Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

Of course, I would like to read the full article, to see the exacts of ALL reported cases, but according to the results summarized of this article, no mention of BAROTRAUMA. Even if there was the occasional case that might not have been recorded (which I doubt) certainly, the blasts from conventional explosives, enough to bring down the towers, would have resulted in a measurable amount of barotrauma injuries, especially ear barotrauma.


http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/11/1068

Results The major cause of morbidity for the September 11, 2001, patients was smoke inhalation (30.0%); followed closely by chemical conjunctivitis and corneal abrasions (16%); lacerations, abrasions, and soft-tissue injuries (15.5%); isolated orthopedic complaints (12%); and psychiatric complaints (10%). Multiple-trauma patients were 3% of the patients seen. There were 5 fatalities at Saint Vincent’s Hospital.
Click to expand...

TAM:)
 
triforcharity said:
Nobody in the post that you provided compared 1993 to 2001. Ms. Cruz says,

She thought they had been bombed again.
Click to expand...

Yes, because she had 1993 as a precedent. Right?

She is describing the impact of the plane BTW.
Click to expand...

No. There's no evidence of that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6347880&postcount=520

Here is your post.

Can you show us who describes hearing something like they heard in 1993?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

My point in posting was not to prove comparisons between 1993 and 2001, although comparisons would be obvious for people who had survived both, but in pointing out that there were indeed many, many reports of explosions. End of story. You're trying to move the goalposts again here.
 
I agree there were MANY reports of explosions. No doubt. The testimony is there.

EXPLOSIONS do not equal EXPLOSIVES, especially as reported by survivors in recollecting the even afterward.

I know you are smart enough to understand this, so why all the fuss ergo?

TAM:)
 
The bottle of diet cola EXPLODED after he shook it.

The aeresol can EXPLODED after he through it in the fire.

The Oxygen cannister EXPLODED after it collided with the concrete wall.

The electrical transformer EXPLODED after he through the switch.

The watermelon EXPLODED when he dropped it from the roof top, and it hit the pavement.

Shall I go on....

TAM:)
 
BigAl said:
Why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Because we know that only one elevator shaft ran the length of the building. I want to know how this fireball would have chosen some floors and not others. And would the express shaft be accessible both from the basement, where service people would use it, and the lobby, where office workers and visitors would get on?
 
Big Al, you didn't answer my question about the tabulation of WTC deaths and injuries that you spoke of.
 
Last edited:
And TAM, you never answered my question about Tony Szamboti's paper. What was the main error that he supposedly made? Can you summarize for us?

ETA: His "The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers", April 24, 2007, paper.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Which ones did the fireball take? :)
Click to expand...
The express and freight elevators and a few local elevators at higher levels. The worst at an upper level seems to have been on the 24 floor of WTC1, as per Schroeder and a few others interviewed for the oral history project.
 
ergo said:
And TAM, you never answered my question about Tony Szamboti's paper. What was the main error that he supposedly made? Can you summarize for us?
Click to expand...
He has the ends of the columns in the upperand lower blocks meeting squarely post-initiation.

Utter rubbish.
 
ergo said:
And would the express shaft be accessible both from the basement, where service people would use it, and the lobby, where office workers and visitors would get on?
Click to expand...

The freight elevator ended in the basement, the express elevator ended at the lobby.
 
ergo, see my link above for a summary from one hospital,

as well, while only for the responders that day (and 2 months following), there is no mention of barotrauma in this report...see page 42 of report,

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...vWHuBzK9oNpUvH40rLZTZYQio#v=onepage&q&f=false

In a nutshell...MSK complaints = 13%, Eye complaints = 11%, Respiratory Complaints = 9%, headaches = 9%, blisters = 6%

Once again, these are summaries, but if there was barotrauma, it was not siginficant enough to see in these statistics...

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
And TAM, you never answered my question about Tony Szamboti's paper. What was the main error that he supposedly made? Can you summarize for us?
Click to expand...

Was I asked? I have not even read his paper, nor do I plan on it. I was talking about barotrauma, and the misrepresentation of the word "explosion" to mean exclusively, or even likely, "explosive".

TAM:)
 
leftysergeant said:
The express and freight elevators and a few local elevators at higher levels. The worst at an upper level seems to have been on the 24 floor of WTC1, as per Schroeder and a few others interviewed for the oral history project.
Click to expand...

And yet some survivors used the elevators to escape. Interesting.
 
ergo said:
My point in posting was not to prove comparisons between 1993 and 2001, although comparisons would be obvious for people who had survived both, but in pointing out that there were indeed many, many reports of explosions.
Click to expand...

None of them were consistant with CD.

End of story. You're trying to move the goalposts again here.
 
ergo said:
And yet some survivors used the elevators to escape. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Not all elevator shafts ran through the impacted floors. Nobody took an elevator from the impact area.

Did you hear Schroder describing finding a dead body in a closet on the 24th? Fried as he tried to leave the elevator, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom