How 9/11 was done

[R.Mackey]

Many people did. (Scroll down to Mark Loizeaux) Some of those on scene, watching the structures degrade, made the call even before WTC 2 collapsed, for instance as NIST reports from an analysis of emergency communications (NCSTAR1-8, pg. 216). Many others knew it was possible but couldn't get enough data to establish the true condition of the structure. Others (FDNY ) knew the risk was real but went in anyway, and paid the ultimate price.

As for me, I was on the West Coast and WTC 2 was already down before I heard what was going on. But it didn't surprise me once I heard "airliner impact."

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down by the impacts and fires, is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, that you've been duped by others selling conspiracy theories to a gullible fringe of uneducated supporters, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

 

[ktesibios]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

On seeing the externally visible damage and fire extent, apparently so:

My Thayer School engineering training came back, and I realized that with that intensity of heat in a building in which the steel girders were insulated with asbestos, it had to collapse within one hour. I called the fire department, police, etc. and told them the building was guaranteed to collapse. I was told that 911 was only for emergencies, and I should call somewhere else.

After about 40 minutes, as I saw (I have telescopes, binoculars, etc.) the top segment of the building listing about 3 degrees, I left my apartment and went out to walk in the street. Buidlings collapse if they list more than 3 degrees. As I walked down Bleecker Street, people gasped as the building collapsed. Like Lord Jim, my imagination surpasses any reality. I should have stayed and watched. I did for the second tower.

source

Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "...

To do their work, Mark Loizeaux and his brother Doug need to understand the same forces and formulas that structural engineers study, but instead of using that knowledge to erect buildings they use it to take them down. They are structural undertakers, which may explain why Mark, when confronted with the spectacle of the crippled buildings, lacked the sentiment that builders feel for their creations—that innate sympathy which helped blind the engineers of the World Trade towers to the reality of what was about to occur. "I thought, Somebody's got to tell the Fire Department to get out of there," Loizeaux told me. "I picked up the phone, dialled 411, got the number, and tried it—busy. So I called the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management"—which was in 7 World Trade. "All circuits were busy. I couldn't get through."

source

In fact, the 4 engineers, 6 designers, 3 tech writers, and 17 fabicators/welders/mechanics at the place I was working all said, pretty much in unison-"Those buildings are going down!" about 10 minutes before the first collapse...

source

So a few knowledgeable people saw the wounds in those buildings and thought "Oh Jeez, I can see what's going to happen".

Don't think that the cause of the collapses will just become part of conventional wisdom without any further examination. It seems that engineers have what a phrenologist would have termed "a rather large bump of curiosity". In idly Googling around some months back, I turned up a paper published in 1995 and another in 2004 in a British engineering journal devoted to applying modern analysis methods to understanding the cause of the Tay Bridge disaster in 1879. A little looking will also turn up evidence that the pocket-protector community is still discussing the exact mechanism that made the Tacoma Narrows bridge shake itself to pieces in 1940.

The fall of the WTC towers is already one of the most-studied structural failures in history. We can expect that this will continue. Papers will be written, peer reviewed and published about the collapses. Graduate students will find thesis topics in studying aspects of the collapses. If the currently-held understanding of these phenomena has been "doctored" or is significantly deficient, that will be exposed.

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down deliberately, is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, the deviousness that may be involved, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

No, the reason truther claims about "controlled demolition" gain no traction among sane people is that evidence in favor of them is absent while plenty of evidence in favor of the generally-held understanding of the collapses is present, and there are enough resources available to permit even a mere interested layman like myself to understand this.

You're talking garbage.

 

[Corsair 115]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

Not me personally, but that's because A) I'm not a structural engineer or architect well-versed in the details of how buildings react to extreme conditions, and B) buildings of that immense size collapsing for any reason is not something I'd see before. There's the feeling that something that big is pretty much resistant to practically every possibility.

If 9/11 had never happened and someone told you flying a fully laden jet into it would make it collapse like a house of cards, would you have believed them?

Back then, I would have thought it unlikely (see reasons A and B from prior response). However, after thinking about it, and being aware of all the technical material that's come out since, it seems an obvious outcome now given the severity and scale of the situation.

