Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[doogiet]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

[The Almond]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

Hi doogiet, welcome to me about 6 years ago. When I first heard about 9/11 conspiracies, I had roughly this same objection. To be fair, though, there are many ways to demolish a building using explosives. The problem is that they all require several months worth of work on a completely empty building with all of the major structural members exposed. Frequently, the largest steel columns are pre-cut with torches, which is in turn only possible because so much of the live load on the building has been removed.

Anyway, blah blah blah. 6 years of me asking this and similar questions have yielded no cogent responses. I guess that I'm advising you not to hold your breath.

[T.A.M.]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM:D

[AJM8125]

The best explanation a truther ever gave me was there were explosions in the bottom of the towers. We were all too busy looking up to notice them going off.

[jaydeehess]

What has always struck me is that in comparing the WTC tower collapses to either controlled demolitions and to partial collapses caused by fires the towers most resemble the later.

Yes, in one fashion they resemble a CD in that 'building fall down, go boom'. However, the actual collapse detail has more in common with buildings that fall apart with fire as the initiator of the collapse.

[bardamu]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM:D

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

[Derek Johnson]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

It only seems illogical to you because you don't understand it, Mr. space-beamer.

The fact that our arguments have largely remained unchanged, unlike yours, should tell you something.

[Stylesjl]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?

[T.A.M.]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

SO expert, what Percentage of the steel should they have saved while downtown was in chaos, while people were trapped under the rubble, while fires continued to burn under the rubble?

Hmmmm? What percentage if not 0.5% genius?

TAM

[Oliver]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?


I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

[bardamu]

It only seems illogical to you because you don't understand it, Mr. space-beamer.

Well, you'd better explain to me and The Almond why controlled demolitions have to start at the bottom.



The fact that our arguments have largely remained unchanged, unlike yours, should tell you something.

Your basic arguments have largely remained unchanged because, being a priori, they're unaffected by physical evidence.

[Horatius]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they?



It's an outgrowth of the truthers' refusal to dispose of any evidence, even if such evidence has been shown to be flawed.

Most of the original truthers started by looking at the collapse of the Twin Towers, and saying, "Damn, that looked odd! It must have been a conspiracy!" For them to now accept that the collapses could have happened just because of the plane impacts and fires, with no explosives, means that the one thing that first attracted them to the CT in the first place was, in fact, a red herring. They'll never do that.

And now, the "CD hypothesis" is such a central tenet of the truther faith that no new convert will be allowed to question it. Any that do are dismissed as shills or closet debunkers out to disrupt the movement. When was the last time anyone here saw an actual "LIHOP" truther in the wild?

[twinstead]

Yup. The ONLY conspiracy theory that has a chance, and even it has very little hard evidence to support it, is LIHOP. One would think that since most truthers simply enter into this debate from an ideological standpoint, the evidence be damned, LIHOP would be a shoe in.

I guess it's not cool enough. Space beams or exotic, secret silent explosives or super-duper nano-thermite is more exciting.

[Jackanory]

Well, you'd better explain to me and The Almond why controlled demolitions have to start at the bottom.

And therein lies your problem. A complete lack of understanding of how the world and it's inbuilt magnets works. If I flicked you ear, would you fall over? If i took out your legs from the ankles, would you fall over?

Go and search the conspiracynet and look for buildings that failed to collapse properly when using explosives. Plenty of them. Quite funny too. Then look at why they failed to collapse properly. Then ask yourself if those who were hired to place those explosives are still in a job. Or you could ask a 16 year old burger flipper from McDonalds what he knows about explosives or brain surgery and quote him as fact!! After all.....it is those 16, 17, 18 ,19 20, 21, 22, 23 year olds who you keep quoting as fact. Do you ask your postman to take your teath out too?

[ergo]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.



I'm not clear on what you mean here, T.A.M., are you saying that "debunkers" are now agreeing that explosives were used?

By the way, isn't this thread a bit redundant, since there are at least four other discussions going on about this topic?

[T.A.M.]

Holwy **** are you guys all dense?

No, i am saying that a REAL CD, should havehad explosives at the base of the building, and hence the collapse should have started at the base, not up top, like it did for wtc 1/2...when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what typeof scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....

Why is it only the truthers don't get that from what i posted?

TAM

[Jackanory]

I'm not clear on what you mean here, T.A.M., are you saying that "debunkers" are now agreeing that explosives were used?

By the way, isn't this thread a bit redundant, since there are at least four other discussions going on about this topic?

Isn't the whole 911 CT thing redundant, since it's been 9 years of the same ole same ole regurgitated BS from a progressively less informed and more misguided and dimmer generation of gullible fools. Long live the internet warriors bored of CoD. lol.

[ergo]

No, i am saying that a REAL CD, should have had explosives at the base of the building, and hence the collapse should have started at the base, not up top, like it did for wtc 1/2...when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what typeof scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....
TAM

Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

[Jackanory]

Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

Spot on. Can you then tell me in what order those explosives are detonated? And why?

As for 'falling in its own footprint'. lol. Are you saying that the entire mass of all CD's fall within their own footprint? lol. Yet another truther 'buzz phrase' taken out of context.

[ergo]

Spot on. Can you then tell me in what order those explosives are detonated? And why?

It makes sense that the detonation would start at the bottom and rapidly work its way up. But I leave that to the demo experts. My point was merely to point out that this statement:


CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.

is incorrect. Like much of what you folks say.

As for 'falling in its own footprint'. lol. Are you saying that the entire mass of all CD's fall within their own footprint? lol. Yet another truther 'buzz phrase' taken out of context.

No, not all CDs, but for tall structures, that's the goal. That minimizes as much as possible collateral damage.

[R.Mackey]

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

Exactly. I expanded on this argument here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2446470), a long time ago.

The Truthers never, ever stop to think about what they're proposing. It's totally mad. This is why it's so hard (viz. impossible) to get an alternate hypothesis out of them, even one that is totally speculative.

Welcome to the Forums!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

Refix:

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[LOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: A CD starts at the bottom, not the top!
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[LOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one because we have no evidence to prove a CD occured. Leave me alone!

That fits!

[T.A.M.]

Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

The colapse starts at the base...you have watched a real cd, correct?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

If explosives were place as in a traditional cd, all through out the building, then why, why did we not see the bottom give way under the *********** huge load atop of it?

Answer that ergo?

TAM:)

[Jackanory]

It makes sense that the detonation would start at the bottom and rapidly work its way up. But I leave that to the demo experts. My point was merely to point out that this statement:



is incorrect. Like much of what you folks say.



No, not all CDs, but for tall structures, that's the goal. That minimizes as much as possible collateral damage.

I was a 'demo expert' for many years.

TAM stated that 'CD is done via explosives at the based of the building'. That would be a correct statement. CD is indeed done VIA explosives at the base of a building. Would you care to proof read what it is you are trying to argue against before posting. You are therefore incorrect......like much of what it is you post.

Ahhhh.......not all CD's!!! Is that the start of the dance in realising that you are wrong again? NO CD falls within it's own footprint!!!! Never!!!! Falling within it's own footprint is impossible for any CD of any building of any size. Fact! Hands on experience, education, teaching and knowledge is far better than hearsay and false plagurism. But hey, please enlighten me on your knowledge of explosives and CD's.

[1337m4n]

2002-2006
------------
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

2007-2010
-------------
Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

Stanadard Truther Protocol...modify your accusations to fit the ever shrinking wiggle room.

TAM:D


It's important to mention the step that comes in-between to demonstrate the kind of cognitive dissonance necessary to become a Truther.

Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via Controlled Demolition

Debunker: What's your evidence?
Truther: It LOOKED JUST LIKE A CONVENTIONAL STANDARD Controlled Demolition

Debunkers: CD is done via explosives at the based of the building.
Truther: WTC1/2 were brought down via UNCONVENTIONAL NONSTANDARD Controlled Demolition.

[ergo]

The colapse starts at the base...you have watched a real cd, correct?

I was a 'demo expert' for many years.

TAM stated that 'CD is done via explosives at the based of the building'. That would be a correct statement. CD is indeed done VIA explosives at the base of a building. Would you care to proof read what it is you are trying to argue against before posting. You are therefore incorrect......like much of what it is you post.


You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:


If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work.

The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

You don't know anything Ergo:

Conspiracy Theory #1: The World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosives, as a result of Controlled Demolition, in the basement and plane impact areas. Firefighters heard explosives going off. The WTCs' fell symmetrically. A remote detenator was used.

1a: This would be impossible since there were people in the basement at the time, William Rodrigez, FDNY firefighters and NYPD police officers were very much alive at the time and so were French cameramen filming. Explosives in the plane impact areas would not have survived the nearly 1 hour of burning time. They would have detonated after an immediate fire and the primacords would've been severed or rendered useless by the planes impact. William Rodrigez, a janitor in WTC1, was in Basement Level 1 with his supervisor, at the time Flight 175 impacted the building and heard nothing. He did not say anything about ever seeing an explosive device in the basement or one going off there. No "controlled demolition" occured, and that theory has no evidence to support it. A controlled demolition starts at the bottom to the top, not the top to the bottom. Plus the fires that raged inside both towers would've set the demolition prematurely, causing the towers to fall sooner than later. But the towers fell later, about 1 hour later, by the extreme fires that raged to soften the steel and causing the bolts and rivets to pop, the fires inside the towers reached between 1,300*F to about 2,000*F, well below the 2,600*F+ heat to melt steel. Maybe that's why Truthers rely on the "explosive" theory because of the steel snapping at certain places when the building collasped.

Explosive shape charges leave behind copper when exploded. Not a single piece of WTC steel that was looked at had any type of copper residue on the columns. The "controlled demolition" theory can't exist because elements don't exist to confirm that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". The FDNY firefighters heard what represented explosives. They heard things exploding inside offices that would be combustible in an office, such as: TV's, computer monitors, electrical wiring, coping machines, furniture, ect. Another possible explosive sound they heard would've been the fuel tanks for the generators, the bolts and rivets holding the outter and inner columns popping from the collaspe. The Twin Towers didn't fall "symmetrically", the outter columns fell out and away from the buildings while the floors and inner columns fell almost inside the building. The buildings surrounding the 16 acre site were damaged by the Towers collapse, indicating that they didn't fall symmetrically.

