Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[LashL]

No further response is required beyond the foregoing emoticon, which is, incidentally, among those provided and approved by the forum.

No further comment is necessary.




ETA: Oh, wait, I missed this part:

I would be willing to provide a plausible theory as to how the buildings could have become rigged to blow, if others insist.

Please proceed.

 

[Mr.D]

You are suggesting that a huge office building in the heart of the financial district of NYC was rigged with bombs for, wait for it, PUBLIC SAFETY?

And if so, why limit it to just the Twin Towers? Wouldn't the same argument hold for the (just picking some numbers out of the air) 10 biggest buildings in each of the 10 biggest cities in the US?




ETA: And what's so absurd about the fire weakening steel experiment?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

being able to demolish the towers into their footprint, or at least as they fell

You are aware of the claim that pieces of the towers were "thrown 600 feet away from the towers as they collapsed" means the use of explosives. My question to you is, how can something fall into it's own footprint that magically extends 600 feet from the actual foot print?

 

[Brainache]

And if so, why limit it to just the Twin Towers? Wouldn't the same argument hold for the (just picking some numbers out of the air) 10 biggest buildings in each of the 10 biggest cities in the US?

Better hope the detonators aren't radio controlled, 'cause interference can be a bitch...

 

[R.Mackey]

Your argument here is rather ambiguous. Are you contending that thremite only comes in one grade, or simply suggesting they used the good stuff in the NG program?

What he's saying is that the thermite used in the NG program was "high grade" in that it was plain thermite, and thus contained roughly 60% more energy than "nanothermite." There is no expectation for "nanothermite" to do any better, and many good reasons why it would perform worse.

Dismissing the experiment on those grounds is quite foolish. We have literally dozens of threads here explaining the idiocy of the "nanothermite" canard; you may wish to avail yourself of those before posting in the dark any further.

ETA: This is a very generous offer you've made:

Also, while I would prefer to sick to strict discussion of the available evidence, I would be willing to provide a plausible theory as to how the buildings could have become rigged to blow, if others insist.

I would be quite interested to hear what you've got. So far the answers to this question that we've received have been uniformly disappointing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Where to start...

First of all the buildings weren't solid like a tree. Look at this picture:

Does that look all that solid to you? If (and that's a really big if) the building had started to topple like a tree it would tear itself apart very quickly because they weren't designed to hold anything but a vertical load.

 

[triforcharity]

I appreciate the friendly welcome, as for the question; put simply, the buildings could have been rigged to blow for the sake of public safety. Imagine how much much death and destruction would have resulted had the top of the building slid off the side. Then imagine how even more horrific the results would have been had the towers been toppled over after being bombed at their bases.

Those were undeniable possibilities, particularly after the 1993 bombing. In the worst case scenario of such an attack, being able to demolish the towers into their footprint, or at least as they fell, would prevent a far worse situation than what otherwise would have resulted. Granted, telling the public at large that such high value targets are rigged to blow would result in many being irrationally wary of ever going near them. So those involved would have to be sworn to secrecy, and at least most with little or nothing to compel them to come forward with such information today.

Your argument here is rather ambiguous. Are you contending that thremite only comes in one grade, or simply suggesting they used the good stuff in the NG program?

Huh?? Public safety?? Obviously you have never seen a building wired for CD. They take the PUBLIC and keep them very faar away, for their SAFETY!!

Secondly, for someone to wire this building, it would take months and months. This is a fact. Someone would have noticed if their walls were gone, and things were strapped to columns. PLUS, not to MENTION, the fact that explosives were degrade and become unpredictable and unreliable over the course of just a few hours. This is a MAJOR problem for the TM.

Now, take this into consideration. This building did NOT in ANY sense of the word fall into its "own footprint". Not even close.
Open this picture and point out what you define as "into its own footprint" because somehow, I missed that.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

How much MORE death and destruction do you think would have occured?? More than the destruction in the picture I linked to above??? How many more people would have been killed?? Not nearly as much. There were firefighters that were killed because the building collapsed. People that were still in the stairwells were killed. If the top had "slid off" *snicker* it wouldn't have killed NEARLY as many people. Not even close.

The last point I will make is this. You are presenting that hundreds of people, from security, to PA police, to building maintenence guys, have all been swarn to secrecy, and NOT ONE has ever had a change of heart?? Not ONE of them have any kind of moral compass??

