How Building Implosions Work (howstuffworks.com)

[nebula]

This has good info about how controlled demolitions generally work. The nature of building collapses as described makes the official story look all the more absurd:

In this article, we'll find out how demolition crews plan and execute these spectacular implosions. The violent blasts and billowing dust clouds may look chaotic, but a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see...

According to howstuffworks.com, controlled demolitions (that are designed to make buildings come straight down) are "one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see." And by some miracle some Arab terrorists were able to bring the towers nearly straight down into their own footprints by randomly crashing planes into them. These terrorists were able to pull off in less than hour, what would have taken teams of engineers and demolition crews weeks of precision planning and preparation. Truly astounding!

...The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble...

Buildings don't just collapse straight down into their own footprint by random acts of God or by random plane crashes. According to the above, the natural tendency of a building, if it comes down at all, is to fall over like a tree. Professional demolitionists prefer to bring a building down by collapsing it over onto its side whenever they can. It is much easier bring a building down that way. The only way for a building to collapse straight down is by controlled demolition. If a building collapses at all, it will tend to collapse over onto its side (absent controlled demolition). The twin towers did not collapse over onto their side. They fell nearly straight down, which could have only been the result of a CD.

The official story is such a crock of shameless, blatant steaming pile of BS!





How controlled demolitions work:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

[dailykoff]

1. Good point. The "nowhere to go but down" line

should win an award as the most shamelessly stupid contribution of Bush science.

[nebula]

3. For the towers to collapse at all

(absent CD) is already a physical impossibility as it is.


For the towers to come down as neatly and cleanly as they did, only multiplies that impossibility exponentially.

[dailykoff]

17. Absolutely. That's the giveaway right there.

Steel is ductile and orders of magnitude stronger than masonry, wood, or concrete, yet we're supposed to believe these two quarter-mile high steel structures collapsed into piles of rubble like cheap brick barbecues.

That is sooooo lame.

[William Seger]

26. "Argument from personal belief"

Yet we're supposed to disbelieve it because you don't understand it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

That is sooooo lame.

[dailykoff]

28. When you have a point, let us know. (n/t)

[William Seger]

30. Simple point: People who understand structures understand what happened

So, there's still hope for you, too.

[dailykoff]

31. You mean people who understand that columns don't have hinges?

Thanks for reminding us.

[William Seger]

33. In fact, whole buildings can have "hinges"

That's how the top sections tilted. Didn't you read the link below about that?

But thanks for reminding me, here's your Engineering 101 homework for tonight: Provide a definition of "hinged connection" as it applies to steel construction. Use may any reference material of your choice, but if so, please provide your reference. Or you can also just ad lib.

[dailykoff]

36. If you think the top sections tilted on "hinged connections,"

you're more lost in fantasyland than I realized.

[William Seger]

42. Nope, I said the building tilted on a "hinge"

The "hinged connection" question was a pop quiz, since you brought up "people who understand that columns don't have hinges." Are you going to take another zero on this quiz, or is your answer "no such thing?"

[William Seger]

43. (dup post deleted - saying things twice doesn't help dailykoff)

[dailykoff]

44. That's the most sensible thing you've said yet. (n/t)

[William Seger]

46. (n/t) is the most sensible thing you've said yet

But still plenty of time to answer the question. Did I mention, it's "open book?"

[William Seger]

23. This should help you understand it

No "Bush science" to it: http://911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

[dailykoff]

32. 911myths.com is the scientific equivalent of Fox news. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

34. You won't mind demonstrating that assertation with specific examples, correct?

It should be easy for you to go through the referenced PDF file and find example after specific example of how the PDF is wrong and slants the facts the way FoxNews does.

So do it. Now would be good.

[William Seger]

35. Scholars for Truth is the scientific equivalent of the New York Post

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

911myths.com is simply hosting that paper by Dr. Greening; they didn't write it. What scientific errors did you find?

[greyl]

41. That is baseless and misguided horse shit.

There are groups that target the far left because we've been identified as a profitable market, and I think you've been misled by one.

I'd ask you to show the evidence behind your assertion that "911myths.com is the scientific equivalent of Fox news", but I know it doesn't exist.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. And they did it without explosives

or cutter charges. :sarcasm:

[William Seger]

24. What would explosives do...

... that the airplanes didn't do?

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. Blow out the mechanical floors

and the basements.

[William Seger]

27. The buildings fell...

... because columns failed, not because the floors did. And what would blowing out the basements do to cause them to fail from the impact zone down?