A remote detenator wouldn't have worked either, because they rely on radio frequencies and there's too many radio frequencies that could set off an explosive prematurely. Controlled Demolitions Expert, Brent Blanchard, who was at Ground Zero, didn't see detenation cords or copper residue on the inner and outter columns of the Twin Towers within the debris. Proving that the claim for Controlled Demolition is a fairy story.

You got served!

[T.A.M.]

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

You wish. You are correct that conventional cd involves explosives throughout the building. However, it is not incorrect to say that they are at the base. If i had said ONLY at the based, that would be incorrect. For the love of ****, i have been at this for four years, i am fully well aware of all the places that explosives are placed for conventional cd. The point was that in conventional cd explosives are placed at the base AND throughout, but importantly at the base, so the collapse is Gravity Driven.

Got that....gravity driven....from the bottom.

TAM:)

[sheeplesnshills]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

It has been sorted out. There is no mystery about WTC7 other than in the minds of truthers.

[ergo]

To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.

[Drudgewire]

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.


Do I have to ask at every single NWO shareholder meeting? PLEASE let's start buying irony meters in bulk. Having to pay to get them serviced every seven minutes will never be cost-effective as long as we keep the 9/11 section open. :mad:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.

You need a lesson on how a CD works:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

[T.A.M.]

Where was the word "only" ever used in my post or his? Where? You are inserting your own preconcieved ideas of what er meant into our statements....everyone (except you) can see that. Everyone (except you) understands what is meant by our posts.

Obviously, a traditional cd will not work without rigging the full building with explosives, or at least will not likely work, or be controlled, or they wouldn't be wasting the explosives they plant on all the floors...would they?

Oih....

Close to ignore...close

[Jackanory]

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

It's that proof reading and reading for comprehension thing again. You really need to sort that out. You agree, then tell us we are wrong. You tell us we are wrong, then agree with us. lol. Cool. That's a new method of arguement. lol. Then ya do one and run away. Classic stuff. lol.

You accused TAM of being incorrect. You were wrong.

Show me which 'tall' structure has been CD'd that fell within it's own footprint.

Show me a CD that starts at the top and falls like WTC1 & 2.

Show me a CD that falls like WTC 7 'silently'.

Please show me were resistance was removed, as you describe above, in the 'CD' of WTC1,2 or 7. 'Looks like' just doesnt do it for me. Too old and too experienced in a field that matters to be hoodwinked into the meme of 'looks like'.

[ergo]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work.


Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.

Ergo has been taught to do the following:

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement.

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers.

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly

Actually Doogiet is right & you're wrong!

[T.A.M.]

Wrong. This is not how CD is conducted for tall structures.

So is it your stated believe that they DO NOT use explosives at the base/bottom of buildings in cd? Since that is what we have said, and that is what you quoted as allegedly being in error, i just want you on the record.

TAM:)

[Jackanory]

To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.

Reading comprehension!!!!

I asked you to search for CD's that go wrong. I also asked you to tell me why they go wrong. You're dance tells me you know who is right and who is wrong.

A building constructed of concrete and reinforced concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete, reinforced concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of steel, glass and concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

Can you tell mne what each procedure is and why?

An easier question for you is this. A building constructed of pizza boxes can not be CD'd or destroyed by fire or gravity. Why not? lol.

[dudalb]

Yup. The ONLY conspiracy theory that has a chance, and even it has very little hard evidence to support it, is LIHOP. One would think that since most truthers simply enter into this debate from an ideological standpoint, the evidence be damned, LIHOP would be a shoe in.

I guess it's not cool enough. Space beams or exotic, secret silent explosives or super-duper nano-thermite is more exciting.

That is what has always puzzled me about the Truthers. They reject the theory has at least has a slim chance of being believable, in favor of one that is totally unbelievable.

[Jackanory]

That is what has always puzzled me about the Truthers. They reject the theory has at least has a slim chance of being believable, in favor of one that is totally unbelievable.


lol. The old 'big foot or man in suit' conundrum. lol.:)

[Sabretooth]

Maybe it would have been easier to sort out if they have retained more than 0.5% of the steel (246 pieces).

WTC 7 was completely recycled.

According to some of your fellow truthers, it's still there in a big ol' glob of melted iron...

[Sabretooth]

Well, you'd better explain to me and The Almond why controlled demolitions have to start at the bottom.


Maybe you should explain where the charges were placed then...

[excaza]

It only seems illogical to you because you don't understand it, Mr. space-beamer.
Everyone in my lecture is looking at me funny because I just started laughing.

I think laser beams from space offers a much more interesting explanation than anything else.

[bardamu]

Reading comprehension!!!!

I asked you to search for CD's that go wrong. I also asked you to tell me why they go wrong. You're dance tells me you know who is right and who is wrong.

A building constructed of concrete and reinforced concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of concrete, reinforced concrete and steel has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building constructed of steel, glass and concrete has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

A building whose upper floors are to be the target of an alleged plane crash has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

[beachnut]

A building whose upper floors are to be the target of an alleged plane crash has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.
The WTC towers were not prepared for CD. No evidence, just some lies from 911 truth no one takes serous since they have no evidence. They are cult member chanting "inside job", brainwashed and unable to understand 911, repeating what they are told by their 911 truth masters of delusions.

The fires in the WTC towers would have destroyed any charges and fusing; the CD fantasy is the most moronic lie in history.

[bardamu]

Where was the word "only" ever used in my post or his? Where? You are inserting your own preconcieved ideas of what er meant into our statements....everyone (except you) can see that. Everyone (except you) understands what is meant by our posts.

In the sentence below, the poster is clearly saying that the explosives would only need to be planted near the bottom of the building.


If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work.


I'm sure he'd have willingly owned up to being wrong, but now the other debunkers are trying to cover up his mistake, he's obliged to go along with them.

[DGM]

This thread is a classic example of what the "truth movement" has become.

I'm sure they'll scratch their heads and say "what"?


:o

[excaza]

If they were trying to terrorize the US population, why the hell would they bother putting so much effort into (sorta) dropping the towers in their own footprint? Just blow one side and have them tip over, much more damage, much more fear. Or was 3000 people murdered the limit?

[Sabretooth]

If they were trying to terrorize the US population, why the hell would they bother putting so much effort into dropping the towers in their own footprint? Just blow one side and have them tip over, much more damage, much more fear. Or was 3000 people murdered the limit?

Yeah...they needed to save some for Katrina...:eek:

OK, bad joke...sorry :boxedin:

[bardamu]

This thread is a classic example of what the "truth movement" has become.

It should have been end of thread after this comment in post #2:

I had roughly this same objection. To be fair, though, there are many ways to demolish a building using explosives.


but T.A.M. just can't bear to see the truth movement come out on top, so he set about digging a hole for himself and his friends.

[DGM]

It should have been end of thread after this comment in post #2:




but T.A.M. just can't bear to see the truth movement come out on top, so he set about digging a hole for himself and his friends.
All I see in this thread is a lot of pointless bickering. How is any of this "coming out on top"?

You don't see what I was getting at do you?

[jaydeehess]

Yup. The ONLY conspiracy theory that has a chance, and even it has very little hard evidence to support it, is LIHOP. One would think that since most truthers simply enter into this debate from an ideological standpoint, the evidence be damned, LIHOP would be a shoe in.

I guess it's not cool enough. Space beams or exotic, secret silent explosives or super-duper nano-thermite is more exciting.

Wow, you nailed how I have felt since day one about the 911 conspiracy theories and theorists.

Those people, who's lives and political world view require such conspiracies, simply cannot allow any credibility in any gov't person, agency, or commission. Thus they must take exception to the 911 Commission report, the FEMA report, and the NIST reports. This leaves little room for a LIHOP theory and so they all but ignore it focusing instead on all manner of arcane and overly complex alternatives to explain the damage caused on that day.

[fitzgibbon]

To T.A.M.: This doesn't change the fact that doogiet's idea (and yours, according to your statement) that you could induce a clean, gravity-driven collapse in the Twin Towers by only removing resistance at the base of it is wrong, and is clearly not how CD is done.

So you're advocating for a top-down demolition a la a certain Will Smith 1996 summer blockbuster?

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3080/independencedaywtc.jpg


Kinda missin' the alien spaceship there, ain't ya?

[alienentity]

One of the things that I've never understood about the whole Truther movement is the comparison (again and again) of the two towers collapsing to buildings that were intentionally demolished by explosives. Can't they see that demolished buildings have explosives on the BOTTOM, while the towers collapsed from the TOP DOWN?

If explosives were planted in the towers with the intent to destroy them, they would be in the bottom and would let gravity do its work. There would also be no reason to hijack planes and crash them. The evil conspirators could just say that someone drove a truck with explosives in, or something similar.

Occam's Razor for the win.

Stop being so logical and rational!

But there is 'proof' of explosives lower down in the buildings, via Willy Rodriguez. No, I kid you about that. There were some reports of fireballs, falling elevator cars etc...and a pervasive smell of kerosine - but those do not = controlled demolition, of course.

[The Almond]

It should have been end of thread after this comment in post #2:
but T.A.M. just can't bear to see the truth movement come out on top, so he set about digging a hole for himself and his friends.

Umm, that's what you got as important out of post #2? My FSM, I'll reprint the relevant part for you:

The problem is that they all require several months worth of work on a completely empty building with all of the major structural members exposed.

[T.A.M.]

A building whose upper floors are to be the target of an alleged plane crash has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

yes, I guess that is why, when your dense truther friends realized it, they had to modify their "controlled demolition" canard, to "Atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions".

As for me digging a hole, I see you suffer from the same reading comprehension problem as ergo...Why am I not surprised.

TAM:)

[Derek Johnson]

They are cult member chanting "inside job", brainwashed and unable to understand 911

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

[T.A.M.]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

If you're having trouble with them might I suggest getting a degree in engin-- oh wait...my bad...

TAM:D

[ergo]

yes, I guess that is why, when your dense truther friends realized it, they had to modify their "controlled demolition" canard, to "Atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions".

As for me digging a hole, I see you suffer from the same reading comprehension problem as ergo...Why am I not surprised.


