Merged Summing up the evidence against Controlled Demolition

[Pardalis]

I'm refuting OP's points of evidence against CD possibility.

And thus leaving the door open for the possibility of CD?

That is again my point in post#31.

I'm not expecting you to acknowledging your error in logic, that would be like expecting a truther to acknowledge his error in logic, but I hope my point will one day germinate in your mind, because denialism is a dangerous mental process.

You seem like a genuinely nice bloke, so I really mean it.

(I gotta go to bed now. Nice chatting. Let's resume tomorrow.)

Aren't you in British Columbia? Isn't it morning there?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Got any more? Post it here!

What, I think, is stronger than the absence of certain phenomena which would necessarily accompany large explosions, is the positive observation of aspects of the collapse that are completely incompatible with explosives. The strongest of these is the observed collapse initiation mechanism of WTC2, as seen in the Trinity Church video. The gradual inward bowing of the perimeter columns, followed by their clearly visible inward collapse, is an effect no conspiracist has ever been able to explain as a result of explosives; it's clearly the result of tension in the structure, and couldn't have been caused by structural members being abruptly severed.

Dave

 

[BirdyBuddy]

This is true assuming I made the claim that the buildings were CD'ed. I did not do this however.

Whether or not you made the claim, you are certainly putting a lot of effort into supporting it. And with no evidence to back up your statements either. This is the point of the OP.

I think I'll go with WildCat here:

 

[T.A.M.]

"One only finds what one is looking for."

Yes I will remember that the next time I am looking for the remote in the couch cushions, and find a quarter instead.

"You aren't real. I wasn't looking for you quarter, therefore, I could not have found you while looking for the remote."

TAM

 

[Myriad]

Has anyone here ever played hidden-object games? There are dozens of them, probably close to a hundred by now, and you can play a one-hour demo of each of them for free. Here's one of many sites where you can do so: http://www.bigfishgames.com/download-games/genres/15/hidden-object.html.

The basic game mechanism is very simple (though there are many minor variations mixed in): you're given a list of objects to find (click on), in a scene that contains many objects.

Seems like a great way to test the hypothesis that you only find what you're looking for. Care to give it a try, Sizzler? (I usually find more things that I'm not looking for than things that I am looking for, simply because there are more objects in the scene that I'm not looking for than objects that I am. But maybe I process visual information differently from all those thousands of people who worked at Ground Zero, so let's have some other people try it.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Sizzler]

And thus leaving the door open for the possibility of CD?

That is again my point in post#31.

I'm not expecting you to acknowledging your error in logic, that would be like expecting a truther to acknowledge his error in logic, but I hope my point will one day germinate in your mind, because denialism is a dangerous mental process.

You seem like a genuinely nice bloke, so I really mean it.

Aren't you in British Columbia? Isn't it morning there?

Thanks for the kind words. I'll keep them in mind. I am from B.C but am currently residing in Asia.

 

[rm86]

No seismic recordings: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is also going to create powerful ground vibrations. The demolitions company, Protec, had several portable field seismographs in the vicinity at the time of the collapses. Protec notes that these seismographs did not detect any spikes consistent with explosive blasts. A true demolition would have produced several such spikes; therefore, there was no demolition.

​

Take a look at the seismic record from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. LDEO says that the first seismic event, which they assumed was the first plane hitting WTC1, happened at 08:46:26, and the second, which they assumed was the second plane hitting WTC2, happened at 9:02:54.

ldeo dot columbia dot edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc dot html (sorry, but they won't let me post URLs yet, as I'm still a newbie)

Now consider what the 9/11 commission said: the first plane hit WTC1 at 8:46:40, while the second hit WTC2 at 9:03:11.

9/11 Commission Report, at 32.

A couple of things to point out. First, the Commission got its times from FAA ATC radar, while LDEO’s data was self-generated, but in both cases, the time stamps represent UTC synchronization through the world atomic clock. Now, compare: LDEO says the first seismic event occurred at 8:46:26, which was fourteen seconds before the time the FAA, per the Commission, said it happened. The second seismic event, according to LDEO, occurred at 9:02:54, while FAA and the 9/11 Commission say no, it happened seventeen seconds later, at 9:03:11. Unless you think that the Commission or LDEO somehow made a typo--not that you would--don't LDEO's times indicate a pretty noisy event occurring much earlier than the planes striking WTC1 and WTC2?

 

[johnny karate]

Unless you think that the Commission or LDEO somehow made a typo--not that you would--don't LDEO's times indicate a pretty noisy event occurring much earlier than the planes striking WTC1 and WTC2

If you can find a single qualified expert anywhere on the planet who agrees with this assessment, you might be on to something. Until then, all we are left with is this rather astonishing, if not terribly difficult to discern, piece of information that somehow only you managed to uncover. (Assuming you're interpretation is correct, that is. Could be you're just reading it wrong.)

 

[X]

No seismic recordings: By its very nature, an explosive device powerful enough to cut through the structural steel of a 110-story building is also going to create powerful ground vibrations. The demolitions company, Protec, had several portable field seismographs in the vicinity at the time of the collapses. Protec notes that these seismographs did not detect any spikes consistent with explosive blasts. A true demolition would have produced several such spikes; therefore, there was no demolition.

