WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[X]

The forces are equal. This is true.

But they are equal at a magnitude greater than the structure can withstand.

Really, I don't think it can be put any simpler than that. It's bordering on not-even-wrong-ness.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

According FBI M. Atta's passport was picked up somewhere on Manhattan and handed in to FBI on 911. Maybe Mr. Atta throw it out of the cockpit before landing inside WTC1? According Atta's father, a lawyer at Cairo, Mr. M. Atta, the son, phoned a few days later and wondered what he should do! Maybe they discussed the lost passport?

Seeing as these types of objects are found at pretty much every airplane crash ever to have happened, are you going to argue that every plane crash in history is some sort of conspiracy and that planes simply don't crash?

And funny you should mention Atta's father because you don't seem to mention that in other interviews he said he had not been contacted by Atta. Gee, for some reason you only use the one article and not the others. Why would that be? Could it be because you are a CON ARTIST? Hmmm. But hey maybe mentioning that he is a lawyer might help you mislead people into thinking that your cherry picked info might be as legitimate as your completely bogus engineering claims.

 

[~enigma~]

Seeing as these types of objects are found at pretty much every airplane crash ever to have happened, are you going to argue that every plane crash in history is some sort of conspiracy and that planes simply don't crash?

And funny you should mention Atta's father because you don't seem to mention that in other interviews he said he had not been contacted by Atta. Gee, for some reason you only use the one article and not the others. Why would that be? Could it be because you are a CON ARTIST? Hmmm. But hey maybe mentioning that he is a lawyer might help you mislead people into thinking that your cherry picked info might be as legitimate as your completely bogus engineering claims.

Cherry picked...these impotent idiots don't even know the difference between Sattam Al Suqami and Mohamed Atta. How do you expect them to be even remotely correct about anything scientific?

 

[gumboot]

Mohammed Atta's father is totally insane. You should read some of the interviews he did with the media after 9/11. His "story" changes every single time, and in my favourite one he reveals that he's a Jew-hating west-hating rabid bigot fundamentalist scumbag. I wonder where his son got it from.

 

[gumboot]

Was this guy the one who put out that dumb "net force =0" video a few months ago that claimed according to Newton's third the towers shouldn't have fallen. If this is him I want to know because I would put him on ignore immediately for being a total flake.

I'd like an answer to this question, before we progress any further.

 

[tanabear]

I'm going to stop you there.

Are you rolling out a global warming denialist in the defence of scientific method for giggles?

Worked for me.

"The earth is definitely getting warmer...We are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...it has increased 30% in the last century...we would expect a 30% increase to have some influence on temperature...my conclusion is that we will have a tenth of a degree warming increase over the next century...I'm not a catastrophist."
Michael Crichton

Imagine John Blonn claims to have found that, indeed, particle X exists. He claims that he detected it using a very precise piece of equipment, a piece of apparatus he has used in his laboratory for 10 years and has gotten very proficient at using. In fact, John Blonn is known as one of the world authorities with this piece of equipment.

Now all that's left is to replicate my experiments, right? OK, so now tanabear replicates my experiment using the very precise apparatus. After 10 trials, he announces that he was unable to replicate the experiment, and therefore particle X DOES NOT exist.

John Blonn is obviously not pleased. He says, "Tanabear was unable to replicate my experiment becuase he is not skilled enough with my apparatus. If he had worked 10 years on this project, he would havfe replicated it. Thus Particle X does exist, tanabear just doesn't have the requisite scientific skill to find it."

How do we decide if Particle X exists?

Your example has to do with an experiment that is on the frontiers of science. The best way to determine whether particle X exists would be to continue to do experiments that would verify or reject that hypothesis. We would not stop at two experiments or two experimenters. The experiments should be done by many qualified people. If the experiments are done in a similar fashion then similar results should be obtained. Suspending judgment until the evidence is in, is the hallmark of a good scientist. Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science.

See this story for a similar example.

