Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[A W Smith]

Contrary to Conspiracy Theory opinion. The steel was examined for evidence of explosives, there was no det cord nor ignition leads found. not a one, Says Mark Loizeaux, Mark also states that an overpressure of that magnitude would blow out windows on all sides of neighboring buildings. pretty much every one of your arguments are refuted in this video.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Jonnyclueless]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_17256486f6e382cfe2.jpg[/qimg]

To respond on the same level of argumentation, the first time for me in this thread to go this low: "Your Mother"

Wrong, you have demonstrated thoroughly that you are absolutely not an expert in controlled demolition as you have claimed. You have a basic understanding of explosives from basic army explosives training. you do not have any experience demolishing buildings at all. You can try to dodge this issue by pretending it's simply a childish insult, but it's absolutely true. And you know it. Many of the statements you have made are 100% completely incorrect and clearly point out your lack of experience in controlled demolitions.

And your basic argument comes down to "It looked like one to me so therefore it must be". Of course that is until someone points out the flaws in that argument to which you, like all twoofers switch to "well it's not a conventional one" which then dismisses your original argument from which you derived your second argument. And thus you have no actual argument period. And thus your entire claim to begin with is along the lines of just saying "Your mother".

It's one thing to have an opinion that there was a controlled demolition. It's another thing for you to be dishonest and misleading about your experience just so you can try to impose your uneducated opinion as being true. You should not have picked a forum that is full of experts to pull off your little fraud.

 

[BenBurch]

Here I agree. The towers should NOT have collapsed. What should have happened is that a flight attendant should have gone into her purse for her Derringer and blown the mother-loving Jihadist swine into the beyond.

 

[fezzic]

BTW: we used a 3/8 ratio for cutting structural steel. That is to destroy a beam 8 cm thick, we used a 3 cm thick cross section of C4. Of course being an engineer meant we always doubled the result of the formula, just in case.

LLH

LLH, to the best of my understanding the formula calls for using pounds of TNT equal to 3/8 of the cross-sectional area (square inches) of the steel to be cut. Certain other demolition technicques, such as ribbon charges, require a certain amount of charge thickness based on the thickness of the steel to be breached but the basic formula does not though I would expect that there are some stipulations relevant to thickness and dimensions of the charge.

I admit that my EOBC demo training was minimal and I never actually had to use it to do any real demolition work outside of the FTX (we blew up a small road obstacle that another class had constructed. Boy did we blow it up. )

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Right, but the massive dust clouds, macroscopic debris scattered all over the place, reported explosions, the spontaneous vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed speak for it. The lack of seismographic evidence may speak against CD, but then again the fact that the windows were blown in in many buildings around the WTC speaks against the absence of CD.

Again, you cite characteristics of a structure collapse to mean explosives demolition. That is a mistake. Clouds and debris would result from a collapse of a building as big as either of the towers or Building 7, regardless of whether explosives were involved or not.

And as far as supposed "reported explosions":
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Regarding Windows being blown in: That can be due to many factors. Debris, for example. Or pneumatic overpressure along the streets from the debris falling. Regardless, not all windows in the area were broken; as a matter of fact, very few were. As an example, look in the FEMA "World Trade Center Building Performance Study", chapter 7. Observe images, like the ones on page 7-11 of the Verizon building, which was the southward oriented face of that building (meaning that it was the side facing WTC 1). Exceptionally few broken windows are seen in that image. Or figure 7-6 on page 7-8. That was the side facing WTC 7, which was next door. And that's not the only building close to the collapsed towers that did not show any effects of overpressure from any supposed explosion.

Witness testimony, plus lack of material after the fact, plus lack of sound recorded on multiple independent videos, plus lack of effect on neighboring buildings, already falsify the notion of CD. And we haven't even gotten to the witness statements yet, let alone the lack of effect on the recovered debris, or material left over from the demolitions.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Steel does not fragment unless the explosion applies enough force to overcome the steel's tension. Which is why fragmentation grenades, bombs and shells usually contain a prefragmented casing and often shot too. Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension.

How do I know this? Because I'm a demolitions guy in the army, and I've worked with C1, TNT and blasting cord. I wouldn't call me an expert as the army training is more pragmatic than theoretical in nature, but I'm trained to know how to bring things down - be it buildings, bridges, steel, concrete or wood structures.

