WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[JihadJane]

JJ - why would explosives be placed in concrete floors remote from load-bearing structures ?

Don't ask me, ask Wildcat. S/he asked me "how much explosives would be needed to pulverize the concrete since you seem to dismiss the idea that gravity alone could do it?"

As far as I know, besides the foundations, the only concrete in the buildng was that used to make the floors.

-----------------------------------
2 all posters:

Please excuse any delay in addressing your questions. I have a backlog of complex enquiries to deal with. Thanks

 

[JihadJane]

The WTC fell due to impacts and fire.

This is not known for certain.

It is known and the guys who did it are known.

No, they are not.

The evidence was inspected immediacy by expert engineers and scientist to aid future buildings.

No, it wasn't.

You are making up false information or repeating the false information oif 9/11 truth due to lack of knowledge.

No, I am not.

The bombing of the WTC in 93 was not helped by the FBI, it was solely done by terrorists.

No, it wasn't.

If you have evidence of someone else doing the 93 bombing, you need to report it to the authorities, but other than that, your lack of evidence proves your opinion on this to be wrong as are you ideas on 9/11.

The authorities have already been informed. One of the suspects covertly recorded his conversations with his handler.

 

[WildCat]

Who said anything about explosives being placed solely to pulverize concrete? It was you who asked me how much explosives I'd need to pulverize the concrete.

It was you who saw something suspicious about pulverized concrete. You have yet to explain what is so suspicious about it. Will you be doing so?

Your questions appear somewhat unrelated to anything I have written. I am merely asking you for a bit of assistance with the calculations you wish me to perform.

No, it's not unrelated at all. You demanded to know the energy present in the collapse of the towers before you would calculate the explosives needed. The only possible reason for this is you intend attribute explopsives to the energy deficit you expect to see. Which means that the conspirators would need to know exactly which bits of concrete would not be pulverized, and then use explosives to do what the PE could not.

You are obviously an expert on the mathematics of gravity-driven collapses. I need your help.

Start here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

I can hardly even remember how to do long division.

No kidding! The entire reason the truth movement exists is ignorance of science and mathmatics. There's a reason no truther has published a paper in a peer-reviewed engineering journal.

 

[beachnut]

This is not known for certain.



No, they are not.



No, it wasn't.



No, I am not.



No, it wasn't.



The authorities have already been informed. One of the suspects covertly recorded his conversations with his handler.

Too bad this is just your opinion not supported by evidence. Each of your responses are wrong, and proof is your lack of evidence. Or are you hiding your evidence or are these just false ideas you made up?

 

[JihadJane]

A fair question. The catch would be with the word "pulverisation" itself, so we'd need to know your view of the degree of pulverisation experienced by the concrete, as I asked before.

My view is that much of the concrete was reduced to fine powder, some fine enough to be inhaled, sand and gravel (I'm not sure, though, how gravel can be produced without aggregate but the claims seem authentic)

So you "tend to lean" towards a CD hypothesis then.

I wrote : "... I tend to lean towards the hypotheses that other means besides aeroplanes and fire were employed to bring them down." This includes poor design/construction.

Why might it have been organised? How?

It is impossible to answer these these questions fully on a forum like this, certainly not on this thread! Here is a very condensed and incomplete list of some possible reasons:

Why might [CD] have been organised?

-To maximise the propaganda impact of the event.

Possible aims of propaganda event/total destruction of towers -->

-Enable war and massive increase in profits for associated industries, including Intelligence and domestic security industries.

-The US is a war economy and needs permanent war to survive. It needed an enemy to be feared as much as Communism used to be so it created one.

-A military response to global Peak Oil/energy crisis.

-Protect the Pentagon's fuel supply.

-To cover up/physically destroy evidence of/neutralise investigations into other crimes committed by the 911 perpetrators in the past, particularly massive covert financial fraud.

-Enable similar frauds in the present and future.

-Enable totalitarian structures and laws to be put in place in the US.

-Enable Imperial expansion and maintenance by motivating the US population to want war. All empires are resource-hungry.

-Enable global control of narcotics industry.

-Benefit other countries and possible participants in various ways.

-Many others

How?

-Make use of decades of experience around the world in conducting covert military/Intelligence operations which often involve blowing things up!

Perhaps you can be the first to propose a narrative that could possibly explain some mechanism for the WTC destruction that doesn't involve impact damage and fire - alone - as the cause? Or will you continue to inhabit the nice, warm comfort zone you seem to have created for yourself where "nothing can be proved either way without the physical evidence" ?

I do not have such a narrative. I am not a military/demolition expert.