I always notice that 9/11 Truthers like Tanabear become irritated when skeptics point out the fact that all they do is regurgitate the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale regarding the events of 9/11.

I did believe the official 9/11 story for about two years. I came to doubt it by looking at the evidence. Nevertheless, I was suspicious of the official story before David Ray Griffin came out with his first book, before watching Loose Change, and long before Steven Jones entered the scene. So the 9/11 Truth Movement "Fairy Tale" really hadn't come about yet. I didn't need people in authority to tell me what to think. I came to question the official story by looking at the evidence or lack of it.

Apologies. I veered to a tangent.

What would it look like?

1) The interior would be gutted. Every floor, not just the initiation zone.
2) The windows would be removed. On every floor, not just the initiation zone.
3) There would be a sequence of flashes and loud bangs. These would be unmistakeable, and heard by everyone for a long way around.
4) In all likelihood, since this would be an extremely risky demolition, there would be flashes and bangs throughout the lower part of the tower, weakening critical supports, just in case.
5) There would be no fire. It would damage the explosives and triggers.
6) There would be no plane crash. It would damage the explosives and triggers.
7) There would be no people. If you walk into an office building, and find the floors gutted, with explosives rigged up, would you stick around?

Beyond that, if all went well, once collapse intiated, it would progress much like what you saw on 9/11 (things falling downwards).

The question is how would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 look different if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down. I'm not asking what normal prep work goes into a standard demolition or implosion. Controlled demolition means that the charges are set to go off in a certain order at a certain time, where they start from is the deciding factor.

Your examples from 1 to 7 have to do with a regular implosion. It is a simple question. How would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 have looked different if explosive charges destroyed the buildings from the top down?

Stop lying, you fool. Atta died when he flew a plane into a building. It wasn't even his passport that was found.

I believe it was the passport of Satam Al Suqami. It is sometimes reported to be Atta's passport though. One story has it being found after the towers collapsed. CNN reports:

Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said.

However the 9/11 Commission Report says that the passport was discovered before the towers collapsed:

One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

This prompted the Jersey Girls to ask a question about the issue. Apparently, like many others, it was never adaquetely answered:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

 

[X]

The question is how would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 look different if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down. I'm not asking what normal prep work goes into a standard demolition or implosion. Controlled demolition means that the charges are set to go off in a certain order at a certain time, where they start from is the deciding factor.

Your examples from 1 to 7 have to do with a regular implosion. It is a simple question. How would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 have looked different if explosive charges destroyed the buildings from the top down?

The 7 items I listed would be the main differences.

If there were explosive charges, there would have been flashes (and loud "cracks", and seismic registers).

If the windows were not removed prior to explosion, they would have been blown out when the explosives went off, from the pressure wave.

(Note that the previous two items would occur prior to collapse initiation)

There would not have been observed fires near the intitiation zone (or any other zone with explosives), because it would damage the explosives and triggers.

There would not have been a plane crash near the intitation zone (or any other zone with explosives), because it would damage the explosives and triggers.

Finally, regarding the people, either:
a) the towers would have been empty, because the explosives would have been obvious to even an idiot, and people aren't generally stupid enough to hang around a skyscraper wired with explosives (and likely would have notified emergency services to the presence of said explosives). Or
b) the explosives were somehow placed and disguised without anybody knowing (trust me; you do not want to argue that as the case).


All these things woulds be observable differences over what actually occured, if the buildings were brought down by explosives.



If the charges were planted in secret and succesfully disguised so no one saw them, and if they survived the plane impacts and fires, and if they were silent explosives and had no visible flash, and if they were non-concussive and didn't blow the windows out or create seismic signatures, and if everythign went perfectly according to plan, and if there existed a group willing to set up a never-before-attempted demolition style on a building taller than any ever succesfully imploded before* with no guarantee it would work, but every guarantee it would kill countless innocent people, then it might look just like what you say.

By the way, do you think al-Qa'ida planned that the towers would fall?



