Another non-evidence anomaly: the steel ejected "hundreds of feet"

[1337m4n]

At this point we are already aware that many Truthers simply point to random anomalies without any regard for whether they support any plausible conspiracy.

I've thought of another example of this kind of behavior to add to the existing pile: the "debris ejected hundreds of feet" argument.

Truthers point to the fact that as the WTC collapsed, steel beams fell hundreds of feet outside the footprint, as "evidence" that there were explosives inside the towers.

"How is that evidence?", I ask. Think about what that argument implies. It implies that not only were explosives used, but that ENOUGH explosives were used to fling these heavy steel beams all over the place. Furthermore, you have to take into account the PLACEMENT of the explosives. Demolition charges aren't placed in positions where they would fling debris everywhere, they're placed in positions where they would cut key support columns. So now, the Truthers are also implying that the conspirators deliberately placed excess charges in random locations for the sole purpose of flinging debris.

And when you take into account the amount of explosives that would be required to do this, you are then confronted with the problem of how these massive charges weren't heard from miles away.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists. They don't think. They just pick out any anomalies they can find and say "IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS THEN IT PROVES THERE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!"

It also further emphasizes my point in a previous thread about why Truthers need to stop JAQing off and actually decide on a coherent alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

[Blender Head]

At this point we are already aware that many Truthers simply point to random anomalies without any regard for whether they support any plausible conspiracy.

I've thought of another example of this kind of behavior to add to the existing pile: the "debris ejected hundreds of feet" argument.

Truthers point to the fact that as the WTC collapsed, steel beams fell hundreds of feet outside the footprint, as "evidence" that there were explosives inside the towers.

"How is that evidence?", I ask. Think about what that argument implies. It implies that not only were explosives used, but that ENOUGH explosives were used to fling these heavy steel beams all over the place. Furthermore, you have to take into account the PLACEMENT of the explosives. Demolition charges aren't placed in positions where they would fling debris everywhere, they're placed in positions where they would cut key support columns. So now, the Truthers are also implying that the conspirators deliberately placed excess charges in random locations for the sole purpose of flinging debris.

And when you take into account the amount of explosives that would be required to do this, you are then confronted with the problem of how these massive charges weren't heard from miles away.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists. They don't think. They just pick out any anomalies they can find and say "IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS THEN IT PROVES THERE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!"

It also further emphasizes my point in a previous thread about why Truthers need to stop JAQing off and actually decide on a coherent alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

Good point, but if I could play devil's advocate for a minute: Would the perps who planted the charges foresee the explosives flinging the steel beams hundreds of feet? Aren't more conventional demolitions prepped so that as few debris as possible would fly outside the building and harm onlookers?

[rwguinn]

Good point, but if I could play devil's advocate for a minute: Would the perps who planted the charges foresee the explosives flinging the steel beams hundreds of feet? Aren't more conventional demolitions prepped so that as few debris as possible would fly outside the building and harm onlookers?


All that work, when a mere 10 ft/second horizintal velocity (<7 MPH) will result in a 100-foot displacement in a 10 second fall.
But it's really hard to get something moving at 7MPH when you hit it with an airplane going only 540 MPH...Or if you forget that even chunks of steel will bounce off of other chinks if steel

[Gravy]

And when you take into account the amount of explosives that would be required to do this, you are then confronted with the problem of how these massive charges weren't heard from miles away.Not only heard, but seen and felt. Windows would have broken for miles. Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Jersey City would have been covered with shrapnel. Yet somehow these sooper sekrit silent explosives moved hundreds of tons of steel faster than all the lighter debris around it. They're always accusing the evidence-backed version of events of defying the laws of physics, yet they constantly come up with ideas that are physically impossible and proclaim them as fact.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists. They don't think. They just pick out any anomalies they can find and say "IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS THEN IT PROVES THERE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!"Then when we do provide simple, obvious explanations for these events, they can't accept them.

[nicepants]

Good point, but if I could play devil's advocate for a minute: Would the perps who planted the charges foresee the explosives flinging the steel beams hundreds of feet? Aren't more conventional demolitions prepped so that as few debris as possible would fly outside the building and harm onlookers?

Indeed. Makes one wonder what the purpose would be of specifically planting devices with the intent of "flinging" large pieces of the building such large distances. How, exactly, does that fit into ANY of the 911 conspiracy theories?