​

Take a look at the seismic record from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. LDEO says that the first seismic event, which they assumed was the first plane hitting WTC1, happened at 08:46:26, and the second, which they assumed was the second plane hitting WTC2, happened at 9:02:54.

ldeo dot columbia dot edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc dot html (sorry, but they won't let me post URLs yet, as I'm still a newbie)

Now consider what the 9/11 commission said: the first plane hit WTC1 at 8:46:40, while the second hit WTC2 at 9:03:11.

9/11 Commission Report, at 32.

A couple of things to point out. First, the Commission got its times from FAA ATC radar, while LDEO’s data was self-generated, but in both cases, the time stamps represent UTC synchronization through the world atomic clock. Now, compare: LDEO says the first seismic event occurred at 8:46:26, which was fourteen seconds before the time the FAA, per the Commission, said it happened. The second seismic event, according to LDEO, occurred at 9:02:54, while FAA and the 9/11 Commission say no, it happened seventeen seconds later, at 9:03:11. Unless you think that the Commission or LDEO somehow made a typo--not that you would--don't LDEO's times indicate a pretty noisy event occurring much earlier than the planes striking WTC1 and WTC2?

My watch reads 12:07
My computer displays 12:06
My alarm clock displays 12:02

 

[TJM]

My spider sense tells me we're heading into no-planer territory....

 

[R.Mackey]

Take a look at the seismic record from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. LDEO says that the first seismic event, which they assumed was the first plane hitting WTC1, happened at 08:46:26, and the second, which they assumed was the second plane hitting WTC2, happened at 9:02:54.

ldeo dot columbia dot edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc dot html (sorry, but they won't let me post URLs yet, as I'm still a newbie)

Now consider what the 9/11 commission said: the first plane hit WTC1 at 8:46:40, while the second hit WTC2 at 9:03:11.

9/11 Commission Report, at 32.

A couple of things to point out. First, the Commission got its times from FAA ATC radar, while LDEO’s data was self-generated, but in both cases, the time stamps represent UTC synchronization through the world atomic clock. Now, compare: LDEO says the first seismic event occurred at 8:46:26, which was fourteen seconds before the time the FAA, per the Commission, said it happened. The second seismic event, according to LDEO, occurred at 9:02:54, while FAA and the 9/11 Commission say no, it happened seventeen seconds later, at 9:03:11. Unless you think that the Commission or LDEO somehow made a typo--not that you would--don't LDEO's times indicate a pretty noisy event occurring much earlier than the planes striking WTC1 and WTC2?

Welcome to the Forum.

I beat this issue to death with Craig Furlong in person. The Commission time is incorrect. The LDEO time has been verified against videos of the impacts, therefore it is correct.

The Commission time is wrong because it relies, as you say, on FAA radar returns. These returns overestimate the flight time because (a) they assume end-of-flight at zero altitude, whereas both aircraft hit at about 1,000 feet altitude; and (b) you can get a radar return from the debris field after impact, and this appears to be what happened in the case of the WTC 1 impact.

See my discussion here for details. This is a solved issue.

 

[Pardalis]

This is a solved issue.

There are no such things in Trutherland.

I'm sure a week from now some truther is going to post something about the "pull it" quote.

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks for the kind words. I'll keep them in mind.

But have I made any sense to you so far?

Surely, you can accept that evidence for a natural collapse can't be evidence for a disguised CD, right?

 

[Sizzler]

But have I made any sense to you so far?

Surely, you can accept that evidence for a natural collapse can't be evidence for a disguised CD, right?

You make sense when your assumptions are mutually assumed.

As for your second point, it depends on the greater context of the evidence. Give me an example and we'll go from there.

 

[Pardalis]

As for your second point, it depends on the greater context of the evidence. Give me an example and we'll go from there.

That was supposed to be a yes or no question.

Let me rephrase it so you can elaborate. How can you prove and disprove your "disguised CD" theory?

 

[Sizzler]

That was supposed to be a yes or no question.

Let me rephrase it so you can elaborate. How can you prove and disprove your "disguised CD" theory?

I can't.

 

[Thunder]

Devils Advocate post: what if the charges to cut the core columns were not exploded at the same time...but a couple every minute or so?

 

[cmcaulif]

Devils Advocate post: what if the charges to cut the core columns were not exploded at the same time...but a couple every minute or so?

there are still problems with putting explosives in a high heat environment, heat can render them inert. Not to mention the aircraft impact can physically destroy the shaped charges, and it is possible for them to even explode on impact.

 

[beachnut]

Plenty of eyewitnesses report sounds of explosions and some even compare them to demolitions.

Hoffman points out that at least in one instance a CD has occurred without causing a seismic event on the local seismigraph (spelling).

One only finds what one is looking for.

No one heard sounds of explosives, they heard sounds of a building falling. Truth movement has massive problems with "like"!

Hoffman? Is he a structural engineer? You know he never corrects his errors. He is open loop truthy; but that does not mean he messes up everything, he actually has facts on his web site, but all of them support the "official story"; so sad he works hard to be a truther but fails to generate one single rational conclusion to support 9/11 truth; like you. Hoffman's revelation means what to 9/11? Zip.

It would be neat if the truth movement was looking for evidence, or better yet, had evidence.

 

[T.A.M.]

rm86:

to determine if I put you on ignore or not, could you tell me if you believe the USG helped to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11?

Thanks in advance.

TAM