After your first post, I thought you might be halfway reasonable. But, alas, you have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are no better than RedIbis, or Deep, or even Bill, when it comes to critical thinking.

 

[kylebisme]

You are suggesting that a huge office building in the heart of the financial district of NYC was rigged with bombs for, wait for it, PUBLIC SAFETY?

I am only suggesting it is a possiblity.

After the towers collapsed, none of these secret demolitions men thought they should say anything about all of those bombs they'd hidden in there...

Why would they? If they put the bombs there in the service of public safty as I posulated above, then they quite likely feel comforable matianing serecy on the grounds that their work served its itended purpose. Even if some do question the nessecty of bringing down the buildings, they would surely be reasonable enough to understand that it was a judgement call made under exceedingly high stress conditions. Besdies, even if one did want to bring such information foward, proving the claim would be diffcult, and without proof even an honest claim be largely considered preemtlivly debunked by the widespread support for the progressive collapse story.

This makes more sense to you than a gravity driven collapse?

Gravity obviously played it's part, but that comes far short of explaining the observed collapse of the buildings. Think for a moment about the difference in velocity between dropping a baseballs from the top of one of the towards, one though air and one though a massive tube of watter. Then look at the velocity which the buildings came down with, and consider which example is the closest match. Of course one should consider the difference between resistance imparted by watter compared to that which one could expect from a building, at and pointer how gravity alone could have made the buildings down, particularly as quickly as they did. I suppose one could speculate some super-secret localized gravitational enhancement weapon accomplished this, but the possibility of the buildings having been rigged with explosives is far more plausible.

 

[Whiplash]

[qimg]http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3856/wtccoreshilouette037674.jpg[/qimg]

/twitch
/twitch
SOLID PROOF OF CONCRETE CORE!
/twitch

Woops, sorry, I thought I had been cured of that condit3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS

/twitch
/twitch

Sorry..

 

[Hokulele]

Imagine how much much death and destruction would have resulted had the top of the building slid off the side. Then imagine how even more horrific the results would have been had the towers been toppled over after being bombed at their bases.

What makes you believe either of those things could have happened? Not the bombing, but the toppling or sliding.

 

[Brainache]

I am only suggesting it is a possiblity.

My point was that it isn't a possibility at all and to think that it was is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard for quite a while.

Why would they? If they put the bombs there in the service of public safty as I posulated above, then they quite likely feel comforable matianing serecy on the grounds that their work served its itended purpose. Even if some do question the nessecty of bringing down the buildings, they would surely be reasonable enough to understand that it was a judgement call made under exceedingly high stress conditions. Besdies, even if one did want to bring such information foward, proving the claim would be diffcult, and without proof even an honest claim be largely considered preemtlivly debunked by the widespread support for the progressive collapse story.

I dunno, maybe there might be one or two out of the hundreds of guys required to do it, who prefer the truth to big Government lies, maybe?

Oh and that widespread support includes just about every engineer and architect in the world. How is it that you know more than them?

Gravity obviously played it's part, but that comes far short of explaining the observed collapse of the buildings. Think for a moment about the difference in velocity between dropping a baseballs from the top of one of the towards, one though air and one though a massive tube of watter. Then look at the velocity which the buildings came down with, and consider which example is the closest match. Of course one should consider the difference between resistance imparted by watter compared to that which one could expect from a building, at and pointer how gravity alone could have made the buildings down, particularly as quickly as they did. I suppose one could speculate some super-secret localized gravitational enhancement weapon accomplished this, but the possibility of the buildings having been rigged with explosives is far more plausible.

Wow. that sounds like, totally sciencey. Perhaps you should submit a paper to some University and then wait for your Nobel prize, or not...

 

[R.Mackey]

Gravity obviously played it's part, but that comes far short of explaining the observed collapse of the buildings. Think for a moment about the difference in velocity between dropping a baseballs from the top of one of the towards, one though air and one though a massive tube of watter. Then look at the velocity which the buildings came down with, and consider which example is the closest match. Of course one should consider the difference between resistance imparted by watter compared to that which one could expect from a building, at and pointer how gravity alone could have made the buildings down, particularly as quickly as they did.

Dead wrong. Not only have you not calculated the fall time in water, instead merely assuming it would take longer, but a standing column of water the size of a Twin Tower would be approximately 1.2 million tons, or approximately four times the mass of the real thing. It's worthless as an analogy.

