Reply #147: This does not appear to be very productive.

[Make7]

I initially responded to a post of yours where you claimed that janedoe "completely debunked" LARED in another thread. You have not provided a single example of debunking, or of a more convincing argument from that thread. Instead you have offered your own opinion. Which is fine, although you seem to provide little or no basis for what you are saying. For example:

Kai says:

My point is that I think it is implausible that jet impacts resulted in catalyzing symmetrical free fall collapses.

My point is that the collapses were not free fall and not symmetrical. Repeating that they fell at free fall speeds does not make it true.

Kai says:

Perhaps you should review some more examples of controlled demolition. There are a number of examples at this web site: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm.

Perhaps you could just post a link to the video of a controlled demolition that looks like the Twin Tower collapses. You said they looked like controlled demolition. What are you using for comparison?

Kai says:

I think you would benefit by watching the eyewitness video and reviewing the transcriptions of numerous eyewitness accounts which repeatedly mention the distinctive sound of explosions.

I think I would benefit more if you would actually address my point. You say they sounded like controlled demolition. I am simply asking for the audio from one of the Twin Towers collapses to be compared to a known controlled demolition to demonstrate the apparently obvious similarities.

Kai says:

There are times when I feel that the official explanation seeks to "interpret" the obvious and the irrefutable which seems like obfuscation. janedoe cites the seimic record which corresponds with the collapse of the towers. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to treat this as more than mere coincidence.

I'll make this one easy for you - here is a seismic chart of the collapse event for WTC1:



Could you please point out how that indicates explosives were used?

Kai says:

Please refer to this article for an analyis with photos and diagram which shows the likelihood of explosives at WTC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

I never knew that eutectic reactions were a characteristic of metal that has been subject to explosives. Can you provide a quote and a reference for drawing that conclusion? Or provide an example of any steel that has been exposed to explosives exhibiting a similar reaction?

Kai says:

The official explanation is that the structural damage was caused by fire.

I thought the official explanation specifically stated that the plane impacts caused structural damage to WTC1 and WTC2. That is structural damage not caused by fire. The official narrative is that the collapses were caused by this initial structural damage followed by the fires weakening the remaining structure.

Kai says:

You seem to be well-informed on this subject so I am going to assume that you have reviewed the photographs of adjacent buildings bristling with pieces of steel as well as the many videos showing material being ejected outward and upward. As from an explosion or explosions.

You have made two contradictory statements: the towers collapsed "into their own footprints" and "material was ejected horizontally... with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away." Which is it? Did they fall into their own footprints, or did they eject material horizontally?

Kai says:

There are different types of pyroclastic clouds. The clouds attendant to the collapses of the towers showed all of the characteristics of pyroclastic clouds.

Are there any types of pyroclastic clouds that aren't extremely hot? Please give some examples. Funny that you quote from a study that claims that the dust clouds should have been 750°C if caused by thermal expansion alone, but then continues by stating that they were no where near that hot. This would lead me to conclude that the expansion was obviously caused by something other than just an increase in temperature. It also leads me to believe that the dust clouds did not have one of the main characteristics of pyroclastic clouds - high temperatures.

Kai says:

It is significant because the official explanation depends on intense fires weakening the structure of the building. The fires didn't burn long enough or hot enough to weaken or melt the structural steel of the building.

Are you deliberately missing my point? If the jet fuel burned off in minutes, it does not matter what temperature it burns at because it was not what was burning after those first few minutes. It would only be significant if the towers collapsed in the first few minutes because of the jet fuel fires. That did not happen.

Kai says:

Whether the WTC7 collapse was at free fall or faster than free fall speeds is a matter of dispute. Watching the numerous videos of its collapse, it certainly dropped with amazing speed. What I find significant about this is that this building suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors and yet it collapsed with the speed an symmetry characteristic of controlled demolition.

No link? I have to say that I am not surprised. I agree that WTC7 fell quickly and certainly straight down, but the assertion that it "suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors" is clearly mistaken. There was structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 and the fires were more severe than you seem to be implying.

- Make7