I could ask you a similar question: if the original Tacoma Narrows bridge had not collapsed, would you have believed a wind of just 40 MPH by itself could cause the collapse of a very large steel and concrete suspension bridge?

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down deliberately, is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, the deviousness that may be involved, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

It is up to you to furnish verifiable proof that some means other than the aircraft impact and subsequent fires were responsible for the collapses. Your incredulity is not sufficient. So please present evidence of hidden explosives, thermite, space beams, or whatever it is you think actually triggered the collapse of the WTC towers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

Yes, there were prior warnings even before WTC2 collapsed. But this is just another truther two-way argument. If no-one thought in advance that the towers were going to collapse, this proves that the collapse could not have been due to fire alone because the trained professionals at the site knew it couldn't. If anyone did think in advance that the towers were going to collapse, this proves foreknowledge on their part and therefore an inside job.

Dave

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

If 9/11 had never happened and someone told you flying a fully laden jet into it would make it collapse like a house of cards, would you have believed them?

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down deliberately, is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, the deviousness that may be involved, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

They were brought down deliberately.

I'm pretty sure the hijackers intended to hit the building.

And are you saying that because planes crashed into and collapsed the towers, then that raises the possibility that they didn't?

I'd call that an argument from insanity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

When I first saw the pictures on LIVE television, and saw the scale of the damage the towers sustained I had little doubt that the structural integrity of both towers was at the very least in question, if not in danger of catastrophic failure.

Opinions of course differ depending on people's understanding of the design. Many were shocked that they collapsed, many others like myself were surprised that they stood as long as they did after the plane impacts.

If 9/11 had never happened and someone told you flying a fully laden jet into it would make it collapse like a house of cards, would you have believed them?

Determining this doesn't rely on "belief" it relies on how the building you're asking about is designed. Given what I already know about the construction and the materials used, and the damage done I'm certainly not biased by the first time in history argument. It's particularly concerning that people seem to be so arrogant to believe that structures cannot possibly sustain enough damage to collapse all because it was a first time event.

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down deliberately
is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, the deviousness that may be involved, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

An argument from incredulity? You have that reversed; every controlled demolition theory I have seen is based on nothing more than ignorance in design and engineering subjects. It has nothing to do with being unable to accept a deliberate demolition, it's that controlled demolition theories have no basis what so ever, it's a ridiculous theory both from that ignorance and the lack of evidence pointing to it.

 

[Bell]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

Yes. There were people who expected the towers to collapse. I'm at work right now, so haven't got the book at had, but read "102 minutes"

If 9/11 had never happened and someone told you flying a fully laden jet into it would make it collapse like a house of cards, would you have believed them?

Yes, I would. Iirc even Bin Laden expect a partial collapse (only the upper floors), he confessed that on the videotapes recovered by CNN iirc.

Isn't it the truth of the matter, that the only reason you are unable to accept they were brought down deliberately, is because you cannot imagine, or do not want to imagine, the deviousness that may be involved, and hence, isn't this an argument from incredulity?

No, it's because demolition of the WTC is a lie and stupid. It didn't happen. 9/11 truthers have no evidence that it did.

 

[twinstead]

The conspicuous lack of informed, real experts from anywhere on Earth exclaiming disbelief that the buildings fell the way they did is, and always has been, very telling to me. Most truthers just hand wave that away (they must, of course) but it really makes me think.

 

[Tweeter]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

I surely didn't and I watched the TV coverage from the start and there was no talk of collapse. Ghouliani and the jref crew seem to be the only enlightened ones. If only you guys had been on the scene. If only.

 

[Bell]

I surely didn't and I watched the TV coverage from the start and there was no talk of collapse. Ghouliani and the jref crew seem to be the only enlightened ones. If only you guys had been on the scene. If only.

There were actually a few people on the scene predicting a collapse. They tried to issue a warning to the FDNY which sadly reached them at the moment WTC2 fell. Read "102 minutes" as mentioned above. Or don't bother. Making up stupid fantasy claims about controlled demolitions is much more thrilling than the real stuff.

If only Tweeter had been on the scene, he could have stopped the government from blowing up the towers. If only.

 

[Aitch]

Serious Question

At the risk of giving the conspiracy loons yet another stick to beat their dead horse with, could I ask if anyone knows why the hi-jackers flew the planes into the towers so high up?