For a better but much simpler analysis of the collapse time, see my whitepaper, Appendix B. For a peer-reviewed analysis, see BLGB. The collapse times are totally consistent with a gravity only collapse. No reliable analysis has even suggested otherwise.

I suppose one could speculate some super-secret localized gravitational enhancement weapon accomplished this, but the possibility of the buildings having been rigged with explosives is far more plausible.

Yes, but that's like saying Godzilla is more plausible than Akira.

 

[kylebisme]

And if so, why limit it to just the Twin Towers? Wouldn't the same argument hold for the (just picking some numbers out of the air) 10 biggest buildings in each of the 10 biggest cities in the US?

I didn't suggest it would be limited to the towers, but I'm sure if it is done, buildings are selected by far less simplistc reasons that you suggest.

And what's so absurd about the fire weakening steel experiment?

Most notably, the lack of anyone but complete morons suggesting intense fire cannot weaken steel. It is the molten steel found at the base of the towers which stands in contradiction to the official story.

Besides that, they used a weaker beam and on its weaker orientation, ran the fire under nearly ideal conditions allowing it to reach about 67% hotter than anyone suggests the fires in the WTC got, did not secure to more steel which would distribute the heat, or anything at all for that matter, and stacked the weights in the center. Put simply, the so-called "experiment" wasn't fit for a high school science fair.

 

[kylebisme]

You are aware of the claim that pieces of the towers were "thrown 600 feet away from the towers as they collapsed" means the use of explosives. My question to you is, how can something fall into it's own footprint that magically extends 600 feet from the actual foot print?

I was simply referring to the fact that the destruction carried along the length of the tower to it's base, of course rubble was ejected all over the place, and I did not intend to suggest otherwise.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Your words were "fell into it's foot print" 600 feet away is not in it's own footprint

 

[R.Mackey]

Most notably, the lack of anyone but complete morons suggesting intense fire cannot weaken steel. It is the molten steel found at the base of the towers which stands in contradiction to the official story.

There is no evidence for molten steel. Dozens of threads on this here, too.

Besides that, they used a weaker beam and on its weaker orientation, ran the fire under nearly ideal conditions allowing it to reach about 67% hotter than anyone suggests the fires in the WTC got,

Wrong. NIST predicts up to 930^oC in structural columns, higher than the EMRTC test temperatures.

did not secure to more steel which would distribute the heat,

In two minutes, through slender steel members, the heat flux would be negligible. I assume you've never taken a thermodynamics course.

or anything at all for that matter, and stacked the weights in the center. Put simply, the so-called "experiment" wasn't fit for a high school science fair.

Without seeing how they scaled the experiment, you can't claim this. I haven't seen those details either, but it appears to be plausible.

You're not doing well, friend. Take a deep breath and start actually looking for answers to the questions put to you. We can help you a great deal.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Baseballs float... I've seen it for myself at McCovey Cove. You kinda suck at analogies.

 

[kylebisme]

Huh?? Public safety?? Obviously you have never seen a building wired for CD. They take the PUBLIC and keep them very faar away, for their SAFETY!!

It should be obvious I was not suggesting a normal CD project, but rather one designed and implemented for the purpose of public safety. but your arguments against the suggestion simply ignore that difference.

How much MORE death and destruction do you think would have occured??

A lot more had a large enough bomb been set off a the base of the towers to cause them to topple across the City. Surely you aren't attempting to deny that?

The last point I will make is this. You are presenting that hundreds of people, from security, to PA police, to building maintenence guys, have all been swarn to secrecy, and NOT ONE has ever had a change of heart?? Not ONE of them have any kind of moral compass??

Not nearly so many people would nesseacrly need to know. As for the reasons for keeping the such a secret, please see my previous reply to Brainache at post #688.

 

[Hokulele]

A lot more had a large enough bomb been set off a the base of the towers to cause them to topple across the City. Surely you aren't attempting to deny that?

What makes you think they would topple?

 

[R.Mackey]

A lot more had a large enough bomb been set off a the base of the towers to cause them to topple across the City. Surely you aren't attempting to deny that?

Even if a large bomb destroyed their foundations, the Towers still would not topple. They would buckle in midair through inertial forces alone.

You seem to be ignoring me. This may be a clue as to why you've made so many mistakes, in only a few posts here...