The Physics of 911

What are these explosions happening on a twin tower face, much below the crash zone? Why were there all these explosions that happened all over the towers before any planes hit and after?

Remember the NIST meme, fellow zombies - "there were no explosions on 911".

Repeat it often.

9/11 - North Tower - Visible detonations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk9Hdbeyu0

LOL. That's it? Care to cut to the chase, and find any frame in that video that shows a plane. We have a voice-over, and some sound effects.

Another fail from the conspiracy believer-in-chief.

Thank you for your bravery, Edna Citron.

You've not got much to thank your compatriots for. Some even suggest you are a liar.

Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s

And here is Edna Citron at 10:09 waving from the hole in WTC1, with fires obviously long past their hottest, which wasn't hot, steel cooling down, not heating up.

9-11-01, 10:09 Edna Cintron still waves for 9/11 help - FOX 911 WTC1 Closeup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZUtpKeHhAM

"... and at 10:28 am the North Tower collapsed."

21 minutes after we still saw Edna waving. Remember, the press and the experts were talking of temperatures that were MELTING STEEL in those early days. Edna is obviously a lady of super powers.

And an excellent sidebar - Russert and Rumseld doing their routine about the Al Qaeda fortresses in Afghanistan. Remember those gems of US propaganda?!

Don't any of you feel used yet?

WTCs 4, 5 and 6 were on fire for much longer and with much much hotter fires than WTCs 1, 2 & 7 and yet none of them collapsed. They also sustained much more damage than WTC7 from the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2.

Why didn't WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaO2fON1H98

Gee, I don't know about that. Here's an example of an explosion. Someone within microphone range is even saying that that was the third one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmokIGGvSrw

_____________________________________________

And go to the 10:55 mark of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s

I'm surprised at your ignorance of this. After all, you did say that you were there.

That is no explosion. It's the structure of the south tower cracking open. It's a big "crack", not a "boom".

And of course you have some examples of "buildings cracking open" to compare the explosion heard at the 10:55 mark of this video with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s

Yeah, I recall some of the testimonies given during the Oral Histories of the firefighters that speak of flashes that went around the Tower like a belt, and going up and down the Tower.

Do you have another case where nano-termites were used to down a skyscrapper, to compare the sound it makes?

What in hell does that have to do with your claim that the explosion heard at the 10:55 mark of the video below was the Tower cracking open? So, do you have any examples of buildings "cracking open" so that we can see the similarities between that and the explosion heard on the videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s

Do you have any examples of buildings being blown off with nano-termites so that we can see the similarities between that and the sounds heard on the videos?

I'm asking you to back up your claim that the explosion heard at the 10:55 mark on the video below is the Tower "cracking open." I said that you can do so by showing an example of another building doing the same. You have not done so. Do so now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk9Hdbeyu0
_________________________________________________

Why are you bringing up termites/thermite? I've never mentioned thermite even once in this, or any, thread.

Also:

"In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

"In the case of the South Tower, the upper block tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them. Of course, you understand that the purpose of the core structure and perimeter columns was to support the floors; not the other way around. Right?"

Okay, so you disagree with the termite theory? Camlock won't be amused.

What brought the towers down, according to you?

Every once in a while I have to remind certain people that this thread concerns the physics of 9/11, and not the who, how, and why of it.

So here's where we left off:

I'm asking you to back up your claim that the explosion heard at the 10:55 mark on the video below is the Tower "cracking open." I said that you can do so by showing an example of another building doing the same. You have not done so. Do so now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk9Hdbeyu0
_________________________________________________

Why are you bringing up termites/thermite? I've never mentioned thermite even once in this, or any, thread.

Also:

"In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

"In the case of the South Tower, the upper block--according to you--tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them. Of course, you understand that the purpose of the core structure and perimeter columns was to support the floors; not the other way around. Right?"

Let me rephrase my question: what do you think are the physical causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Oh I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't know what the physical causes were. I only know what the effect was. That's why I'm asking you to back up your claim that the explosion heard at the 10:55 mark on the video below is the Tower "cracking open." You can do so by showing an example of another building doing the same. You have not done so, which leads me to believe that you cannot do so. Is that right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk9Hdbeyu0

"In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

"In the case of the South Tower, the upper block--according to you--tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them. Of course, you understand that the purpose of the core structure and perimeter columns was to support the floors; not the other way around. Right?"

Do you care to address this, or not?

An example from another skyscrapper breaking up? I don't know about that. When and where did such a scenario of two large planes hitting two skyscrappers happened before?

I know of one similar case but the plot failed: Air France flight 8969. In 1994, the plane was highjacked by a team of Algerians in Algiers. Grounded and stormed by French's top police squad in Marseille. They alledgedly wanted to sink the plane in the Eiffel Tower.

That's my point. You've declared that the explosion--one of three according to the people who were there--was the sound of the Tower cracking open. Yet there is no precedence for such an effect. But you call it a crack. Sounds like a pretty big explosion just before the collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s
10:55 mark.

"In videos of the collapse of the North Tower, the upper block is clearly seen dropping down without stopping. You believe that this upper block acted as a pile driver to crush the lower intact core structure below it. But if that were the case, there would have been not only a visible jolt and pause of the downward movement of the upper block, but also the destruction of the more heat-damaged upper block as it met with the lower block. As such, the collapse would have been arrested because the upper block would have been destroyed easier and faster than the intact lower block. But that's not what happened. Once the upper block is in motion, it does not slow down.

"In the case of the South Tower, the upper block--according to you--tipped over the edge of the building, thereby removing the pile-driver effect which is necessary to your theory. So you claim that some collapsing floors pulled the core and perimeter columns down with them. Of course, you understand that the purpose of the core structure and perimeter columns was to support the floors; not the other way around. Right?"

Do you care to address this, or not?

But there is also no precedent of a skyscrapper blowing off, so what are you trying to say?

It sounds like a big crack to me, it does coincide with the building cracking up, so if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, maybe it's a duck.