Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Disbelief]

I have already provided testimonies of eyewitnesses describing the sounds of the explosions as "pop-pop-pops" and "boom boom booms".

"Pop-pop-pop" in no way describes man made demolitions. One of the "boom-boom-boom" descriptions is clearly being led, while the other one appears to be the description of the floors coming down if you read the entire excerpt.

Which is evidenced where? If you're going cite Big Al's sources, please excerpt or cite the relevant text from those reports.

How can I cite something when I said it was not there?

Except that many of the building workers compared the explosions exactly to those of 1993.

Where are those? I haven't seen them, but maybe I missed it.

Again, please review the eyewitness accounts. Most people assumed the booms they heard were in fact bombs, because they had 1993 as a precedent.

Once again, where are these? Maybe I missed them. Also, just because people assume there were bombs, does not mean that there were. Did any of them say that it sounded just like the bomb in 1993?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Before we get into explosives can ergo or someone else supporting his case please explain the justification for assuming that absolutely nothing explodes in fires unless they're explosives?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So, so far we have two "debunker" claims here that remain unsupported:

1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."

and

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."

But if my theory is correct, that no demolition charges were used, couldn't the explosives in the basements have been planted very deep underground? These massive explosions were there to emulate a severe earthquake, which means that they could have been planted even BELOW the basements of the towers. Or, as Sarah Palin said: "Drill, baby drill."

 

[ergo]

Here's a least one video where the detonation is barely distinguishable from the fireworks behind it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA&feature=fvw (detonation begins at 0:48 secs)

Here's another one, where the only sound barrier appears to be window glass and a few blocks distance. Certainly not Hoboken to lower Manhattan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yrpQrYdvTY&feature=related

Some points to consider:

1) the detonations we hear in standard controlled demolitions may be those ones in the outside walls of the buildings, and not the inner core.

2) your own progressive collapse theory posits that "once collapse began, its progression was inevitable." Of course, I don't believe this, but it might make more sense if we think of strategically placed charges focussed on sinking the core. This might allow gravity to do the bulk of the work.

3) With the upper floors already beginning to descend, would these alleged "millions" of people who "heard no explosions" might have mistaken what were explosion sounds for the sound of the building collapsing?

 

[triforcharity]

But if my theory is correct, that no demolition charges were used, couldn't the explosives in the basements have been planted very deep underground? These massive explosions were there to emulate a severe earthquake, which means that they could have been planted even BELOW the basements of the towers. Or, as Sarah Palin said: "Drill, baby drill."

Which would have caused the collapse to begin at the top of the towers, at the exact impact zones?

Yeah, keep going, I see a stundie in our future!!

 

[ergo]

Once again, where are these? Maybe I missed them. Also, just because people assume there were bombs, does not mean that there were. Did any of them say that it sounded just like the bomb in 1993?

I've linked to these several times in this thread and even provided some excerpts.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

 

[lapman]

"Pop-pop-pop" in no way describes man made demolitions. One of the "boom-boom-boom" descriptions is clearly being led, while the other one appears to be the description of the floors coming down if you read the entire excerpt.

Even the Truther Approved^TM Demolitions Expert, Danny Jowenko, agrees with you on that.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's a least one video where the detonation is barely distinguishable from the fireworks behind it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA&feature=fvw

Start listening at 51 seconds in the video.

Here's another one, where the only sound barrier appears to be window glass and a few blocks distance. Certainly not Hoboken to lower Manhattan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yrpQrYdvTY&feature=related

No actual known distance, and most likely, behind double-pane insulated glass. Why you ask? Safety reasons. They are on a higher floor in what appears to be an apartment, and as such, requires extra safety so someone doesn't fall out of a window.

Some points to consider:

1) the detonations we hear in standard controlled demolitions may be those ones in the outside walls of the buildings, and not the inner core.

Specualtion at it's best. Why is it that you believe that?

2) your own progressive collapse theory posits that "once collapse began, its progression was inevitable." Of course, I don't believe this, but it might make more sense if we think of strategically placed charges focussed on sinking the core. This might allow gravity to do the bulk of the work.

But yet, the core remained standing after the collapse.
Not to mention, the fact that many people have studied the collapses, and determined that once it began to fall, it would continue to fall.

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

Here

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

and here

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

All of these peer-reviewed, published papers (No Bentham or JO911S here) all state that once the collapse began there was no stopping it. The second two papers went so far as to study to see if some engineering methods could be implemented to prevent tall building collapses.

3) With the upper floors already beginning to descend, would these alleged "millions" of people who "heard no explosions" might have mistaken what were explosion sounds for the sound of the building collapsing?

No. See above. No need for bombs or explosives once the collapse began.

 

[ergo]

Start listening at 51 seconds in the video.

Actually, 48 seconds.

No actual known distance, and most likely, behind double-pane insulated glass. Why you ask? Safety reasons. They are on a higher floor in what appears to be an apartment, and as such, requires extra safety so someone doesn't fall out of a window.

Speculation at best.

But yet, the core remained standing after the collapse.

No, it didn't. It disappears seconds after it appears. That is not "remaining standing".