"Nothing can be proved either way without the physical evidence" is simply a statement of fact, in my opinion. The whole CD debate is sometimes considered a red herring because of this, though a fascinating one, and a distraction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am not qualified to perform the calculations you suggest

I can hardly even remember how to do long division.

I'm not sure, though, how gravel can be produced without aggregate

I do not have such a narrative. I am not a military/demolition expert.

Given the impressive scope and depth of the ignorance you claim above, has it maybe occurred to you that when you say,

This is not known for certain.

that your widespread ignorance of all fields of human knowledge related to the 9-11 attacks may have resulted in the situation that you, alone, are the one who doesn't know anything for certain? The argument from ignorance is a tried and tested logical fallacy, but it seems an argument peculiar to 9-11 truthers that the wider your fields of ignorance, the better you are able to make complex technical judgements in the fields you know nothing about.

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

It was you who saw something suspicious about pulverized concrete. You have yet to explain what is so suspicious about it. Will you be doing so?

I actually referred to the entire non-metallic contents and components of the building being pulverized, not just the concrete.

I do not understand how this stuff is being pulverized while being simultaneously blown out at high speed in the same action. I am not convinced that a gravity driven collapse can do this. However, I accept that I could be wrong.

No, it's not unrelated at all. You demanded to know the energy present in the collapse of the towers before you would calculate the explosives needed. The only possible reason for this is you intend attribute explopsives to the energy deficit you expect to see. Which means that the conspirators would need to know exactly which bits of concrete would not be pulverized, and then use explosives to do what the PE could not.

It's a joke asking me to do these calculations and I never expected you to be able to answer my request either.

The entire reason the truth movement exists is ignorance of science and mathematics.

Your statement suggests that suspicion of the official 911 narrative depends on evidence that requires scientific literacy. It doesn't. For example the book about 911, "Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert, is about 600 pages long and only makes a very short, passing and noncommittal reference to the destruction of the towers.

In my opinion political literacy is far more important to understanding 911 than scientific literacy.

 

[JihadJane]

Given the impressive scope and depth of the ignorance you claim above, has it maybe occurred to you that when you say,



that your widespread ignorance of all fields of human knowledge related to the 9-11 attacks may have resulted in the situation that you, alone, are the one who doesn't know anything for certain? The argument from ignorance is a tried and tested logical fallacy, but it seems an argument peculiar to 9-11 truthers that the wider your fields of ignorance, the better you are able to make complex technical judgements in the fields you know nothing about.

Dave

You appear to be rather ignorant yourself, Dave, of the many fields of human knowledge required to understand what and why 911 might have happened if you think my declared areas of ignorance cover all these fields.

 

[beachnut]

In my opinion political literacy is far more important to understanding 911 than scientific literacy.

Exactly, you have zero evidence so you make up ideas, and you live in political fantasy with your own special failed 9/11 ideas. At least you come out and tell the truth you are pure fantasy.

 

[JihadJane]

@ Dave Rogers

The Towers contained no aggregate in their concrete. What was the gravel made of? Do you know or will you just have to guess?

 

[JihadJane]

Exactly, you have zero evidence so you make up ideas, and you live in political fantasy with your own special failed 9/11 ideas. At least you come out and tell the truth you are pure fantasy.

The feeling's mutual!

 

[Dave Rogers]

You appear to be rather ignorant yourself, Dave, of the many fields of human knowledge required to understand what and why 911 might have happened if you think my declared areas of ignorance cover all these fields.

Forgive me for being misled by your decision to focus on areas you don't understand in your assessment of what happened on 9-11. If you were to present some evidence in your areas of expertise, perhaps some of it might appear to have merit to those of us who have studied the truth movement's claims in detail and so far found none. There are plenty of other threads available for you to do so. However, your repeated claims that you know little or nothing of science or engineering, in general, make it unlikely that those of us who know quite a bit about them will find your incredulity or lack of knowledge, in the particulars of 9-11, in any way perturbing.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Towers contained no aggregate in their concrete. What was the gravel made of?

We have this little institution called the Stundies, intended to honour posts that show something more than simple lack of knowledge; a total lack of rational thought is required for a good example. Would you like to reconsider the wording of this, currently meaningless, question before I nominate it?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

The feeling's mutual!

Your feelings are wrong, you need fact and evidence to prove your points, not hopeful political bias ideas you make up out of the blue. Your failure to contest the findings of NIST and other Studies done on 9/11 with evidence is noted and due to the fact you use your feelings to make your conclusions, not facts and evidence. Your ideas are failed based on facts and evidence, you call my ideas on 9/11 failed due to your feelings. So scientific.

