Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[Architect]

Not that you have any evidence of "tons of planted kerosene".

Now, back to my question. Where did you get your supposed design safety factor of 5?

 

[triforcharity]

Not the other side. The same side as the fireball plus the impact side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32hqL_iJELo

Why would they break? They were not hit with anything. You do realize that these windows were incredibly strong right? You know, to resist wind, and to prevent someone from falling out of the tower?

Ok, but my theory actually doesn't need thermite. The tons of planted kerosene or something similar however is a must for my theory to hold.

Shift those goalposts!! First, it was absolutely needed.

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.

Then it isn't?

Make up your mind man!!


Yes, kerosene was planted in the towers, you are correct. They came in aboard a Boeing 767 traveling at ~500 MPH. No super-sekrit ninjas needed.

 

[BigAl]

Ok, but my theory actually doesn't need thermite. The tons of planted kerosene or something similar however is a must for my theory to hold.

How did anyone get "tons of kerosene" into a secure 24x7 fully-occupied building with a union workforce that will shut the building down if non-union (or even wrong union) crew shows up at the loading dock without the appropriate paperwork? Then they have to request access to the freight elevator and then access to the floors.

You are a no-planer. By this, you have demonstrated the inability to judge evidence and logic.

 

[Chorduroy]

No-planers fascinate me. How can anyone be THAT delusional?

 

[triforcharity]

BigAl,

They got the kerosene in there all right. They snuck it in right through the side, with a 767 at about 500 MPH. Easy enough!

 

[ergo]

But use Occam's razor. What is the simplest explanation? Four commercial airliners hijacked and flown with incredible speed and accuracy (well, except the one that plowed deep into the ground). Or, the scenario I have described?

Anders, speculating how shape charges could have produced plane-like holes in the building is not using Occam's razor. Occam's razor would suggest that if everybody saw planes or plane-like objects hitting the towers, leaving plane-like holes in them, then it's reasonable to believe that planes or plane-like objects hit the towers. Your theory would then have to also figure out how they created images of planes in the sky that then hit the buildings, timing explosions to the hits perfectly.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why would they break? They were not hit with anything. You do realize that these windows were incredibly strong right? You know, to resist wind, and to prevent someone from falling out of the tower?

The amount of energy released by the impact would have been enormous. Shouldn't windows have been blown out earlier than they did? There are a lot of windows that get blown out, but only after the fireball explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

 

[triforcharity]

The amount of energy released by the impact would have been enormous. Shouldn't windows have been blown out earlier than they did? There are a lot of windows that get blown out, but only after the fireball explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

You cannot tell what windows are or are not preaking in the video in the first place. And once again, the windows were designed to resist hurricanes and other forces.

Your arguement is moot anyway. You claim no plane, then spam a video of a plane impacting the tower at slow speed.

Excellent!

 

[ergo]

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.

I said the detonations in this demolition were barely distinguishable from the fireworks. Somewhat contrary to what Big Al says about the sound produced by standard demolition charges being audible from Hoboken to lower Manhattan.

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

This is not even an applicable question. Explosives in the basement alone would not bring down the towers, as the 1993 bombing demonstrated. Again, the core remnants we see for a few seconds after the rest of the building has fallen is not something that "remains standing". The only thing significant about that remnant is that it kind of doesn't fit in with the crush-down mode with an intact upper block, that Bazant postulates.

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.

You realize Bazant and Zhou wrote the first one?

Real physicists and engineers already have, as you well know from many other threads here.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Occam's razor would suggest that if everybody saw planes or plane-like objects hitting the towers, leaving plane-like holes in them, then it's reasonable to believe that planes or plane-like objects hit the towers.

Granted. But there are some strange facts about the eyewitnesses. Here is one example:

9/11 Witness Jennifer Oberstein didn't notice any plane even though she saw the fireball explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

Then in this phone call she says that she did see a plane (at least not denying seeing a plane when asked if she saw it on television): http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jo_120308.mp3

She was located near Battery Park when the explosion happened. "Battery Park is located at the southernmost tip of Manhattan Island just a few blocks south of Ground Zero." From: http://www.usatourist.com/english/destinations/newyork/newyorkcity/world-trade-center.html

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Anders, speculating how shape charges could have produced plane-like holes in the building is not using Occam's razor. Occam's razor would suggest that if everybody saw planes or plane-like objects hitting the towers, leaving plane-like holes in them, then it's reasonable to believe that planes or plane-like objects hit the towers. Your theory would then have to also figure out how they created images of planes in the sky that then hit the buildings, timing explosions to the hits perfectly.

Granted. But there are some strange facts about the eyewitnesses. Here is one example:

9/11 Witness Jennifer Oberstein didn't notice any plane even though she saw the fireball explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

Then in this phone call she says that she did see a plane (at least not denying seeing a plane when asked if she saw it on television): http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jo_120308.mp3

She was located near Battery Park when the explosion happened. "Battery Park is located at the southernmost tip of Manhattan Island just a few blocks south of Ground Zero." From: http://www.usatourist.com/english/destinations/newyork/newyorkcity/world-trade-center.html

THe no plane theory has no feasibility as there are far too many eye witness accounts which directly corroborate the plane impacts. Unlike the explosives claims, the plane was seen directly, and the physical evidence directly matches it. It makes the controlled demolition argument look rational in comparison, and in this case ergo would be correct to point out the error you made.

