Getting my mind around the twin towers?

[truthseeker]

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!

In response to your post.
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]

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]

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]

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!

In response to your post.
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]

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]

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!

In response to your post.
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]

Mike Hagan's Radio Orbit - Paul Laffoley Talks About The World Trade Center (MP3 Download) (May 21, 2007)
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...

download & listen to 22:00 > 53:00 in the above mp3.

[HonestlyNow]

TruthSeeker --

Please, for the sake of easier reading, can you use

Thanks!

[truthseeker]

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]

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/evidence/photos/construction.html and on http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+construction