Loose Change - Part II

[dubfan]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

NO ONE (except you CT-types) has said explosives were placed in those buildings.

That is a blatant distortion.

[Gravy]

...One thing you have to bear in mind at this forum is that many people here are actually 'experts'. Only yesterday one of our regulars was on the BBC discussing his field. I've been on TV and radio too and in the press (once described as a 'boffin' in the tabloids), doing my little bit....
Mutton-Head, I'm one of the world's experts on long-distance trekking (really), so when it's time to take a hike, buster/bustress, I'll let you know!
:p

eta: I was once boffin in the tabloids, but two weeks of penicillen cleared it up.

[Mutton-Head]

Abbyas says

“They didn't say heard/saw/felt explosives, they say heard/saw/felt explosions. Does that make things clearer?”

They said explosions and compared it specifically to controlled demolition charges. Some even said explosives. I would have investigated this buy looking at all of the steel.

I would have reconstructed the towers

”I'm not sure how you can say that not doing this is negligence. Is there another engineer that says that would be the normal and appropriate method?”

Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history

Gravy says

“This is totally, utterly, mind-blowingly baffling to me.”
“Suppose that on 9/13 we fired all of the FBI evidence experts, all the firemen, police, engineers, steelworkers, demolitions experts, construction experts, forensics experts. And we replaced them with the "Scholars for Truth." Would CTs be satisfied with the result of their "investigation?" Of course not. They'd scream bloody murder.”

No, I want them to do their jobs correctly. I’m not talking about doctors healing my kid, that’s a bad analogy. I’m talking about investigating a crime scene. Let’s try to keep the metaphors and analogies to a minimum. Show me any cop who throws out crime evidence. All evidence is taken to a lab. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to cart all of the WTC steel to a secure location, tagged, and ready to be inspected at a later date. It’s not just about, “who is an expert.” It’s also, “did they do their job.”

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

Show me my distortions and lies.

“extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.”

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation. Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators. Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators. Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.


Arkan Wolfshade says

“What, exactly, in context, did the firemen say?”

If you’re truly interested, Google the video interviews and find out for yourself. I’m not here to do all of the work for you.

“explosions <> explosives
A fire extinguisher will explode under compression, it is not an explosive. Full soda cans will explode under pressure or heat, they are not explosives. Etc”

Once again, go listen to the interviews. Stop making these guesses. I’m, not making guesses. I’m repeating what firemen said. I think they no more about explosions than me.

“It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.”

I couldn’t quite see your pictures. Does aluminum glow red? My mistake.

“Part of the responibility of the people taking part in the investigation is to ensure that all relevent data is available for the investigation. Why did none of the people involved complain about evidence being removed prior to examination? Or are you suggesting they are all negligent?”

I don’t care who is negligent at this point. That’s not for me to decide. Well, my opinion is that whoever was in charge of the investigation was negligent. My point is though that the NIST report is compromised. That’s why us whacky kooky googoo CTers are looking into it. Please don’t refer to me as a CTer. I am me, and you are you.

“Not entirely bad ideas, but still no evidence of intentional criminal activities. Instead you point out procedures you disagree with and assign intent and value to them without providing evidence for doing so.”

No, I say the report is compromised. Please pay attention. If the NIST does a bad job, then somebody has to point it out, and add details that were left out.

“Did you even notice the word "verifiable" in that sentence?”

Yes I did notice verifiable. Did you notice that I pointed out that they are combined with assumptions? Do you even read my replies?

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.

“Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?”

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes……..
Search for yourself.

Dubfan says

“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

NO ONE (except you CT-types) has said explosives were placed in those buildings.

That is a blatant distortion.”

It is not a blatant distortion. I am not a CTer, I am me. I will no longer respond to Dubfan. He can apologize if he wishes.

[Regnad Kcin]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable...What is a "reasonable expert?"

Anyway, what you consider evidence in this instance is purely circumstantial and, considering how open to interpretation sounds are, weak in the extreme.

Sir, evidence for a controlled demolition would be: Physical remains of thousands of lbs. of explosives necessary to complete the task Physical remains of thousands of lbs. of wiring and assorted peripherals necessary to complete the task Correspondence, including e-mails, between the planner(s) and the numerous workers and technicians necessary for securing, transporting, and installing the thousands of lbs. of hardware and materials necessary to complete the task. These would include but not be limited to detailed diagrams and schematics Testimony of one of the numerous pyrotechnic workers or transport crew mentioned above, along with supporting documentation Testimony of one of the numerous WTC security detail who would have witnessed and okayed such a massive delivery as necessary Testimony of one of the numerous occupants of the WTC that such installations and other goings-on were witnessed, including an document trail detailing how that occupant pursued the matter
And so on.

Merely the speculation while under duress of one or a few emergency personnel that they heard explosions, never mind the buildings were in the violent process of de-construction and so could be expected to emit a groan or two, is not in any way shape or form...evidence for a controlled demolition.

[cloudshipsrule]

Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.

Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I would have reconstructed the towers.

...Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history...Shall we take the two or three billion dollars necessary (never mind the years required to complete the task) out of petty cash?

[Mutton-Head]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.

[Regnad Kcin]

Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.Bravo.

Welcome to the forum.

[Mutton-Head]

Regnad Kcin says

What is a "reasonable expert?"
Anyway, what you consider evidence in this instance is purely circumstantial and, considering how open to interpretation sounds are, weak in the extreme.
Sir, evidence for a controlled demolition would be:

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

“Merely the speculation while under duress of one or a few emergency personnel that they heard explosions, never mind the buildings were in the violent process of de-construction and so could be expected to emit a groan or two, is not in any way shape or form...evidence for a controlled demolition.”

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?

“Shall we take the two or three billion dollars necessary (never mind the years required to complete the task) out of petty cash?”

Oh good lord people. You’re really not even reading what I’m writing. I said, I will cut and paste and repeat myself yet again for those who can’t take the time to read.
Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
That would not have cost billions.


“Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.
Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.”

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.

[Manny]

They said explosions and compared it specifically to controlled demolition charges. Some even said explosives.They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.

I would have reconstructed the towers. Here's how to reconstruct an airplane: First, you rig up a wooden frame in the shape of the particular aircraft. Then you attach the pieces. It's really hard work, especially for the fuselage, because the pieces are often small. But it's possible because all the pieces except for the fuselage are distinct -- from the manual you can figure out where the door goes, for instance.

Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

For whatever it's worth, mockups are not always done in plane crashes. In particular they're not done when it's too difficult relative to what one would learn from it. Only a partial mockup was done of Valujet 592, because it was too hard to do the rest once they discovered what caused the crash. The investigation of United 232 saw only a mockup of the aft section and the tail because it was known that that was where the cause was.

[Mutton-Head]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

[joseph k.]

Mutton--- I don't think Gravy's comments were directed at you specifically, more likely a general lob toward the sources most of the theorists use. I mean, the guy has been specifically trying to right that situation by writing his debunking guides. I think you may be getting a little heated because a few folks see your "evidence" of explosives or explosions presented in a blurry manner. To be fair, we have all heard the fireman's quotes many, many times and several posters have given viable reasons for their testimonies which sound much more plausible than to assume there were explosives used.

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?

This is only evidence that stuff made noises LIKE an explosion, not that there was a detonation. What are we missing?

Edit for punctuation.

[Darat]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

So some firefighters said there were noises that were like a detonator. What can we conclude from that? I'd say we can conclude the firefighters heard noises that sounded like detonators.

Given that no one had experienced what had happened to the WTC before, I would be very surprised to hear a firefighter describe noises in terms of what actually happened on that day.

[CurtC]

Mutton-head, I'll restrain myself from dogpiling right now, but I will offer a suggestion. If you want to quote what others have said on this forum, use the [/quote] and [quote] tags, except of course reverse the order. You can also use it like this: [quote=CurtC] to have it automatically attribute the quote at the top.

[Manny]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.So call them! Drop an email to the union! Their number is (212) 683-4832. Here's their website (http://ufalocal94.org/). Line up your quotes, give them a ring and ask, "Hey, so and so said such and such. What did he mean by that?" Ask, "Hey, you guys have to still go into buildings, are you insisting that bomb squads go with you because of the explosions on 9-11?" You said in your first post that "If I can’t verify a piece of information, I throw it out." So verify it!

Oh, and the "I'm not responding to so-and-so" schtick is bull. No one's buying it. Particularly when your very first post repeated the outrageous lie about NIST ignoring the existence of the buildings' interior columns. Physician, heal thyself.

[Mutton-Head]

Manny Says

“They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.
Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

Similes, metaphors, assumptions. My investigation would have included real interviews with the firemen gesturing and using similes. I would have compared their expert testimony with the steel from the towers.
Like I said, and I will repeat myself yet again, the tower didn’t have to be reconstructed right away. I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to keep the steel, and not discard it, just like any crime scene investigator would do.

I honestly am at a loss why none of you get this point. The firefighters gave their opinions, and nothing was done with those opinions. They were ignored. If you were the head of the investigation, would you have ignored the testimony/opinions of the firefighters? I would have compared their testimony to the way in which the steel was cut/torn/broken/bent. If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.

[Mutton-Head]

Hey CurtC.

Thanks for the information. I couldn't figure out how to do that.

[WildCat]

A firefighter saying “It was as if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
Bold "as" my correction.
Now consider:
From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402655.html):
"It was as if all of us were already pronounced dead," said Tony Cash, 25, who endured three nights of hunger, violence and darkness at the convention center.
Is Tony Cash saying they were pronounced dead?

From the Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1439454,00.html):
It was as if the heavens had opened and golden boxes were raining down on the British people.
Did golden boxes rain down on the British people?

And finally from the Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/21/stories/0421403n.htm):
"The gargantuan tower slumped like a vanquished Goliath right in front of our eyes. And a gigantic swirling wall of dust and ash gushed through the streets as if a dam burst and it menacingly chased the crowd".
Was the World Trade Center collapse actually caused by a dam bursting?

"It was as if" is a classic example of a similie Mutton-Head!

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?
And where are all these firefighters today who are convinced there were explosives? How many of the surviving 9/11 firefighters have been contacted by the "truth" movement conducting their "research"? Enquiring minds want to know...

[Mutton-Head]

CurtC says

Mutton-head, I'll restrain myself from dogpiling right now, but I will offer a suggestion. If you want to quote what others have said on this forum, use the quoteand quote tags, except of course reverse the order. You can also use it like this: quote=CurtC to have it automatically attribute the quote at the top.

Hey Look! I did it! Yeah! Thanks CurtC

[WildCat]

And btw, you cannot reconstruct a 110 story building using twisted steel and crumbled concrete! It doesn't work that way.

[Mutton-Head]

Ok, one more post for today, and then I have to go.

To Wildcat, thanks for the grammar lesson. I know what "as" means. Once again, I would have followed up on those statements. I would not have let a firman who was testifying storm out exasperated. These men put their life on the line. I think the guy who felt so frustrated deserved beter treatment.

I will continue tomorrow.

[sat556]

Hey MH. You can also use that quote thingy in the bottom right of the posts.
It'll then link to the post too.

[XXX]

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.

“Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?”

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes……..
Search for yourself.

Dubfan says

“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

So, if a fireman says "It was if they had detonators, to take down a building." you take that as him making an assumption that explosives were used? Isn't he just describing what it was like, without actually making the assumption? Seems like that to me. Him making an assumption that there were explosives would be "I think there were explosives in that building".

I think that saying that fireman said that there were explosives in the building is a distortion of the truth. I've seen far too many cases so far of selective quote editing or people quoting things that people really didn't say. You can blame it on the other 9/11 conspiracy guys, but due to the track record of these "explosives" quotes that I have encountered so far I need to see and examine specific quotes of fireman saying that there were explosives (and not just explosions) in the buildings.

[milesalpha]

Maybe the easiest thing would be if you could find a single instance where somone asked a fireman. "was it a bomb?" and they answered, "yes it definitely was." Now if your suggestion is that the firemen interviewed during chaos of 9/11 were claiming that explosives were used, then it should be very easy to verify their meaning as others have pointed out, yet not one of the CT videos' has done that (as far as we know, I doubt they'd report a failure). You might keep in mind that, in the intervening years, there has not been a single fireman come forward to make such a claim. Or that not a single one of them has joined a 9/11 "truth" movement, rather indicating the answer in advance.
But then, why would you assume that all fireman have extensive experience with explosions and/or bombs? Are there that many in New York?

On Gravy, his rant was directed at those CTers who seem to think expert evidence is totally unnecessary in this case. Now, it may have to do with the fact that they have zero experts on their side, but I have seen more than a few CT fans post that they don't need experts, they looked at videos themselves and made their decisions. For something as complicated as this issue, this is patently ridiculous. I have had one chap, when I cited the example "where will you go if your car breaks down?" He replied "I will learn to fix it myself." With some exasperation, I asked him who would he learn from. He still didn't get it.

[Mr. Skinny]

They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.

Here's how to reconstruct an airplane: First, you rig up a wooden frame in the shape of the particular aircraft. Then you attach the pieces. It's really hard work, especially for the fuselage, because the pieces are often small. But it's possible because all the pieces except for the fuselage are distinct -- from the manual you can figure out where the door goes, for instance.

Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

For whatever it's worth, mockups are not always done in plane crashes. In particular they're not done when it's too difficult relative to what one would learn from it. Only a partial mockup was done of Valujet 592, because it was too hard to do the rest once they discovered what caused the crash. The investigation of United 232 saw only a mockup of the aft section and the tail because it was known that that was where the cause was.
I want to second what Manny has said here, particularly the part I bolded.