 

[grandmastershek]

But use Occam's razor. What is the simplest explanation? Four commercial airliners hijacked and flown with incredible speed and accuracy (well, except the one that plowed deep into the ground). Or, the scenario I have described?

Sigh...OR is not the simplest explanation. Even so yours is far from the simplest as it involves clandestine placement of materials; some of which have never been used to (nor shown to be capable of) bring down a building.

OR means not to needlessly add entities. Take what evidence is confirmed to exist and provide the most direct explanation.

Granted. But there are some strange facts about the eyewitnesses. Here is one example:

9/11 Witness Jennifer Oberstein didn't notice any plane even though she saw the fireball explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

Then in this phone call she says that she did see a plane (at least not denying seeing a plane when asked if she saw it on television): http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jo_120308.mp3

She was located near Battery Park when the explosion happened. "Battery Park is located at the southernmost tip of Manhattan Island just a few blocks south of Ground Zero." From: http://www.usatourist.com/english/destinations/newyork/newyorkcity/world-trade-center.html

And?

 

[BigAl]

Granted. But there are some strange facts about the eyewitnesses. Here is one example:

9/11 Witness Jennifer Oberstein didn't notice any plane even though she saw the fireball explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4


Then in this phone call she says that she did see a plane (at least not denying seeing a plane when asked if she saw it on television): http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jo_120308.mp3

She was located near Battery Park when the explosion happened. "Battery Park is located at the southernmost tip of Manhattan Island just a few blocks south of Ground Zero." From: http://www.usatourist.com/english/destinations/newyork/newyorkcity/world-trade-center.html

Lots of people saw one plane or another.

Lots of people didn't see either plane.

So what?

Two planes hit the towers and caused all the death and destruction.

I'm too lazy to do much research myself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6347434#post6347434​

You are a no-planer. By this, you have demonstrated the inability to judge evidence and logic.

 

[ergo]

Granted. But there are some strange facts about the eyewitnesses. Here is one example:

9/11 Witness Jennifer Oberstein didn't notice any plane even though she saw the fireball explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

If you're on the ground, then you're on one side, at most two, of the building. If the plane hit on the other side, or it hit when you were not looking up, then obviously you're not going to see it. Her account is not particularly mysterious. She simply didn't see it, and because she was not plugged into the news, she wasn't understanding that it was a plane.

I don't see the point of arguing the no-plane angle. It's a much harder thing to prove and it doesn't make any suggested conspiracy that much more evil. It's evil enough to notice that these buildings were destroyed in a way that buildings can't naturally be destroyed.

 

[BigAl]

I said the detonations in this demolition were barely distinguishable from the fireworks.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.

There is a complete absence of evidence and injuries associated with any demolition explosion.

 

[ergo]

There is a complete absence of evidence

This has already been proven wrong.

and injuries associated with any demolition explosion.

What kind of injuries would be produced by demolition explosions?

 

[BigAl]

This has already been proven wrong.

What evidence?

What kind of injuries would be produced by demolition explosions?

Barotrauma . A whole collection of injuries fall under this label.

Common symptoms of ear barotrauma include:

Types of injury

Examples of organs or tissues easily damaged by barotrauma are:

* middle ear (barotitis or aerotitis)[3][1][2][4][5][6]
* paranasal sinuses[1][2][4] (causing Aerosinusitis)
* lungs[1][2][7][8]
* eyes[1][2] (the unsupportive air space is inside the diving mask[9])
* skin[1][2] (when wearing a diving suit which creates an air space)
* bone (bone necrosis and temporal lobe injury)[10]
* Teeth (causing Barodontalgia, i.e. barometric pressure related dental pain,[11][12][13][14][15] or dental fractures[16][17])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barotrauma

 

[Anders Lindman]

Not that you have any evidence of "tons of planted kerosene".

Now, back to my question. Where did you get your supposed design safety factor of 5?

Actually I have heard of a factor of 3 or something like that being mentioned for the WTC towers. But I don't know the exact figure so I threw in 5 for good measure.

 

[grandmastershek]

I said the detonations in this demolition were barely distinguishable from the fireworks. Somewhat contrary to what Big Al says about the sound produced by standard demolition charges being audible from Hoboken to lower Manhattan.

I can attest they would. But why bother with personal experience?

Brooklyn Heights to Statue of Liberty is a little over two miles shore to shore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WnyJMq7jo

 

[BigAl]

I can attest they would. But why bother would personal experience?

Brooklyn Heights to Statue of Liberty is a little over two miles shore to shore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WnyJMq7jo

The Jersey shore of the Hudson River (Jersey City, Hoboken) is closer and was lined with witnesses starting when the first plane hit.