[Gravy]

Good point, but if I could play devil's advocate for a minute: Would the perps who planted the charges foresee the explosives flinging the steel beams hundreds of feet? Aren't more conventional demolitions prepped so that as few debris as possible would fly outside the building and harm onlookers?Blender, what the conspiracists claim would have required many tons of explosives, and would have produced the obvious effects I mentioned above.

[CHF]

Not only heard, but seen and felt. Windows would have broken for miles. Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Jersey City would have been covered with shrapnel. Yet somehow these sooper sekrit silent explosives moved hundreds of tons of steel faster than all the lighter debris around it.

That's cuz the towers were blown apart by......THERMITE!!!
DDUUUUUHHHHHH!! :bricks:

[Richard Gage mode off]

[A W Smith]

I want you all to listen to the projectiles ricocheting past the camera 2/3rds of the way through this video.


I98YuLvTsAs

can anyone supply a video with those sounds occuring on 9/11?




















I didnt think so

[CHF]

can anyone supply a video with those sounds occuring on 9/11?
I didnt think so

I'd settle for something like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Again, no takers.

[slyjoe]

...

Truthers point to the fact that as the WTC collapsed, steel beams fell hundreds of feet outside the footprint, as "evidence" that there were explosives inside the towers.

...snip

It is even worse than that - the OP from the "Physics for Dummies" thread says:

burning steel pieces (weighing thousands of pounds) of the towers were hurled outward for hundreds of feet at speeds of about one hundred feet per second. . . . . The other reason for ignoring the details of the collapses was that certain troubling aspects, [i.e. like the above observation], would not need to be analyzed.
The above quote is from EugeneAxeman,

The SPEED of thousand-pound steel pieces was at hundreds of feet per second. :jaw-dropp

[Gravy]

It is even worse than that - the OP from the "Physics for Dummies" thread says:

The SPEED of thousand-pound steel pieces was at hundreds of feet per second. :jaw-droppTo be fair, he says "about 100 feet per second." Still wrong for the initial velocity, but not sci-fi wrong.

[slyjoe]

Thanks Gravy - I wasn't careful enough. :o

[FramerDave]

Something I noticed in the Youtube video of the (real) controlled demolition was the fact that there was no huge cloud of debris at the top "mushrooming" out and spreading like you see in the WTC videos.

I asked myself why. Duh. Because the video shows a true controlled demolition in which the entire building is taken apart at once by explosives. The WTC video, on the other hand, shows a mostly intact top section of the building falling on a mostly intact lower part of the building. Thus the spreading plume of debris, not exactly falling in its own footprint.

So how can troofers honestly look at it and call it a textbook example of a controlled demolition?

A. They're liars
B. They're deluded
C. They're stupid
D. All of the above

My money is on E, a little of each.

[Lensman]

I want you all to listen to the projectiles ricocheting past the camera 2/3rds of the way through this video.


I98YuLvTsAs

can anyone supply a video with those sounds occuring on 9/11?




















I didnt think so

They will now that you've so kindly supplied these. ;) :D

[Sizzler]

So how can troofers honestly look at it and call it a textbook example of a controlled demolition?

They don't.

WTC 1/2 is considered novel. Top down from impact point to make it appear to be because of plane impact and fire. (there are a few examples of top down demolitions in the industry but on much smaller buildings and in a different manner. They are however, top--->down)

WTC7 is considered traditional.

[CHF]

They don't.

WTC 1/2 is considered novel.

Funny you say that.

The reason why twoofers initially decided the WTC towers were demolitions was because some morons looked at the WTC collapses and said: "that looked just like a controlled demolition! OMG!!! Inside job!!!"

Top down from impact point to make it appear to be because of plane impact and fire.So what kind of CD charges can resist airline impacts and fires?

WTC7 is considered traditional.Ah yes, a "traditional" CD....only this one was done with thermite...for the first time ever....because otherwise twoofers would have to explain why WTC7 didn't sound like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

[R.Mackey]

Actually, since the Truth Movement's only argument is that the WTC 1 and 2 collapses "look like" controlled demolition, the "non-traditional" modifier doesn't wash.

"Looks like" is subjective, so it's hard to prove either way. But there is no other evidence for demolition. Seriously.

[FramerDave]

They don't.

WTC 1/2 is considered novel. Top down from impact point to make it appear to be because of plane impact and fire. (there are a few examples of top down demolitions in the industry but on much smaller buildings and in a different manner. They are however, top--->down)

WTC7 is considered traditional.

And there you go, finally showing your true nutjob troofer colors you so coyly concealed through ten pages of the first thread you started. And you had the nerve to claim otherwise.

