did it crumble from the top?

You folks amaze me with your ability to "Go both ways" but still dodge any real truth.

So you think the government may have rigged up WTC7 on the SPOT just to bring it down?

Fighting the fire wasn't an option, but they had time to rig it up on the spot? ???

HERE IS A CLOSE UP VIDEO OF A CAMERA SHAKING DUE TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY PRIOR TO COLLAPSE

The entire theory isn't based off of some damn video either,
its just another exhibit in a mounting pile of evidence that 911 was ANYTHING but a random act of terror.

The Waiting Trophy Man

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

Buffalo Springfield- For What it's Worth

Thanks...I was just searching Creedence Clearwater Revival, thought I was onto something. If you hadn't told me who it was by, I could have been here all day, going crazy....:D

RolandTD20Kdrummer

PEPPER wrote:

Building 7 is not an issue...no one was inside it so if the governemt decided to blow that up who cares...they had I believe 6 hours to blow it up and it was structually unsound

6 hours to rig a textbook building demolition in a burning building?

uhhh? what? Explain to me how that all works again?

Collin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs6gNhx5A6E :cool:

spiral out

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

6 hours to rig a textbook building demolition in a burning building?

uhhh? what? Explain to me how that all works again?

I know considering everyone says it would have taken weeks or months to rig the other two buildings.

DriftingByTheStorm

I'll give a cookie to the first person who can come up with a plausible explanation for what those 4 loud events are.

Anyone?

What specific structural event is occuring, if you are indeed not willing to conceed they may be explosions.

?