I'll agree with Mutton-Head in that it would have been nice to have been able to save all the debris from the WTC buildings, I doubt it would be practical to do so, or to move it such that it could remain separated by building, etc. The costs of that additional expense alone would be significant.

The process of "reconstructing" three huge buildings would require facilities, manpower, and (lots of) time. I think they would still be trying to this day to "reconstruct" those buildings for purposes of the mishap investigation. We'd still be waiting for the NIST report if they had chosen to do as Mutton-Head suggested.

[sat556]

The CTers don't need experts when they have movies. I recall one insane thread where one of them felt he was being watched by some evil agency or another and his fellow CTers told him to go watch certain movies to see how they operate and how to evade them!
Maybe they wanted him to do some daring stunts for the next crap 'documentary' they are planning.

[WildCat]

Ok, one more post for today, and then I have to go.

To Wildcat, thanks for the grammar lesson. I know what "as" means. Once again, I would have followed up on those statements. I would not have let a firman who was testifying storm out exasperated. These men put their life on the line. I think the guy who felt so frustrated deserved beter treatment.

I will continue tomorrow.
I asked you before, has anyone in the "truth" movement actually interviewed surviving 9/11 firemen who witnessed bombs going off? If not, why not?

Why are the firemen not up in arms over this cover-up or lack of follow-through to their testimony of bombs?

Which firemen stormed out exasperated?

[Pardalis]

Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.


Too much for you? You are the one who seems to be making the biggest assumption:

Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with. This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print. This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash. But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions.


What do you consider unconfirmed assumptions in the NIST report?


This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Whew.....

Well, your explosive devices theory is a pretty big assumption... you have to expect this kind of reaction.

[Mutton-Head]

I found this

Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks.

Does anybody know this guy? Any opinions or further information on him?

[WildCat]

BTW, Mutton-Head, have you read any of the NIST reports? You can find them here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/)

[DavidJames]

I found this...Where did you find "that".

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, you don't have to feel threatened by everything that's being said against the CTs, because IT IS NOT intended for you. You have clearly said you don't want to be associated with them. We got it. Nobody has ever said you were a CT nut. Gravy and Dubfan were talking about other people. Relax.:D

[WildCat]

Does anybody know this guy? Any opinions or further information on him?
Isaac was not at the scene of the WTC collapse on 9/11. I'm really looking for first-hand accounts.

[WildCat]

Where did you find "that".
Right here (http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf) I think. Bottom of page 1, hardly convincing evidence. Isaac was not there on 9/11 and doesn't name anyone who saw a bomb.

[hellaeon]

I cant believe it, there was no explosives evidence at the WTC site. What the hell is it with you CT's (Edit: and truth doubters - not all CT's). NO EXPLOSIVES EVIDENCE.

What would a court say?

"I heard a bomb going off"
"do you have evidence?"
"Yes I HEARD it and I SAW it"
"Ok, do you have the physical evidence so we can conclude from this point with certainty it was a bomb or bombs"
"I know what I HEARD and SAW but yes, there is NO evidence at the site of a bomb"
"Sorry your testimony wont stand, such an accusation cannot be verified by physical evidence."

[Gravy]

Hey Mutton-Head (man, it's fun to write that. You gotta stick around.) I wasn't saying that you distorted and lied all the time. I was referring to the major published CTs and videomakers. You asked me to point out distortions of yours, though, so here's my list. No doubt many of these are arguable, and some may come more under the headings of "opinion not backed by evidence," and "contradiction." My only criterion was "Is this an accurate representation of the facts?" I'd be glad to discuss these, maybe over the weekend if you want.

I'm amazed at the way you dove into the deep end here! One thing we've counseled people in the past is to take things one step at a time, meaning JUST one step: stop, and don't go again until the issues there have been resolved or you think are unresolvable. You said you were going one step at a time, but I think you went headlong down (probably feels more iike up) several flights.

BTW, perchance have you read my analysis of "Loose Change?"

-G

Post 105

All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.

Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account. [Metaphor]

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from.

This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print.

This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash.

But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)

179
However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used

Nobody can do the math now.

And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces

[You warned me against using metaphors and analogies]
To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”

pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain,

[Analogy]
An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

the pulverizing of all of the concrete

We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash.

since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.

Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense.

There was no angular momentum

217
Right now, I’m just talking science/physics.

It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.”

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.

242
Manny says, “There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc.

But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone.

it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there.

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored

253
Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history

No, I want them to do their jobs correctly.

Let’s try to keep the metaphors and analogies to a minimum. Show me any cop who throws out crime evidence.

Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.

Once again, go listen to the interviews. Stop making these guesses. I’m, not making guesses.

I don’t care who is negligent at this point. That’s not for me to decide. Well, my opinion is that whoever was in charge of the investigation was negligent.

My point is though that the NIST report is compromised

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

259

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert.

Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such.

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.

The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

266
I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere.

The firefighters gave their opinions, and nothing was done with those opinions. They were ignored. If you were the head of the investigation, would you have ignored the testimony/opinions of the firefighters?

I would have compared their testimony to the way in which the steel was cut/torn/broken/bent. If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.

[XXX]

I found this

Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks.

Does anybody know this guy? Any opinions or further information on him?

The source of that one comes from an article that can be found on prision planet. Not sure if they are the origional source or not though, but we do know it was written by Randy Lavello . I can't post links yet, but if I can let me post the part of the section that deals with that quote...

Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ‘pancaked’ as it’s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel’s ‘don’t trust a truss’ explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, “You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don’t just implode like that; this was a demolition.”

Notice that when you read it in context it sounds like he is saying that there had to be bombs in the building because he doesn't buy the pankake theory, and thus there would have to have been bombs involved (from his perspective).

Also let me add this, the VERY next paragraph...

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, “We think there were bombs set in the building.” Notice he said ‘we’. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn’t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.

The Louie Cacchioli quote has been used in several 9/11 conspiracy arguements, and it's actually not true that he said that. Here's some more text from the article about it...

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

So we already have one "misquote" in this article. What makes anyone so sure that this firefighter in this first quote did indeed even say what this guy said he did? Like I said, the 9/11 conspiracy crowd has a very bad track record regarding quotes and distortions of them.

[Gravy]

...Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr....
One of the biggest crackpots anywhere, although he does deny having said that all those people knew there were bombs in there. I've got a lot more, but I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down. You absolutely have to discount this wacko volunteer's paranoia/delusions of grandeur. He is WAY gone. The only good thing about him is that he's made it his life's work to disparage Dylan Avery (if such a thing is possible).
<pop psychology mode off>

...The Louie Cacchioli quote has been used in several 9/11 conspiracy arguements, and it's actually not true that he said that. Here's some more text from the article about it...

[I]Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

So we already have one "misquote" in this article. What makes anyone so sure that this firefighter in this first quote did indeed even say what this guy said he did? Like I said, the 9/11 conspiracy crowd has a very bad track record regarding quotes and distortions of them.
That's correct. He's angrily stated that he was misquoted.

edited to fix grammar

[hellaeon]

I would like to know why you would rig up explosives to a building AND slam planes into it. According to the main catalog of 9/11 theories, the explosives were needed to bring down the building. Wouldnt that be a huge waste to smash a few planes into it and cause the grounding for a couple of days of all aircraft? Pretty crazy economically. Why not just blow up the building? Im pretty sure the public would STILL be horrified.

Can someone tell me WHY the government would do this, whats the benefit??!?!!! To go to war? The same government who admits NO wmd (though they could have planeted one so simply given the scale of the 9/11 theory) and cant conceal a blowjob known only to two people? Not to mention numerous other blunders, usually known within a small circle initially before exposure. However this massive operation, conducted by half the FBI and CIA, NSA etc went without a hitch, only to be picked up by people watching grainy videos, looking deeper into initial reports on the day and gaining armchair degrees in explosives and structural engineering.

Well I would suggest a weeks work experience in one of the aforementioned sciences to actually get a grasp on a minimal amount of concepts required to pull this off.

During an event until facts are known completely, many things are said and accepted. Even when later shown to be false people still cling on to the initial half facts. Naturally during a terrorist strike it would be safe to assume initially that there could be bombs! it sounds like them! These guys are crazy! panic!
So what. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE. PHYSICAL. I can say anything I like, but it will not invalidate the evidence, which shows there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.

Why is this SO hard to understand for some? If you accuse someone of stealing your money back in 2001. You think thats all you have to do? Do you have proof? so what if you THINK they did. You cant prove it, even after all these years of trying to.

Dont you want to re-evaluate your thinking?

Cheers

[Gravy]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.
Just saw this. I apologize for giving you the wrong impression. My comments were directed at phonies, and you certainly give the impression of being sincere.


[See how easy that is, geggy, Roxdog?]

[XXX]

And while I am thinking about it, thanks for the "Loose Change guide" Gravy. I have done tons of 9/11 research, and a few things in your guide filled in some blanks I still had. Good stuff on Karl Schwartz too.

[joseph k.]

I can't post links yet so I'll go with the [dot] trick.
Not sure if anyone saw it but here is a LCer's wet dream; a fireman stating there is a bomb in the building on video.
www[dot]whatreallyhappened[dot]com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv

Of course this isn't the smoking gun I have already witnessed it referred to as in a few forums, is vague as to whether the firefighter heard there was a bomb, saw it, or was told so by someone who heard or saw what they assumed was a bomb. This thing is spreading fast as another piece of "evidence" of CD. Just a heads up if you hadn't seen it.

One of said forums:
letsroll911[dot]org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=112730

[XXX]

I can't post links yet so I'll go with the [dot] trick.
Not sure if anyone saw it but here is a LCer's wet dream; a fireman stating there is a bomb in the building on video.
www[dot]whatreallyhappened[dot]com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv

Of course this isn't the smoking gun I have already witnessed it referred to as in a few forums, is vague as to whether the firefighter heard there was a bomb, saw it, or was told so by someone who heard or saw what they assumed was a bomb. This thing is spreading fast as another piece of "evidence" of CD. Just a heads up if you hadn't seen it.

One of said forums:
letsroll911[dot]org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=112730

You can hear in the backround talk about there being "reports of a secondary device". This doesn't mean for sure that they had found a bomb, but of course they'd tell people to clear out because there was a bomb in the building

Also, I had read elsewhere that that footage wasn't even from 9/11, but was from 1992 or 1993. I'm still looking into it.

[XXX]

Also, you can see the firemen sitting down with some of their gear off, and when someone says "there's a bomb in the building" they somewhat reluctantly get up, start to put their gear on, and one of them says "Here we go again". Almost as if to suggest that they had recieved reports just prior of a "secondary device" whenever this incident took place (and maybe found nothing? speculation here).

[joseph k.]

You can hear in the backround talk about there being "reports of a secondary device". This doesn't mean for sure that they had found a bomb, but of course they'd tell people to clear out because there was a bomb in the building

Also, I had read elsewhere that that footage wasn't even from 9/11, but was from 1992 or 1993. I'm still looking into it.

Yes....yes....

Ok. The footage does seem quite oddly edited and out of place to be sure. The fireman's facial expression when saying it struck me as strange also. I am going to do a bit of digging on this one, too, maybe we'll figure out who this guy is and where this originated.

[pgwenthold]

So some firefighters said there were noises that were like a detonator. What can we conclude from that? I'd say we can conclude the firefighters heard noises that sounded like detonators.

Given that no one had experienced what had happened to the WTC before, I would be very surprised to hear a firefighter describe noises in terms of what actually happened on that day.

Darat hits the crux of the problem here.

The firemen claim they heard explosions. Mutton-head says this means there must have been explosives.

Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?

If you want to argue that explosions are evidence against the building-falling-on-its-own scenerio, then you have to be able to show that a building-falling-on-its-own would NOT cause explosion like sounds.

So let's get to the real crux of the matter here. On what do you base the implicit assumption that a skyscraper inferno, loaded with all types of things that explode when heated, will not produce explosions or things that sound like explosion when it falls on its own?

How do explosions rule out the conventional explanation?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Man, step away for a few hours....

Any, my short response to you Mutton-Head:

You are the party making the claim in a forum (debate definition, not internet definition) of people that do not agree. The onus is on you to provide evidence. The onus is not upon us to go do your legwork for you.

Please provide this evidence, or go pound sand.

[Gravy]

And while I am thinking about it, thanks for the "Loose Change guide" Gravy. I have done tons of 9/11 research, and a few things in your guide filled in some blanks I still had. Good stuff on Karl Schwartz too.
Glad it's been of use. I have a lot more for an update, but I've been too busy. I'll miss Karl Schwarz. He's not going to be in the next LC version.

[Gravy]

In terms of seeing and hearing explosions, let's keep this woman's ordeal in mind:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1649728&postcount=4405

[Gravy]

...
Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?

I DARE you to search for "explosion" in my index! I mean you, sir (slaps with white glove across face). Search my index or name your second!

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

[pgwenthold]

I DARE you to search for "explosion" in my index! I mean you, sir (slaps with white glove across face). Search my index or name your second!

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

Like anyone is supposed to believe an article on a newsfromrussia website.

Sheesh.