[JamesB]

Actually, since the Truth Movement's only argument is that the WTC 1 and 2 collapses "look like" controlled demolition, the "non-traditional" modifier doesn't wash.

"Looks like" is subjective, so it's hard to prove either way. But there is no other evidence for demolition. Seriously.

Well it meets Richard Gage's 347 different signs of a controlled demolition, which he gathered through years of careful research in the controlled demolition industry.

[Sizzler]

And there you go, finally showing your true nutjob troofer colors you so coyly concealed through ten pages of the first thread you started. And you had the nerve to claim otherwise.

you misquoted CD hypothesis. go look it up.

just helping you out for future debunking efforts.

your welcome.

[Gravy]

WTC 1/2 is considered novel.

WTC7 is considered traditional.Yes, by fools who can't tell enormous detonations from Shinola. Please don't be one.

[LashL]

I'd settle for something like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Again, no takers.


Indeed, and there never will be any takers because reality is, well, reality, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the controlled demolition fantasies that twoofers espouse.

I think that, deep down, many twoofers know that they are spouting nonsense. A lot of them have left the twoof movement once they actually looked at the facts and evidence. A small minority of diehard twoofers, however, would rather slit their wrists than ever allow reality to intrude upon their fantasies.

[HereticHulk]

Just a hypothetical here, lets just say that the city of New York wanted to CD the Twin Towers, lets say for urban renewal, or whatever.

How would a professional CD team bring down the towers without damaging any nearby structures?

Did the engineers take into account the twin towers eventual demolition when designing them?

[Pardalis]

Just a hypothetical here, lets just say that the city of New York wanted to CD the Twin Towers, lets say for urban renewal, or whatever.

How would a professional CD team bring down the towers without damaging any nearby structures?

Did the engineers take into account the twin towers eventual demolition when designing them?

It certainly would have been a huge undertaking.

It probably would have been done in multiple phases. Much like the Deutsche Bank Building:

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/animation_details_deutsche_bank_97552.aspx
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/130liberty/overview.asp

iAy-jgt_ng0

It's not demolition, I think it's called dismantlement

[HereticHulk]

It certainly would have been a huge undertaking.

It probably would have been done in multiple phases. Much like the Deutsche Bank Building:

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/animation_details_deutsche_bank_97552.aspx
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/130liberty/overview.asp

iAy-jgt_ng0

It's not demolition, I think it's called dismantlement

ok, but WTC was designed quite different than the Deutsche building was it not?

Also, considering the 'hollow tube' structure of WTC 1 & 2 and the overall construction was 'unique', do you have any guesses to the actual procedure required to dismantle the towers similar to the Deutsche?

[Blender Head]

Blender, what the conspiracists claim would have required many tons of explosives, and would have produced the obvious effects I mentioned above.

Yeah, I got that Gravy...:boggled:

[gumboot]

I can cite another excellent example of what the OP is talking about - "dustification of concrete". In the WTC, none of the concrete was structural. Conspiracy Theorist expect us to believe that as well as installing excess explosives just to hurl steel around Manhattan, the demolition team also installed excess explosives for the sole purpose of turning the concrete floor pans to dust.

And yet, when the absurdity of hiding such a mammoth amount of explosives (either in installation or during actual detonation) they counter with a claim that only a small amount of explosives in strategic places is required (which obviously brings us back to NIST - if the entire tower can come down due to explosives in a few key places, it can also come down due to structural failure from fire in a few key places). But if it's only a small amount of explosives in strategic places, that immediately drops the flinging debris and dustified concrete argument.

And around and around and around we go... :faint:

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

ok, but WTC was designed quite different than the Deutsche building was it not?

Also, considering the 'hollow tube' structure of WTC 1 & 2 and the overall construction was 'unique', do you have any guesses to the actual procedure required to dismantle the towers similar to the Deutsche?

My guess is that they wouldn't use CD, but would dismantle it pretty much the way they built it, but in reverse.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, the towers would be easier to dismantle than DB, because there is no structural concrete to deal with. Most of the work could be done with cutting torches and cranes. DB probably involves a few jack hammers, cranes, masking sheets, concrete saws and cutting torches.

Actually, if I wanted the buildings out of the way for urban renewal, I would simply install thermite wall board around the cores, then make a remoted radio call demanding the payment of $500 million in gold bullion, to be placed on a barge, or the building is going to be bombed again.

Naturally, the building would be evacuated immediately.

Now set off the thermite and let it fall. No great expense to the city from damaged infrastructure and loss of half the FDNY and NYPD and a lot of influential campaign contributors.