Some problems with that statement:

1. Thermite is not an explosive. As a military demolitions expert, you should be very well aware that thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.
2. You're line about "pre-fragmenting" the steel then blowing it away" with a small charge still creates fragments, whether they're the sharp-edged "shrapnel"-type of fragments, or drop-like ones from the melting thermite puts steel through. Regardless, they're still there. The fragments may be molten spall, but those are still created, and on top of that, the effect on the steel would be noticeable. You'd have parts of steel beams and columns noticeably melted off or damaged, not big bends or bolt-joined sections looking like they were pulled apart by sheer mechanical forces. Look at the images you provided again. What you're seeing is mechanical strain, not explosives distortion. Show where the thermite effected the steel. Show where the charge "blew away" the connection. Those images don't show that.

And, regardless of your military training, your statements are falsified by others in demolitions field; your qualifications do not protect you against being wrong. The companies Protec and Controlled Demolitions Inc. have both gone on the record as ridiculing the notion that the World Trade Center towers collapse resembled any sort of explosives demolition. On top of that, your statements fail to support explosives use; as noted before, you're either describing characteristics of any type collapse, not ones limited to explosives demolitions, or you're misinterpreting/misrepresenting other pieces of evidence to forward your claim (for example, the statements saying there were "explosions" meaning that they referred to demolitions. Read the link: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard). Nothing of what you said proves explosives, and on top of that, they're rehashes of arguments refuted a long time ago.

On top of that, comparison with the sounds of known explosives demolitions do not match; any reports from witnesses of supposed "bombs" going off have universally been shown to not coincide with the collapses themselves, and in some cases, not coinciding on the order of hours, not mere minutes or seconds.

Proving what?

Proving that there are even more characteristics of explosives demolition missing, namely the sound. And that some of the witness testimony proffered by conspiracy peddlers as proof of explosives is misrepresented:

1. The sound from known explosives demolitions events, such as the casino/hotel demolitions in Las Vegas, are very, very loud. Whereas you don't hear anything remotely close in the Twin Towers (a far larger structure) or the WTC 7 collapse (an equivalent-sized building to many of the demolished hotels/casinos).
2. I've had people in this forum present testimony of witnesses hearing explosions as proof of bombs, when the witness testimony was nowhere near the time of the collapse. I'm trying to locate the example that's immediately in my mind; it was of Barry Jennings testimony, I think, and it was discussing explosions he heard in WTC 7. That tower did not collapse until hours after the sounds he heard, but the truther at the time was trying to argue that they were explosions responsible for WTC 7's fall (if anyone else locates that thread, I'd appreciate a link; I can't find it myself, and that's bugging me).

At any rate, the point is that the WTC collapses are missing the audible components of an explosives demolition, and that testimony offered by some cannot be interpreted to be explosives used to demolish the building.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Also, Dabljuh as a demolition expert should know that thermite is not used for demolishing buildings because there's no reliable way to get every beam to cut through at the exact same time. As a demolition expert he should know that they don't set the charges in sequence to simply avoid shock waves, but rather to guide the path of the falling building. And it's not so much a series as it is a sequence of charges, as some do go off at the same time.

 

[SDC]

The mods may get after me, but I feel as though I've read 2 different Dabljuhs trading off posts. Maybe that's why the "army demo expert" claim popped up rather late in the game.

Two Dabljuhs. Gack. One foursome?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The mods may get after me, but I feel as though I've read 2 different Dabljuhs trading off posts. Maybe that's why the "army demo expert" claim popped up rather late in the game.

Two Dabljuhs. Gack. One foursome?

He does claim to be an economist too. I don't know... it's not impossible to have served in the army, then left to get a degree in econ (or the reverse: Be such an economics student or professional, then decide to volunteer for the military). But it just happens to be so convenient that these qualifications are raised. Most area experts discuss the details of the topic first, before burnishing credentials.

It doesn't really matter, though. Regardless of his qualifications or lack of such, the actual points he raises are demonstrably wrong.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And speaking of points being demonstrably wrong...

It is trivial to start the collapse at the upper section of the tower.

True, but I wasn't speaking to the ease or difficulty of doing a top down collapse. What I was doing was rebutting your claim saying the collapses "matches a CD signature". Explosives demolitions normally start at the bottom. By admitting that the towers collapsed from the top, you're admitting that these collapses were outside the norm for explosives demolition.