[Pardalis]

In terms of seeing and hearing explosions, let's keep this woman's ordeal in mind:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1649728&postcount=4405

Yeah, Mutton-Head, you have to keep in mind the state of mind these people (the people on the scene) were in at the time. Nobody knew what the hell was going on. Airplanes hit the buildings, people were falling from the towers, people screaming, crying, all kinds of rumours going around of highjacked planes, bombs, what have you! You can't expect the firefighters to have a clear and sound view of the situation. Usually they go into a fire, that's what they are used to. But this was WAY BEYOND ANYTHING THEY COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED. This was a major crisis, nobody knew who was attacking, nobody knew what was to come, if the attacks were over of if there were more horror yet waiting to happen. The US was at war. An unknown and cowardly assaillant had struck with unimaginable force. All hell broke loose. These firefighters saw two of the highest buildings in the world collapse on top of them with hundreds of their collegues and thousands of innocent civilians trapped inside. You can't expect them to give exact accounts of what they had seen. Everything was possible to them, even bombs. That doesn't mean we have to take their exact word for it.

They were in SHOCK

[rwguinn]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.
Like most of us, Gravy has his "bovine-processed alfalfa" filter set to narrow pass. None of us are particularly polite to the intentionally ignorant.
As my father used to say--you're so mentally bankrupt you can't even pay attention!
That translates, BTW, to "you are dumber than a box of rocks"

[Pardalis]

Like most of us, Gravy has his "bovine-processed alfalfa" filter set to narrow pass. None of us are particularly polite to the intentionally ignorant.
As my father used to say--you're so mentally bankrupt you can't even pay attention!
That translates, BTW, to "you are dumber than a box of rocks"

Now, now, let's keep from doing that. Mutton-Head was mistaken into believing Gravy was refering to him. End of story.

I believe Mutton-Head is sincerely raising his own questions about the collapse and I believe he is genuinely trying to have an honest debate. Let's keep this cool.

geggy on the otherhand was another story, he totally deserved everything he got.:D

[R.Mackey]

Holy moley this thread moves fast!!

Anyway, I felt that Mutton-Head asked a valid question, and wanted to give a (hopefully) educational answer.

When an object falls to earth, all of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Its force (M x A = F) is used-up (spent) to accomplish this acceleration. This is called free-fall. If any solid object is situated below this falling object, some of this “free-fall” force will be absorbed (used) (spent). [...]

Force was also used to cut up the vertical steel beams. All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long. Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound. Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder. This like-wise took force.

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

[...]

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account.

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from. Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with.

Allow me to summarize your observation -- please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you in any way:

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.

Good enough?

This is a perfectly rational question to ask. One need not be a Conspiracy Theorist to wonder whether gravity alone could do such damage. So let me focus on the second point above. If we find that Point 2. is plausible, then 3. and 4. are reasonable conclusions. If our estimate conflicts with Point 2., then the collapse is believable as-is and no "hidden" energy is needed.

So how much energy are we talking about? We can produce a reasonable estimate using first-year undergraduate physics. No need to rely on others' calculations.

From the excellent article "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation", Eager and Musso, JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11 (readable here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html), the above-ground height of the Towers was approximately 411 m, and their mass was each roughly 500,000 metric tons, or 500,000,000 kilograms.

The potential energy of a suspended object is equal to:

PE = (mass) * (gravitational acceleration) * (height)

where on Earth, gravitational acceleration is approximately 9.8 meters per second. Let's estimate the energy of one tower.

If we assume the density of the tower is constant [1], then the cross-sectional density of the tower is given by:

d = (mass) / (height) = 1.22x10^6 kg / m.

The total potential energy due to gravity of the standing tower is computed via the following integral [2]:

PE = {Integral Sign} d g h dh

where d is the cross-sectional density from above, g is the gravitational constant, and h is the height running from 0 to 411 meters. Since our d is constant, it is an easy integral to evaluate:

PE = d g h^2 / 2 evaluated from 0 to 411 meters, or

PE = 1.01 x 10^12 kg m^2 / s^2, = 1.01 x 10^12 Joules.

Let's say for sake of argument [3] that only some of the energy is available to crush materials, since the rest of it is "needed to accelerate the tower downward." Following the discussion above, let's suppose that 30% is used to fracture the materials, with the rest going elsewhere. This 30% is 3.03 x 10^11 Joules.

How much energy is this in practical terms? Well, you mentioned explosives. Taking Trinitrotoluene [4] as a baseline, the potential energy of this explosive is 4184 Joules per gram. In other words, to replicate this amount of energy, you would need roughly 72,000 kilograms of TNT.

This is a bit more than the entire payload of two B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers directed at a single building -- assuming military bombs were pure explosive by weight, which they are not (they average 10% to 25% explosive by weight if my memory serves). CNN and two recent wars in Iraq have given us plenty of examples of single bombs detonated in concrete and steel structures, so it should be obvious that we are discussing a vast destructive force. Furthermore, our collapsing tower is far more efficient, since the gravitational energy affects the structure uniformly, rather than being concentrated at one or more points of detonation.

If, as you claim, this is not enough energy to cause the destruction seen (I believe that it is), and that explosives are the likely candidate, then you are claiming that much, much MORE than 72,000 kg of high explosives were needed.

This is already a stupendous amount of explosives. Several truckloads. Per tower. I don't buy it.

Therefore, I conclude that our conjecture is false, and there was plenty of potential energy stored in the structures themselves. Do you agree?

I've shown you my math. If you disagree, how did you reach your conclusion?

----

[1] Good enough for a back-of-envelope calculation, but probably not accurate. If we assume the tower gets lighter as you move upwards in a linear fashion (linear taper), rerunning these calculations gives you a total energy that is 33% smaller. This is not sufficient to change our conclusions.

[2] You can avoid the integral if you know where the centroid of the building is, and consider the entire building as a point mass at the centroid. If you don't, finding the centroid requires integration similar to the one above. I present the above as a general method to find the total energy in a single step.

[3] This observation is totally incorrect and violates conservation of energy. The "kinetic energy" of the falling tower will be converted to another form once the tower stops falling, as well. The tower will fall on its own debris and further pulverize itself on impact. The "30%" available represents only pulverization during the fifteen seconds of collapse, but the "cost of freefall" is only a temporary cost, and will be converted back into thermal energy as the falling tower grinds to a halt.

[4] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene)I am not a Master Blaster and do not have better data on explosives. There are more potent explosives than TNT (RDX, for instance), but at best this will save you a factor of 2 or 3 in the total mass of explosive needed. Exotic chemicals are also harder to covertly manufacture and easier to detect after detonation.

Taking the revised assumptions in [1] and [3] into account, the correct estimate is roughly 160,000 kg of TNT equivalent -- 0.16 kilotons -- per tower.

Disclaimer: This is a rough estimate from first principles. I am not a structural engineer. Much better analyses exist in peer-reviewed literature.

Eta: Had a "weight" that should have been a "mass." oops.

[Kent1]

In fact there was "red molten metal" seen under building 6. Yet no one cries thermite under building 6.

I'm guessing aluminum mixed with other hot debris.
pbs (dot) org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06 (dot) html

(There also a photo)

RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. I did some quick numbers with Gary Panariello, an engineer from Thornton-Tomasetti, to try and determine what the load on WTC 6 was and how much of the lateral system of the building the contractor could take down. There were a lot of judgment calls; people had immediate needs and needed immediate responses.

[Gravy]

Holy moley this thread moves fast!!

Anyway, I felt that Mutton-Head asked a valid question, and wanted to give a (hopefully) educational answer.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, R.M. I anticipate the main objection to your math would be the mass of the tower. I've used figures as high as 450,000 kg, but the prevailing wisdom, if it can be called that, seems to be leaning closer to 350,000. I tend to think that there must be someone with OCD out there who's attempted to account for the mass of the mechanical systems, plumbing, lighting, furnishings, electronics, paper, aircraft parts, etc. I suspect that NIST would say such an estimate isn't necessary to account for the destructive forse of the tops of the buildings, but it would be good to know anyway. As it is it seems like everyone is wildly speculating about an important starting figure.

[Gravy]

In fact there was "red molten metal" seen under building 6. Yet no one cries thermite under building 6.

I'm guessing aluminum mixed with other hot debris.

(There also a photo)

Here's the fixed link: http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

Also, explosions "like demolitions charges" going off in 6 when 2 came down, but we know there were no demolitions charges there.

Scary!

ETA: Thanks, Kent1. That whole site is fascinating.

[R.Mackey]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, R.M. I anticipate the main objection to your math would be the mass of the tower. I've used figures as high as 450,000 kg, but the prevailing wisdom, if it can be called that, seems to be leaning closer to 350,000.

Yup, which is why I put in a reference. I didn't pull that number out of thin air.

Still, even if the figure is 350,000 metric tons (not 350,000 kg, that's nothing!), it only reduces my final figure from 0.16 kilotons to 0.112 kilotons of TNT per tower. We're still dealing with an unfathomable amount of potential energy. No conventional bombs, not even fuel-air explosives, approach that kind of power.

[kookbreaker]

In fact there was "red molten metal" seen under building 6. Yet no one cries thermite under building 6.

I'm guessing aluminum mixed with other hot debris.
pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

(There also a photo)

RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. I did some quick numbers with Gary Panariello, an engineer from Thornton-Tomasetti, to try and determine what the load on WTC 6 was and how much of the lateral system of the building the contractor could take down. There were a lot of judgment calls; people had immediate needs and needed immediate responses.

I'm not impressed with these accounts. Red hot metal is not molten metal, and people saying 'molten metal' may not be properly describing what they are seeing. I want pictures and videos before I believe molten steel was there. Not random comments.

[Gravy]

Yup, which is why I put in a reference. I didn't pull that number out of thin air.

Still, even if the figure is 350,000 metric tons (not 350,000 kg, that's nothing!), it only reduces my final figure from 0.16 kilotons to 0.112 kilotons of TNT per tower. We're still dealing with an unfathomable amount of potential energy. No conventional bombs, not even fuel-air explosives, approach that kind of power.
Agreed! And I was just using kilos to see if you were paying attention. Ahem.

[Kent1]

I'm not impressed with these accounts. Red hot metal is not molten metal, and people saying 'molten metal' may not be properly describing what they are seeing. I want pictures and videos before I believe molten steel was there. Not random comments.

Your exactly right. In fact when someone says "red hot metal", it means around 700C-800C. So it can't be molten liquid steel.
Steel Melts at around 1500C

But it can be aluminum which melts at 660C

[kookbreaker]

Your exactly right. In fact when someone says "red hot metal", it means around 700C-800C. So it can't be molten liquid steel.
Steel Melts at around 1500C

But it can be aluminum which melts at 660C

Except that molten aluminum is not red or glowing.

[Kent1]

Except that molten aluminum is not red or glowing.
Maybe, it was past the columns like he said, maybe out of the pictures range. Who knows, either way its not steel.

Another note is that you can have melted steel under 1000C, (slag) but its through a eutectic mixture.

[Kent1]

There are a few CT'ers who believe 6 was dropped, but its really not a popular theory. Even Hoffman debunks the idea.
(dot)911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion (dot) html

[Kent1]

There are a few CT'ers who believe 6 was dropped, but its really not a popular theory. Even Hoffman debunks the idea.
(dot)911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion (dot) html

Let me fix an error "red" can be 500-800C

[Regnad Kcin]

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.It's unfortunate you're getting tired, but my point still stands. A person, under great duress at the time, describing a sound, does not for worthwhile evidence make.

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?Of course. But earwitness testimony, like eyewitness testimony, is notably unreliable; people can and do make mistakes, never mind their methods of description often suffer from hyperbole.

You've no doubt heard this:

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." -- James Whitcomb Riley, written around 1883-1885

Just hearing a quack does not mean there's a mallard in the brush.

Shall we take the two or three billion dollars necessary (never mind the years required to complete the task) out of petty cash?
Oh good lord people. You’re really not even reading what I’m writing.
Here is your exact quote, which I responded to with the two-or-three-billion guess:

"...I would have reconstructed the towers.

...Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history..."

Seems pretty clear.

By the way, the ellipses are mine, where I edited out another poster's words that you were responding to. The full text can be found in post #253.

I said, I will cut and paste and repeat myself yet again for those who can’t take the time to read.

Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.

That would not have cost billions.
I apologize in advance if this angers you, but I responded to a very specific suggestion you made, and in doing so indicated its absurdity. That you then suggested I didn't read what you said is in error. Please again see post #253.

"I would've reconstructed the towers" does not mean anything but what it means.

Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.Someone (perhaps Gravy) has compiled a list of the agencies who aided in the detective work in regard to the physical events of that day; it numbers somewhere around 40, if I remember correctly. Of those numerous groups, many, many individuals were involved in the gathering and analysis of the information, and their expertise has contributed to the conventional wisdom. You may, for whatever reason, be unsatisfied with their findings. What can I say.

[Mutton-Head]

Holy Majoley but this has grown.

Yowza

First off, sorry if it got too heated. I understand. Apologies to Gravy.

Now, R Macky said it exactly

Allow me to summarize your observation -- please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you in any way:

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.

Good enough?

100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

Thanks for info on the firemen. That may be my next course of research. Perhaps I can get information from/about these guys that extends beyond Google and People magazine. Man I'd sure love to talk to some of them.

Thanks to Manny for the fire fighters union. However, I have to admit that it makes me chuckle. I can hardly even get MY union representatives to call me back, and I pay them $800 bucks a year. Ha!

I don't trust the NIST report. Also to Manny, my assertion that they ignored the central steel core wasn't an outrageous lie. It was an exageration. The NIST grossly misrepresented it.

For every single hypothetical question that evreybody has asked, I have at least one or two good hypothetical answers, that make sense, and are plausable, in my opinion. That's why I keep digging. If I find anything that I think is significant, I will let you all know.


Rock on

[Ramooone]

heres a good picture of warped steel from the trade center.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/artifacts/artifacts_10.html

[EvilBiker]

Just a quick note on thermite bombs:

Very easy to make, used often during the Rhodesian war. They are NOT explosive, just to make the point.

Take equal quantitities of aluminium powder and ferric oxide, mix well, make two piles on railway track, roughly a meter apart, bung in a bit of magnesium tape, light and retire.

Wait for metal to cool and walk off with a meter of railway track.

I inadvertantly made a thermite bomb while grinding down a VW alternator bracket on a grindstone which was mounted on a very rusty support structure. Sparks ignited the aluminium filings/rust flakes and suddenly I had drops of molten metal burning holes in the floor. Adding water made life even more interesting for a period...

EB.

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.Pick any metal you want--it doesn't matter which. The "glaring point of idiocy" I was referring to was Jones' suggestion that this molten metal points to thermite (or one of its cousins). Again, on what planet does thermite (or one of its cousins) provide the continuous heat source that is required to keep [your choice of metal here] molten for hours/days/weeks at a time?

It is idiotic to observe molten metal at the scene long after the collapses, and from that to formulate a hypothesis of thermite.

[chipmunk stew]

Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to cart all of the WTC steel to a secure location, tagged, and ready to be inspected at a later date. It’s not just about, “who is an expert.” It’s also, “did they do their job.”
They did do (and still are doing) their job:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

And in reference specifically to the collection of samples: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation. Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators. Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators. Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.
"The" report, as I said before, is an executive summary.
Tell me this is grade-school investigation: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And this is not: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[chipmunk stew]

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence.Why don't you try to track down that firefighter, and ask him what he meant by that, and if, in his expert opinion, he believes that the possibility of a controlled demolition ought to be seriously investigated?

[kookbreaker]

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation.


Nonsense. Computer modeling is a very critical tool for failure analysis these days. Saying otherwise is naive and childish.


Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence.


Which is what NIST did. They have done simulations, tested pieces, all kinds of experiments have been run to analyse evidence.


Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.


No. They are real investigators. Childishs demanding that they are not is silly.


Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators.


Your opinion, and a poorly formed one at that.


Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.

You obviously have not read much of the report.

[kookbreaker]

About computer modelling from someone who forgot more engineering that Mutton-Head will ever learn:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=626787&postcount=214


Finite-element models properly constructed are so accurate and so predictive that they have taken the place of physical models for testing candidate designs. Boeing, for example, designed the airframe of the 787 Dreamliner and tested it for handling characteristics, lift/drag and other aerodynamic concerns, and structural integrity without ever building a physical model of it to any scale. No wind-tunnel testing is needed. These models are actually more useful than physical models because they are automatically instrumented to provide immense amounts of data that cannot be determined or measured in physical models.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Some things I'd like to address, and readdress as I didn't have time to do so last night:

Molten aluminum:
http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/plant_tour.htm - specifically http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/MoltenAlumInCrucible.jpg shows molten aluminum, glowing red, at ~1300F

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/ - specifically http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg also shows red hot aluminum as does http://media.www.kykernel.com/media/storage/paper305/news/2004/12/06/Features/Open-Studio.A.Student.learning.Experience-822345.shtml?sourcedomain=www.kykernel.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com (http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper305/stills/d676oeaq.jpg)

Interesting side-note on properties of aluminum


The pure metal has a melting point less than 1200ºF and does not exhibit the color changes before melting so characteristic of most metals. For this reason, aluminum does not tell you when it is hot or ready to melt. The oxide or "skin" that forms so rapidly on its surface has a melting point almost three times as high (3200º+F). To add to this confusion, aluminum even boils at a lower temperature (2880ºF) than this oxide melts. The oxide is also heavier than aluminum and, when melted, tends to sink or be trapped in the molten aluminum. For these reasons, it is easy to see why as much as possible of this oxide "skin" must be removed before welding. Luckily, the reverse polarity half of the AC arc does an outstanding job of cleaning off quantities of this oxide ahead of the weld! from http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/tigalum.asp

That said, I am not saying it _was_ or _was not_ molten aluminum that was observed; merely that it is possible for aluminum to glow red.

Now, on to the claim that "real investigators don't model [using computers]".
Yes, they do:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10978637&dopt=Abstract
http://www.arengineers.com/Services/Simulation.htm
http://granitestategraphics.com/

[Belz...]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.

Do you deny that the 9/11 "truth" seekers lie ?

[Belz...]

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

So a firefighter making a comparison is evidence of controlled demolition ?

Boy, your definition of evidence is lacking, to say the least.

Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location.

Why ? There was no question as to the initial cause of the buildings' collapse.

“Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.
Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.”

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.

You mean YOU analysing steel ? Or experts ? If the latter, already been done.

[Belz...]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion?

First, learn what evidence is. Then we'll talk.

The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

Yes and I look at my computer and call it a cow. What's your point ?

Similes, metaphors, assumptions. My investigation would have included real interviews with the firemen gesturing and using similes. I would have compared their expert testimony with the steel from the towers.

What makes you think they didn't ?

Like I said, and I will repeat myself yet again, the tower didn’t have to be reconstructed right away.

Exactly how would they have stood ? And where would they build them ?

I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to keep the steel, and not discard it, just like any crime scene investigator would do.

If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.

Exactly. Then we agree.

[WildCat]

100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.
Please show your calculations showing how much high explosives (use any high explosive you'd like) is necessary to pulverize 3.3 million sq. ft. (the square footage of the concrete floors per tower) of 4" thick (I'm estimating conservatively here) concrete. Yes, you have to show your math. I think you will find it is a ridiculously high amount, and the force necessary would have also been enough (since explosions project forces outward in all directions) to send chunks of material to New Jersey and Brooklyn (and I'm not talking about blowing paper here).

Does that seem feasible to you?

Thanks for info on the firemen. That may be my next course of research. Perhaps I can get information from/about these guys that extends beyond Google and People magazine. Man I'd sure love to talk to some of them.

Thanks to Manny for the fire fighters union. However, I have to admit that it makes me chuckle. I can hardly even get MY union representatives to call me back, and I pay them $800 bucks a year. Ha!
This would qualify as real research however, I suggest you go this route if you really want answers to the firefighter quotes you cite.

I don't trust the NIST report. Also to Manny, my assertion that they ignored the central steel core wasn't an outrageous lie. It was an exageration. The NIST grossly misrepresented it.
The NIST publications (there are dozens of them pertaining to the WTC collapses) are here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/). Please tell us which report and which assertions found in those reports you have problems with. Use page numbers also, so we can follow along.

For every single hypothetical question that evreybody has asked, I have at least one or two good hypothetical answers, that make sense, and are plausable, in my opinion. That's why I keep digging. If I find anything that I think is significant, I will let you all know.


Rock on
Good luck!

[Belz...]

I would like to know why you would rig up explosives to a building AND slam planes into it. According to the main catalog of 9/11 theories, the explosives were needed to bring down the building. Wouldnt that be a huge waste to smash a few planes into it and cause the grounding for a couple of days of all aircraft?

I've asked this one more than once. Never got an answer. I support CTers don't want to think about that. Bush is evil, you see. No reason needed.

[Belz...]

I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

Well, change the damn numbers and do the math again. See where that brings you in terms of TNT load.

[WildCat]

I inadvertantly made a thermite bomb while grinding down a VW alternator bracket on a grindstone which was mounted on a very rusty support structure. Sparks ignited the aluminium filings/rust flakes and suddenly I had drops of molten metal burning holes in the floor. Adding water made life even more interesting for a period...

EB.
Reminds me of the time I was working on my car, and accidentally dropped a wrench so that it fell just perfectly and made contact w/ both terminals on the battery. It turned glowing red almost instantly, and melted (and I mean molten steel dripping off of it) within a second or two. I was terrified the battery would explode, but it didn't.

Yes kids, cover those battery terminals when working on a car.

[gruk]

Darat hits the crux of the problem here.

The firemen claim they heard explosions. Mutton-head says this means there must have been explosives.

Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?

If you want to argue that explosions are evidence against the building-falling-on-its-own scenerio, then you have to be able to show that a building-falling-on-its-own would NOT cause explosion like sounds.

So let's get to the real crux of the matter here. On what do you base the implicit assumption that a skyscraper inferno, loaded with all types of things that explode when heated, will not produce explosions or things that sound like explosion when it falls on its own?

How do explosions rule out the conventional explanation?

Technically, what we call explosions are shockwave fronts, usually (maybe always) caused by high-pressure gas being released VERY rapidly. A mini-example of an explosion can be made and studied in the safety of your own home. Buy a rubber balloon, fill it with air and tie it off. Now prick it with a needle. Instant explosion. Not very powerful, but still an explosion.

Now, does this mean we can have explosions without explosives? Obviously. Your bretah isn't an explosive. The balloon isn't an explosive. But we still have a very small explosion.

There's lots of things in a skyscraper that contains pressurised gas. There's fire extinguishers everywhere. There's probably flammables in quite a few places. There's material that can give off extremely flammable gasses when heated. There's probably flammable dust (not as much as in a flour mill, mibnd you).

Add some burning kerosene, drop a couple of hundred tons of weight on a floor and, well, you will have explosions. I would've been surprised, hadn't there been explosions.

[LostSoul]

I meant to post this a few days ago. Its the article I got my sig quote from.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA052406.2O.gurwitz.1685aadf.html

[aggle-rithm]

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence.

Yes, evidence is very important. However, it is important to START with the evidence and allow it to lead you where it will. If you START with a pre-conceived notion (such as "explosives were used in the WTC") then the evidence could lead you astray.

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

See the problem here? I am so focused on my pre-conceived belief about what is happening, I fail to consider other, more mundane explanations.

That is why falsifiability is so important. If the purple salamander hypothesis were wrong, how would I know? Certainly not by watching the newspapers and finding that, in fact, the neighbors themselves are picking them up and taking them into their houses. I could simply say, "They beat the purple salamander to it", or "the purple salamander was sick today".

If your explosives hypothesis were wrong, how would you know?

Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted.

If EVERY eyewitnesses impressions of what MIGHT have happened were included as evidence in the report, then it would be a very thick and largely meaningless document.

Let me tell you why every single conspiracy theory was not addressed in the report: It's because the authors never dreamed that anyone would have a problem with the idea that two airliners loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings at crusing speed, and as a result the buildings fell down.

[aggle-rithm]

As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.

[Kiwiwriter]

Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.

Well, that's exactly right, both with 9/11 nuts and Holocaust denier nuts. Fred Leuchter was NOT an engineer...he just claimed to be one. Gerhard Rudolf was NOT a chemist...he also claimed to be one. Their "reports" were shot down by highly qualified experts in these fields. David Green, the guy who did the report shredding Rudolf is a Ph.D. in chemistry who works with the US Army on CW. So David Irving ripped Green as being a "computer expert," not a chemist, as if Irving would know the difference.

The deniers and nutters are interesting in their arguments...as a writer, I'm interested in HOW arguments are framed...and nutters take this condescending tone. They sound like this: "I am smarter than you are. I am making a statement. It is your job as my student to go out and do the research yourself and come back with a term paper that matches my conclusions...and while you're at it, you find the 'smoking gun' that proves my theory. Do my work for me, and then join my crusade."

[Kiwiwriter]

Just to get banned ?

Non merci.

And the other reason being...unlike conspiracy theorists, I have a life.

More importantly, I lack the exaggerated sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists seem to have, in which they think they are the sole bringers of truth to the universe, and therefore are the center of it...both in the evil conspiracy's attempt to destroy them and the world adulating them.

That's why they get angry when they're ignored by the government and derided by the rest of the world. Bringers of truth think they deserve better.

[Kiwiwriter]

Oh, I think you'll find I'm not all that interesting... ;)

Well, at least the avatar is interesting, and I still can't figure out how to post one of my own. :)

But everybody has some reason to be interesting to others...heck, look at how many people are fascinated with the lives of Kato Kaelin, the Olsen twins, Uri Geller, and Paris Hilton! :D

[Kiwiwriter]

My suggested starting post for split.

???

Actually, I'm kind of honored that I was chosen as the chop point. Haven't been here more than a few days and as many posts and I saw myself as starting a massive thread. I haven't had this much reaction to something I wrote since I started my day-by-day history of World War II 11 years ago.

Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.

[kookbreaker]

Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.

You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!

[Kiwiwriter]

You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!

Yes...I think that was a direct cause of the later accusations I got of plagiarism and imposture, and the guy who demanded my web page be banned. That individual also said the world would be a better place if I was dead.

I challenged him to repeat those views to my wife and daughter, and he promptly apologized....publicly.

[Hellbound]

Huntsman says[/B]
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.

Actually, it seems you have no freaking clue on the subject. You may have read it, but you don't understand it.

A cutter charge is, specifically, an explosive. It is, more specifically, a high-speed explosive, typically a shaped charge, that is used to cut through an object.

IN contrast, cratering charges tend to be low-speed and unshaped.

