Loose Change - Part II

[Mutton-Head]

OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model. For instance, what would the equation be for the first three seconds of collapse? How much energy was released then? Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos. Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized. The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.

 

[Mutton-Head]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.

I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.) You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”

 

[Gravy]

Hi Mutton-Head.

Not being good with numbers, I tend to look more at words. Jim Hoffman's calculations are based on the energy required to do this:

[Jim Hoffman quote] It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

I have never seen any such documentation. Have you?

Then, he says this:

Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

Okay, if true. (I'll need to see this "diverse evidence" he refers to). But how much of the mass of the building is accounted for by the dust? Again, I'm not aware of any studies done at the time that attempt to answer this. Are you?

It's a huge question. If he's starting with the wrong premise, Hoffman's calculations may be off by orders of magnitude.

 

[Gravy]

...I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized.

You provided photos of buildings that toppled from their bases due to the ground moving in earthquakes. You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.

Sorry, but I doubt if anyone here gives a fig what your beliefs about the WTC are.

 

[Mutton-Head]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.

You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.

No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.

Again, I ask, any of you who know explosives/demolition, would you implode a building using the above method? Why do you automatically believe the NIST, that such a procedure would work?

 

[XXX]

"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

 

[WildCat]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."

Loose Change...


PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model.

Again, Kausel (iirc) is an MIT professor that was taking part in a panel investigation that would, assumably, be reviewed by peers. It is not unreasonable to believe he used _the right model_.

... Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos.

We see a dust cloud in the videos, it is not appropriate to assume the makeup of that cloud.

Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized.

Evidence?

The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.

Argument to personal incredulity. Just because you don't believe/can't understand it, doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

[Gravy]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.

You're developing a habit of quoting people's anecdotes that "they've never seen anything like this" as evidence of something. Why do you do that, when you know this was a unique event to everyone in the world?

Again, I asked if you had seen the documentation Hoffman refers to about how much of the building's mass was pulverized. Have you? I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.

This is vitally important to his argument and yours.

No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said
It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.

Stacey Loiseaux of the Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the world's premier experts in the field, calls WTC CD theories "ludicrous."

Which demolitions expert opinions are you using to back up your belief? I'm not aware of a single one stating that they see evidence of CD work at the WTC, and NONE was found during the exhaustive clean up work.

Again, are you just stating a belief, or do you actually have experts who back you up?

edited for spelling

 

[WildCat]

Landru, this is great news! If only you could see the smile on my face right now... I'm busting open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale I have saved for special occasions only!

 

[WildCat]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.

Mutton-Head, I'm assuming you're implying that it was explosives that turned so much (you'll need to provide evidence that it was all turned to dust, pics from ground zero show quite a bit of large chunks) concrete to dust?

That would be quite an amount of explosives, don't you think? How much TNT, for example, do you think would be necessary to turn 3.3 million square feet of 4 inch thick concrete to dust? Then think about how all of that would make it into the building undetected and unnoticed... really, the mind boggles.

In a controlled demo it is gravity, not explosives, that turns the building into little pieces so it can be carted away.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, Thaks, Landru. I'm off to buy some beer myself!

 

[Gravy]

"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

Thanks, XXX. I should have read your post first!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."

Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"

 

[XXX]

No prob Gravy...

This may help some too, it's also linked from the 9/11 myths sites, and it's a PDF file...a part of Dr. Frank Greening's paper that deals with some of Jim Hoffmans claims about the dust cloud and the concrete.

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

 

[Pardalis]

Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly

I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.

 

[WildCat]

Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"

Try refreshing the page, you must be reading a cached version.

 

[Gravy]

I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.

Some CTs see smoke being pushed out of the collapse zone at the start and claim "Aha! It's gray and billowing...must be concrete dust!" Not accusing Mutton-Head of that, but I've had many CT encounters like that.

 

[Pardalis]

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously.

This is an error in logic. These events appear to happen simultaneously because both towers received the same damage at about the same moment. When the first tower fell, it was the first time in history such a thing occured. When the second tower collapsed (different event), it became the second time such an event occured. Thus, it is logical to assume that such damage afflicted to these structures can lead to collapses in this fashion. It is your confirmation bias that compells you to see these two events as an orchestrated conspiracy.

Same type of event, because of same type of damage. End of story.

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within.

It is inescapable because you are trapped inside your confirmation bias. Can't you see that???

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

Besides, how can you even make a conclusion when you say yourself that you haven't finished your research. Usually one waits until all evidence is gathered before ever making any definite conclusions.