The way you bring a tall building down is that you weaken its structure in the entire lenght. If you just blow up the basement alone with sufficient force, the building may topple over, or remain standing after falling a floor or two. That's why you need to bring down the entire length of the building's structure. Also, in CD, you do not normally fire all charges at once, nor do you apply the "more is better" philosophy of the army when it comes to the amount of explosives, the simple reason being that you only want to destroy the building, and not everything next to it too. For that reason too, you avoid blowing all explosive charges at once. Professional CD works are timed shortly after each other, avoiding the creation of an explosive shockwave that would damage nearby buildings or scatter debris all over the place.

I never said anything about whether all explosives went off at once or not. This paragraph is irrelevant to anything I wrote.

On top of that, yes, you do not "just blow up the basement". But you do normally set it up so that the collapse initiates there. Exceptions have occurred, but again, those are exceptions. And that is the rebuttal to your point about the WTC looking like a normal "CD". It did not.

 

[novice skeptic]

Sure, because this was a totally regular CD and nothing unusual about it. There was totally no intention to hide the CD by sequencing a top-down CD. Your argument is invalid and your expertise is disproven. You are not competent enough to argue with me on the subject.

Oh, the old "if aspects of it look like CD, it must be CD, and if aspects of it DON'T look like CD, it must be CD" trick.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Rule of thumb for explosives: If you're in a hurry, you use more explosives to make up for the fact that you don't have the time to properly install the charges. You can get by with very small amounts of explosives if you apply them well, compared to just randomly duct taping (No, I'm not kidding) a large pile of plastic to whatever it is you want to destroy.

Which argues for more noise, more overpressure, and more distinct signatures left on the debris. All of that is missing. But I really don't know if you're arguing that more were used on 9/11, or just trying to display knowledge, so there's no point in concentrating too much on this point.

I disagree. It looks 100% like a regular controlled demolition to me. Wait, what you say? I'm an expert and thus your own opinion is rendered obsolete? Neato!

Unfortunately, appeals to authority don't work here. You must prove your argument with facts. Albert Einstein saying "black is white" or "the sun rises in the west" still gets tagged as being incorrect because his statements are factually incorrect. The fact that he's more knowledgeable in physics than any one of us is irrelevant.

Same thing for you. Your training and qualifications do not change the fact that your arguments are hollow and your statements are demonstrably incorrect. They do not change the fact that all the arguments you offer have been countered. They certainly don't change the fact that they contain multiple mistakes, as has been pointed out.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"It collapsed, so lets just modify the computer simulation until our model collapses too" and then they end up with a virtual simulation of a hollow tube made from paper machee.

Now I'm certain that you're depending on conspiracy peddlers to digest information for you rather than think about it on your own. That the computer models tested a range of possibilities does not mean that they tweaked things until they got a predetermined result. See the posts by R.Mackey, Newton's Bit, and other engineers in this forum that spoke to that exact point.

Indeed, that is the biggest mystery. Who did it. What's clear however is that there have been months of preparations gone into this.

More like years. The pilots - Hani Hanjour, for example - had been in the US for quite some time. He earned his commercial pilots rating in '98. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had been trying to bring down the towers for years prior to 9/11; he was involved in financing the '93 bombings, for example. And Bin Laden had been wanting to get back at the US for putting into motion events that got him expelled from the Sudan for years.
So, you're actually half correct in that last sentence. There was in fact much preparation for 9/11. But there's no mystery who did it. And no, your allusion to my original quote is misued:

And further on top of all of that, the matter of opportunity is still unaddressed.

I was pointing out that there was no opportunity to rig any of the towers to being with. I wasn't trying to say that it happened and we simply don't know when. It didn't happen period.

 

[tsig]

Not demonstrated to be the truth... by the collapse, right?



Right. Next thing you know is you'll have a different witness reporting suspicious activity and explosions here with the same sort of credibility.


lol wut

What? Massive dust clouds, macroscopic debris scattered all over the place, reported explosions, spontaneous vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed.

Right, but the massive dust clouds, macroscopic debris scattered all over the place, reported explosions, the spontaneous vertical implosion at nearly free fall speed speak for it. The lack of seismographic evidence may speak against CD, but then again the fact that the windows were blown in in many buildings around the WTC speaks against the absence of CD.

Steel does not fragment unless the explosion applies enough force to overcome the steel's tension. Which is why fragmentation grenades, bombs and shells usually contain a prefragmented casing and often shot too. Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension.

How do I know this? Because I'm a demolitions guy in the army, and I've worked with C1, TNT and blasting cord. I wouldn't call me an expert as the army training is more pragmatic than theoretical in nature, but I'm trained to know how to bring things down - be it buildings, bridges, steel, concrete or wood structures.