Cutter charges also must be placed directly onto the structures they are intended to cut, in order to work correctly. You don't place a cutter charge on a piece of drywall and expect it to cut the steel column behind it. You have to open up the wall and put it on the column, or use a significantly larger amount of explosive. If you only set explosive on one side of a sturcture instead of both (still assuming you have direct contact), it requires four times the amount of explosive. Each little bit of distance you go away increease the amount of explosive needed exponentially. Either way, the explosives argument is an exercise in nonsense. You get one of two possible scenarios:

1. The charges were placed correctly. No one working noticed the people cutting holes in walls, no one noticed the drywall patches, no one noticed the work during the weeks that would have been required assuming the best circumstances and unrestricted access. No securoty guards noticed demolition or construction teams. THis is nonsense.

2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk. Notice that a block of C-4 weighing in at about 2.2 lbs. is about the size of a brick. For relatively small steel columns (1 inch), assuming you're a few feet away, you're still looking at requiring something on the order of 3 to 4 of these blocks. And that's to cut a single, relatively small column. IF they had enough to cut all the columns in the building, considering the size of the columns, one floor would have been pretty well unuseable, because it'd be too hard to walk around the huge piles of explosive laying around everywhere.

Now, on thermite, is is NOT explosive, and is NOT used as a "cutting charge" by anyone who still has functional brain cells remaining. Thermite is an incendiary. It burns bright, hot, and fast. It also contains no sulfur.

Thermite is specifically used in the military for destruction of property. Not by cutting, but my melting huge freakin holes in it. Have to leave a vehicle behind? Set off a thermite grenade on the hood, it'll melt through the engine block...enemy can't use it. You cut use it to cut steel, but it wouldn't be very effective. The reason being that once it starts burning, it only goes one direction. Down. Through whatever is under it. So if you want to cut a vertical steel column, you have to actuall drill holes in the column for the thermite to go in, and hope the thermite spreads enough on the way down to cut it.

In any case, a thermite reaction would have left molten steel, as well as significant residues of aluminum oxide and melted iron (not steel) from the thermite itself. This was not found.

Jones is speaking far outside his field, in areas he has no knowledge or experience in.

[kookbreaker]

2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk.

'Finally, something to put my printer on!'

[azazal]

'Finally, something to put my printer on!'

Printer nothing, I have 50 lbs of thermite under my desk as a foot rest :D

[Hutch]

Slight change of subject while we await Mutton-Head's return...

please see this thread--http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4997

Here is a CT (and Mr.Pickering does think something smells about 9-11) who actually goes out and asks expertise--and when the conclusion doesn't go his way, he posts it anyway. Note the reaction.

I invited Mr. Pickering to come over here and post--I also promised that we would be politer than his reception on LC, or, to quote:

Hutch wrote:
If you do take me up on this, I will promise to (1) post links for you if you PM them to me until you have sufficient posts to do so and (2) slap upside the head any JREF'er that gets out of line with you.

You have been warned...;) :D :eek:

[Mutton-Head]

Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

[kookbreaker]

You have been warned...;) :D :eek:

(slap!)

OW! Hey! No preempting!

[kookbreaker]

Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.


Because you can't understand some basic concepts, they are doing grade-school work? I think not.


Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

What you say is technically true, but what you find wrong fails to account for the sheer mass of the building.

Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?

ETA: Is it me, or is this starting to sound a lot like its leading to Roxdog 'telescoping' complaint?

[Mutton-Head]

to answer

Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Construction of the towers began in 1968 and was completed in 1972 and 1973. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Also unique was the grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building, a structural system called a "tube".

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

[kookbreaker]

to answer

It is nonsensical to expect all buildings to fall that way, especially for such a massive building as the WTC. Do a search on pancake collapse and you will find plenty of examples of buildings collapsing straight on their footprint.

The examples you show, we'll we don't know diddly about what failed on them.

ETA: Having looked the names of your links I can note that your collapsed buildings seem to all come from earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause both a toppling collapse as well as pancake collapse. Selective selection from Dr. Jones file does not impress me.

[Mutton-Head]

It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.

[Mutton-Head]

Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength

How should it have collapsed? Please show your work (math).

It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

...
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[chipmunk stew]

Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?Mutton-Head, please look carefully through the document you just referred to as "grade-school investigation". For one thing, this document is a supporting document to the investigation and analysis, describing in detail the material collected, and the method of collection and identification. It's not an analysis in and of itself.

What this document does show is many representative examples of the structural members used in the buildings. Attached is one example showing a section of a core column member near where the plane hit WTC1, from pages 43 & 49. As you can see (I encourage you to look at all the images in the document), the steel is twisted and deformed in a way that's consistent with crushing forces and inconsistent with explosive forces.

For another thing, NIST fully accounted for the core, as you can see in their supporting document on the Design and Construction of Structural Systems: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
And its appendices: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/appendixes_april0505.htm

[Belz...]

It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength

So you're saying that something that is designed not to fall CANNOT fall ? Can you see the error in that ?

2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.

So precedents do not exist ? How can you have anything happening if the fact that it never happened before precludes it from ever happening ?

Grade-school indeed.

[azazal]

Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.


Why does L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport CT come to mind...

[chipmunk stew]

to answerLet me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why? You expected it to fall like those earthquake victims? Why? The base of the buildings was not compromised (unless you subscribe to the bombs-in-the-basement theory), and there was no lateral ground motion, as there is in the type of earthquake in which buildings typical fall over like that. The weakness on the WTC towers began high up near the top of the buildings. What physical condition was present that would cause them to topple over like that?

[CptColumbo]

Another issue that has to be taken into consideration: In the days following the collapse it was still considered a "rescue" operation. The rubble was being cleared away as quickly as possible, in the hopes that survivors would be found. They weren't thinking that somebody will someday doubt that those two planes brought down the towers so we should be careful, they were thinking let's get this $iht out of the way and save as many people as we can.

[kookbreaker]

Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.

Oh really? Then why were internal fire-fighting efforts at the Philadelphia Meridian Plaza abandoned? They claimed it was because of the threat of 'pancake collapse'. Were the PFD a bunch of liars?

[kookbreaker]

It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."


Then you really need to tell every structural engineer in the world about your marvelous findings. You basicly are saying that skyscrapers are immune to fire. Just let 'em burn up the office materials inside, make sure the fire doesn't spread, and maybe replace the roof! Why risk firefighters lives if collapse from fire is never a threat?


The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength


Strength would matter if there was a sufficient horizontal force acting on the WTC. There was not. Its sheer mass ensured that


2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.

Pancake collapse has certainly happened, most often in earthquakes.

http://www.restoringearth.co.uk/education/science/geography/geohazards/earthquake/building_failure/pw3.shtm

[DavidJames]

Mutton-Head

If would be helpful if even one genuine structural engineer shared your opinion, but none do.

Please explain to this laymen, why I should believe you, another laymen, rather then certified and experience experts in the field. Explain, what special level of intelligence you have that I shouldn't lump you in with the other crackpots, like Christophera (who started another similar thread). You two have much in common, while you are much more articulate, both of you hold your own opinions is high regard, but yet don't have a lick of advanced knowledge of experience in the fields on which you pontificate.

Tell me Mutton-Head, what makes you different then Christophera or someone who claims to see bigfoot for that matter?

[dubfan]

Priceless.

Have I been tricked? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5014&view=findpost&p=4778865)

For anyone who cares, I've had my account un-suspended, but my posts are subject to moderation.

[Abbyas]

I know this has been said before but, this from a poster at LC:

But feel free to stay in fairy-land where government is benevolent, and you still have a say in how the country is run.

is exactly what kills me about the truth movement.

I don't have to do anything. I don't have to write my congresspeople, I don't have to volunteer, I don't even have to vote. Because it doesn't help anything. A perfect excuse for laziness.

[kookbreaker]

And have these folks all left the United States? I doubt it.

[aggle-rithm]

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength


But they have NO diagonal strength. Why would they? If the building is tilted at 30 degrees, you've got much worse problems than trying to keep it intact.


2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.

Of course it is silly, as are you for bringing it up.

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious.

Then you're unlikely to ever to understand anything, since experts are the source of knowledge.

So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:


Gladly!


My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart?


Millions of pounds of concrete and steel fell on them. Next question.

Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward?

Gravity.

That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally.


What force would have caused it to deviate horizontally?

No, I don’t build skyscrapers,

OBviously.

but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished.


...the hell...?

In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.


Are we still talking about the WTC, or buildings in general?


Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

Disagree? I couldn't even understand half of them.

[Dave_46]

...In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable....

Why should firemen be "reasonable experts" about explosives? They have expertise in dealing with the aftermath of explosiONS, and in anticpating when explosiONS may occur during a fire. That has nothing to do with expertise in explosiVES.

Dave

Edited to fix quote

[Manny]

Thanks to Manny for the fire fighters union. However, I have to admit that it makes me chuckle. I can hardly even get MY union representatives to call me back, and I pay them $800 bucks a year. Ha!Your union didn't lose 343 members on 9-11, nor is it's membership being called, to a man, cowards by an intellectually dishonest group of people trying to deflect blame from the people who killed those members.

Call them or stop citing firemen.

[Mutton-Head]

Hoo Nelly! (Or is it Hoo Doggy?)

I thought I was taking Gravy's advice by sticking to one subject, (Good advice Gravy) but I see I need to further refine so we are only talking about one thing at a time.
(Oh now I remember, it's "Good Gravy!")

For now, a reply



L'Ambiance Plaza

The total collapse of a building under construction in Bridgeport, Connecticut has been cited as an example total progressive collapse. On April 23, 1987, a planned sixteen-story building about halfway through its construction, collapsed due to deficient temporary connections. The colapse killed 28 workers. 1

This diagram shows the state of the building's construction at the tie of the collapse. (Figure by Rachel Martin)
The building, which consisted of two adjacent towers, employed the lift-slab method of construction, patented by Youtz and Slick in 1948. This method consists of fabricating all of the floor slabs as a stack at ground level, then elevating the slabs up into their final positions using a hydraulic lifting apparatus. 2




I guess the "structural engineers" amongst you who suggested this one failed to notice the totally different construction technique, the fact that they were temporary supports, and the fact that the building wasn't completed.

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

[Mutton-Head]

Manny, honestly, stop with the accusations. I know that 343 firmen were murdered. I don't believe all of the perpetrators were accounted for. Or at the very least, all of the pertinent details have been published by the NIST. Do you think that I'm lying? I'm sorry if you do.

[Mutton-Head]

I'm also sorry that you think I'm "Intellectually dis-honest." I'm not. You may not see my point, but that does not make me dis-honest.

[kookbreaker]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

I gave you a link:

http://www.restoringearth.co.uk/education/science/geography/geohazards/earthquake/building_failure/pw3.shtm

Or do you discount it since it was not a complete pancaking? Which would not happen with the lesser volume of material above the failure point.

Do you consider the Phildelphia Fire Department to be cowards for fearing a 'Pancake collapse' of the Meridian Plaza building?

And how many buildings on the world were hit by fuel-laden planes at top speed and survied?

I would also add the Ronan Point Apartment collapse. Not a complete collapse ( a corner of the building just collapsed). This was due to a gas explosion and poor construction. But part of it collpased, symetrically and in pancake fashion.

There is also the Sampoong Department Store collapse. One moment it was there... the next it was gone. Pancake collapse. Not fully a steel structured building, howwever.

[Manny]

I'm also sorry that you think I'm "Intellectually dis-honest." I'm not. You may not see my point, but that does not make me dis-honest.
212-683-4832

[Pardalis]

Actually, I'm kind of honored that I was chosen as the chop point. Haven't been here more than a few days and as many posts and I saw myself as starting a massive thread. I haven't had this much reaction to something I wrote since I started my day-by-day history of World War II 11 years ago.

Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.

Could you post a link to your website? It interests me very much.

[Kiwiwriter]

Could you post a link to your website? It interests me very much.

With pleasure...if I could figure out how to do a signature block, I would put it in there:

http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm


Read and enjoy. Comments, criticism, and links are welcome. My e-mail address is somewhere on it.

And a WW2 comment on WTC: my British relatives and friends were immediately taken back to the Blitz, when they saw the TV footage. And one of them reminded me that they had to put up with 9/11 every night.

[dissonance]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it has never happened.

So what?

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can never happen.

[money]

L'Ambiance Plaza

The total collapse of a building under construction in Bridgeport, Connecticut has been cited as an example total progressive collapse. On April 23, 1987, a planned sixteen-story building about halfway through its construction, collapsed due to deficient temporary connections. The colapse killed 28 workers. 1

This diagram shows the state of the building's construction at the tie of the collapse. (Figure by Rachel Martin)
The building, which consisted of two adjacent towers, employed the lift-slab method of construction, patented by Youtz and Slick in 1948. This method consists of fabricating all of the floor slabs as a stack at ground level, then elevating the slabs up into their final positions using a hydraulic lifting apparatus. 2




"This diagram"? What diagram?

You have more than 15 posts now, so you can use links to show us your evidence.

Are you ever going to get around to showing us the math involved in your first post?

[chipmunk stew]

With pleasure...if I could figure out how to do a signature block, I would put it in there:

http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm


Read and enjoy. Comments, criticism, and links are welcome. My e-mail address is somewhere on it.

And a WW2 comment on WTC: my British relatives and friends were immediately taken back to the Blitz, when they saw the TV footage. And one of them reminded me that they had to put up with 9/11 every night.(Kiwiwriter: click on "User CP" near the top, second from left, for all your avataring and signaturing needs.)

[money]

With pleasure...if I could figure out how to do a signature block, I would put it in there:



Just click on the User CP link in near the top of your screen, then go to Edit Signature.

[Kiwiwriter]

(Kiwiwriter: click on "User CP" near the top, second from left, for all your avataring and signaturing needs.)

Found "User Cp." But I didn't find the avatar and signature blocks on that page.

[Sultanist]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

[chipmunk stew]

Found "User Cp." But I didn't find the avatar and signature blocks on that page.Under "Settings & Options" on the left at the top you should see "Edit Avatar" and "Edit Signature".

[Kiwiwriter]

Under "Settings & Options" on the left at the top you should see "Edit Avatar" and "Edit Signature".

Didn't see it there. I saw the list, but it isn't there. I saw e-mail, options, and password, but that was it.

[VespaGuy]

100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

[snip]



I've been reading this thread from the beginning (I know, I know... I just can't look away), and I've only chimed in a few times when I see something odd.

Mutton-Head - One of the arguments that you use for a controlled demoliton is that a normal collapse would not be able to pulverise the concrete. This is the concrete that we see getting thrown from the building during the collapse, right?

So, my question is... how does a controlled demolition account for the pulverised concrete? The FLOORS were concrete, not the walls. Are you insinuating that the floors were unnecessarily wired with explosives as well? If the explosives didn't pulverise the concrete, what did?

[kookbreaker]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

Huntsman's comments in post #344 are probably not the thing you are looking for, but they are quite important.

[chipmunk stew]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.This it?: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663687#post1663687

[chipmunk stew]

Didn't see it there. I saw the list, but it isn't there. I saw e-mail, options, and password, but that was it.:confused: Sounds like a job for a mod.

[Hellbound]

If it was last week it's probably in the other loose change thread. I posted some remarks about explosives there, as well.

[Pardalis]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

Wait there a second Mutton, this is not a challenge match, it's a discussion forum. Why do you feel the need to challenge us?

[Hellbound]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

WTC 1 and WTC 2.

There, challenge beaten. Next?

[Tailgater]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

First of all, ask people on the top floor on a windy day if there was horizontal strength. Second, YOU find a steel framed structure that was hit by a plane full of fuel and burned for hours and fell over sideways. Third, lets just say there was bombs in the building and the government knew.....what was plan B if the demo failed to go off properly? Have you seen how many times demo teams have to redo something that's not wired properly? Why were they too stupid to say there were bombs and the terrorists did it just to allow for the so-called witnesses? The government is so smart in planning it but too stupid in the coverup? You don't think they figured on possible problems or witnesses in cd? If I were the mastermind: "Priority #1 gents is the explanation of the explosions that will obviously be heard be thousands!! hell, millions!! Add it to the list of terrorist acts, its np. Oh, by the way, make sure we find a camel with a chemical bomb on it when we invade Iraq...." HONESTLY

[dubfan]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

Links to posts re: thermite (courtesy of Gravy's awesome new thread index)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599307&postcount=1699 (my personal favorite)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599322&postcount=1701
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599327&postcount=1702
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599425&postcount=1712
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599442&postcount=1713
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1599574&postcount=1723

Btw, you'll want to grab a copy of Gravy's awesome spreadsheet that indexes the posts here by category/subject, date, and poster. Download it here: http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

[Pardalis]

WTC 1 and WTC 2.

There, challenge beaten. Next?

That's perfect Huntsman LOL! Damn you're quick!:D

[Regnad Kcin]

Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious.
Say, doc, I appreciate your diagnosis. But seeing as how you went to medical school for a bunch of years, interned some more, and have been for some time a consultant, lecturer, and award-winning writer in your field...I'm, well, suspicious. I'm gonna see what my florist thinks about this pain in my chest.

[Tailgater]

Say, doc, I appreciate your diagnosis. But seeing as how you went to medical school for a bunch of years, interned some more, and have been for some time a consultant, lecturer, and award-winning writer in your field...I'm, well, suspicious. I'm gonna see what my florist thinks about this pain in my chest.

Or Dr. Jones since he's a REAL doctor.

[Pardalis]

As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.

That's just perfectly said Aggle.

[Mutton-Head]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it has never happened.

So what?

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can never happen.

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it has never happened.

This where you start.


So what?

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can never happen.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)

I gave you a link:

http://www.restoringearth.co.uk/educ...ilure/pw3.shtm

Or do you discount it since it was not a complete pancaking? Which would not happen with the lesser volume of material above the failure point.

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.

[Pardalis]

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.


I think Hunstman gave you that answer, it did happen twice in New York in september 2001.

[Hellbound]

I think Hunstman gave you that answer, it did happen twice in New York in september 2001.

Actually, was WTC 7 steel-core? If so, that's three times.

[Pardalis]

Mutton, answer my question please. Why is this a challenge all of a sudden?

[chipmunk stew]

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

This where you start.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.We all know that nothing similar enough to count for much had ever happened prior to 9/11. But precedence is not a requirement, Mr. Investigator. Only plausibility based on known immediate factors and known immediate evidence is required for a solid hypothesis. If subsequent investigation, experimentation, and analysis provides further supporting evidence and does not falsify the hypothesis, you can consider it a solid theory--despite whatever has happened in the past.

Let's compare:
Pancake theory? Yup, it fits the bill.
Controlled demolition theory? Uh-oh, it falls apart faster than a controlled demolition.

[azazal]

Snips away boring stuff


I guess the "structural engineers" amongst you who suggested this one failed to notice the totally different construction technique, the fact that they were temporary supports, and the fact that the building wasn't completed.

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

You said find a steel framed tower that collapsed in a pancake fashion, in fact from your post number 355 of this thread "A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked."

Lets look at L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse (http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/faculty/ndelatte/case_studies_project/L'Ambiance%20Plaza/ambiance.htm) shall we.

Hmm, construction: Seven-inch thick posttensioned, concrete slabs and steel columns comprised its structural frame Wow, steel framing, looks at Muttonhead's post, yeap matches his loose requirements.

Looking at the plans: It consisted of two offset rectangular towers, 63 ft by 112 ft each that's the size of a single floor, final project would be 16 stories high.

Checking the diagram listed, the floors that collapsed were at roughly at that height of the 6th floor's planed location. So again, the collapse was from some height, not 1 or 2 stories. At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package.

The supports holding the slabs gave way and started the pancake collapse.

So let's see shall we, concrete floor slab held up by supports that fail, which in turn causes the floor slab to fall. That slab smashed into the next one in the line, knocking it from its supports, and chain reacting on down the line. So how is this different from the WTC?? Support wedge fails vs. a support strut failing, sounds pretty close to me. But hey, you just keep moving those goal posts, K.

[kookbreaker]

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."


What is your point?

In the history of buildings, only a fraction of a fraction are what could be called 'high-rise'.

Of them, only a fraction would be considered 'steel structures' (a term you had best look at more carefully, BTW. Many, if not most high rise buildings use concrete cores).

Of them only a fraction of a fraction have ever been in danger of any sort (bombings, fire, earthquakes).

Of them, only a small portion received damage that could result in pancake collapse, which requires fire or other cricumstances to fail the building at a point other than its base. The count of how many outside the WTC attacks that reached this level of danger could be counted on one deformed hand.

Of them, most were damaged beyond repair or at least partially collapsed.

Of them, only the WTC buildings have collapsed completely.

Your complaint seems to be that we must find prior examples from a sample pool that is extremely small to begin with.

Structural Engineers, and many other types of Engineers understand completely how pancake collapse can occour. You are saying these experts, who design buildings that people work and live in, do not understand what they are talking about. We are simply supposed to take your word for it.

[kookbreaker]

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.


Why do you think that is speculation? Are you suggesting that mass has nothing to do with the completeness of the collapse? Do you consider Newton to be another expert that you can mistrust?

[Mutton-Head]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

[kookbreaker]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

So you were playing games. What a surprise.

[Pardalis]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

Might I ask what is exactly the reason of your departure? We all seemed to be having an intelligent discussion didn't we? What went wrong?:confused:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

This where you start.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)



Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.

You are asking for irrelevent evidence. If you truly want to start by dealing with "pancaking" it has to be thus:
1) Define what a pancake collapse of a skyscraper/highrise/etc is.
2) a) Does the collapse of the WTC1 building fit the definition from step 1?
b) Does the collapse of the WTC2 building fit the definition from step 1?
3) If the collapse fits the definition of a pancake collapse from step1 con't to step four, else start a different proof
4) Form a testable hypothesis as to what structural failure would cause a building of that construction to collapse
5) a) Are there any other building collapses that fit the definition in step 1?
b) If so, is their construction similar enough to that of the WTC (1/2) building in question to be relevent?
6) One you have a working theory on the structural failure that caused the collapse of the WTC building in question, form a testable hypothesis as to the cause of the structural failure
7) If you answered step 5b as yes then
a) Is the cause of the structural failure relevent to the hypothesis you are testing?
b) If so, compare the collapses for both similarities and differences
8) Look at all available evidence and determine if it is
a) Relevent to testing the hypothesis
b) If it is relevent, test the hypothesis with it
i) If it supports the hypothesis, take note of it
ii) If it contradicts the hypothesis, review the hypothesis and
1) Modify
2) Discard and form a new hypothesis, start over at step (6)
3) Review relevence of data in step (8)(a)
c) if it is not relevent, discard the data
9) Present your working theory and all relevent data (pro and con) as to the collapse, and cause thereof, of the WTC building

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, I really don't understand why you absolutely need to have an example of a precedent in building collapse in order to discuss the WTC collapses. It was an unprecedented event in history! Things do happen for the first time someday.

ETA: So far you have been the only articulate and intelligent "conspiracist" (for lack of a better word, not meant as an insult) we've encountered!

ETA: Let's change "conspiracist" with "non-believer-in-the-official-story".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

You know, I think you may be right. This forum speaks the language of scientific process, critical thinking, and sound logic. We use specific words to mean specific things, and strive for clarity in communication. We strive for accuracy in citations, relevent sources, corraboratable facts, testable hypothesis and thoroughness.

Your verbal dodging, and weaving; your playing fast and loose with definitions and interpretations; and your refusal to set aside your confirmational bias are certainly indicative of an inability for us to communicate.

[Kiwiwriter]

You know, I think you may be right. This forum speaks the language of scientific process, critical thinking, and sound logic. We use specific words to mean specific things, and strive for clarity in communication. We strive for accuracy in citations, relevent sources, corraboratable facts, testable hypothesis and thoroughness.

Your verbal dodging, and weaving; your playing fast and loose with definitions and interpretations; and your refusal to set aside your confirmational bias are certainly indicative of an inability for us to communicate.

Look, he's not looking for a discussion. He's looking for one of the two following outcomes:

1. Confrontation
2. Conversion

He either wants you to explode in his face, so he can show that our side of this...uh, debate, for lack of a better word...are crazy people, and he's the sane, sober, and serious one, or...

That you realize the error of your ways, see the light, and join his army of conspiracy theorists.

Same thing with neo-Nazis and other wacky racers.

[Sultanist]

Thanks, folks, for the "thermite" help. Much obliged.

Bob

[Pardalis]

What a shame. For once I thought we would have a somewhat intelligent discussion about the subject.

I guess it's back to the insane asylum with the geggys and Christopheras...

[Tailgater]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

And thanks for doubting everything put in front of you and challenging us to provide you proof of something that's never happened.

I wish someone would answer the "why did they make it harder then they needed too? why didn't the government include explosions in claims of terrorist acts to avoid possible witnesses? and why didn't they plant wmds in Iraq?" Oh, that would make this arguement pointless wouldn't it.

Hell should add this to his sig since no one answers the question in his posts.:)

[XXX]

These threads really do move fast! If I may take a step back for a moment...

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

If EVERY eyewitnesses impressions of what MIGHT have happened were included as evidence in the report, then it would be a very thick and largely meaningless document.

Nice post, but actually to make what I believe would be a more accurate comparison to his use of the fireman's quote would be if you were to say, upon seeing all the newspapers dissappear, "It was as if a giant purple salamander came along and ate all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways". And then we take that line to mean that you have "assumed" that a giant purple salamander actually did it.

Also, I have a question/clarification. What exactly is the status of the blueprints for the WTC towers? In my research I have run accross several claims, but never a real definative answer. The CT's like to say that they were "classified" or made "top secret" after the towers collapsed, but I have read that they belong to the port authority. What exactly is the status of these blueprints, and are people actually able to get ahold of them? And were the exact blueprints themselves made available to the investigators?

[Ersby]

Good-bye from the Mutton-HeadAnd barely a few minutes after azazal's reply!

[dubfan]

Also, I have a question/clarification. What exactly is the status of the blueprints for the WTC towers? In my research I have run accross several claims, but never a real definative answer. The CT's like to say that they were "classified" or made "top secret" after the towers collapsed, but I have read that they belong to the port authority. What exactly is the status of these blueprints, and are people actually able to get ahold of them? And were the exact blueprints themselves made available to the investigators?

In the very last moments of the famous phone call with fellow conspiradroid Eric Hufschmid (http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/ericLC.mp3), one of the Loose Change crew claims to have bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority.

The remark is made at about the 1:01:17 point in the recording.

Standard disclaimer...

[Stellafane]

Mutton-Head, I really have nothing to contribute to this thread. But it's very unlikely I will ever be able to call someone "Mutton-Head" without ticking them off, and I just couldn't let the opportunity pass.