The Coast Guard would, of course, be called to search for the boat from which the message was sent, but OOPS! Some fool just accidently set off some surplus thermite in the hold, close to the fuel tanks And burned it to the water line and sank it.

Investigations then reveal that the tennants on three floors of either tower were fictitious companies fronted by Afghan and Iraqi operatives who cannopt be otherwise identified, but, hey, we know who put them up to it, right?

Minimal number of operatives involved, the public is still outraged, and business gets back to normal in months, rather than years and life and commerce go on.

Far less Rube Goldbergish than what the twoofers are trying to sell us, dontcha think?

[Dave Rogers]

you misquoted CD hypothesis. go look it up.

Misquoted which CD hypothesis? There are so many.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, if I wanted the buildings out of the way for urban renewal, I would simply install thermite wall board around the cores, then make a remoted radio call demanding the payment of $500 million in gold bullion, to be placed on a barge, or the building is going to be bombed again.

Naturally, the building would be evacuated immediately.

Now set off the thermite and let it fall. No great expense to the city from damaged infrastructure and loss of half the FDNY and NYPD and a lot of influential campaign contributors.

The Coast Guard would, of course, be called to search for the boat from which the message was sent, but OOPS! Some fool just accidently set off some surplus thermite in the hold, close to the fuel tanks And burned it to the water line and sank it.

Investigations then reveal that the tennants on three floors of either tower were fictitious companies fronted by Afghan and Iraqi operatives who cannopt be otherwise identified, but, hey, we know who put them up to it, right?

:dl::dl::dl:

Nice one, Lefty.

Dave

[Sizzler]

Just a hypothetical here, lets just say that the city of New York wanted to CD the Twin Towers, lets say for urban renewal, or whatever.

How would a professional CD team bring down the towers without damaging any nearby structures?

Did the engineers take into account the twin towers eventual demolition when designing them?


funny you should say.

didn;t they ask for permission more than once? werent they rejected more than once?

and wasn't because of the nasty chemicals keeping the buildings warm?

and aren't those chemicals now killing ground zero workers who were told the air was safe?

Look it up, this one is not CT.

[WildCat]

funny you should say.

didn;t they ask for permission more than once? werent they rejected more than once?
You're claiming that "they" wanted to demolish the WTC? Who is "they"?

and wasn't because of the nasty chemicals keeping the buildings warm?
What?

and aren't those chemicals now killing ground zero workers who were told the air was safe?

Look it up, this one is not CT.
Guess what? Dust of any sort is not safe to breathe.

[Dave Rogers]

didn;t they ask for permission more than once? werent they rejected more than once?

Can you provide a cite for an application to demolish the WTC Twin Towers? Even one application?

and wasn't because of the nasty chemicals keeping the buildings warm?

If you're talking about asbestos, this one is fairly well known; there was asbestos in the foreproofing of the bottom 38 storeys of WTC1 only (none in WTC2), it wasn't "keeping the buildings warm" but fireproofing the floor trusses, and there were plans for asbestos abatement with a cost that pales into insignificance next to the amount of money Silverstein lost as a result of the WTC attacks.

And no, he didn't make money on the insurance claim, before you even mention it. This one's been debunked to hell and back.

Look it up, this one is not CT.

We might need a little more information than you're providing. Since you're the one making the claim, could I respectfully suggest that you look it up yourself?

Dave

[DavidJames]

funny you should say.

didn;t they ask for permission more than once? werent they rejected more than once?

and wasn't because of the nasty chemicals keeping the buildings warm?

and aren't those chemicals now killing ground zero workers who were told the air was safe?

Look it up, this one is not CT.Anyone want to start a poll when Sizzler starts talking about "pull it"

[Pardalis]

Look it up, this one is not CT.


You're right, there is no conspiracy there.

If you want to blame someone for what happened to the workers at Ground Zero, blame the ones who rammed those planes into the towers.

[Sizzler]

You're right, there is no conspiracy there.

If you want to blame someone for what happened to the workers at Ground Zero, blame the ones who rammed those planes into the towers.

Or we can blame the ones who said it was safe to breath.

What about free health care for ground zero workers? First responders?

And of course, lets not forget about the people who slammed the planes into the buildings.

[DGM]

Or we can blame the ones who said it was safe to breath.

What about free health care for ground zero workers? First responders?

And of course, lets not forget about the people who slammed the planes into the buildings.
Who told the workers at ground zero that the air was safe to breath? Be careful with your answer because the true answer is no body.