I don't know if there was ever the idea that the Twin Towers collapses were exactly like a standard controlled demolition. The argument as I recall was always that CD is the best explanation for what we witnessed, far better than the scientific contortions required for a gravitational explanation.

WTC7 however, does resemble classic controlled demolition, and it has always been pointed out to be so.

In any case, sorry to inform you, TAM, but whether it's an industry standard form of demolition or some kind of atypical, unconventional, military-inspired controlled demolition, they're still controlled demolition. Perhaps this was a new revelation for you, but nothing has changed from the so-called "truthers" perspective.

And you clearly made a boo-boo in this thread, that all can see, in trying to suggest that CD is only done by removing resistance from the base of a building, letting "gravity do its work" on the rest of it, perhaps in some misguided attempt to support your limp verinage comparisons. And it was shown you were incorrect. So why don't you just let it go?

[T.A.M.]

I don't know if there was ever the idea that the Twin Towers collapses were exactly like a standard controlled demolition. The argument as I recall was always that CD is the best explanation for what we witnessed, far better than the scientific contortions required for a gravitational explanation.

WTC7 however, does resemble classic controlled demolition, and it has always been pointed out to be so.

In any case, sorry to inform you, TAM, but whether it's an industry standard form of demolition or some kind of atypical, unconventional, military-inspired controlled demolition, they're still controlled demolition. Perhaps this was a new revelation for you, but nothing has changed from the so-called "truthers" perspective.

And you clearly made a boo-boo in this thread, that all can see, in trying to suggest that CD is only done by removing resistance from the base of a building, letting "gravity do its work" on the rest of it, perhaps in some misguided attempt to support your limp verinage comparisons. And it was shown you were incorrect. So why don't you just let it go?

lol...you don't have much of a memory then...I remember post after post, claiming "It had to be a controlled demolition, it looks just like a conventional controlled demolition" or something similar. That was back in 2006. Then as debunkers started to point out the obvious, that a traditional CD starts at the bottom, in terms of collapse, the truthers modified what it was to be called...I remember posts calling it "unconventional" and "atypical"...which I never had heard from them until we pointed out to them.

I'll admit I made a booboo if, AND only if, you can find the word "only" in the post in question. Everyone has also been witness to the fact that I did not say such, yet like the truther you are, you see only what fits your purpose, rather then the REAL truth.

TAM:)
TAM:)

[beachnut]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.
WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, no firefighting ability due to lost water! WTC 7 burned all day and was not fought, no water, it collapsed. This is reality. I don't need NIST to understand impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel starting the largest office fires in history, and gravity pulling down weakened fatally wounded buildings from office fires NOT fought!

You have delusions of some paranoid conspiracy theory by people other than the 19 terrorists who were solely responsible; you have the problem, and you have zero evidence. 9 years of failure. Put that on your resume.

You can't prove CD, that make planning a timetable for your proof delusional, or I would ask when you will be finished with your reserach.... lol, for about 9 more years.

[ergo]

.I remember post after post, claiming "It had to be a controlled demolition, it looks just like a conventional controlled demolition" or something similar. That was back in 2006. Then as debunkers started to point out the obvious, that a traditional CD starts at the bottom, in terms of collapse, the truthers modified what it was to be called...I remember posts calling it "unconventional" and "atypical"...which I never had heard from them until we pointed out to them.


I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

[Chorduroy]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

You are kidding, right? It certainly mattered to the CD hypothesis originally. The only reason you're backing off that statement now is that you know it weakens your argument (and we all know it wasn't that strong to begin with).

Do you have ANYTHING remotely compelling in support of your fantasy?

[Oliver]

I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

[Architect]

If you're having trouble with them might I suggest getting a degree in engin-- oh wait...my bad...

TAM:D

I have to disagree. Understanding of the full NIST report requires an understanding of a range of different disciplines - principally fire and structural engineering, but also focussed on the performance and failure of buildings generally.

It also requires a knowledge of the design of tall buildings and complex structures specifically. It's difficult and specialist. That's why there are only a fewconsultants who work in that field.

However, if Mr. Johnstone or others can demonstrate said experience then I'm more than happy to engage in a proper technical discussion. They'll be the first, though, the others having scarpered at the first sign of expertise.

[ozeco41]

If you're having trouble with them might I suggest getting a degree in engin-- oh wait...my bad...

TAM:D
Though your point was made partly in humour there is a real aspect to it.
Many engineers (and the same comment goes for other professions) only operate in the mundane routine grind where "ritual application of the rules" is all they are asked to do. Call it "staying within the nine dots" if that helps. They rarely, if ever, are called upon to ask "are these rule appropriate for this special situation?"

Without boring with specific details I recall three occasions in my early career where I was put into a structural design environment. The setting was large hydraulic structures associated with a major water supply pipeline. On each of the three occasions I identified that a particular authoritative stance was being used outside the scope of the assumptions for which it was valid. Not only was my advice resisted but I found myself transferred into another area which was not a popular posting. I used it as a career launch pad but that is another story.

The significance here is that there would be many engineers who simply cannot analyse the collapse of, say, the Twin Towers in order to decide "demolition or not?" ...and, truther bullcrap aside, the decision "no demolition needed" is not hard to reach on purely technical observation let aside the logistic and security virtual impossibility that demolition presents.

Then there would be other engineers who could not see through the illogic of typical truther claims.

..and, sadly, there must be those who understand the truth but seek to misuse their professional knowledge to mislead others by untruths in total disregard of any questions of professional integrity or ethics.

But, even with those realities, the majority would be honest, responsible but simply disinterested in wasting time attempting to debate "truthers" :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

I never said it did. My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

TAM:)

[Oliver]

I never said it did. My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

TAM:)



T.A.M., may I ask you to take a medical stance concerning your profession about my recent post about Truthers?

[triforcharity]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

Building collapsed.

Caught 7WTC on fire.

Fire burned uncontrolled for ~7 hours.

Fire is hot, and caused thermal expansion.

Building 7 collapsed.

Simple enough?

[T.A.M.]

I guess it's a psychological problem Truthers have: It's their way to try to explain what happened since their minds are not capable to accept that the events happened the way the rest of the world accepted.

In many Truther cases it may be a kind of mourning process due to a unsolved psychic trauma caused by the events, thus preventing them from going through the events and facts using their logic in lieu of going through it on an emotional level that leads to confusion and misinterpretation.

Do some of you in here know about Truthers who did have quite an awful awakening to the facts after they were trapped in their Truther-Worldview for some years? My guess is that such an awakening may be as horrible or maybe even worse than their emotional state on 9/11 itself.

Oliver,

From a medical point of view, little can be said about a group of such wide and diverse members as the truth movement. Could some of them being exhibiting elements of mourning, similar to the loss of a loved one....i suppose, that might be the case with certain family members who have turned to the snake oil. Without interviewing the individual, i try to avoid making proclamations of mental illness.

As for those who were once truthers and then awoken, i believe we have several on this forum.

Hope tis is sufficient. As a REAL medical professional, i try to avoid making medical assessments on a group of people.

TAM:)

[dafydd]

Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

How was it done? Will you be the first truther here give me your detailed theory about 911?The others have avoided this question like the plague.

[ergo]

I never said it did.

Oh my god, this thread has already gone on far too long.

when we pointed this out to truthers, they simply modified what type of scenario had to have occured from a traditonal CD to as i havr described....



My point (I'll speak/type slowly) in posting #2, was to illustrate that truthers MODIFY THEIR THEORIES, OR HOW THEY EXPRESS THEM, to fit the evidence that they feel supports them, and avoids evidence that does not.

No, that's what "debunkers" do. That's why so many of you feel like you've got this ironclad set of answers for every "truther" statement. Then when you get debunked you go into all kinds of face-saving antics and gyrations.

Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.

[excaza]

Still waiting on the evidence for CD.

[Sabretooth]

Still waiting on the evidence for CD.

You're going to be waiting a looooooooong time... :(

[excaza]

Plus an explanation on how they rigged and detonated them without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind. Or how they managed to procure enough explosive material to take down the WTC without anybody questioning it.

Chalk it up to The Man, I guess.

[T.A.M.]

Oh my god, this thread has already gone on far too long.







No, that's what "debunkers" do. That's why so many of you feel like you've got this ironclad set of answers for every "truther" statement. Then when you get debunked you go into all kinds of face-saving antics and gyrations.

Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.

I didn't say their was a shift in the theory that CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was used. I said that back around 2007, when they were all using the words "conventional", "traditional" CD, and we pointed out that the collapses, neither visually or otherwise, resembled a conventional CD, they modified their claim.

Similarly, actually, is the way they modified (around the same time) their "No building has ever collapsed due to fire alone." We provided them with examples of steel buildings and structures that had at least partially, and in some cases fully collapsed due to fire alone...what resulted....

They changed it, so that now, when cornered, they will say....

"prior to 9/11 no Steel SKYSCRAPER has ever COMPLETELY collapsed due to fires alone."

The above is actually a better example of the type of behavior I was talking about with my example in #2.

TAM:)

[fitzgibbon]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse.

Aside from "Independence Day", would you be so kind as to provide an example (with links to a reputable source) of a real-world top-down controlled demolition akin to what was observed in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 (excluding of course WTC 1 & 2)?

I'm sure your response will prove to be highly enlightening.

[Macgyver1968]

You could also show the transition from conventional explosives to thermite to nanothermite. Originally, truthers claimed conventional explosives were used. When it was pointed out that conventional explosive make really loud sounds that aren't present in any of the videos of the collapse...they moved on to thermite. When it was shown that thermite is too slow and uncontrollable to be effective in a CD...they moved on to nanothermite....and since almost no one has seen nanothermite in action, they can ascribe any attributes they want to it.

[tsig]

You could just admit you're wrong, then we don't have to go through these face-saving antics that you guys always have to get into to extract yourself from embarrassing statements.

The statement in the OP was:



The obvious response to this is no, because this is not how you bring down tall structures. You don't just remove resistance in the lower portion of the building and "let gravity do its work" in tall structures. That would be too dangerous. You have to remove resistance throughout the building, as you confirmed: from bottom to top. So the issue that Doogiet is having trouble with is his own misunderstanding of how CD is conducted for tall structures.

End of story. End of thread.

Too dangerous? So the planters of the explosives wanted to bring down the tallest buildings in NYC but didn't want it to be dangerous?

How many tall building have you demolished?

[excaza]

:eye-poppi Too dangerous!?

I don't think The Man was concerned about danger when planning to CD skyscrapers with people inside. What, was 3000+ people murdered the perfect amount? 2000 too little? 5000 was just too dangerous? This isn't Goldilocks and the three bombs.

[tsig]

A building whose upper floors are to be the target of an alleged plane crash has a method and procedure that differs from other structures when being prepared for CD.

I wasn't aware there was a CD procedure for demolishing building by flying planes into them and then setting off explosives. Could you please link to or quote from this procedure?

[excaza]

I don't understand why a building failing due to an airplane crash + fire is less plausible than an airplane crash + fire + CD so secret only ninjas could have carried it out.

[Sabretooth]

:eye-poppi Too dangerous!?

I don't think The Man was concerned about danger when planning to CD skyscrapers with people inside. What, was 3000+ people murdered the perfect amount? 2000 too little? 5000 was just too dangerous? This isn't Goldilocks and the three bombs.

Didn't I read somewhere that their could be as many as 50,000 people in WTC1/2 on any given business day?

[grandmastershek]

Not quite correct. Let me fix it for you.

2006
Truthers: Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
----------------------------------
2007
Debunkers: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Truthers: That argument is illogical..
Debunkers: Fair enough. It was worth a try, though.
----------------------------------
2010
New Debunker: It wasn't controlled demolition because. . .[SAME ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT].
Old Debunkers: Forget it - we've already tried that one.

Yet another truther throwing the word logic around and showing absolutely no understanding. Just like: science, physics, Newton...ad infinitum.

[tsig]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

It's CD's all the way down?

[grandmastershek]

You can explain the NIST report(s) to me then? I'd very much appreciate it.

Read it yourself?

[grandmastershek]

I probably shouldn't be adding any more fuel to this misguided debate, but just to point out that it wouldn't matter to the CD hypothesis whether detonations start at the bottom of a building and work their way up or the reverse. What is important to the CD hypothesis is that the building's normal resistance, its ability to resist its own collapse, was removed, allowing for a descent that occurred within seconds of free fall. This was unprecedented. This was highly unusual. Bazant immediately wrote a paper trying to explain how this could have happened. It was widely recognized that this is not how buildings naturally collapse.

So anyway, your insistence that it was some kind of CT "debunking" moment, that CD starts at the bottom of a building, is most likely incorrect, as this fact would have no bearing on the CD hypothesis.

So basically your argument is that buildings are designed not to fall. Boats are designed not to sink....but then reality catches up.

Not to mention then ever changing goal post of near free fall.

[T.A.M.]

You could also show the transition from conventional explosives to thermite to nanothermite. Originally, truthers claimed conventional explosives were used. When it was pointed out that conventional explosive make really loud sounds that aren't present in any of the videos of the collapse...they moved on to thermite. When it was shown that thermite is too slow and uncontrollable to be effective in a CD...they moved on to nanothermite....and since almost no one has seen nanothermite in action, they can ascribe any attributes they want to it.

Yes, nanothermite is the Tofu of demolition materials.

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No, that's what "debunkers" do. That's why so many of you feel like you've got this ironclad set of answers for every "truther" statement. Then when you get debunked you go into all kinds of face-saving antics and gyrations.

Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.

Why are you blaming us for your own misunderstandings of WTC7 collapsing without the use of explosives? Why do you blame us for your own mistakes about how a CD is performed?

Look, don't blame us because you have issues. You presented a problem to us, you came to us looking for answers, we gave you answers & what do you do? You blame us anyways!

You should blame yourself for getting involved with those retards in the 9/11 TM. We didn't tell you to go to them, you went because you were gullible & didn't understand simple principles.

[jaydeehess]

I don't know if there was ever the idea that the Twin Towers collapses were exactly like a standard controlled demolition. The argument as I recall was always that CD is the best explanation for what we witnessed, far better than the scientific contortions required for a gravitational explanation.

In fact you are wrong on this point. The only similarity between a CD and the collapse of the towers is that the structure collapsed completely. In all aspects of the collapse, post initial failure and downward movement of the section above the fire floors, more resembles other gravitationally driven collapses which follow fire induced initial collapse. There was a fire in a university building, I do not recall where or when but the video is on the internet and perhaps someone else recalls where to find it. The fire is on one level and eventually a collapse ensues but by the time it stops a lot more of the building has collapsed. The only difference between that collapse and the WTC towers is one of scale and design of the structure.

WTC7 however, does resemble classic controlled demolition, and it has always been pointed out to be so.

Once again you are incorrect. In the case of the towers we have video of the area of intial failure. That is to say, the level where the structure broke. In WTC 7 we have only a portion of the upper portion of the buildig well above the level of initial failure.
If you see a video of a tree falling do you assume that a chainsaw or axe was used by a person who deliberatly caused the tree to fall or do you consider the possibility of wind, landslide, or plain rot? Especially if you cannot find any evidence that an axe or chainsaw was in the vicinity of the tree and all you have is video of the crown of the tree?

Now I see a claim that demolition from the bottom would just be too dangerous in the minds of the people who are planning on demolishing buildings that can house up to 50,000 people. The ridiculousness of such a staement is off the charts.
In WW2 the first thought for the use of the atomic bomb against Japan was to tell them to be watching an uninhabited island get wiped off the map by one bomb. That idea was shelved in favour of actually using it against a target city. The targets were chosen for their geography and the ease to get one plane over them. (Hiroshima was a flat plain, Nagasaki was hilly). Tokyo was spared because after the bombs went off the USA would need someone in power to talk to and if Tokyo was taken out then those people might all be dead or at least cut off in communications. No consideration was made for keeping causualities down once the idea was already to cause people to die and suffer horrible injury.
To expect that planners of a massive attack on their own constituents would get a damn about limiting its effects can only be born of a twisted political world view.

[jaydeehess]

Yes, nanothermite is the Tofu of demolition materials.

TAM:)

Well, that and space-a-beams

[TruthersLie]

Ah, thank you. But your first assertion is incorrect. Explosives are often, if not usually laid throughout the building in CD, not just in the lower part of it. This is how you get a tall structure to fall into its own footprint rather than topple over dangerously.

We went over this schooling a while back...

did wtc7 fall into its own footprint?

(we already know what your answers were when you got schooled on it.)

Or the towers?

[ergo]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient? :D

[beachnut]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient? :D All your delusions were debunked by events on 911. 9 years of failure and all you can do is talk and call-out people who understand 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, they beat you by 9 years!

No CD, no evidence of CD makes your support of CD, delusional.

What was the device or substance used in your CD fantasy?
How much was needed?
Was thermite used?
Why did the thermite disappear, no iron left over?
Who did it?

Fail to answer, you debunk yourself.

[Miragememories]

All your delusions were debunked by events on 911. 9 years of failure and all you can do is talk and call-out people who understand 911. The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, they beat you by 9 years!

No CD, no evidence of CD makes your support of CD, delusional.

What was the device or substance used in your CD fantasy?
How much was needed?
Was thermite used?
Why did the thermite disappear, no iron left over?
Who did it?

Fail to answer, you debunk yourself.
Spam on.

MM

[DC]

VZ1E2NPl-s8
2NZtBL1PjMk
OW9z08ml230

[beachnut]

Spam on.

MM
911 truth has
spam on
use it to
answers all
the new term
for have no clue
spam on
it serves as all the eviddene too
when you run out of things to do
911 truth has
spam on
for you
when you can't do math
spam on



the "spam on" post is all the evidence accumulated for 9 years by 911 truth for CD

[carlitos]

Did you ever wonder...
Where rats go when they die?
Spam knows where they go.

[grandmastershek]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient? :D

Nothing to debunk. But if we get 1000 more people do we get the super twoofy twoof prize?!

[daws59]

I find the whole CD theory to be superfluous, I mean I get the whole idea of the government crashing planes into the buildings, but why go to all the extra trouble with explosives? Aren't planes destructive enough? Why can't conspiracy theories follow Occam's razor? Well, okay if they did they would hardly be postulating a conspiracy theory now would they? There is a twoofer on the rumblevillians site, that claims he's proven That Occam's razor is false!
His contention is that the BEACH BOYS ALBUM: PET SOUNDS disproves O.R. because not all of the musicians that played on that album were not credited.
he claims it's analogous to the what the twoofers believe the government did on 9/11. :boggled:

[triforcharity]

Oh my god, this thread has already gone on far too long.


Couldn't agree more.


Like I said, I didn't see any significant shift in the CD theory. I think you're making it up. See your quote above.


First it was therMATE. Then it was therMITE. Then it bcame nano-thermite. Then it was a mix of both conventional explosives and thermite.

You may not see a shift, but everyone else, who DOESN'T suffer from cranial rectal inversion, can see it. Just because you don't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I haven't see the Eiffel Tower, does that mean it doesn't exist?

[triforcharity]

Didn't I read somewhere that their could be as many as 50,000 people in WTC1/2 on any given business day?

Yes, absolutely. Each tower had about 25,000 employees each. My estimate is that 35,000 people escaped the towers combined.

[triforcharity]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient? :D

How many truthers does it take to put a plausable explanation together, from beginning to end?

The world may never know........

[R.Mackey]

Yes, absolutely. Each tower had about 25,000 employees each. My estimate is that 35,000 people escaped the towers combined.

NIST in NCSTAR1-7 (page 67) computed that about 15,410 individuals escaped the Towers after impact, accurate to about 5%. Some mitigating factors were the early hour of the first impact, the beginning of the school year, and an election all held on that day. Thankfully.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes, they beat you by 9 years!

This.

[triforcharity]

NIST in NCSTAR1-7 (page 67) computed that about 15,410 individuals escaped the Towers after impact, accurate to about 5%. Some mitigating factors were the early hour of the first impact, the beginning of the school year, and an election all held on that day. Thankfully.

I hadn't seen that. My bad..... My estimate was off, by alot!!

I also forgot about the election that day, and school. That would explain the huge difference.

[Java Man]

SO expert, what Percentage of the steel should they have saved while downtown was in chaos, while people were trapped under the rubble, while fires continued to burn under the rubble?

Hmmmm? What percentage if not 0.5% genius?

TAM

How about 100%? Saving the steel doesn't mean "saving it on site where it fell". It means moving it to some point B that isn't downtown and not shipping it to China to be recycled.

[beachnut]

There is a twoofer on the rumblevillians site, that claims he's proven That Occam's razor is false!
His contention is that the BEACH BOYS ALBUM: PET SOUNDS disproves O.R. because not all of the musicians that played on that album were not credited.
he claims it's analogous to the what the twoofers believe the government did on 9/11. :boggled:
What?

I have a DVD audio and they are all credited, if you do research.

What?

Brian Wilson did it.

[AJM8125]

I wonder if all this steel which was apparently exposed to a CD had the evidence of it removed somewhere between Manhattan and Fresh Kills or was it shipped off to China like that and now the Chinese are in on it too.

[bardamu]

If the truth movement has been saying since 2007 that the towers were brought down by "atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions", why do debunkers feel the need to encourage "pointless bickering" by starting threads like this one in 2010?

[excaza]

boredom

[T.A.M.]

How about 100%? Saving the steel doesn't mean "saving it on site where it fell". It means moving it to some point B that isn't downtown and not shipping it to China to be recycled.

1. Save it for what purpose?
2. Given the forensic investigators felt they had all they needed, who would they be saving 50,000 feet of building steel for? You? David ray griffin?
3. How long were they to save it for? Why that length of time?
4. What agency of any kind has complained that all the steel wasn't retained for investigative purpose?
5. After your imaginary group who wanted it saved was finished with it, could they send it for rectcling then?

This is foolish....seriously....just walk yourself through it....slowly.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

If the truth movement has been saying since 2007 that the towers were brought down by "atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions", why do debunkers feel the need to encourage "pointless bickering" by starting threads like this one in 2010?

Gits and shiggles of course...

Why, given all of their theories have been debunked, does the truth movement still exist in any form?

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

How about 100%? Saving the steel doesn't mean "saving it on site where it fell". It means moving it to some point B that isn't downtown and not shipping it to China to be recycled.

Oh, you mean like the Staten Island and Fort Hamilton dump sites (http://www.amazon.com/Report-Ground-Zero-Rescue-Efforts/dp/067003116X), where the steel sat being investigated by the FBI and NYPD for months before it went through the recycling process? (http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html)

More info:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera

[Sabretooth]

If the truth movement has been saying since 2007 that the towers were brought down by "atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions", why do debunkers feel the need to encourage "pointless bickering" by starting threads like this one in 2010?

It was unconventional...it's called uncontrolled fire.

:)

[excaza]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

How many truthers does it take to present a publishable, tenable alternative to the "OCT" that is supported by evidence?

It would be nice to know how much longer we have to wait.

[Java Man]

1. Save it for what purpose?

As reference material while the investigation was going on. Thus to better trim the computer simulations.

2. Given the forensic investigators felt they had all they needed, who would they be saving 50,000 feet of building steel for? You? David ray griffin?

For themselves should they happen to need it. Which it was since the reports came to some conclusions which could have been better supported had the key beams been kept. But since they didn't know which were the key beams when they shipped it all alway they should have kept them until they finished the report. It's not like the steel was going to rust away.

3. How long were they to save it for? Why that length of time?

Once again, at least until the investigation was officially over and the final report handed it.

4. What agency of any kind has complained that all the steel wasn't retained for investigative purpose?

Complained? Mhh not sure if any. But certainly many would have benefited from having it retained for investigative purpose. Certainly the Debunkers would have benefited as a thorough investigation with the evidence at hand would have prevented the Truther mayhem we have today.

5. After your imaginary group who wanted it saved was finished with it, could they send it for rectcling then?

Sure, why not? A few key pieces could be kept. Actually the pieces which were by then known to be key. Not just some random 5% sample.

[Java Man]

Oh, you mean like the Staten Island and Fort Hamilton dump sites (http://www.amazon.com/Report-Ground-Zero-Rescue-Efforts/dp/067003116X), where the steel sat being investigated by the FBI and NYPD for months before it went through the recycling process? (http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html)

More info:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera


I'm aware of the dump site. Yet the key elements. Like the infamous column in WTC7 are missing. If all the pieces had been kept until the investigation arrived to its conclusions then those real key elements could have been spared and the rest just recycled. The way it happened is the FBI investigated a bunch of rubble not really knowing what to look for and then the conclusions came in, but the stuff was no longer in the dump. So we end up with not precisely the most important pieces and not precisely the most thorough investigation into them. Instead we have a quick review of a bunch of material.

[triforcharity]

As reference material while the investigation was going on. Thus to better trim the computer simulations.

For themselves should they happen to need it. Which it was since the reports came to some conclusions which could have been better supported had the key beams been kept. But since they didn't know which were the key beams when they shipped it all alway they should have kept them until they finished the report. It's not like the steel was going to rust away.

Once again, at least until the investigation was officially over and the final report handed it.

Complained? Mhh not sure if any. But certainly many would have benefited from having it retained for investigative purpose. Certainly the Debunkers would have benefited as a thorough investigation with the evidence at hand would have prevented the Truther mayhem we have today.

Sure, why not? A few key pieces could be kept. Actually the pieces which were by then known to be key. Not just some random 5% sample.

Can you specify which buildings beams? Are you talking about the WTC towers' beams, or 7WTC's beams.

Thanks.

[bardamu]

If the truth movement has been saying since 2007 that the towers were brought down by "atypical, unconventional controlled demolitions", why do debunkers feel the need to encourage "pointless bickering" by starting threads like this one in 2010?

boredom

Gits and shiggles of course...

Ah, that explains why. . .

All I see in this thread is a lot of pointless bickering.

[Sabretooth]

Ah, that explains why. . .

Instead of arguing semantics, why not put together a coherent theory for 9/11?

[Java Man]

Can you specify which buildings beams? Are you talking about the WTC towers' beams, or 7WTC's beams.

Thanks.

The famous column that started it all in WTC7 could be a good start. From there I guess we could list the fire affected beams in the impacted floors on WTC 1 and 2 and work from there.

I'm glad to have made such a long lasting impression on you and your profile :)

[BigAl]

The famous column that started it all in WTC7 could be a good start. From there I guess we could list the fire affected beams in the impacted floors on WTC 1 and 2 and work from there.

I'm glad to have made such a long lasting impression on you and your profile :)

Do we know if column 79 has or hasn't been found and kept?

[triforcharity]

The famous column that started it all in WTC7 could be a good start. From there I guess we could list the fire affected beams in the impacted floors on WTC 1 and 2 and work from there.

I'm glad to have made such a long lasting impression on you and your profile :)

Well, they could not identify conclusively which steel was from 7WTC, and what steel came from other buildings, so it is a moot point.

I am glad that you find it flattering that I make fun of you, in every single post. Awesome!!

[Java Man]

Well, they could not identify conclusively which steel was from 7WTC, and what steel came from other buildings, so it is a moot point.

I am glad that you find it flattering that I make fun of you, in every single post. Awesome!!

They couldn't identify conclusively?

"The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow with information telling where it came from and where it was going. A sample of the markings can be seen in Figure D-5.

For example, a given piece might be marked, "PONYA WTC 213.00 236B4-9 558 35 TONS." Translated, this meant the column was destined for the Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center as part of contract number 213.00. Its actual piece number was 236B, and it was to be used between floors 4 and 9 in tower B (WTC 2). Its derrick division number was 558, which determined which crane would lift it onto the building and the order in which it was to be erected. Other markings might include the name of the iron works or shipping instructions to those responsible for railway transportation (Gillespie 1999). "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Now the link comes from a Truther site. I hope that doesn't make the claim wrong. I mean the claim that each piece could be positively identified. I hope you don't fall into the old debunker tactic of arguing in circles.

Which brings me back to your quote. Which rather than make fun of me on every post just restates my position. Just because you're defending the right position doesn't automatically make your arguments correct. For example this absurd claim that they can't identify the beams, as if they were not marked in the first place.

Of course you also happen to conveniently put my statement out of its original context. Another typical debunker strategy. And last but not least "argumentum ad hominem" on your own words by making fun of me rather than countering my arguments.

How can a simple quote of my words say so much about you.

[excaza]

And of course all the markings were intact, right?

[Java Man]

And of course all the markings were intact, right?

Actually apparently and according to him all markings were GONE. Which is even more ludicrous a though that all the markings being intact.

[excaza]

Actually apparently and according to him all markings were GONE.

That's quite an assumption. Where did he say that?

[dafydd]

Instead of arguing semantics, why not put together a coherent theory for 9/11?

No truther here has ever done that.I wonder why?

[Java Man]

That's quite an assumption. Where did he say that?

To quote him "Well, they could not identify conclusively which steel was from 7WTC, and what steel came from other buildings, so it is a moot point. "

The only way that could happen was if all markings were gone. Which was not the case. Thus debris could be identifiable.

[excaza]

So every single piece of steel was intact, and therefore, marked? None of it was damaged in any way that could possibly have removed the marking or broken apart the beams.

Ok.

[Anders Lindman]

Hi,

I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons. To have high buildings like that falling sideways would cause much more damage. And having a very high building risk falling sideways several days (or even longer) after an earthquake would be dangerous.

[T.A.M.]

Java Man,

Ok, so despite the ridiculousness of saving 50,000 feet of building steel for years on end, let's say one of the investigative agencies (fbi, fema, nist) wanted this.

1. Has the truth movement asked these agencies if they requested that such a thing be done, and if they did and it was refused, then by who and why?

2. Did you realize that the investigations didn't start in some cases for months after the collapses.

TAM:)

[excaza]

Hi,

I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons. To have high buildings like that falling sideways would cause much more damage. And having a very high building risk falling sideways several days (or even longer) after an earthquake would be dangerous.

1.) The towers did not fall in their own footprints.

2.) No building is designed to withstand an earthquake by collapsing in its own footprint. They're designed to withstand earthquakes by flexing, not falling over.

[BigAl]

To quote him "Well, they could not identify conclusively which steel was from 7WTC, and what steel came from other buildings, so it is a moot point. "

The only way that could happen was if all markings were gone. Which was not the case. Thus debris could be identifiable.

For WTC1/2, yes.

