Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[jaydeehess]

If nothing else, at least we now know that the WTC was demolished using shotguns.

It took me four shots to fell a small pine with a trunk about 3 inches in diameter. The WTC would take a lot of shots, probably used slugs.

 

[triforcharity]

By the way, Trifor, did you have nothing to say about this?

As soon as I am able to access wtc.nist.gov I will be more than happy.

 

[Java Man]

Gravity.

How did my bosses wife's desk not make it out, and her office was on the
108th floor?

I'm not sure how much your wife's boss paid for his/her desk, but I don't think it was made to meet these standards:

Current Survivability Standards [blackbox]

TSO C123a (CVR) and C124a (DFDR)
Fire (High Intensity) - 1100°C flame covering 100% of recorder for 30 minutes. (60 minutes if ED56 test protocol is used)
Fire (Low Intensity) - 260°C Oven test for 10 hours
Impact Shock - 3,400 Gs for 6.5 ms
Static Crush - 5,000 pounds for 5 minutes on each axis
Fluid Immersion - Immersion in aircraft fluids (fuel, oil etc.) for 24 hours
Water Immersion - Immersion in sea water for 30 days
Penetration Resistance - 500 lb. Dropped from 10 ft. with a ¼-inch-diameter contact point
Hydrostatic Pressure - Pressure equivalent to depth of 20,000 ft.

BTW 20,000 ft is about 590 atmospheres worth of pressure. I don't think your wife's boss scuba dives that deep.

 

[Java Man]

In the case of a lightweight steel structure(light is of course a relative term but one major reason for using steel is that it is lighter than concrete) of the construction technique of long spans and open floor space in the towers and WTC 7 the falling mass collapsed the floors, taking away the lateral supports and compromising the structure's ability to stand.

Huh? You're saying the core was unable to stand on its own? In other words if the core of the WTC were erected again it would just come crushing down again?

 

[BigAl]

I'm not sure how much your wife's boss paid for his/her desk, but I don't think it was made to meet these standards:

Current Survivability Standards [blackbox]

TSO C123a (CVR) and C124a (DFDR)
Fire (High Intensity) - 1100°C flame covering 100% of recorder for 30 minutes. (60 minutes if ED56 test protocol is used)
Fire (Low Intensity) - 260°C Oven test for 10 hours
Impact Shock - 3,400 Gs for 6.5 ms
Static Crush - 5,000 pounds for 5 minutes on each axis
Fluid Immersion - Immersion in aircraft fluids (fuel, oil etc.) for 24 hours
Water Immersion - Immersion in sea water for 30 days
Penetration Resistance - 500 lb. Dropped from 10 ft. with a ¼-inch-diameter contact point
Hydrostatic Pressure - Pressure equivalent to depth of 20,000 ft.

BTW 20,000 ft is about 590 atmospheres worth of pressure. I don't think your wife's boss scuba dives that deep.

Being hit by one multi-ton beam and then cooking the resulting bits in an acidic humid atmosphere at hundreds of degrees for weeks might make the resulting bits unrecognizable.

That describes conditions in the pile.

 

[Java Man]

You mean the demonstrated weakening of steel (and pretty much every other material) as it is heated?

Actually in the case of thermite use this comment of yours works against you. Cutting through the steel isn't a requirement anymore. Just weakening key spots along the structure with thermite would be enough to bring the structure down on its footprint. And yes that means on that infamous "pile" you keep bringing up, with all the "fires" underground. That burned for weeks.

 

[Java Man]

Being hit by one multi-ton beam and then cooking the resulting bits in an acidic humid atmosphere at hundreds of degrees for weeks might make the resulting bits unrecognizable.

That describes conditions in the pile.

Then why did they keep only a few beams with evidence of fire? There should have been hundreds upon hundreds. According to your model. If there was something in abundance to corrode in the "pile" that was steel.

 

[Java Man]

Beachnut! This is the first bit of research I've ever seen you do!! Very good! I don't recognize the names, but all sounds good to me!

Now if only Carlitos would catch on we'd have a very interesting conversation after all.

 

[Java Man]

You do realize a CD sounds nothing like a shotgun or an M80...right?