[XXX]

Thanks for the info Dubfan. However, I would still like to hear from someone if they know what the definative status of the blueprints is, and if they were shared with the investigators.

[WildCat]

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
Yes. For starters, you're confusing the support base for the construction cranes for the core columns. These are temporary structures that only support the 4 cranes used in the construction, they are removed as the building is completed. If you live in a big city where high-rise construction is taking place you can see them for yourself, up close.

[Polaris]

Now I'm almost half-way throught the first movie (I admit I fast-forwarded alot of the long bits and the interview with the non-expert-in-anything-witness-from-the-other-side-of-the-river-guy). They are trying to make us believe that there were multiple explosions before the first collapse. But they only rely on the footage of a camera set on the other side of the river, so we can't really see or hear anything (except some wind blowing into the camera's mic).

There's also speculations about helicopter having something to do with the collapse because of "suspicious" flashes of light... Gosh... How can I take this seriously?

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, I'll finish watching it...

The part of that "documentary" that pisses me off the most is when he starts blaming the pilots for not being there in time. "Where were you guys when we needed you?"

[Gravy]

Thanks for the info Dubfan. However, I would still like to hear from someone if they know what the definative status of the blueprints is, and if they were shared with the investigators.
Have you contacted the Port Authority of NY & NJ, or the City of New York Buildings Dept., or any of the investigative bodies?

ETA: Sorry if that sounded rude. I've been through all of the recent threads, and the only mention of the blueprints I've seen is referred to in dubfan's post. You can also use this forum's search features, at the top of the window.

[steve s]

Gunshots!! I heard gun shots. Oh, wait. No I didn't. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAPITOL_GUNFIRE?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Republican rep Jim Saxton reported hearing gunshots in the Rayburn House Office garage near the capitol building. "I heard what I thought to be between six and ten shots. It sounded exactly like gunfire to me," Saxton told Fox News Channel. It turned out just to be some noise made by an elevator repair crew.

But as we know from the CTs, if someone reports hearing gunshots (or explosions) then they really must have heard gunshots. After all, nothing else could possibly sound like gunshots, right?

Steve S.

[XXX]

Not as of yet Gravy. Documents in the NIST report do say that they have been reproduced with the permission of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which lead me to believe that they did indeed have the rights to them. But it seems like another one of those issues that are often discussed with conflicting information given out, like in the other "free fall" thread where the claim is made that the Mayor took them (though in his link it doesn't specifically say the blueprints, it just makes reference to "World Trade Center documents), and with all the research that many others have done I was hoping someone here might have a definative answer having looked into it before.

I read in the other thread about the "free fall" of the buildings that someone has written the Port Authority to ask them. I'll wait to see if he gets a response. Otherwise I have no problem with contacting them myself.

[Polaris]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

You're right - the firefighter's quote, along with audio from the video taken across the river, etc., ARE evidence of explosions.

That's just step one when moving toward a conclusion (providing you haven't already made your conclusion and looked for evidence to verify it while discarding anything inconvenient).

So here's a question for you. Are these explosions evidence of explosives? You're interested in understanding what happen from the moment the first plane hit the first tower to the moment the last bit of rubble from the last falling building stopped moving. Am I wrong? Unless you're only interested in collecting evidence for its own sake, then I can safely assume you are eventually interested in an unbiased conclusion. The evidence is there for explosions, but explosions are not necessarily caused by explosives (in fact, most explosions are not). There is no evidence for explosives - the explosions are easily explained by other factors (factors for which there IS evidence). That would lead an honest person to the conclusion that explosions did occur in the WTC but were not caused by explosive devices.

[XXX]

Have you contacted the Port Authority of NY & NJ, or the City of New York Buildings Dept., or any of the investigative bodies?

ETA: Sorry if that soulded rude.

No worries. Just another reminder that, as I have learned and I'm sure you have too in your own research, that you have to go to the source whenever possible in order to get you info. Otherwise you could end up with a bunch of BS.

In doing some more searching, I actually found what might be an answer to one of my questions. In an article written by Paul H.B. Shin who writes for the New York Daily News (I found other articles by the guy to see if he was just a CT author) he mentions..."The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency. and in another article, written by Eric Lipton of the NY Times (who has written a number of good articles about 9/11) it says..."The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating... A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry."

This leads me to believe that the investigators did indeed eventually recieve the blueprints themselves, regardless of the question of who handed over what and when. Now all I'm looking for is the answer on their status as of now.

[Sultanist]

Take a look at this photo...

http://www.rense.com/general70/320.jpg

It's being suggested by some that those columns would not have been sheared like that unless something like thermite was used on them.
Now I know no one here accepts the claims that thermite would have been used. But I would be very interested in a possible explanation for how this may have occurred. Any thoughts?

[no one in particular]

Take a look at this photo...
Take a look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1601663&postcount=1799) post...

[Gravy]

Oops, you beat me to it.

ETA: Huntsman makes the very important point here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663687&postcount=344) that thermite cannot make an effect like that, because it burns down, with gravity.

[XXX]

You talking about the column in the backround there? It was cut with a blowtorch, after the towers fell as were some other columns as a part of the clean up afterwards.

[Sultanist]

Thanks. You dudes (and dudettes) are surely a wealth of information.

[geggy]

Murrah building after the bombing: http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/History/bombing.jpg

WTC7 before the fall: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/340_wtc7_damage.jpg

Power of christ compels you 3x

[Pardalis]

Murrah building after the bombing: http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/History/bombing.jpg

WTC7 before the fall: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/340_wtc7_damage.jpg


Relevance??????????????????????????????????????

[Pardalis]

The part of that "documentary" that pisses me off the most is when he starts blaming the pilots for not being there in time. "Where were you guys when we needed you?"

Yeah, I like the part when he takes off his glasses and looks at the camera while saying that same line.... Scary stuff.

[Regnad Kcin]

The relevance, as someone noted in Pt. 1 of this thread, is that some great analytical minds seem to think there is this object called a "building," each one constructed in the same fashion. On top of that, regardless of whether a bomb goes off within their walls, an airplane flies into one, or someone bounces a tennis ball against the outside, they all should fail in the same way.

[Pardalis]

The relevance, as someone noted in Pt. 1 of this thread, is that some great analytical minds seem to think there is this object called a "building," each one constructed in the same fashion. On top of that, regardless of whether a bomb goes off within their walls, an airplane flies into one, or someone bounces a tennis ball against the outside, they all should fail in the same way.

Ah, I see...:boggled:

geggy-boy, it would be nice if you posted some comments along with your pictures, this is a discussion forum.

[Gravy]

If only geggy could, as his sig states, "turn the knob of mediocrity," rather than just banging his troll head against the brick wall of stupidity.

Some day you may be mediocre, geggy, but you're going to have to buckle down and work at it.

And how about that apology for calling me a liar? Real men apologize when they insult people without cause.

ETA: oh, and while you're at it, please provide photos of the south side of WTC 7. You know, the side that was heavily damaged. I await your apology and your photos with equal confidence.

[dubfan]

Out of the mouths of babes...

Speaking of evidence, I should not say that LC didn't give any, because it did, it was just random and sometimes irrelevent to the issue. And when it did give this evidence, it never really proved anything. Maybe that was their purpose though...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5042&view=findpost&p=4792704

[geggy]

ETA: oh, and while you're at it, please provide photos of the south side of WTC 7. You know, the side that was heavily damaged. I await your apology and your photos with equal confidence.

http://www.edgehillfire.com/wtc/wtc7.jpg

Freaking mediocre.

[Shrinker]

http://www.edgehillfire.com/wtc/wtc7.jpg

Freaking mediocre.

That's a corner, not a side.

[Darat]

To anyone wishing to use in-line images in their posts please check Rule 4 of your Membership Agreement. I've edited quite a few posts in this thread that I believe breached Rule 4 and I have not so far issued any warnings regarding those breaches however if Members continue to breach Rule 4 I will start to issues warnings which could lead to further action being taken including suspension or banning.

If you are unsure whether an image is copyrighted and/or not available for general use or whether a particular site does explicitly allow hotlinking then I suggest you play safe and merely include a link to the image you wish to draw Members' attention to.

[Belz...]

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.

I'm still interesting in your response to my post: Why do you think that precedents cannot exist ?

Manny, honestly, stop with the accusations. I know that 343 firmen were murdered. I don't believe all of the perpetrators were accounted for. Or at the very least, all of the pertinent details have been published by the NIST. Do you think that I'm lying? I'm sorry if you do.

Not lying. Just wrong.

[Belz...]

Yes, thank you Huntsman, you did answer the question exactly 100% correct. Thank you.

The “challenge” comment was just a playful metaphor. But I'm beginning to get the feeling that we speak different languages. I think this will only serve to further exacerbate all of us. So, since Huntsman and I just reached probably the only agreement that we ever will, I will bid adieu.

Good-bye from the Mutton-Head

Now that's what I call a combative personality.

"Well, if this 'debating' means people won't agree with me, I'm out!!"

[Belz...]

http://www.edgehillfire.com/wtc/wtc7.jpg

Freaking mediocre.

Cherry-picking, are we ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/WTC7b3.jpg

Now, tell me that entire side of the building isn't on fire ?

[WildCat]

Cherry-picking, are we ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/WTC7b3.jpg

Now, tell me that entire side of the building isn't on fire ?
Actually, the entire building is on fire. The wind is just blowing all the smoke to one side.

[Polaris]

Yeah, I like the part when he takes off his glasses and looks at the camera while saying that same line.... Scary stuff.

"Mr. Wannabe Documentary Maker, meet Mr. East River."

[WildCat]

"Mr. Wannabe Documentary Maker, meet Mr. East River."
You forgot the concrete shoes...

[Regnad Kcin]

Now that's what I call a combative personality.

"Well, if this 'debating' means people won't agree with me, I'm out!!"And $50 says he goes elsewhere claiming something very close to, "Those 'skeptics' at the JREF weren't able to refute a thing I said."

[Kent1]

That's a corner, not a side.

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.

[Kent1]

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.

Its hard to get good photos of the south side showing damage because of the large amound smoke coming out of the building.
But yes they do exist.

[WildCat]

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!
Nice catch Kent! Yet another blatant lie from the "truth" movement.

BTW, since Kent can't post links yet the pics are here (http://www.edgehillfire.com/ny4.html).

[CFLarsen]

Don't mess with me, CT-people. I'm your worst f**king nightmare... :D (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5072)


Hillingsø is given a higher rank than he has, to give his (unverified) statement more weight.

The speaker is quoted incorrectly - misleading, so it makes the unsuspecting reader thinking that he is advocating the idea that the towers fell because of bombs.

The demolition expert is quoted incorrectly. Not once, but twice. All to support the idea that the towers fell because of bombs.

The demolition expert is contradicting those who claim the towers were brought down by many small bombs.


People, we are not looking at sloppy investigation here. We are looking at a pattern of deliberate fraud.

[dubfan]

People, we are not looking at sloppy investigation here. We are looking at a pattern of deliberate fraud.

Fraud and libel. If I was Deb Burlingame I'd be on these creeps so fast it would make your head spin.

[Brainster]

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.

The boarded up windows are another pretty good clue. Not sure exactly what building that is, but it's certainly not WTC 7.

Greetings to all, I am Pat from the Screw Loose Change blog. Thanks for this wonderful thread. You guys have given us the inspiration for many posts. Thanks especially to Gravy for his amazing Loose Change Viewer Guide, which has meant that I don't have to listen to Dylan's annoying voice every time I want to pinpoint the time of something in the film.

Quick question: Is Paul Isaac, Jr., really a Truther? I saw the video of him arguing with Bermas at Ground Zero and thought the guy was a hero for standing up to the Loosers, telling them how inappropriate their behavior was. There's no possibility that somebody's spoofing his support for the "Truth" movement as a way to get back at him?

[Polaris]

Don't mess with me, CT-people. I'm your worst f**king nightmare... :D (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5072)


Hillingsø is given a higher rank than he has, to give his (unverified) statement more weight.

The speaker is quoted incorrectly - misleading, so it makes the unsuspecting reader thinking that he is advocating the idea that the towers fell because of bombs.

The demolition expert is quoted incorrectly. Not once, but twice. All to support the idea that the towers fell because of bombs.

The demolition expert is contradicting those who claim the towers were brought down by many small bombs.


People, we are not looking at sloppy investigation here. We are looking at a pattern of deliberate fraud.

The photo on the paper alone is misleading - it's showing the impact of the second plane.

[Kent1]

The boarded up windows are another pretty good clue. Not sure exactly what building that is, but it's certainly not WTC 7.

Greetings to all, I am Pat from the Screw Loose Change blog. Thanks for this wonderful thread. You guys have given us the inspiration for many posts. Thanks especially to Gravy for his amazing Loose Change Viewer Guide, which has meant that I don't have to listen to Dylan's annoying voice every time I want to pinpoint the time of something in the film.

Quick question: Is Paul Isaac, Jr., really a Truther? I saw the video of him arguing with Bermas at Ground Zero and thought the guy was a hero for standing up to the Loosers, telling them how inappropriate their behavior was. There's no possibility that somebody's spoofing his support for the "Truth" movement as a way to get back at him?

Yes he is

BTW, Hows it going, it's me Scott

[chipmunk stew]

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.Yep.
http://www.edgehillfire.com/wtc/wtc6.jpg

(geggy, you found a picture that was 7th in a series of Ground Zero. Just because you find a picture called "wtc7.jpg" when you do a Google image search, doesn't mean it's a picture of 7 World Trade Center. You're really not good at this. You might want to consider pursuing a different hobby.)