WTC7 had gone through so many renovations that the steel was mostly unidentifiable and there was apparently no current set of blueprints available.

[Java Man]

So every single piece of steel was intact, and therefore, marked? None of it was damaged in any way that could possibly have removed the marking or broken apart the beams.

Ok.

Well surely some marks could have been damaged or removed, but that's a long shot from making it all "unidentifiable".

[excaza]

Good, because nowhere was the word "all" stated

[BigAl]

Well surely some marks could have been damaged or removed, but that's a long shot from making it all "unidentifiable".

There was no marking system for the beams in WTC7.

[Anders Lindman]

1.) The towers did not fall in their own footprints.

2.) No building is designed to withstand an earthquake by collapsing in its own footprint. They're designed to withstand earthquakes by flexing, not falling over.

Ok, not exactly into their own footprints maybe, but pretty much straight down. The towers would only be able to withstand an earthquake by flexing up to a certain limit. A more severe earthquake above that limit would damage the buildings, and in order to not risk having them falling sideways they were designed on purpose to collapse like they did. That's my guess.

[Java Man]

1.) The towers did not fall in their own footprints.

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?


2.) No building is designed to withstand an earthquake by collapsing in its own footprint. They're designed to withstand earthquakes by flexing, not falling over.

Now that's not what he said. He never said the buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes. Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake. Read it again:

"I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How many JREF "debunkers" does it take to counter one empirical statement?

Jackanory
T.A.M.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Drudgewire
sabretooth47
beachnut
fitzgibbon
Chorduroy
dafydd
excaza
tsig
grandmastershek
jaydeehess
TruthersLie

14 and counting... and still nothing debunked. You call this efficient? :D

9 years of telling everyone in the world that you have "Mountains of evidence" is as efficient as you giving us fairy stories & lies about 9/11.

Nothing you say? It's you that has nothing cause I would know, I know all about you Truthers & what you've become.

[excaza]

Ok, not exactly into their own footprints maybe, but pretty much straight down. The towers would only be able to withstand an earthquake by flexing up to a certain limit. A more severe earthquake above that limit would damage the buildings, and in order to not risk having them falling sideways they were designed on purpose to collapse like they did. That's my guess.

Buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes stronger than anything that has ever been recorded in the area. They wouldn't be approved otherwise.

[excaza]

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?

Really? You're going to start rehashing the footprint argument again?

Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake.
And he's incorrect. Buildings are not designed to collapse. If they were, all you would have to do for a perfect CD would be to blow the lowest structural supports.

[Anders Lindman]

Buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes stronger than anything that has ever been recorded in the area. They wouldn't be approved otherwise.

But the architects of the towers would have had to design for the buildings to last many decades, even a century or more. And to predict earthquakes is generally difficult as I understand it. As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account. And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?

[BigAl]

But the architects of the towers would have had to design for the buildings to last many decades, even a century or more. And to predict earthquakes is generally difficult as I understand it. As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account. And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

[excaza]

As an 'insurance' they would have taken the possibility of a severe earthquake into account.
Yes, and designed the building to withstand something stronger than that. This is called a safety factor. Of course, there is the possibility of some unforseen super-strong quake, but there's also the possibility that Yellowstone National Park will explode and send the planet into another ice age. The chances of these things are so small that they are not necessary to design for.

And to ensure that the towers would not fall sideways they designed them to collapse like they did straight down. Wouldn't that be possible?
Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

[Java Man]

Really? You're going to start rehashing the footprint argument again?


Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?


And he's incorrect. Buildings are not designed to collapse. If they were, all you would have to do for a perfect CD would be to blow the lowest structural supports.

So what's blown in a CD? The lowest non structural supports? The highest structural supports? Or maybe the highest non structural supports?

[excaza]

Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?

Please show that the towers fell in their own footprints, and therefore did not do any damage to adjacent buildings.

[ergo]

Really? Are you going to claim the towers fell sideways?

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

[Anders Lindman]

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

Only up to a certain point. They would have had to consider also earthquakes of magnitudes larger than the buildings were designed to withstand.

[Java Man]

Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

That's like designing a car not to crush in a crash and just ask the driver not to hit anything or be hit by anything. Like he said you can't control earthquakes. The best is to plan for the worst case.

I think he addresses an important issue NIST fails to address when not studying the collapse of the building. Was it built to safely fall in case of hit like that? It was made clear that the claim that it could withstand a jetliner was not lived up to. In other words it was a false claim that the WTC towers could withstand the hit of a 707 and ensuring fire. So it would seem reasonable that in a failure scenario it was at least built to cause the least amount of damage in case of a collapse.

[Java Man]

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

What footprint argument? If they didn't fall on their footprint where did they fall? Sideways?

[Sabretooth]

Only up to a certain point. They would have had to consider also earthquakes of magnitudes larger than the buildings were designed to withstand.

Slow down there, skippy...you're going to have to find some documentation of your "theory" before you try to argue building designs around here.

So, in other words, show some evidence that buildings are "designed to collapse" into their own footprint.

[Chorduroy]

The towers swayed several feet when the planes hit. I'd guess they were well designed for the earthquake risk.

Exactly. Earthquakes generate slow lateral forces, thus buildings need to be flexible side to side to withstand those forces.

[excaza]

That's like designing a car not to crush in a crash and just ask the driver not to hit anything or be hit by anything. Like he said you can't control earthquakes. The best is to plan for the worst case.
No, it's like designing a car to withstand crashing into a car and not designing it to crash into an airplane.

I think he addresses an important issue NIST fails to address when not studying the collapse of the building. Was it built to safely fall in case of hit like that? It was made clear that the claim that it could withstand a jetliner was not lived up to. In other words it was a false claim that the WTC towers could withstand the hit of a 707 and ensuring fire. So it would seem reasonable that in a failure scenario it was at least built to cause the least amount of damage in case of a collapse.

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.

[ergo]

Sorry, Java Man, I was referring to excaza's post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6342982&postcount=145).

I would like very much to know what "the footprint argument" is.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, and designed the building to withstand something stronger than that. This is called a safety factor. Of course, there is the possibility of some unforseen super-strong quake, but there's also the possibility that Yellowstone National Park will explode and send the planet into another ice age. The chances of these things are so small that they are not necessary to design for.


Of course it's possible. But why design it to collapse when you could design it not to? The cost of repairing structural damage is far less than rebuilding the entire thing.

They can only design the buildings to withstand earthquakes up to a certain magnitude because of cost-constraints, materials used, height of the buildings and so on. It would have constituted a great danger if some floors in the buildings were critically damaged. Then the towers could have remained useless and be difficult to bring down with a controlled demolition after the earthquake without risking having the buildings fall sideways into the city.

[Java Man]

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

[ergo]

No, it's like designing a car to withstand crashing into a car and not designing it to crash into an airplane.

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.




"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

source (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

I can tell you 1 other thing that's not well designed: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

The Conspiracy Theories are like swiss cheese.

[excaza]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else?
False dichotomy.

Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.
Um, ok? There's still an airplane.

Bottom line it was not well designed.
Considering how long it stood when encountering a situation that wasn't anticipated, it was very well designed. But regarding the fires, no, it wasn't well designed.

[excaza]

source (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)

Obviously it wasn't designed well enough.

Or it was CD, that's what you want me to say, right?

[Anders Lindman]

Slow down there, skippy...you're going to have to find some documentation of your "theory" before you try to argue building designs around here.

So, in other words, show some evidence that buildings are "designed to collapse" into their own footprint.

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

[excaza]

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=743124

[Sabretooth]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

That's not what he said.

Are you implying that buildings are designed, or should be designed, to take the impact of a fully loaded 767 at speeds over 450 MPH?

[excaza]

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

[Java Man]

False dichotomy.


Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

[ergo]

Obviously it wasn't designed well enough.

Or it was CD, that's what you want me to say, right?

Just pointing out that yet another of your statements

It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted.

is incorrect.

[BigAl]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.



Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down

Huh?

According to one of the principle design engineers, the towers survived the planes. It was the unfought fires that brought the towers down. They failed to factor in thousands of gallons of gas.




Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site,
said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.


http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)



And


Vincent Dunn, FDNY buidings expert describes what made the tower unique snd subject to unfought fires.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

If the plane dumped its fuel before impact. Question answered!

[Java Man]

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

With one of these maybe?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:L5tJpesialbmSM:http://wtf-is-with-my-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ouija-board.jpg&t=1

Minoru Yamasaki died in '86

[ergo]

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=743124

Um, I don't see a "footprint argument" here. Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the Sasquatch debate?

[excaza]

With one of these maybe?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:L5tJpesialbmSM:http://wtf-is-with-my-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ouija-board.jpg&t=1

Minoru Yamasaki died in '86

And the blueprints were buried with him?

Don't be dense.

[Sabretooth]

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

um...no.

I've had to study building construction and design as part of some of my firefighting studies. Never, nowhere, has any structure been built to collapse on itself for any reason.

If this were the case, you would never see a firefighter enter a burning structure.

[excaza]

Just pointing out that yet another of your statements

is incorrect.

Sorry, "the magnitude of the fires that resulted"

Better?

[Anders Lindman]

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"

[excaza]

Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

That wasn't the false dichotomy. You asserted that the plane is either fully fueled or a glider.

[excaza]

The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"

Why not? I don't think it's any more frightening than thinking your building is going to tip over.

You can find the WTC blueprints online.

[ergo]

Sorry, "the magnitude of the fires that resulted"

Better?

Not really.


"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

[ergo]

But excaza, can you just, in a nutshell, tell us what the footprint argument is? Thanks.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by excaza
It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted.

is incorrect.

You are wrong again. Read:

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)


And

Vincent Dunn, FDNY buidings expert describes what made the tower unique and subject to unfought fires.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[Sabretooth]

The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"

And instead would let thousands of people die should there be a major earthquake?

Brilliant.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

As far as we know Ergo, you weren't there to see the fires as a witness. So to say that the fires, "weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos." proves that you're lying.

[BigAl]

But excaza, can you just, in a nutshell, tell us what the footprint argument is? Thanks.

Irrelevant.

[Anders Lindman]

um...no.

I've had to study building construction and design as part of some of my firefighting studies. Never, nowhere, has any structure been built to collapse on itself for any reason.