Proving what?

It is trivial to start the collapse at the upper section of the tower. The way you bring a tall building down is that you weaken its structure in the entire lenght. If you just blow up the basement alone with sufficient force, the building may topple over, or remain standing after falling a floor or two. That's why you need to bring down the entire length of the building's structure. Also, in CD, you do not normally fire all charges at once, nor do you apply the "more is better" philosophy of the army when it comes to the amount of explosives, the simple reason being that you only want to destroy the building, and not everything next to it too. For that reason too, you avoid blowing all explosive charges at once. Professional CD works are timed shortly after each other, avoiding the creation of an explosive shockwave that would damage nearby buildings or scatter debris all over the place.

However, that all being said, it's trivial to start the explosion at the top. The reason why you normally don't is because it takes more explosives (where with a bottom-up CD you let gravity do most of the work) and is more prone to scattering debris all over the place.

While the WTC was professional work, the twin tower's collapses both also show signatures of being a military rather than a civilian demolition team. But there should not be too much interpreted into that statement, I'm sure the reason for the top-down nature of the CD was rather to make the collapse seem more natural to the untrained eye, instead of being solely caused by pragmatically trained military agents. The enormeous dust cloud and the large area of scatter however suggests that a rather large amount of explosives was used, which suggests that there was some hurry when they were applied.

Rule of thumb for explosives: If you're in a hurry, you use more explosives to make up for the fact that you don't have the time to properly install the charges. You can get by with very small amounts of explosives if you apply them well, compared to just randomly duct taping (No, I'm not kidding) a large pile of plastic to whatever it is you want to destroy.

I disagree. It looks 100% like a regular controlled demolition to me. Wait, what you say? I'm an expert and thus your own opinion is rendered obsolete? Neato!

"It collapsed, so lets just modify the computer simulation until our model collapses too" and then they end up with a virtual simulation of a hollow tube made from paper machee.

Indeed, that is the biggest mystery. Who did it. What's clear however is that there have been months of preparations gone into this.

Are you named Walter Mitty?

 

[Dabljuh]

pretty much every one of your arguments are refuted in this video.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hardly.

Video Review:

The movie tries to discredit jones' findings. "Super Termite from the Internet" - Right. And Jones found the thermite residue in the dust from an hour after the collapse, long before there had been any significant amount of rescue operation. They also failed to ignore the fact that he did an real chemical analysis on them. Jones' a physicist. He knows what he's talking about when he's talking about thermite.

Of course Gage doesn't, when he's talking about where the smoke from WTC7 came from judging by only video caps. The fireman's testimony is a lot more credible in that respect. But either is irrelevant when the building shouldn't have come down to any amount of fire. And especially the obvious CD-way it did. So they're just grasping for straws to try to discredit Gage here. When you interview someone - anyone for long enough, he will inevitably say something stupid. Same goes for Clarke saying something along the lines "There has not been any big government conspiracy which hasn't been found out and publicised" or Mark's apparent obliviousness towards thermite.

The movie also point out how some of the anomalies (e.g. the corroded metal sheet) could have (and probably did) resulted from corrosion. But is that relevant? They could just as well have gone on to try to debunk the no-planer technology.

But ultimately, they fail to bring anything new and relevant to the table. Instead they end with the now frequently heard allegiation - an appeal to emotion - that the CT guys are just esoteric, i.e. they want to believe they're holding secret knowledge.

Of course there's a lot of idiots. Even if 9/11 hadn't been an inside job, there would be lots and lots of idiots running around pointing out non-inconsistencies. That there's idiots running around however isn't proof of anything. One needs to separate the strong arguments for either hypothesis (fallaciously assuming there's only two in a false dichtonomy here) from the really weak ones.

For example, the strongest argument against CD is still that it'd take many man-years to bring the buildings down the way they did, and that this sort of business would have been noticed. That doesn't mean it's impossible to pull off, unlike the hypothesis of building 7's collapse to have been caused by fire, or the near impossible way to explain how the twin towers collapsed without a setup.

Weak arguments - even before more information regarding the advance knowledge of WTC7's collapse was known - was to call on BBC or Reuters to be in on the conspiracy. That's just bizarre. We now know there was certainly advance knowledge of the collapse, and the BBC wasn't the first one to hear about it. It's simply far more likely that the information that the building was going to collapse (which we now know was propagated around the WTC site just after the second tower crashed) was somehow misinterpreted by a news team and then performed a type of chinese telephone act through reuters until it ended up being on BBC, where the BBC personell would announce the collapse of building 7 while it was still behind them.