* Current record is held by Controlled Demolition Inc for the implosion of the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Michigan. The building was 439 feet tall. Clicky
For comparison, WTC 1 and 2 were more than 1,700 feet tall. Or, to put it another way: more than 3 times taller than the world record for imploding a building.

 

[pomeroo]

The forces are equal. This is true.

But they are equal at a magnitude greater than the structure can withstand.

Really, I don't think it can be put any simpler than that. It's bordering on not-even-wrong-ness.

Your explanation is a model of conciseness and clarity. I'm tempted to say that even Heiwa could understand it. But, you know what? He probably can't!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I did believe the official 9/11 story for about two years. I came to doubt it by looking at the evidence. Nevertheless, I was suspicious of the official story before David Ray Griffin came out with his first book, before watching Loose Change, and long before Steven Jones entered the scene. So the 9/11 Truth Movement "Fairy Tale" really hadn't come about yet. I didn't need people in authority to tell me what to think. I came to question the official story by looking at the evidence or lack of it.

Loose change was torn apart by some of the very same people in the truth movement, and it needed not one, but THREE revisions, and is still as dubious as ever with its quote mining and other lies.

Jones claimed that structural damage to building 7's southwest corner were in fact 'squibs' and in the last seven years has made no effort to make corrections to that obviously false claim.


Sites like infowars make ridiculous claims that the smoke from WTC 5 & 6 some how traveled up-wind towards building 7... you should read it... it's truly a work of art worthy of stundieism...

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm

It's really sad when they make those kinds of assertions and don't out any effort to make them even the slightest bit more credible, and claims like those are some of the most outrageous ones I've ever seen, made by the very 'scientists' that truth movement members have such faith in..

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

An incredible stroke of luck that it happened to be the passports, but why is it so unusual? Does the fact that passenger articles, even the most unlikely of them that survived in some coherent form, make every other plane crash where this had happened a conspiracy?

Somebody posted a bunch of images of personal effects that survived the inferno from the planes that hir the WTC... seems I need to find that just for you....

 

[T.A.M.]

If there were explosive charges, there would have been flashes (and loud "cracks", and seismic registers).

See Thermite - da silent explosive.

If the windows were not removed prior to explosion, they would have been blown out when the explosives went off, from the pressure wave.

bosss da squibs, da squibs.

There would not have been observed fires near the intitiation zone (or any other zone with explosives), because it would damage the explosives and triggers.

There would not have been a plane crash near the intitation zone (or any other zone with explosives), because it would damage the explosives and triggers.

There were additional explosives on da planes to compensate.

Finally, regarding the people, either:
a) the towers would have been empty, because the explosives would have been obvious to even an idiot, and people aren't generally stupid enough to hang around a skyscraper wired with explosives (and likely would have notified emergency services to the presence of said explosives). Or
b) the explosives were somehow placed and disguised without anybody knowing (trust me; you do not want to argue that as the case).

Come on man...power down, men dressed as electicians...night time plantings...come on man.

TAM

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again for the not to bright who seem to think that a passport surviving a plane crash is somehow impossible, how do you explain this happening with almost all plane crashes? Are we to believe that in all fires, and all plane crashes that absolutely nothing survives? And if so, how do you explain every single fire and plane crash? Are the all conspiracies?

And how about the plane that crashed and burned in NYC where the drivers lisc of the pilot was found? Was that too a conspiracy? Some diabolical caper to destroy a couple of apartment buildings worthy of the pilot giving his life to do so? Why is it only suspicious on 9/11 and not all the other times?

Because the whole argument is a con job.

 

[pomeroo]

"The earth is definitely getting warmer...We are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...it has increased 30% in the last century...we would expect a 30% increase to have some influence on temperature...my conclusion is that we will have a tenth of a degree warming increase over the next century...I'm not a catastrophist."
Michael Crichton



Your example has to do with an experiment that is on the frontiers of science. The best way to determine whether particle X exists would be to continue to do experiments that would verify or reject that hypothesis. We would not stop at two experiments or two experimenters. The experiments should be done by many qualified people. If the experiments are done in a similar fashion then similar results should be obtained. Suspending judgment until the evidence is in, is the hallmark of a good scientist. Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science.