If this were the case, you would never see a firefighter enter a burning structure.

Only a few architects design high skyscrapers like that and know about all the safety reasons involved. It's not something taught in universities. They have to sign special secrecy agreements before learning about things like that. I admit that this is just my guess, and I don't know much about the construction of buildings myself, but anyway.

[excaza]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

Horrendous is a wonderfully accurate scientific term. What's the energy threshold for a "horrendous" fire? 100,000 Btu?

[Anders Lindman]

And instead would let thousands of people die should there be a major earthquake?

Brilliant.

That's why this is something they don't tell the public about.

[ergo]

You are wrong again. Read:

FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.



How does this counter John Skilling's claim?

You are aware that there was concrete encasement of at least some of the structural steel? The rest of it NIST has been been very evasive about.

[T.A.M.]

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?



Now that's not what he said. He never said the buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes. Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake. Read it again:

"I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons."

Annoying hyperbole aside, duh, the surface area of gz was much, much larger then the combined surface area covered by the two towers...so nope, not into its own foot print, not by a long shot.

[Java Man]

If the plane dumped its fuel before impact. Question answered!

Ok huhhh, a couple of points.

If the pilot knew he was going to hit a tower so far ahead of time to be able to empty the fuel tanks on time. Wouldn't it just been easier to evade New York altogether? A jetliner like that can dump between 1.5 and 2 tonnes per minute. Take a moment to calculate how much time it would take to empty the tanks. Not to mention FAA restrictions about altitude.

Secondly:

"and if the tank was relatively empty, remnants of fuel could turn into an extremely explosive vapor." (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/fuel_tank_dangers.htm)

"27 November 1989 - Avianca Airlines Flight 203
Avianca 203 was a Boeing 727 that took off from Bogotá, Colombia, bound for Cali. Just five minutes into flight, a bomb on the floor of the starboard side of the passenger cabin at seat 15F detonated. The blast ignited vapors in an empty fuel tank causing a massive explosion that ripped the plane apart. The crash killed all 107 aboard (101 passengers, 6 crew) as well as 3 people on the ground. The Medellín drug cartel claimed responsibility for the attack as an attempt to kill presidential candidate Cesare Gaviria. Gaviria was not aboard but the group's chief assassin was later convicted for the bombing." (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0283.shtml)

Are you going to send people with soap and a brush into the tanks in mid flight?

[ergo]

Irrelevant.

The footprint argument is irrelevant? Excaza doesn't seem to think so.

[excaza]

Only a few architects design high skyscrapers like that and know about all the safety reasons involved.
There also isn't a huge demand for skyscrapers.

I admit that this is just my guess, and I don't know much about the construction of buildings myself, but anyway.

So you don't know that what you're saying is true, but you're still saying it's true?

[excaza]

The footprint argument is irrelevant? Excaza doesn't seem to think so.

Yes I do

[Anders Lindman]

Why not? I don't think it's any more frightening than thinking your building is going to tip over.

You can find the WTC blueprints online.

If the building tips over, then at least some people in the building may survive. If it is designed to pancake into its own footprint, then everybody in it will be squashed. On the other hand, if the building is prevented from tipping over, it will save lives in other places where otherwise there would have been a skyscraper falling over them like a domino.

[BigAl]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

Big or little, they were big enough to cause the collapse according to these folks.



Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC esigner] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)



And

Vincent Dunn, FDNY buidings expert describes what made the tower unique snd subject to unfought fires.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[T.A.M.]

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

Where is that head banging smilie....for the love all that is holy.

Leave it to the 911 ani to bri them out again.

TAM:)

[Java Man]

Annoying hyperbole aside, duh, the surface area of gz was much, much larger then the combined surface area covered by the two towers...so nope, not into its own foot print, not by a long shot.

Well obviously there was a mound of debris. But the point is had there been a whole deep enough to fit the WTC the debris would have fallen pretty much squarely into it. Obviously things poured sideways, but it's a long shot from having the building fall sideways like a domino. It is clear it did fall on its footprint even if it poured to the sides when it no longer fit.

[excaza]

nvm

[ergo]

Oh, "the footprint argument" is now "irrelevant", but we don't actually know what that argument is, because I think excaza doesn't know what it is, either.

excaza, did the buildings fall into their own footprints or not? If they didn't, where did they fall, and what is your definition of "footprint"?

[excaza]

ergo, you've already had this discussion with other members in different threads. Re-read it, I'm not going to repeat it for you.

[ergo]

I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.

[T.A.M.]

If the building tips over, then at least some people in the building may survive. If it is designed to pancake into its own footprint, then everybody in it will be squashed. On the other hand, if the building is prevented from tipping over, it will save lives in other places where otherwise there would have been a skyscraper falling over them like a domino.

Do you have even a single piece of evidence to support your theory that any skyscraper is designed in such a way, or are you simply guessing based on what you think they dod or should do?

Jhc!

TAM

[BigAl]

How does this counter John Skilling's claim?

You are aware that there was concrete encasement of at least some of the structural steel? The rest of it NIST has been been very evasive about.

Cite for both claims please.

I know of no masonry-based fireproofing in WTC1/2.

[ergo]

..

[excaza]

I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.

Why would there be collateral damage if they fell in their own footprint?

[Anders Lindman]

There also isn't a huge demand for skyscrapers.



So you don't know that what you're saying is true, but you're still saying it's true?

It's a hypothesis. :D

[excaza]

It's a hypothesis. :D

Ok, can you go to your nearest architectural school and find a copy of this secrecy agreement for us?

[BigAl]

There also isn't a huge demand for skyscrapers.



Make stuff up much?

The WTC towers were fully occupied and profitable in 2001.

[excaza]

:rolleyes:

new skyscrapers

[ergo]

Why would there be collateral damage if they fell in their own footprint?

Do you know what is meant by "footprint"?

[ergo]

Make stuff up much?

The WTC towers were fully occupied and profitable in 2001.

This is false as well. Their heyday was in the '80s. The rest of the time they were occupied at a maximum rate of 85%.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I haven't had this discussion before. I've never encountered anyone who's trying to claim that the buildings fell largely outside their footprint. Most people would agree that's a pretty ridiculous claim, since we can see very clearly how the buildings fell, and what the collateral damage was.

Really? Can you explain what happened to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7? Can you explain why debris covered 16 acres & damaged nearby buildings? Can you explain why witnesses & rescue workers saw the whole debris field when you weren't there to witness or see anything?

All you're doing is lying!

[excaza]

Do you know what is meant by "footprint"?

The perimeter of the building in contact with the ground.

[Anders Lindman]

Do you have even a single piece of evidence to support your theory that any skyscraper is designed in such a way, or are you simply guessing based on what you think they dod or should do?

Jhc!

TAM

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.

[ergo]

Really? Can you explain what happened to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7? Can you explain why debris covered 16 acres & damaged nearby buildings? Can you explain why witnesses & rescue workers saw the whole debris field when you weren't there to witness or see anything?


Sixteen acres of "debris"? Don't you mean dust? :)

Are you aware that the collapse theory you defend depends on the buildings falling into their own footprints?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely loose all their vertical strength and collapse.

Photographs of the WTCs' construction contridicts that theory.

[ergo]

The perimeter of the building in contact with the ground.

So a good controlled demolition ensures that no debris exits this literal footprint? Is that what you're claiming?

[excaza]

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.

Well, I have to admit it is an interesting idea.

[excaza]

So a good controlled demolition ensures that no debris exits this literal footprint? Is that what you're claiming?

No, in a good controlled demolition, the structure doesn't fall into other buildings.

[Anders Lindman]

Ok, can you go to your nearest architectural school and find a copy of this secrecy agreement for us?

It would not be any agreement available to the public.

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm aware of the dump site. Yet the key elements. Like the infamous column in WTC7 are missing. If all the pieces had been kept until the investigation arrived to its conclusions then those real key elements could have been spared and the rest just recycled. The way it happened is the FBI investigated a bunch of rubble not really knowing what to look for and then the conclusions came in, but the stuff was no longer in the dump.


In regards to the main tower steel, this is false. None of the steel was recycled until the FBI was finished with it. The pieces were kept until the FBI and NYPD were finished with their examinations.

In regards to the 7 World Trade Steel, it's known that it wasn't kept, but much of that was due to the inability to identify which parts of the structure it came from. Keep in mind that those pieces did in fact pass through the FBI, NYPD, and FEMA examiners hands, and at no time did they indicate that they found failure modes other than what they expected. And given that they knew of the fires and damage from the main towers, explosives or incendiaries would fall under the category of "unexpected".

Anyway, we all know that none of the 7 World Trade steel was kept, but that does not create a conspiracy. Besides, the key pieces from the main towers were indeed kept, and they revealed exactly what we all know today: That the pieces were suffering stresses from the distribution of loads due to the impacts severing columns, and the fires furthermore caused more load shiftings that eventually lead to the start of the collapse. That conclusion was drawn from a study of the steel.


So we end up with not precisely the most important pieces and not precisely the most thorough investigation into them. Instead we have a quick review of a bunch of material.

This is a mischaracterization. The components relevant to the initiation of the collapse of the main towers were indeed kept and studied thoroughly. The FEMA investigation was the initial, non-in-depth one, and the NIST investigation was the longer, much more in depth one. Much study was done not only of the steel, but of the fires and the way that the damage from the impacts in addition to the ongoing degradation of the structure in the fire zones lead to what we say.

But, this is all beyond the point. The point is that you attempted to paint the events as though the steel was not properly inspected. You are now retreating from that claim and attempting to make another one. The initial claim was false, as I have demonstrated with the references to the Fort Hamilton and Staten Island dump sites and the examinations being conducted there.

[excaza]

It would not be any agreement available to the public.

Well then how does someone enroll in architectural school?

[Sabretooth]

Only a few architects design high skyscrapers like that and know about all the safety reasons involved. It's not something taught in universities. They have to sign special secrecy agreements before learning about things like that. I admit that this is just my guess, and I don't know much about the construction of buildings myself, but anyway.

You're right about one thing...you don't now much about building construction.

WTC7 did not fall because of an earthquake, it was due to the uncontrolled fires weakening the internal support structure. Nothing more, nothing less. Read the NIST report before you start this nonsense again.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sixteen acres of "debris"? Don't you mean dust? :)

Are you aware that the collapse theory you defend depends on the buildings falling into their own footprints?

No, I mean the physcial evidence (steel) that lays in Hanger 17 @ JFK Airport from the debris field.

They didn't fall into their own footprints. That's based on lies & accusations from quote-mining alot of eyewitness testimony.

Besides, it would take 2 full years to rig WTC 1, 2 & 7 with explosives & there would be alot of witnesses who would come forward saying that they've seen something odd during those years. And yet, 9 years later, not a single witness has come forward with any claim.

[ergo]

No, in a good controlled demolition, the structure doesn't fall into other buildings.

And this is your argument that the buildings didn't fall straight down into their basements, because some debris was ejected laterally?

[excaza]

You're right about one thing...you don't now much about building construction.

WTC7 did not fall because of an earthquake, it was due to the uncontrolled fires weakening the internal support structure. Nothing more, nothing less. Read the NIST report before you start this nonsense again.

You don't need the NIST report, just a seismograph

[Anders Lindman]

Photographs of the WTCs' construction contridicts that theory.

Hmm... Good point. I haven't checked that. But there can be several ways to achieve something like that I guess.

[excaza]

And this is your argument that the buildings didn't fall straight down into their basements, because some debris was ejected laterally?

Some?

Can you just argue both sides of this? I have to go to lunch and you seem to be content to make my claims for me.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hmm... Good point. I haven't checked that. But there can be several ways to achieve something like that I guess.

Thank you! Yes there can be ways to achieve something like that. But not in a populated Commerical area where thousands of people work. NYers knew what to look for after the 1993 WTC Bombing, if they seen anything odd they would report it to the NYPD & the NYPD would contact the FBI.

[ergo]

No, I mean the physcial evidence (steel) that lays in Hanger 17 @ JFK Airport from the debris field.


Steel was ejected in a radius of 16 acres?

[Anders Lindman]

Well then how does someone enroll in architectural school?

The secrecy agreement is on 'need to know' basis. It's not something given to students first year at college.

[ergo]

Some?

Can you just argue both sides of this? I have to go to lunch and you seem to be content to make my claims for me.

Did the buildings fall straight down or not, excaza? This is important to your supermegagigajoules theory.

[excaza]

The secrecy agreement is on 'need to know' basis. It's not something given to students first year at college.

So....people are selected to take architectural classes?

[ElMondoHummus]

To quote him "Well, they could not identify conclusively which steel was from 7WTC, and what steel came from other buildings, so it is a moot point. "

The only way that could happen was if all markings were gone. Which was not the case. Thus debris could be identifiable.

You are using an example from the main towers to claim that the steel components in 7 World Trade were similarly marked. They were not. This was discussed before; here's one thread it was mentioned in:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129292

[R.Mackey]

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.

Completely absurd!

You don't need to make any design changes for a structure of that size to collapse mostly straight down. Scale works for you in this respect. The bigger it gets, the more severe its strength against bending would need to be to allow it to tip over.

Two artifacts from the collapses prove this. Firstly, the "kink" seen in the upper block of WTC 2 during collapse -- even after it started to come down, even with a much shorter ~25 story segment, it bent rather than tilted intact. And secondly, the core columns of both Towers survived the collapses, for a few seconds away. So clearly there was no such apparatus as you describe.

There are also published papers on the subject, notably the second appendix of Dr. Bazant's much discussed paper (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf). There are also analogues, such as the collapse of very tall radio towers, and even they do not simply topple over. Their own inertia causes them to buckle and fall straight down.

Don't worry, there is no secret cabal or architects using hidden knowledge and undocumented features to sabotage your buildings.

[Sabretooth]

The secrecy agreement is on 'need to know' basis. It's not something given to students first year at college.

Even if your story was even partly true, there'd have to be a whole bunch of buildings in heavy siesmic areas that collapsed into their own "footprint" for you to research and get back to us with.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Steel was ejected in a radius of 16 acres?

The WTCs' were 1368 and 1362 feet high. At that altitude the outter columns would be pushed out of the way when the buildings collapsed.

You need to learn!

[beachnut]

As reference material while the investigation was going on. Thus to better trim the computer simulations.

For themselves should they happen to need it. Which it was since the reports came to some conclusions which could have been better supported had the key beams been kept. But since they didn't know which were the key beams when they shipped it all alway they should have kept them until they finished the report. It's not like the steel was going to rust away.

Once again, at least until the investigation was officially over and the final report handed it.

Complained? Mhh not sure if any. But certainly many would have benefited from having it retained for investigative purpose. Certainly the Debunkers would have benefited as a thorough investigation with the evidence at hand would have prevented the Truther mayhem we have today.

Sure, why not? A few key pieces could be kept. Actually the pieces which were by then known to be key. Not just some random 5% sample.

The structural engineer who built the WTC knew exactly why the WTC fell.

After the evidence was seen, no explosives, no thermite, only impact damage and fire damage.

Case closed. You must of been asleep for 9 years.

19 terrorists were found to take 4 planes, they were trying to hit large buildings. Wake up, 911 truth is the personification of failure, and they have made it an industry for 9 years.

[Java Man]

In regards to the main tower steel, this is false. None of the steel was recycled until the FBI was finished with it. The pieces were kept until the FBI and NYPD were finished with their examinations.


I agree with that. But they were not kept until they whole investigation was over and NIST handed the report. My point is that it should have been kept longer to support the models.

[Sabretooth]

So....people are selected to take architectural classes?

In other words, architects are murderer's!!!1!!! :jaw-dropp

[ergo]

Did the buildings fall straight down or not, excaza? This is important to your supermegagigajoules theory.

I guess I'll just answer it for him.

Yes the buildings fell straight down, BUT they didn't fall into their own footprints, because nothing literally can fall into its own footprint! :D

This must be the "footprint argument". Very compelling.

[Anders Lindman]

So....people are selected to take architectural classes?

Only architects who are given the task of designing skyscrapers to actually be built would be required to sign such secrecy agreement. So most architects would not even know about this, even if they have worked decades as professional architects.

[Disbelief]

No hard evidence. My theory is that the core columns were cut diagonally by design, and with a plug held in place by gravity at each diagonal cut to keep the core columns at full strength. Then if a hard enough shock wave would hit from below, then the plugs would pop out of position and the core columns would completely lose all their vertical strength and collapse.

No insurance company would ever insure a skyscraper then. In the event that something other than an earthquake triggered a collapse, the liability would be ridiculous.

[BigAl]

I agree with that. But they were not kept until they whole investigation was over and NIST handed the report. My point is that it should have been kept longer to support the models.

You are unaware of the number and timing of the reports that came from the WTC collapse.

[Anders Lindman]

Completely absurd!

You don't need to make any design changes for a structure of that size to collapse mostly straight down. Scale works for you in this respect. The bigger it gets, the more severe its strength against bending would need to be to allow it to tip over.

Two artifacts from the collapses prove this. Firstly, the "kink" seen in the upper block of WTC 2 during collapse -- even after it started to come down, even with a much shorter ~25 story segment, it bent rather than tilted intact. And secondly, the core columns of both Towers survived the collapses, for a few seconds away. So clearly there was no such apparatus as you describe.

There are also published papers on the subject, notably the second appendix of Dr. Bazant's much discussed paper (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf). There are also analogues, such as the collapse of very tall radio towers, and even they do not simply topple over. Their own inertia causes them to buckle and fall straight down.

Don't worry, there is no secret cabal or architects using hidden knowledge and undocumented features to sabotage your buildings.

But wouldn't the core columns have been incredibly difficult to pancake if they remained at full strength?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok huhhh, a couple of points.

If the pilot knew he was going to hit a tower so far ahead of time to be able to empty the fuel tanks on time. Wouldn't it just been easier to evade New York altogether? A jetliner like that can dump between 1.5 and 2 tonnes per minute. Take a moment to calculate how much time it would take to empty the tanks. Not to mention FAA restrictions about altitude.

Secondly:

"and if the tank was relatively empty, remnants of fuel could turn into an extremely explosive vapor." (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/fuel_tank_dangers.htm)

"27 November 1989 - Avianca Airlines Flight 203
Avianca 203 was a Boeing 727 that took off from Bogotá, Colombia, bound for Cali. Just five minutes into flight, a bomb on the floor of the starboard side of the passenger cabin at seat 15F detonated. The blast ignited vapors in an empty fuel tank causing a massive explosion that ripped the plane apart. The crash killed all 107 aboard (101 passengers, 6 crew) as well as 3 people on the ground. The Medellín drug cartel claimed responsibility for the attack as an attempt to kill presidential candidate Cesare Gaviria. Gaviria was not aboard but the group's chief assassin was later convicted for the bombing." (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0283.shtml)

Are you going to send people with soap and a brush into the tanks in mid flight?

You are making unwarranted assumption. The chief engineer of the design team, Leslie Robertson, is on record as stating the jet impact assumptions behind the design.


LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered.


Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

Fuel load was not taken into detailed consideration during the design of the Twin Towers. Other designers have stated that the scenario for jet impacts would have been jets in landing patterns lost in the fog and, because they were at their destinations, low on fuel and slowed to approach speeds. That is another reason the fuel loads weren't given much consideration.

Furthermore, it's a distraction to discuss the jet fuel. That burned off within minutes. The important thing to consider when thinking about the main tower fires were the flammable interiors and contents; those are what burned long and hot enough to compromise the structure.

[Anders Lindman]

No insurance company would ever insure a skyscraper then. In the event that something other than an earthquake triggered a collapse, the liability would be ridiculous.

That would be another reason why this knowledge is not made available to the public, not even to insurance companies.

[R.Mackey]

But wouldn't the core columns have been incredibly difficult to pancake if they remained at full strength?

Non sequitur. The core columns survived, at least in a remnant about fifty stories high. They didn't have to pancake.

If they get loaded eccentrically by the huge pile of rubble falling past them, they can be snapped off at the ends with relatively little effort.

Also as Dr. Bazant proved in that paper, there is far more energy than required to destroy them utterly. It's just unlikely they'll actually face the full force of impact, instead of poking through it to some degree.

There's no mystery here. Hence your rather startling proposal that architects are a secret cult of forbidden structural engineering knowledge isn't needed.