Looking at pictures of the pre-911 NY skyline, it appears to me that they could have flown into the Towers much lower down which, I would assume (possibly wrongly) would make collapse more likely - more tonnage above the weakened area.

Or would this have made the 'event' less visible from other areas of NY? Were they actually trying to destroy the building, or did they just want to do some very visible damage?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day? Up until the moment the first one did?

Good Lord, how many times does this have to be addressed? There are many people on record as stating that they believed the towers would collapse. Not only is this old information, but Gravy's page rebutting this claim has been up for what, well over a year now?

"I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally.

Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."

Source.

PAPD Chief Joseph Morris: "And also met with Chief Tony Whitaker, who is the commanding officer of the World Trade Center. At that point he told me he felt that Building 1 was going to collapse, very soon, based on what he had seen.

My Thayer School engineering training came back, and I realized that with that intensity of heat in a building in which the steel girders were insulated with asbestos, it had to collapse within one hour. I called the fire department, police, etc. and told them the building was guaranteed to collapse. I was told that 911 was only for emergencies, and I should callsomewhere else.

After about 40 minutes, as I saw (I have telescopes, binoculars, etc.) the top segment of the building listing about 3 degrees, I left my apartment and went out to walk in the street. Buidlings collapse if they list more than 3 degrees. As I walked down Bleecker Street, people gasped as the building collapsed. Like Lord Jim, my imagination surpasses any reality. I should have stayed and watched. I did for the second tower.

...We watched the second building, and I noticed it was more than 3 degrees, but as the telescope revealed, that was because the beams were buckling on both sides. A building like the WTC does not 'break off in the middle' and fall like a tree.

Source.

And that's only a small sampling. The point is that yes, people did honestly believe the buildings would collapse. Many had firsthand or inside-the-building information, like the various fire chiefs; others, like the architect and the engineer quoted above, had professional knowledge. Some admittedly just guessed. Doesn't matter, though; the point is that there was much informed opinion out there that the towers would indeed collapse. This argument from incredulity - "Did anyone honestly think those towers were going to collapse that day?" - is answered.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

At the risk of giving the conspiracy loons yet another stick to beat their dead horse with, could I ask if anyone knows why the hi-jackers flew the planes into the towers so high up?

Looking at pictures of the pre-911 NY skyline, it appears to me that they could have flown into the Towers much lower down which, I would assume (possibly wrongly) would make collapse more likely - more tonnage above the weakened area.

Or would this have made the 'event' less visible from other areas of NY? Were they actually trying to destroy the building, or did they just want to do some very visible damage?

I don't know why, but the answer could be so mundane that it amounts to nothing: The towers might have been hit where they were because that's simply the best the pilots could do. That's speculation, but theorizing anything beyond that presumes a greater degree of accuracy on the part of the pilots, and a greater degree of planning on the part of the plotters. I'm not sure we have evidence to support either presumption.

I'm not certain that the 9/11 planners intended to do anything more than cause horror; the information I've read is at odds on that. On the one hand, I've read that Bin Laden is supposed to have expressed surprise that the towers collapsed. This suggests that the goal was simply to strike, and not do anything more. On the other hand, I've also read that the planners' goal during the earlier 1993 WTC bombing attempt was to have the one tower actually fall into the other tower and damage it as well, perhaps collapsing it, too. Which suggests that the 9/11 planners might have indeed wanted the towers to fall, thus making the question of "why so high up" relevant.

It's just unclear.

But even presuming that collapse, rather than simple horror was the goal, the open question is whether the pilots could truly be so accurate as to bias their flights towards the lower part of the buildings as opposed to the higher. As said above, it's possible that this was simply the best they could do. It's also possible that they did indeed intend to hit high up for visibility, although this argues against the presumption that they wanted the towers to collapse. I don't know if there's any way to ever conclude with reasonable certainty what the answer is, but no matter what, it's undeniable that the broader goals were to strike, cause terror, and kill Americans. To Al Qaeda, anything above and beyond that would have just been a bonus.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I surely didn't and I watched the TV coverage from the start and there was no talk of collapse.