See this story for a similar example.



I did believe the official 9/11 story for about two years. I came to doubt it by looking at the evidence. Nevertheless, I was suspicious of the official story before David Ray Griffin came out with his first book, before watching Loose Change, and long before Steven Jones entered the scene. So the 9/11 Truth Movement "Fairy Tale" really hadn't come about yet. I didn't need people in authority to tell me what to think. I came to question the official story by looking at the evidence or lack of it.



The question is how would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 look different if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down. I'm not asking what normal prep work goes into a standard demolition or implosion. Controlled demolition means that the charges are set to go off in a certain order at a certain time, where they start from is the deciding factor.

Your examples from 1 to 7 have to do with a regular implosion. It is a simple question. How would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 have looked different if explosive charges destroyed the buildings from the top down?



I believe it was the passport of Satam Al Suqami. It is sometimes reported to be Atta's passport though. One story has it being found after the towers collapsed. CNN reports:

Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said.

However the 9/11 Commission Report says that the passport was discovered before the towers collapsed:

One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

This prompted the Jersey Girls to ask a question about the issue. Apparently, like many others, it was never adaquetely answered:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

Are you impressed with Heiwa's, let us say, unique understanding of physics? Are you proud to be allied with a bogus engineer who contends that dropping 1/3 of a building on the other 2/3 won't do any damage? Do you suppose he has discovered something that has eluded every other scientist who ever lived?

 

[pomeroo]

"The earth is definitely getting warmer...We are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...it has increased 30% in the last century...we would expect a 30% increase to have some influence on temperature...my conclusion is that we will have a tenth of a degree warming increase over the next century...I'm not a catastrophist."
Michael Crichton



Your example has to do with an experiment that is on the frontiers of science. The best way to determine whether particle X exists would be to continue to do experiments that would verify or reject that hypothesis. We would not stop at two experiments or two experimenters. The experiments should be done by many qualified people. If the experiments are done in a similar fashion then similar results should be obtained. Suspending judgment until the evidence is in, is the hallmark of a good scientist. Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science.

See this story for a similar example.



I did believe the official 9/11 story for about two years. I came to doubt it by looking at the evidence. Nevertheless, I was suspicious of the official story before David Ray Griffin came out with his first book, before watching Loose Change, and long before Steven Jones entered the scene. So the 9/11 Truth Movement "Fairy Tale" really hadn't come about yet. I didn't need people in authority to tell me what to think. I came to question the official story by looking at the evidence or lack of it.



The question is how would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 look different if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down. I'm not asking what normal prep work goes into a standard demolition or implosion. Controlled demolition means that the charges are set to go off in a certain order at a certain time, where they start from is the deciding factor.

Your examples from 1 to 7 have to do with a regular implosion. It is a simple question. How would the destruction of WTC1 and 2 have looked different if explosive charges destroyed the buildings from the top down?



I believe it was the passport of Satam Al Suqami. It is sometimes reported to be Atta's passport though. One story has it being found after the towers collapsed. CNN reports:

Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said.

However the 9/11 Commission Report says that the passport was discovered before the towers collapsed:

One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

This prompted the Jersey Girls to ask a question about the issue. Apparently, like many others, it was never adaquetely answered:

1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069

• Who found the passports and what time where they found?
• Please describe the condition of each passport.
• Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.

An item surviving a plane crash is a random occurrence. No further explanation is necessary.

 

[John Blonn]

Your example has to do with an experiment that is on the frontiers of science. The best way to determine whether particle X exists would be to continue to do experiments that would verify or reject that hypothesis. We would not stop at two experiments or two experimenters. The experiments should be done by many qualified people. If the experiments are done in a similar fashion then similar results should be obtained. Suspending judgment until the evidence is in, is the hallmark of a good scientist. Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science.