Instead, we should be wondering why the WTC7's engineer announced that WTC7 was coming down even after the studies in the 90ies just showed that steel frame buildings don't come down due to fire. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Or maybe... the engineer in that case may have been one of the key figures in the controlled demolition of the building. These are items that should be figured out.

A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't smart when it comes to distinguishing relevant anomalies from irrelevant ones. The same is not true for the media, whose sole job is to sort relevant from irrelevant information. As for the BBC's final tone of the report, it should not be surprising to you that media around the world, but especially in english-language countries, are pressured into coming up with a predetermined result for their investigation, as I've mentioned the influence of the US government on the mass media before.

[*]The sound from known explosives demolitions events, such as the casino/hotel demolitions in Las Vegas, are very, very loud. Whereas you don't hear anything remotely close in the Twin Towers (a far larger structure) or the WTC 7 collapse (an equivalent-sized building to many of the demolished hotels/casinos).

You honestly cite Las Vegas casino demolitions as an example for a "normal CD"? These are created to be essentially an impressive show of fireworks in addition to a CD. Granted, for most small to medium structures to be demolished, there are audible and identifiable explosions. For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges. 2000/10s means you'll have an audible frequency of 200hz, far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)

True, but I wasn't speaking to the ease or difficulty of doing a top down collapse. What I was doing was rebutting your claim saying the collapses "matches a CD signature". Explosives demolitions normally start at the bottom. By admitting that the towers collapsed from the top, you're admitting that these collapses were outside the norm for explosives demolition.

And that is the rebuttal to your point about the WTC looking like a normal "CD". It did not.

In this case I'm not going to assume malicious intent or incompetence, but simply a sort of misunderstandment bias towards making the premises of a wrong-sounding argument also sound wrong, even when they aren't.

The WTC Building 7 collapse looks 100% like a regular old fashioned controlled demolition.

The Twin Towers' collapses look like controlled demolition, but not the regular, carefully prepared kind, but more ineptly or hastily applied and designed to go from the top down, in a fashion that it can be - with some constraints - initiated at any floor to adjust for a plane that may not hit exactly at the predetermined height.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The movie tries to discredit jones' findings. "Super Termite from the Internet" - Right. And Jones found the thermite residue in the dust from an hour after the collapse, long before there had been any significant amount of rescue operation. They also failed to ignore the fact that he did an real chemical analysis on them. Jones' a physicist. He knows what he's talking about when he's talking about thermite.

Why would a physicist know anything special about thermite? That's chemistry. And the main point of the chemistry of thermite is that it's made up from the two chemicals most common in the support structure and cladding, respectively, of the towers, and the second most common in the air around them. Jones's chemical analysis can't possibly prove the presence of thermite. So far it's only demonstrated the presence of a group of elements that would be expected to be present anyway. Jones's problem is that the noise level on the measurements he's trying to do is many orders of magnitude greater than the signal, and he has no noise rejection techniques. As a physicist he should at least be aware of this, and the fact that he continues to pretend it's irrelevant suggests that he's not much of a physicist.

For example, the strongest argument against CD is still that it'd take many man-years to bring the buildings down the way they did, and that this sort of business would have been noticed. That doesn't mean it's impossible to pull off, unlike the hypothesis of building 7's collapse to have been caused by fire, or the near impossible way to explain how the twin towers collapsed without a setup.

Your continued contention that steel structures cannot possibly collapse due to fire is, of course, inconsistent with reality. Even the scenario you posted in the OP is incorrectly reasoned, although I've been generally too uninterested in your ridiculous assertions to debate it before now. Let's go back to your original strawman argument of a hypothetical building with a 600% safety factor which is allowed to reach equilibrium with a large fire. We know that gas temperatures up to 1000ºC can be reached in building contents fires, and steel temperatures up to 900ºC (see http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html - I like to draw on truther sources for debunking where I can). At these temperatures steel loses 90% of its strength. Therefore, even in your strawman case your imaginary building would collapse. Factor in impact damage, differential contraction, joint failure and sagging (the features that are believed to have actually caused the WTC collapses), and the fact that the WTC towers were constructed to nowhere near the strength you fantasise about, and the inevitable conclusion is that collapse from fire is perfectly reasonable. And, indeed, the Madrid Windsor tower demonstrated this very nicely, as all the steel-framed sections of the structure collapsed completely after only about four hours of fire. Conspiracy theorists argue that the Windsor steel wasn't fireproofed, but the WTC7 fireproofing had a 2-3 hour rating, and the building collapsed after about 7 hours of fire. Do the arithmetic (though I suspect it's no more than coincidence).