Well I don't know the credentials of the people who said shotgun or M80, but:

A great deal of the members here keep asking me if I've ever fired a weapon before when we talk about explosives.

A great deal of the members here claim that "trained personnel" didn't hear anything and they would have known the difference. Inferring that untrained personnel wouldn't (also those who have never fired a gun). So maybe the people who said shotgun or M80 were just confused and untrained.

The one person on that list that uses the word "bomb" and also uses the word "huge" so happens to have the initials FDNY. What does FDNY mean? Given the context and location of the event I'd guess Fire Department, City of New York. I'd also guess he's well trained. He is after all the Deputy Chief. I'll quote him again:

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Now what's in a bomb? HE. What's in a CD charge? HE. Are we connecting the dots here? And I'm not putting anything new on the table. Just connecting the dots between thing the debunkers here have said and defended with their teeth.

 

[ergo]

Which reminds me: Beachnut has never provided a source for that assertion (that what were described as "explosions" was actually bodies dropping) because I believe some of those quotes are from firefighters - ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually in the case of thermite use this comment of yours works against you. Cutting through the steel isn't a requirement anymore. Just weakening key spots along the structure with thermite would be enough to bring the structure down on its footprint.

Yes, of course it would (although your obsession with the word "footprint" is getting increasingly irrelevant). However, this undermines the classic truther position that only thermite or explosives could have caused the collapse; if you admit that thermite could merely have weakened the structure without actually melting any parts of it, then you are admitting that the structure could have been weakened by heating it to temperatures accessible to a building contents fire. Since we know with absolute certainty that there was a large building contents fire prior to the collapse, and there is neither any evidence, physical or otherwise, nor even a known feasible mechanism, for thermite having weakened structural members, then we can conclude that the most reasonable cause of collapse was the contents fire.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

Well I don't know the credentials of the people who said shotgun or M80, but:

A great deal of the members here keep asking me if I've ever fired a weapon before when we talk about explosives.

A great deal of the members here claim that "trained personnel" didn't hear anything and they would have known the difference. Inferring that untrained personnel wouldn't (also those who have never fired a gun). So maybe the people who said shotgun or M80 were just confused and untrained.

The one person on that list that uses the word "bomb" and also uses the word "huge" so happens to have the initials FDNY. What does FDNY mean? Given the context and location of the event I'd guess Fire Department, City of New York. I'd also guess he's well trained. He is after all the Deputy Chief. I'll quote him again:

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Now what's in a bomb? HE. What's in a CD charge? HE. Are we connecting the dots here? And I'm not putting anything new on the table. Just connecting the dots between thing the debunkers here have said and defended with their teeth.

ARE YOU DENSE? Seriously, you speak with enough big words to make me think you have some grains of intelligence, yet you try to purposely confuse, or possibly not understand what a SIMILE is.

Go look it up in a dictionary. Then come back and look at the quote again.

I'll give you a hint...It has something to do with the word LIKE. If the chief is capable of telling an explosion made by an explosive versus one not, then why did he say LIKE a bomb?

The latest crop just doesn't have it. Dylan, Alex, go train some new truthers...please.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

I'll give you a hint...It has something to do with the word LIKE. If the chief is capable of telling an explosion made by an explosive versus one not, then why did he say LIKE a bomb?

I have no idea as to what lead to his choice of words, but nevertheless he sounds like an experienced person who could tell the difference between one or the other. I'm sure he's been in buildings were other things have gone off like boilers, stoves, tanks. Why did he use the word bomb and not gas tank? Or boiler? Or car?

 

[ergo]

I'll give you a hint...It has something to do with the word LIKE. If the chief is capable of telling an explosion made by an explosive versus one not, then why did he say LIKE a bomb?

This is ridiculous. What else could he have said, if he didn't see it?

 

[Sabretooth]

Well I don't know the credentials of the people who said shotgun or M80, but:

A great deal of the members here keep asking me if I've ever fired a weapon before when we talk about explosives.

A great deal of the members here claim that "trained personnel" didn't hear anything and they would have known the difference. Inferring that untrained personnel wouldn't (also those who have never fired a gun). So maybe the people who said shotgun or M80 were just confused and untrained.

The one person on that list that uses the word "bomb" and also uses the word "huge" so happens to have the initials FDNY. What does FDNY mean? Given the context and location of the event I'd guess Fire Department, City of New York. I'd also guess he's well trained. He is after all the Deputy Chief. I'll quote him again:

"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Now what's in a bomb? HE. What's in a CD charge? HE. Are we connecting the dots here? And I'm not putting anything new on the table. Just connecting the dots between thing the debunkers here have said and defended with their teeth.

Quote-mining = Retarded.

"Sounded Like a Bomb" does not equal "Was a Bomb".

Using similes does not further an arguement.

So people described the towers coming down as "sounding like tidal waves". So does that mean water brought down the WTC now?

I am a trained firefighter. We know what explosions sound like. We do not always know the immediate cause, but the initial description would use the term "explosion". I heard "explosions" at the car fire we responded to this past week. It was caused by the tires blowing out from the heat.

The term "explosion" does not mean "bomb".

This has been told to you and others countless times in other threads...stop acting like an idiot.

 

[T.A.M.]

This is ridiculous. What else could he have said, if he didn't see it?

Well he could have said, "It was a bomb." If we are to take as word, that some FF have the ability to tell what an explosion due to an explosive sounds like versus other causes, and if we are to believe that the chief had this ability, then when he HEARD the explosion, with his alleged training, if it was a bomb, he would have said "We heard a bomb go off."

did he? no. You wanna no why? Cause he heard a loud noise, that either (A) he could not id the source for or (B) he knew WAS NOT caused by explosives, but was loud enough to be described as "like a bomb".

Take your pick.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Yes, of course it would (although your obsession with the word "footprint" is getting increasingly irrelevant). However, this undermines the classic truther position that only thermite or explosives could have caused the collapse; if you admit that thermite could merely have weakened the structure without actually melting any parts of it, then you are admitting that the structure could have been weakened by heating it to temperatures accessible to a building contents fire. Since we know with absolute certainty that there was a large building contents fire prior to the collapse, and there is neither any evidence, physical or otherwise, nor even a known feasible mechanism, for thermite having weakened structural members, then we can conclude that the most reasonable cause of collapse was the contents fire.

Dave

Actually both scenarios could exist concurrently. Knowing that airplanes would hit and cause massive destruction and a fire. Which has already been established by debunkers here to "not have been considered in the original design". Since buildings would begin a collapse due to that all that would be needed were key weakening spots to ensure a vertical collapse and reduce collateral damage the area. Explosives and thermite didn't need to cut through all the beams. Huge amounts of them would not be needed. Only key points.

 

[Java Man]

"Sounded Like a Bomb" does not equal "Was a Bomb".

Using similes does not further an arguement.

Thus, Didn't sound like a Bomb does not equal "Was not a Bomb"

So you've pretty much single handedly debunked the debunker's "no bomb" argument.

 

[ergo]

Well he could have said, "It was a bomb." If we are to take as word, that some FF have the ability to tell what an explosion due to an explosive sounds like versus other causes, and if we are to believe that the chief had this ability, then when he HEARD the explosion, with his alleged training, if it was a bomb, he would have said "We heard a bomb go off."

Do you think that would be a responsible statement for a fire chief to make if he hasn't witnessed that explosion? Especially as he recalls the chaos of the moment?

If you think of a legal argument, you would not be able to say that a noise you heard was something, you could only possibly say what you heard and what it sounded like to you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just curious... why exactly can't it possibly have been the large fires in the towers, or debris hitting other objects? Is there some magical property of all combustibles where none of them explode and thus be reported as explosions?

This is truly baffling... can you please explain your reasoning for that answer you gave to TAM?

Still kinda curious about this....
Seems characteristic to cast doubt on other causes, I'm interested in how all other potential causes have been eliminated all together. Some reasoning to this conclusion would be appreciated

Then why did they keep only a few beams with evidence of fire? There should have been hundreds upon hundreds. According to your model. If there was something in abundance to corrode in the "pile" that was steel.

Of course this supposed lack of ultra hot steel still produced tons of molten steel according to the same people that say this.