Loose Screws - Invisible Explosives

[luchog]

Got into an argument with a friend recently regarding the Loose Change (which he claims not to have seen) conspiracy theory nonsense. He claims to disbelieve most of it, but is adamant that the WTC could only have been brought down by demolition explosives. Refuses to believe otherwise. Unfortunately, my knowlege of structural engineering isn't quite up to the task.

I know that there were several very good articles posted in the past, debunking this claim; but the search function isn't working at the moment. Can anyone point me to anything from a structural engineer that comprehensively refutes the assertion that the building could only have been brought down by demolition charges?

 

[Dragon]

Hmmm .. you could start by asking your friend exactly how the WTC was brought down by explosives, including how much explosive was required, where and how it was placed etc etc. You see, it's his claim, therefore he needs to support it. If he does manage to come up with anything (beyond his doubts about the official version) then you might want to check out this site and the comprehensive links it provides.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18

 

[BPSCG]

is adamant that the WTC could only have been brought down by demolition explosives. Refuses to believe otherwise.

Refuses to believe otherwise? If that's an accurate statement, then don't waste your time with him. It's one thing to say, "I haven't seen persuasive evidence yet, though I admit I could be wrong." It's something else again to say, "You can't persuade me."

 

[luchog]

Refuses to believe otherwise? If that's an accurate statement, then don't waste your time with him. It's one thing to say, "I haven't seen persuasive evidence yet, though I admit I could be wrong." It's something else again to say, "You can't persuade me."

I do know from past experience that, once overwhelmed by contrary facts, he is capable of changing his mind. I'm not holding out much hope in this case, but since he is basing his entire argument on his limited and flawed knowledge of engineering, rather than a simple woo CT, there's a chance that he will change his mind when presented with the facts.

 

[El_Spectre]

Refuses to believe otherwise? If that's an accurate statement, then don't waste your time with him. It's one thing to say, "I haven't seen persuasive evidence yet, though I admit I could be wrong." It's something else again to say, "You can't persuade me."

Yep... once someone says the magic phrase "no matter what you say" or "you can't convince me otherwise", the conversation is done. No real point in working against that level of stubbornness.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

there was a good program on one of the science channels about it.

it showed pictures of the beams before 9/11, where the fire retardant wasn't applied properly.
they exposed a similar floor structure section to prolonged fire until they buckled and the connecting bolts broke.

well, I saw it a while ago but it did seem to cover a lot.

look out for it.