Instead, we should be wondering why the WTC7's engineer announced that WTC7 was coming down even after the studies in the 90ies just showed that steel frame buildings don't come down due to fire. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Or maybe... the engineer in that case may have been one of the key figures in the controlled demolition of the building.

Or maybe he was capable of rather more complex thinking than "The Cardington test structures didn't collapse, so this one won't", and actually applied some reasoning to the situation rather than seizing on a single analagous case and assuming that it defined an inviolable rule. In other words, the one possibility you, and so many other conspiracy theorists are unable to bear to consider: he got the answer right because he is more experienced and more intelligent than you.

You honestly cite Las Vegas casino demolitions as an example for a "normal CD"? These are created to be essentially an impressive show of fireworks in addition to a CD. Granted, for most small to medium structures to be demolished, there are audible and identifiable explosions. For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges. 2000/10s means you'll have an audible frequency of 200hz, far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)

Just to remind you, there is no such thing as a "thermite cutter charge". It is a complete fabrication, dreamed up in order to circumvent the drawbacks to the CD theory of the lack of audible explosions correctly correlated with the collapses. As for the possibility that 2000 HE charges would not be heard because their explosions would be indistinguishable from one another, your argument makes no sense. The quantity of explosives you're talking about would be needed to initiate collapse, not to sustain it. The classic CD argument is that the support columns needed to be severed simultaneously in order to bring about the collapse observed, therefore only explosives could provide the timing required. That means that your 2000 charges have to go off over a period of less than a second, not ten seconds, for you to have any argument for CD. If you claim that cutting the columns sequentially over a ten second period would have produced a similar collapse, then you admit the possibility of progressive column failure over that period, which is trivially explained from a collapse produced by fire. This is ignoring the utter absurdity of your argument that a continuous ten-second sequence of explosions, so closely spaced as to merge into one consinuous rolling boom preceding the collapse, could somehow go unnoticed. You're suggesting that about a ton of HE went off too quietly for anyone to hear, simply because the sound was spread out over ten seconds. That doesn't pass the giggle test.

The WTC Building 7 collapse looks 100% like a regular old fashioned controlled demolition.

Apart from the flashes from the explosives going off, which are conspicuous by their absence. But who cares anyway? It shares some characteristics with a CD, like the fact that the building is standing at the beginning and a pile of rubble at the end. It fails to share other characteristics of a CD, specifically the sound of explosions. These are inevitable by-products of a CD, and their absence is therefore positive proof that there was no CD.

The Twin Towers' collapses look like controlled demolition, but not the regular, carefully prepared kind, but more ineptly or hastily applied and designed to go from the top down, in a fashion that it can be - with some constraints - initiated at any floor to adjust for a plane that may not hit exactly at the predetermined height.

And finally, one of the most confused and disjointed truther arguments; that the Twin Tower collapses both do and don't look like a CD. Again, they have some points of appearance in common, and lack others. Again, overall this is proof that they aren't CD's.

You need to learn simple logic.

Dave

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Hardly.

Video Review:

The movie tries to discredit jones' findings. "Super Termite from the Internet" - Right. And Jones found the thermite residue in the dust from an hour after the collapse, long before there had been any significant amount of rescue operation. They also failed to ignore the fact that he did an real chemical analysis on them. Jones' a physicist. He knows what he's talking about when he's talking about thermite.

WRONG. Jones most certainly does NOT find thermite residue. He finds materials and spheres that could possibly maybe be from thermite, but also happen to be from many many common materials found in and around the building. To claim he found residue caused by thermite is 100% factually wrong and even Jones admits this. He simply suspects it came from thermite. And no he most certainly did NOT do a real chemical analysis on it. His analysis consists of him making vast assumptions. This is why he is unable to get a peer reviewed paper making that claim.

If there is anyone who does NOT know what they are talking about when it comes to thermite, it's your Dr Jones. The guy is a complete idiot. You seem to thik that because he is a physicist that he is infallible. But his work proves otherwise. In the scientific community is is the laughing stock and not taken seriously by anyone.

Of course Gage doesn't, when he's talking about where the smoke from WTC7 came from judging by only video caps. The fireman's testimony is a lot more credible in that respect. But either is irrelevant when the building shouldn't have come down to any amount of fire. And especially the obvious CD-way it did. So they're just grasping for straws to try to discredit Gage here. When you interview someone - anyone for long enough, he will inevitably say something stupid. Same goes for Clarke saying something along the lines "There has not been any big government conspiracy which hasn't been found out and publicised" or Mark's apparent obliviousness towards thermite.

It's irrelevant that he is making completely false statements? You mean it's irrelevant because it doesn't help your case. But prior to knowing the claim often made by your movement is completely wrong, it was more than relevant. Just like your claim that the building should not have come down due to any fire is absolutely 100% wrong and completely uneducated ignorance. You have no expertise what so ever in this area and you are contradicting the findings of scientists, engineers, and firefighters based on absolutely nothing. You can claim it can't happen all you want, but your claim is meaningless. And you can also claim gravity doesn't exist either. but don't be surprised when you are laughed at.

Mark knows ar more about thermite than Dr Jones and he is just a tour guide. Pretty sad.

The movie also point out how some of the anomalies (e.g. the corroded metal sheet) could have (and probably did) resulted from corrosion. But is that relevant? They could just as well have gone on to try to debunk the no-planer technology.

No, not "could have" but actually DID result from corrosion and pointed out hat it's pretty standard. Is it relevant? Absolutely. Especially considering the current threads discussing the issue.

But ultimately, they fail to bring anything new and relevant to the table. Instead they end with the now frequently heard allegiation - an appeal to emotion - that the CT guys are just esoteric, i.e. they want to believe they're holding secret knowledge.

They aren't trying to bring anything new to the table. They are pointing out common misconceptions about the events that are being spread by the truth movement. They aren't even setting out to specifically discredit the troof movement, it just happens that the twoof movement is absolutely incorrect on every account and there is no way to avoid it when speaking to real experts. And there is absolutely no appeal to emotion, that's absurd. In fact it's the other way around.

Of course there's a lot of idiots. Even if 9/11 hadn't been an inside job, there would be lots and lots of idiots running around pointing out non-inconsistencies. That there's idiots running around however isn't proof of anything. One needs to separate the strong arguments for either hypothesis (fallaciously assuming there's only two in a false dichtonomy here) from the really weak ones.

9/11 ISN'T an inside job and yes there are tons of idiots running around pointing things out, like Gage and Jones. You're right, the fact that they are idiots does not prove anything. THAT is the whole point. So unless your idiots can actually start proving something, they have no case. And until they come up with actual strong arguments, they are going to continue to look like idiots when put along side real experts.

For example, the strongest argument against CD is still that it'd take many man-years to bring the buildings down the way they did, and that this sort of business would have been noticed. That doesn't mean it's impossible to pull off, unlike the hypothesis of building 7's collapse to have been caused by fire, or the near impossible way to explain how the twin towers collapsed without a setup.

There's no actual argument against CD, there simply isn't an argument for a CD. No one is trying to prove there wasn't a CD, there just simply isn't any evidence of a CD to begin with. That's the problem. And the logistics absolutely ARE impossible. Sure, it's also possible cheese monsters from space were behind it. But thats so impossible that it's not worth investigating. So unless you come up with some actual evidence, there is none. Kid, you're in your own lack of reality here.

Weak arguments - even before more information regarding the advance knowledge of WTC7's collapse was known - was to call on BBC or Reuters to be in on the conspiracy. That's just bizarre. We now know there was certainly advance knowledge of the collapse, and the BBC wasn't the first one to hear about it. It's simply far more likely that the information that the building was going to collapse (which we now know was propagated around the WTC site just after the second tower crashed) was somehow misinterpreted by a news team and then performed a type of chinese telephone act through reuters until it ended up being on BBC, where the BBC personell would announce the collapse of building 7 while it was still behind them.

Yet so many people in the twoof movement insist the news agencies were handed scripts by the diabolical perps. As if a news agency wouldn't know to report a collapsing building when it happens, they would have to be given scripts. And these ae the kinds of idiots we have to deal with. You may not buy into that particular conspiracy theory, but many people do. And they go about threatening people because of it. And the conspiracy theories that YOU think are valid, are laughable by other conspiracy theorists. So don't pull the lame excuse that only the weak arguments are addressed. No matter what conspiracy argument is addressed, it's a weak one. There are no strong ones kiddo.