 

[WildCat]

Your statement suggests that suspicion of the official 911 narrative depends on evidence that requires scientific literacy. It doesn't. For example the book about 911, "Crossing the Rubicon. The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert, is about 600 pages long and only makes a very short, passing and noncommittal reference to the destruction of the towers.

In my opinion political literacy is far more important to understanding 911 than scientific literacy.

So if you ignore all the evidence, facts, engineering, science, etc etc then 9/11 was obviously an inside job!

 

[JihadJane]

Forgive me for being misled by your decision to focus on areas you don't understand in your assessment of what happened on 9-11. If you were to present some evidence in your areas of expertise, perhaps some of it might appear to have merit to those of us who have studied the truth movement's claims in detail and so far found none. There are plenty of other threads available for you to do so. However, your repeated claims that you know little or nothing of science or engineering, in general, make it unlikely that those of us who know quite a bit about them will find your incredulity or lack of knowledge, in the particulars of 9-11, in any way perturbing.

Dave

I very much doubt if "those of" you have been perturbed in any way by anything anyone one has ever said here that contradicted your beliefs!

The topic of this thread is "What happened after collapse initiation?" My focus is that we can never know for certain what happened because the evidence was destroyed before a full investigation of it could even begin. We are left, instead, to guess to our heart's content.

It is very normal for criminals to seek to destroy the evidence of their crimes.

You need no engineering or scientific knowledge to understand this. However, from the evidence of these JREF threads, people who do apparently have some scientific knowledge appear to be unable to understand that the lack of physical evidence means that all their scientific arguments are largely meaningless and totally hypothetical. Without the physical evidence nothing can be conclusively proved about how the Towers came down. Reasonably enough, some of us wonder if this is why the evidence was destroyed. So that nothing can be proved. Perhaps they just wanted to encourage debate.

There is a reason why criminals seek to destroy the physical evidence of their crimes.

It helps them get away with their crimes.

I don't understand why there is so little concern about this unprecedented destruction of 911 engineering evidence. Just carry on theorising.

BTW, I usually follow up links provided by scientifically -minded "debunkers", such as the one Mackie (?) gave me about dust analysis earlier in this thread, and they frequently do not say what the debunkers claim they say. I am always amazed by this but it happens very often!

 

[JihadJane]

gravel award

We have this little institution called the Stundies, intended to honour posts that show something more than simple lack of knowledge; a total lack of rational thought is required for a good example. Would you like to reconsider the wording of this, currently meaningless, question before I nominate it?

Dave

No, it's fine by me as it stands!! I come here to learn. If there was no possibility of me being ignorant about something there would be no point in my being here.

Perhaps you'd like to try and answer the question yourself after you've done the honours. It might be a good stretch for your mind. Here's what is says about gravel in my big dictionary to help you on your way:

"a mass of small round mixed stones or rock fragments".

Perhaps American gravel is different.

 

[JihadJane]

So if you ignore all the evidence, facts, engineering, science, etc etc then 9/11 was obviously an inside job!

You have missed my point but I am glad to have got your fluids going at last.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it's fine by me as it stands!! I come here to learn. If there was no possibility of me being ignorant about something there would be no point in my being here.

Perhaps you'd like to try and answer the question yourself after you've done the honours. It might be a good stretch for your mind. Here's what is says about gravel in my big dictionary to help you on your way:

"a mass of small round mixed stones or rock fragments".

Perhaps American gravel is different.

Concrete /cement aggregates are classified under to distinct criteria, either fine or coarse. You can find some relevant information here, and hopefully that will clarify the stumble you made earlier... In the nutshell all concrete has some mixture of aggregates which affect it's material strength as it hardens..

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps you'd like to try and answer the question yourself after you've done the honours. It might be a good stretch for your mind. Here's what is says about gravel in my big dictionary to help you on your way:

"a mass of small round mixed stones or rock fragments".

Perhaps American gravel is different.

If I were American, I might be able to help you with the last bit. However, let's go back to your question.

The Towers contained no aggregate in their concrete. What was the gravel made of?

From Wikipedia - not the most authoritative source, but please correct it if it's wrong:

Construction aggregate, or simply "aggregate", is a broad category of coarse particulate material used in construction, including sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag, and recycled concrete.

Your statement that "The Towers contained no aggregate in their concrete" must imply that their concrete contained no gravel, as gravels are a subset of the set of aggregates. Therefore, your question can be rephrased as:

"The Towers contained no sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag or recycled concrete in their concrete. What was the gravel made of?"

The only possible meaning to ascribe to "the gravel" is "the gravel in the Towers' concrete", an entity you have already stated does not exist. Since you claim it does not exist, what meaning should I ascribe to your request to state what this non-existent gravel was made of?

Dave