[nicepants]

I can cite another excellent example of what the OP is talking about - "dustification of concrete". In the WTC, none of the concrete was structural. Conspiracy Theorist expect us to believe that as well as installing excess explosives just to hurl steel around Manhattan, the demolition team also installed excess explosives for the sole purpose of turning the concrete floor pans to dust.

And yet, when the absurdity of hiding such a mammoth amount of explosives (either in installation or during actual detonation) they counter with a claim that only a small amount of explosives in strategic places is required (which obviously brings us back to NIST - if the entire tower can come down due to explosives in a few key places, it can also come down due to structural failure from fire in a few key places). But if it's only a small amount of explosives in strategic places, that immediately drops the flinging debris and dustified concrete argument.

And around and around and around we go... :faint:

-Gumboot

Truthers like to have their cake and eat it too.

They'll take the parts about 1 theory that match the evidence, and when you point out that the rest of that theory doesn't match a second piece evidence, they'll hop over to another theory that matches the second piece of evidence. (Just as you pointed out)

They never seem to get that the 2 theories they've just presented are not congruent....you can't have them both. Pointing that out usually causes them to resort to the "well we just need a new investigation". This is the truther equivalent of "looks like you got me".

[ktesibios]

There's lots of discussion of the air quality and worker health issues in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2003817), where I found a link to one of Gravy's pages (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues), which collects a boatload of information on the subject. A quick excerpt:

Note: The EPA's assurances that the air was safe to breathe applied the neighborhoods near Ground Zero, not at Ground Zero. The EPA, OSHA, and the NYC and NYS DEP all quickly determined that the air at Ground Zero was not safe to breathe without the use of proper air filtration respirators.

It was decided early on that New York City would be responsible for enforcing the respirator use rules. The city then decided to allow the main contractors to supervise this enforcement for their workers. The result was enforcement that ranged from strict (some workers were fired for not wearing respirators) to nonexistent (in most photos, most workers aren't wearing respirators). Once respirators were available for everyone, rarely were more than half of the workers on the pile using them. Compare that to the Pentagon attack scene, where if you didn't wear a respirator, you didn't work, period.

The protection of workers at Ground Zero, as compared to what was done at the Pentagon, does seem to be a screw-up of monumental proportions, but it looks like the simplistic truther mantra "the eevil gummint told the workers that the air at the site was safe to breathe! OMG coverup! inside job!" falls into one of the two categories of truther claims:

Half of what they say is lies and the other half ain't true.

As for the expulsion of perimeter columns, I could swear that one of the science/engineering folks who hang out here (I think it was RMackey) calculated the quantity of explosives that would be needed to fling a column the distances observed and found it to be enormous enough that the detonation could not have gone unobserved and unrecorded in the video record of the collapses. Perhaps this will jog someone's memory and get us a link to that post.

It might also be worth noting that the shaped charges used in the demolition industry to cut steel are apparently not noted for moving the columns which they cut, since it's common practice to use small "kicker" charges of ordinary, i.e., not shaped-charge, explosives which detonate just after the cutting charges to shift the cut ends and prevent them from butting together and continuing to act in compression.

[chillzero]

Please start a new thread for discussion of air quality, etc - or resurrect one of the older ones.

[1337m4n]

If you're talking about asbestos, this one is fairly well known; there was asbestos in the foreproofing of the bottom 38 storeys of WTC1 only (none in WTC2), it wasn't "keeping the buildings warm" but fireproofing the floor trusses, and there were plans for asbestos abatement with a cost that pales into insignificance next to the amount of money Silverstein lost as a result of the WTC attacks.

Dave

Interesting you should bring that up: the guy who invented the asbestos fireproofing used in the WTC protested the ban on asbestos that prevented the fireproofing from being used in the upper levels, predicting that if a major fire ever broke out on the higher floors, the building would collapse.

Lo and behold.

[jaydeehess]

It is even worse than that - the OP from the "Physics for Dummies" thread says:


burning steel pieces (weighing thousands of pounds) of the towers were hurled outward for hundreds of feet at speeds of about one hundred feet per second. . . . . The other reason for ignoring the details of the collapses was that certain troubling aspects, [i.e. like the above observation], would not need to be analyzed

The above quote is from EugeneAxeman,

100 ft/sec, 600 feet means a travel time of 6 seconds.
To fall for 6 seconds before hitting the ground they had to be at 576 feet above ground when they were shot out at 100 ft/sec
Does the author explain how he knows that these columns come from the 49th floor level of the tower?

physics for dummies.........gotta love it;)