Instead, we should be wondering why the WTC7's engineer announced that WTC7 was coming down even after the studies in the 90ies just showed that steel frame buildings don't come down due to fire. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for this. Or maybe... the engineer in that case may have been one of the key figures in the controlled demolition of the building. These are items that should be figured out.

Oh My God. How stupid can this get. There is no study or law of how all steel buildings work braniac. All buildings are designed differently. And the reason was explained in the very video you are claiming it isn't in. It had a lot to to with how the building was built over a power sub station and a subway so it didn't have all the supports such a building normally would. And the trussing was made twice as long as it should have. The engineer made the call because he understands how buildings work and what they can handle.

The engineer may have been one of the key figures in the conspiracy you have no evidence of? The engineer may also have been one of the cheese monsters in disguise. We can both play fantasy land and make up anything we want to fit a pre-determined conclusion kid.

A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't smart when it comes to distinguishing relevant anomalies from irrelevant ones. The same is not true for the media, whose sole job is to sort relevant from irrelevant information. As for the BBC's final tone of the report, it should not be surprising to you that media around the world, but especially in english-language countries, are pressured into coming up with a predetermined result for their investigation, as I've mentioned the influence of the US government on the mass media before.

You honestly cite Las Vegas casino demolitions as an example for a "normal CD"? These are created to be essentially an impressive show of fireworks in addition to a CD. Granted, for most small to medium structures to be demolished, there are audible and identifiable explosions. For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges. 2000/10s means you'll have an audible frequency of 200hz, far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)

No reponse needed. You obviously have no understanding of demolitions what so ever. Please just stop and spare yourself the humility kid. There is nothing true about the statements in that paragraph at all. Nothing. What the human can hear as individual waves? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

In this case I'm not going to assume malicious intent or incompetence, but simply a sort of misunderstandment bias towards making the premises of a wrong-sounding argument also sound wrong, even when they aren't.

Oh dear lord...

The WTC Building 7 collapse looks 100% like a regular old fashioned controlled demolition.

No, it does not. It has not a single characteristic of an old fashioned controlled demolition. And look at your argument. It looks like a CD to you, therefore it must be. Forgive the scientific community for not standing to attention at that great research work.

The Twin Towers' collapses look like controlled demolition, but not the regular, carefully prepared kind, but more ineptly or hastily applied and designed to go from the top down, in a fashion that it can be - with some constraints - initiated at any floor to adjust for a plane that may not hit exactly at the predetermined height.

No they don't look like a controlled demolition. Could you make a more ignorant statement than this paragraph? You have no understanding of CDs and are not simply making up something that sounds good to you despite having no basis in reality.

The collapse initiates at the point of the plane impacts. Therefore any explosives or charges would be destroyed by the impact. Or they would have to be planted within an hour at the exact points of impact despite the damage, the fires, and in front of people without being seen. And this of course would require drilling into the core column of the building.

Seriously, you wonder why people are laughing at the conspiracy claims you guys make? Seriously?

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
Or maybe he was capable of rather more complex thinking than "The Cardington test structures didn't collapse, so this one won't", ...<snip>

Just to add some info about the Cardington tests.

1. The individual test fires were small (relative to WTC fires), and restricted to one floor at a time.
2. The building sustained enough damage in some/one of the tests that we were not permitted on to certain areas after the tests (from memory this applied after the final, and largest test).
3. The structure was not compromised by being hit with debris or aircraft.

(a different) Dave

 

[SDC]

In #155, Dabljuh wrote: "Video Review:

"The movie tries to discredit jones' findings. "Super Termite from the Internet" - Right. And Jones found the thermite residue in the dust from an hour after the collapse, long before there had been any significant amount of rescue operation."

Read that part bolded by me closely. What the heck does it mean? It means nothing at all -- it's a nonsensical attempt to claim that Jones had special evidence. Or else it means 1/ Jones got there an hour after the collapse on 9/11 (he was in New York??); 2/ it means that he was, at some later date, able to find a specific pile of dust which could be identified that way (it had been somehow kept pristine and clean since 9/11, despite all the rubbish floating around lower Manhattan for weeks or months?); or 3/ he had a time machine. Well, the man was some sort of physicist, #3 is the most likely of these possibilities.

My gosh, Dabljuh, that was a very silly claim.

 

[twinstead]

Thanks SDC, now I have this image in my mind of Jones rushing past security an hour after the collapse with testing material in hand, yelling, "Make way, make way. Crack investigative team. Make way!".

Who ya gunna call? THERMITE BUSTERS!