Not to mention, the fact that many people have studied the collapses, and determined that once it began to fall, it would continue to fall.

Two? Three?

All of these peer-reviewed, published papers (No Bentham or JO911S here)

Bazant, Zhou and one other guy?

all state that once the collapse began there was no stopping it.

Yes, because of the supermegagigajoules that Bazant found next to the missing black box.

No. See above. No need for bombs or explosives once the collapse began.

The mechanism I posit makes use of this notion, and is probably more realistic.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Which would have caused the collapse to begin at the top of the towers, at the exact impact zones?

Yeah, keep going, I see a stundie in our future!!

Correct. Because Thermite was used on some of the floors at the 'plane' impact zones. This caused the steel on those floors to melt in places and become very weak.

 

[triforcharity]

I've linked to these several times in this thread and even provided some excerpts.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Only 1 of them mentions the 1993 bombing. And it was NOT comparing the collapses to that of the 1993 bombing. She (EMT Patricia Ondrovic) said that she thought there were bombs, because they did it in 1993.

KT is VERY leading in his questions.

Let's see what Ms. Ondrovic had to say to the NYC Fire Department on Nov 11th, 2001.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF

Nowhere does she mention explosion. She mentions bombs, but was thinking there were bombs, and not planes (pg. 4 of the PDF). She does go into great detail of things blowing up, but if you continue to read, she explains that it was the building collapse that she was running from.

Now, where are those witnesses that you were talking about?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

How exactly can one make those statements?

No matter how many witnesses are presented they will all be mistaken, lying, racist, or crazy.

Or all of the above. They got it all covered around here.

 

[lapman]

Yes, because of the supermegagigajoules that Bazant found next to the missing black box.

Which is based on real world physics unlike your supersekritsuperdupernanunanthermitamatepixidust that has never been used in anything close to a CD of any sort.

 

[ergo]

Only 1 of them mentions the 1993 bombing.

If you go to the friggin' link, you will see others comparing the explosions to the 1993 bombing.

Nowhere does she mention explosion. She mentions bombs, but was thinking there were bombs,

And bombs, of course, are not "explosive". She meant inert bombs? Unexploded bombs?

 

[ergo]

No matter how many witnesses are presented they will all be mistaken, lying, racist, or crazy.

Or all of the above. They got it all covered around here.

Yeah, I know, but I keep holding out hope that some realism will sink in with a few along the way.

 

[beachnut]

No matter how many witnesses are presented they will all be mistaken, lying, racist, or crazy.
...

Simile

The building falling make noise. No explosives were used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex. So not a single person heard explosives set to bring down the buildings. That CD idea is moronic and a lie spread by 911 truth.

You don't have evidence so your statement is a lie.

The witnesses heard noises. Some of those explosions they heard were bodies and if you read their entire statement you find out that is the truth.

But 9 years of failure and you lie, no one called the witnesses liars. If you say CD was used to bring down the WTC complex on 911, you are a liar, crazy, or a troll; because you have no evidence to prove it.

Got evidence for your 911 delusions? no

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, 48 seconds.

Does it matter? No, of course not. And the fact that you can hear the demolitions at 48 seconds proves you utterly wrong, as usual.

Speculation at best.

Not quite speculation, more like experience in high-rise firefighting. In fact, many high-rise buildings use lexan or a simmilar polycarbonate plastic, as it is safer not only for the occupants (nobody falling through a pane glass window from 20 stories up) but also, since firefighters ventilate buildings by breaking windows, broken glass to travel a very far distance from a highrise.

See here.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4760/is_201002/ai_n52373480/

No, it didn't. It disappears seconds after it appears. That is not "remaining
standing".

If there were these so called explosives in the basement, how did it remain standing at all?

Two? Three?

3 articles, 6 experts. Can you prove them wrong? Great. Get your AE911T dolts to put something together and get it published in a respectable journal showing Bazant et al wrong.

We'll wait....

Bazant, Zhou and one other guy?

Count again there smart guy....

Yes, because of the supermegagigajoules that Bazant found next to the missing black box.

Drunk?

The mechanism I posit makes use of this notion, and is probably more realistic.

Maybe in trutherland, but here in reality, we know differently.

 

[triforcharity]

Correct. Because Thermite was used on some of the floors at the 'plane' impact zones. This caused the steel on those floors to melt in places and become very weak.

No steel melted. Thermite not needed, as steel weakens at a fairly low temperature compared to thermite. Steel will loose much of it's strength at 1800 deg. F.

Do you know what burns around 1800 deg. F? Hydrocarbon fires.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No steel melted. Thermite not needed, as steel weakens at a fairly low temperature compared to thermite. Steel will loose much of it's strength at 1800 deg. F.

Do you know what burns around 1800 deg. F? Hydrocarbon fires.

I think Thermite was needed, or else the towers would not have started collapsing so precisely at the impact zones as they did. Ordinary office fire would not have weakened the steel much.

 

[TJM]

I think Thermite was needed, or else the towers would not have started collapsing so precisely at the impact zones as they did. Ordinary office fire would not have weakened the steel much.

The impacts themselves had no bearing on the structural integrity either, nice find.