Of course my example was oversimplified - when you add more scientists and more experiments, it gets even more complicated! Some scientists replicate it, others don't; many theories and reasons are thrown about.

No matter how many experiments you do, there is always a way out - i.e. there is always an 'explanation' as to why this experiment was done incorrectly, this experiment had incorrect assumptions, etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that evidence is rarely ever 100% conclusive - what is required is a community to decide, given all the evidence and different experiments, what the 'scientific consensus' will be.

Let me break down your statement piece by piece - this will reveal many unspoken assumptions:

Your example has to do with an experiment that is on the frontiers of science. The best way to determine whether particle X exists would be to continue to do experiments that would verify or reject that hypothesis.

Yes, this has been established. Instead of 'frontiers of science' I think simply 'unanswered question' suffices - these situations can occur in very well developed sciences and not just in the sexy new realms of particle physics, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

We would not stop at two experiments or two experimenters.

Indeed. But how many experiments is 'enough?' As Peter Galison puts it, when do experiments end? Do we need 10 replications to prove it? 10 different scientists? Do we need 100 reps? 1000 reps? When is it enough?

The experiments should be done by many qualified people.

Who counts as 'qualified?' Well, a 'legitimate' scientist, you might respond. But what grants the scientists her 'legitimacy?' Indeed, how can we call her a scientist in the first place? Through a community of practitioners. A qualified person only makes sense given a community of scientists who have come to an (implicit) consensus that this person is qualified and is a true 'scientist.'

If the experiments are done in a similar fashion then similar results should be obtained.

Sounds nice, but also problematic. How similar is similar? For instance, do I need to use the same exact equipment that you used in order for my experiment to be 'similar' enough? Do I need to be in the same lab? Do it at the same time of day? Do it with the same assistants? What if certain aspects can't be replicated because of variations in materials? And who says what's similar or not? In the end, the battle over replication and whether Particle X exists or not depends precisely on similarity/difference judgments.

Suspending judgment until the evidence is in, is the hallmark of a good scientist.

Again, how do we know when the evidence is 'in?' 10 experiments? 100? 1000?

Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science.

Of course. But you're attacking a straw man here. Who in the debunking side/NIST has done this, and when?

 

[Heiwa]

The forces are equal. This is true.

But they are equal at a magnitude greater than the structure can withstand.

Really, I don't think it can be put any simpler than that. It's bordering on not-even-wrong-ness.

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

 

[GlennB]

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

Please remember, Heiwa, that eating cheese in combination with certain medications can have quite dangerous effects. Put cheese +psychotropic into Google ...

 

[Heiwa]

Please remember, Heiwa, that eating cheese in combination with certain medications can have quite dangerous effects. Put cheese +psychotropic into Google ...

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese. Something slammed into it and made a hole in the cheese, fire erupted and the cheese started to melt around the hole. Above the hole was a big, upper block of 33 000 tons of cheese. Below the hole was a much bigger block of cheese! 250 000 tons.
Now we are told the upper block started to move down, releasing potential energy, as the cheese below was melting around the hole. The upper cheese block, 33 000 tons, hits the lower cheese block, 250 000 tons, and compresses it. The hole disappears and molten cheese is squeezed out. What happens then?

Cheese structure has built in strength that can absorb potential energy. The strength can be likened to the amount of strain energy the hard cheese can absorb before being crushed. The amount of strain energy is almost constant per ton of cheese. Same in the upper and lower cheese parts.

Simple math shows that 33 000 tons of cheese above cannot compress 250 000 tons of cheese below when both parts absorb the same amount of strain energy at the compression. No global collapse.

Unless you fit some extra stuff in the lower cheese. But then cheese rubble and debris are ejected in all directions and reveals the bluff.

 

[~enigma~]

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese.

Heiwa, are you the guy who put out the "net force=0" video a few months ago?

 

[X]

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

Rubble.