[Brainster]

Yes he is

BTW, Hows it going, it's me Scott

Hi Scott, sorry to hear that about Isaac. Looking at the other pictures on that site, it's obvious that's World Financial Center 3. See especially photo #9--the arcade building is the Winter Garden.

[CFLarsen]

The photo on the paper alone is misleading - it's showing the impact of the second plane.
Since when did facts change anything in the minds of CT'ers?

[Kent1]

Hi Scott, sorry to hear that about Isaac. Looking at the other pictures on that site, it's obvious that's World Financial Center 3. See especially photo #9--the arcade building is the Winter Garden.

Brainster, I just got some interesting information. So now I don't know what to believe.

See this post from Killtown. See the comments.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=Paul+Isaac%2C+Jr+9%2F11&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/killtown-is-cia-free.html&w=paul+isaac+jr+9+11&d=bSSLJDmtM1iN&icp=1&.intl=us

[Regnad Kcin]

...Greetings to all, I am Pat from the Screw Loose Change blog. Thanks for this wonderful thread...Hi, Pat/Brainster.

Are you aware of the first part of this thread (Loose Change (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102))? It takes a while to get through, but is nonetheless interesting.

Also, there is a related thread currently active: Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426)

Welcome to the forum.

[Pardalis]

Hi, Pat/Brainster.

Are you aware of the first part of this thread (Loose Change (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102))? It takes a while to get through, but is nonetheless interesting.

Also, there is a related thread currently active: Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426)

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome as well Brainster.

There's also this awesome document created by Gravy wich will help you get throught the first Loose Change thread more easily:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

Have fun!

[Brainster]

Hi, Pat/Brainster.

Are you aware of the first part of this thread? It takes a while to get through, but is nonetheless interesting.

Also, there is a related thread currently active:

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. I've read allmost all of the 116 pages of that first thread, plus of course I've got Gravy's spreadsheet to refer to as well. The Free Fall claim is based on incorrect time estimates. If you watch the collapse of the North Tower from 9-11 Eyewitness (which has a lunatic conspiracy theory but terrific independent footage) it seems clear that the building was nowhere near being all the way down at 8 seconds and possibly not even at 14 seconds. A huge (40+story) steel section (probably part of the core) topples over at 34 seconds.

[Pardalis]

Its not building 7 either. LOL! You can even see the crane in the photo!

Go to the site he posted go under
NY City Pictures - Page 4 (Ground Zero)

You can see another picture zoomed back further.

That's what happens when you have the investigating skills of a 9 year old.

Freaking mediocre.

INDEED

[Belz...]

Actually, the entire building is on fire. The wind is just blowing all the smoke to one side.

Now, now, Wildcat, you're complicating things. Give him at least SOME chance of understanding.

[Belz...]

Thanks. I've read allmost all of the 116 pages of that first thread, plus of course I've got Gravy's spreadsheet to refer to as well. The Free Fall claim is based on incorrect time estimates. If you watch the collapse of the North Tower from 9-11 Eyewitness (which has a lunatic conspiracy theory but terrific independent footage) it seems clear that the building was nowhere near being all the way down at 8 seconds and possibly not even at 14 seconds. A huge (40+story) steel section (probably part of the core) topples over at 34 seconds.

Hey, man. Welcome.

Any link to that video ?

[Mutton-Head]

From: The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman
October 16, 2003
[Version 3]
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

“Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

Now, back to wnat R Macky said

Allow me to summarize your observation -- please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you in any way:

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.


So, to summarize, there was too much energy in the “collapse.” There was not even enough energy to accomplish one of the four tasks, (As summarized by myself previously. Once again Macky, thanks for the actually reading my posts.)

To Hunstman, I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.) Thanks for clarifying that cutter charges are explosives. Thanks for showing me my error, and letting me know the severity of my stupidity. What I meant to say was, that there was too much energy in the “collapse,” so the rest of the energy had to come from somewhere else. I hypothesized, guessed, that it was explosives, charges, bombs, or as other mutton-heads might say, “That which goes boom-boom.” If anyone else agrees that it appears there was too much energy, perhaps some guesses as to where else it could have come from.

Oh, and on the point of reconstructing the towers, yeah, you're right, that would have been impossible and silly. I still stand by my claim that all of the steel should have been kept, and possibly marked before removal. At least the largest pieces, like the 47 core collumns.

[Pardalis]

Welcome back Mutton-Head

So, to summarize, there was too much energy in the “collapse.”

What made you come to this conclusion?



I have the math, if anyone is interested.

PLEASE!

[Mutton-Head]

Oh, by the way Huntsman, is that what you really look like?
You're pretty hot.

[Pardalis]

Hey, man. Welcome.

Any link to that video ?

It's the first movie on top of the list in the "universal seed" site. Quite funny.

[Mutton-Head]

To Pardalis

What made you come to this conclusion?

Read my previous post. Convert the letters into words, then convert those words into ideas. Notice in particular the statements in bold. I did that for emphasis.

[Pardalis]

To Pardalis

Read my previous post. Convert the letters into words, then convert those words into ideas. Notice in particular the statements in bold. I did that for emphasis.

No need to be sarcastic. Show me your math please.

[Mutton-Head]

Also for Pardalis

I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.)

BM = MH * (PB + Mc)

Where BM = blithering moron
MH = mutton head
PB = poop for brains
Mc is the masturbation coefficient.

[Pardalis]

Also for Pardalis

BM = MH * (PB + Mc)

Where BM = blithering moron
MH = mutton head
PB = poop for brains
Mc is the masturbation coefficient.

Gees, I thought you were reasonable and articulate... I retract was I said earlier.

[Darat]

Attacking the argument is OK, attacking the Member is not.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Oh, and on the point of reconstructing the towers, yeah, you're right, that would have been impossible and silly...Thank you.

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, I was referring to your maths wich lead you to the conclusion there had been too much energy in the collapses.

[Mutton-Head]

I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.)

BM = MH * (PB + Mc)

Where BM = blithering moron
MH = mutton head
PB = poop for brains
Mc is the masturbation coefficient.

Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.

Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post

[Pardalis]

Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.

Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post

Sorry if I didn't get your humour.:D

Could you show us your own math?

ETA: and why would the alledged excess energy be attributed to explosives?

[Landru]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."

[Pardalis]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."

Welcome Landru!

Wow, this is major. The first of many lawsuits to come...

[Mutton-Head]

Show your math

Well, see, I thought that the math was shown in my last large post. Also, I’ve given similar math before. But I will try to write it in another form

As Macky said

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.

Now, my previous equation, (simplified)

E = P + A + Bb + Ba

Where:
E = Gravitational energy of tower
P = The energy required to pulverize the concrete, (Not to mention, everything else.)
A = The amount that the top floors accelerated to the ground. (True, this was not “free-fall” speed, but in my opinion, close. The actual energy used in acceleration to be determined later. As of now, I believe that the equation is way out of balance, even if A = 0)
Bb = The energy needed to break apart and/or bend all of the structural steel. (Also yet to be determined.)
Ba = The energy needed to accelerate steel beams outward in a circle around the tower. (Also, yet to be determined.)

Now, take Mr. Hoffman’s paper, plug in known numbers, we get:

111,000 KWH = 135,000 KWH + A + Bb + Ba

I think you will all agree, A and Ba and Bb cannot be negative numbers. Something else was supplying extra energy. My estimate, (This is just a gut estimate, is that it had to be at least twice the 111,000 KWH.)

Now, take the knowledge that something was supplying extra energy, and add that to the fact that firemen say it appeared to be a controlled demotion, and add that to the fact that the only time we have ever seen a building collapse symmetrically is with controlled demolition, (i.e., explosives placed inside a building) and it would seem to point to explosives. It does not prove explosives, it points to it. Explosives fit all of the observed points:
1. Too much energy in collapse
2. Appearance by many of controlled demolition
3. Description by many of appearance of explosives, (i.e. flashes, squibs, sequential…)

But, of course, I am not an explosives expert. Neither is Steven Jones. When he talks about explosives and cutter charges and thermite, he does say,

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

Notice please Huntsman, that he does not claim to be an expert, only that all of the observed conditions point to some kind of charge. He merely points to charges he is aware of. Is it possible there are other high-tech types of charges that you’re not aware of?

Does anybody else have any better idea as to where the extra energy came from?

And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

[Shrinker]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Nice debut Landru.

Please mods can I do one tiny little hotlink...?

http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif

[Shrinker]

And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Well, you're somewhat overshadowed by landru's revelation. But two things are missing I think. The estimate of the towers' PE is said to be imprecise. Dare to put a figure on the imprecision? 20% is enough to make the problem mostly go away.

Also does this depend on all the concrete turning to 60 micron dust? Is that and average, a guess or what? Presumably particles get larger closer to ground zero.

[Shrinker]

Nice debut Landru.

Please mods can I do one tiny little hotlink...?

http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif

That's a no then. Boooo!

[Landru]

Welcome Landru!

Wow, this is major. The first of many lawsuits to come...
Thanks, everyone. As they say in Vegas, it's great to be here.

Since I work for a major Canadian news outlet, I've alerted them to this story. I did a quick Google News search and turned up nothing. Considering how widespread LC has become, its imminent departure from the online world is definitely newsworthy.

CTs, of course, are currently weaving this into the lastest thread of the conspiracy.

[Stellafane]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Hi Landru. Welcome to this forum.

Now you'll have to excuse me for a moment...


A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

ETA: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

Oops, still not done:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

[Regnad Kcin]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?What is that supposed to mean?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Back up a minute. Claim from post 470 said FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules of energy in the building.
-----------------------

4x10^11 joules = 400000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 400000000000 J / 1055 J = 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu / 3413 Btu = 111089.04759193660148053928178154 kWh


Okay, fun equations aside now (what can I say, I like double-checking math)


...Robert Fowler, senior engineer at the structural engineering firm of McNamara and Salvia...
"Though the WTC towers stood over 1,360 feet above the street level, the structures' bases were actually set 70 feet into the ground, and one had a 100-foot-tall antenna atop it, so with 205-foot widths, they had a lot of [exterior] area facing the wind," the engineer stated. He calculated that the approximate maximum wind shear force that a single face needed to withstand to be somewhere around 11,000,000 pounds. The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
...
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."
from
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/


What this would imply is
10^12 joules = 1000000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 1000000000000 J / 1055 J = 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu / 3413 Btu =
277722.61897984150370134820445384 kWh which is greater than Jim Hoffman's estimated 135,000 kWh needed to pulverize the concrete.

Okay, so why the big difference from the FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules and Kausel's 10^12 J?
My guess, the FEMA estimate deals with the potential energy stored during construction of the towers and does not necessarily include all the stuff inside the towers. Whereas, Kausel is using Fowler's estimate of 500,000 tons of gravity load produced by the towers.

ETA: Site I used for the conversion formulas http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
ETA^2: Formatting

[Landru]

Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091

Some nuggets...

"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."

And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.

Who needs SNL when you've got this?

[Brainster]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."

Nice! Now wait for the first complaint about Dylan's first amendment rights violated, or how he's being censored--5,4,3....

Remember, everything that happens is either evidence of the conspiracy or evidence of the coverup.

[Mutton-Head]

With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours)

But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?

In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.

Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement

With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours).

Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.

Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.

278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!

[Pardalis]

Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091

Some nuggets...

"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."

And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.

Who needs SNL when you've got this?

These guys are funny! They even posted a picture of the laywer, calling her names. I find her quite cute actually.

[Regnad Kcin]

Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091...As I opined somewhere earlier in these threads, someone ought to find the school systems that handed diplomas to such "scholars" and bring them up on charges for being accessories to dumb.

[XXX]

Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

Some nuggets...

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...

Who needs SNL when you've got this?

Speaking of that, have any of you ever read this paranoid ranting about the Naudets film?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

This guy has way too much time on his hands. Funny thing is, in another part of this site he talks about how the footage of the 1st plane they shot is what will bring down Bush since he didn't intend for it to be captured, but it was. But then later comes this piece of work.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?

In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.

Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement



Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.

Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.

278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!


If he had done 500,000 tons from 1350 ft he would have gotten the following:
1.8304270462633455 x 10^12 J, not 10^12 J, per http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Which would result in:
1830427046263.3455 J / 1055 J = 1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu
1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu / 3413 Btu = 508350.99313979181912481271080883 kWh which is 83% greater than the figure he provided. So, I think your assumption as to his work is in error.

One would hope an MIT professor on a panel investigating this would have his ducks in a row and quacking in key. It is far more likely he simplified what he was doing in his explanation to the article's author.

[XXX]

Some of my favorite nuggets from that thread...

"Makes me mad. This is about the Truth not a huge payout."

"Hopefully someone with money will bail them out and buy the rights then release it into theatres to recover the cash."

Or...

"Find out who this firm represents...find out its largest clients and you will probably be led to the same people who are trying to cover up 9/11. Lisa is a front so you might say..."that mean bitch" or worse."

Notice in that one he has both made the accusation AND come to the conclusion by the end of the 2 sentances...before doing the "finding out" that he says he's going to do.

They seem to have no concept of copyright laws. The Naudets own that footage, they shot it they own it. They can let some people use it, and others not, just like any other copyrighted work. And don't ever SELL anything that has copyrighted footage on it, that's a big no-no, and that's why they are getting sued.

On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.