Well, that about wraps it up for me. If anybody had thought the Twin Towers were about to collapse, they would simply have dropped what they were doing, high-tailed it to the nearest TV studio, and copped themself an interview. Far more important than trying to warn the people still inside the tower; what's a few hundred lives compared with the possibility of appearing on TV?

Dave

 

[lapman]

At the risk of giving the conspiracy loons yet another stick to beat their dead horse with, could I ask if anyone knows why the hi-jackers flew the planes into the towers so high up?

Looking at pictures of the pre-911 NY skyline, it appears to me that they could have flown into the Towers much lower down which, I would assume (possibly wrongly) would make collapse more likely - more tonnage above the weakened area.

Or would this have made the 'event' less visible from other areas of NY? Were they actually trying to destroy the building, or did they just want to do some very visible damage?

These weren't the super-duper ace pilots that the TM claims they are. They hit the towers where they could. The idea was to hit the towers, not necessarily to bring them down. So it really didn't matter where they hit.

 

[Sunstealer]

Well, that about wraps it up for me. If anybody had thought the Twin Towers were about to collapse, they would simply have dropped what they were doing, high-tailed it to the nearest TV studio, and copped themself an interview. Far more important than trying to warn the people still inside the tower; what's a few hundred lives compared with the possibility of appearing on TV?

Dave

Oh come on now - everybody knows that in order to become a TV news presenter you must first have a degree in structural engineering.

 

[GStan]

At the risk of giving the conspiracy loons yet another stick to beat their dead horse with, could I ask if anyone knows why the hi-jackers flew the planes into the towers so high up?

Looking at pictures of the pre-911 NY skyline, it appears to me that they could have flown into the Towers much lower down which, I would assume (possibly wrongly) would make collapse more likely - more tonnage above the weakened area.

Or would this have made the 'event' less visible from other areas of NY? Were they actually trying to destroy the building, or did they just want to do some very visible damage?

In addition to what EMH and Lap already pointed out, higher up may have made more sense from the standpoint of inflicting damage to the building. The lower you go in the building, the stronger the columns are. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge in this area could comment on whether or not this would matter. (Obviously it didn't make a difference between floor 90 and floor 75, other than the amount of time to collapse.)

With the benefit of hindsight, going lower might have achieved more casualties by stranding a much larger number of people above the impact zones.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I surely didn't and I watched the TV coverage from the start and there was no talk of collapse.

And for a few moments of time, journalists on the MSM were experts on structural engineering, and what they didn't say was going to happen is, of course, impossible.

Ghouliani and the jref crew seem to be the only enlightened ones. If only you guys had been on the scene. If only.

Curiously enough, it didn't take the "jref crew" to persude people to evacuate the Towers, saving countless lives. Apparently someone on the scene knew, even without our help, that the situation was unsafe.

Imagine now if a Truther had been in charge, saying: "Now this situation is perfectly safe, the Towers can't possibly fall down just 'cos they've been hit by planes, I can prove it with these pizza boxes."

Oh, and read the soddin' links with which you've been provided.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

OK, that's settled then. The WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Maybe that a few american STASI-like pockets of resistance will continue the reargard fight, for the more intelligent and pragmatic debunker it should be clear now: all resistance is futile (and bad for your career in the long run).

9/11 was an inside job after all.

The question now remains: who exactly did it?

To refresh your memory:

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

 

[BazBear]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

OK, that's settled then. The WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Maybe that a few american STASI-like pockets of resistance will continue the reargard fight, for the more intelligent and pragmatic debunker it should be clear now: all resistance is futile (and bad for your career in the long run).

9/11 was an inside job after all.

The question now remains: who exactly did it?

To refresh your memory:

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

Inside job? Yes, "inside" those airliners...the "who" being the terrorists who hijacked the aircraft, and then flew them at high speeds into the buildings.

The only "control" in the demolition is the limited-if-adequate-for-the-task flying skill of the terrorist pilots.

Do you even read the posts and the links so many have provided you? You seem to write well enough, so I have assume your reading comprehension skills must be adequate to at least a general understanding of the material, so I have to conclude you're either handwaving it away, or don't care to read it, or most likely both.

Most of us know who's really fighting the rearguard fight, it's "truthers" such as yourself.