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. The columns, in specific places on specific floors,

had to be blown out first and in a specific sequence, in order for the buildings to collapse completely.

That is what I am referring to when I use the term 'blowing out a floor'. It was no accident, that the floors that failed first, were the specific ones that had to go first, in order for the tops to collapse toward the Plaza. Then the next blow out was probably between 75 & 76. The third blow out between 41 & 42 and then the basement.

[nebula]

4. Cutting a tree

Take a 100-foot high redwood tree.

If you make a horizontal cut halfway through the trunk at the 80-foot high mark, what does it do? It does absolutely nothing to the tree. The tree is still standing as strong as ever, because the redwood has always bore the weight of the trunk above the cut. The tree isn't going to fall over. You could even make the cut all the way through the trunk and it still changes nothing.

Likewise, if you take a plane and severe half, or even all of the beams at the impact point of the towers, it has no effect on the overall strength of the building. Because the towers have always bore the weight of the floors above the impact point. The impact of the plane would and could do nothing to cause or initiate any kind of collapse.

[hack89]

5. So let me get this straight...

the weight of the towers above the impact zone can be supported by zero beams?

And when that weight starts moving it does not impart tremendous forces on the tower below? Do you understand the diference between static and dynamic forces?

[nebula]

11. I didn't say that

But in reality, not even half of the beams at the impact point were compromised by the plane impacts. As stated by Dr. Egar of MIT who supports the OCT, 'the weight of the upper floors would have shhifted to the remaining beams in this highly redundant structure.'

What's more, the dynamic forces of any falling upper floors is not nearly enough to create total failure of the 80-floor mass below it.

Do you understand what dynamic forces are?

If the towers were divided into two you might think of the roughly 25 floors above the impact point as a Toyota Camry. And think of the remaining lower floors as a Mack truck.


If you ram the Toyota Camry into a parked Mack truck it is going to do nothing to the Mack truck!

[William Seger]

29. Ah. So please explain...

... where Dr. Greening goes wrong here: http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

[William Seger]

49. Anyway, your analogy is backward

The falling top section didn't destroy the whole bottom section at once: It did it one floor at a time. What happens when a moving Mack truck hits a parked Camry?

[nebula]

56. One floor at a time

That's not how the collapse works.

The 'one floor at a time' pancaking theory is bogus. It assumes that each floor exists independently of the floors below it. They do not.

The floors are interconnected to each other, through steel beams which interconnect to the ones below it, and so on. This framework of interconnected steel and supports starts from the top of the building, all the way down to the very foundations below street level.

[William Seger]

59. No, that's exactly how it works

After the collapse began, the floors "pancaked," by definition. (Perhaps you're confused about NIST's finding that the "pancake theory" was not what initiated the global collapse, but that's a completely different matter. Once the collapse started, the floors pancaked downward.)

> The floors are interconnected to each other, through steel beams which interconnect to the ones below it, and so on. This framework of interconnected steel and supports starts from the top of the building, all the way down to the very foundations below street level.

No. The strain on the level being impacted couldn't be distributed very far below the impact before columns failed -- maybe four floors or so -- because of the strain propagation time (which is the same as the speed of sound in a material), slowed by the inertia of the attached floors and by losses in columns connections. Worse, the impact destroyed the floor joist and beam connections, which were the only things restraining the tops of the columns from moving laterally. With the tops free to move laterally, most columns failed by being pushed aside before they reached their full load capacity. This is an extremely important aspect of the collapse: When structural integrity is destroyed, the design calculations are nearly meaningless.

[LARED]

10. Are you making the claim that the sections above

the impact zones should have fallen off with little or no damage to the lower sections?

[nebula]

53. I don't believe the upper floors should have fallen at all.

The impact of the plane compromised a limited number of structural supports. The damage does not go all the way around the impact point of the building, as the photos and video footage clearly show. Which demonstrates relatively limited structural damage from the plane impacts.

In a purposely redundant structure like the twin towers, the remaining structure around the impact point is more than adequate to support the floors above.

[William Seger]

55. When the perimeter columns bowed inward...

... what would be the effect on their ability to carry load? If they failed under that load, what would be the effect on the remaining columns?

What do you see happening in this video at the very beginning of the collapse?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=wtc+collapse+trinity

[LARED]

85. More than adequate?

Just out of curiosity, what sort of qualification, or evidence do you have for such a claim. As a mechanical engineer with 20+ years of experience I think your full of baloney, but I'm willing to listen to your theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. What the hell do you do in real life?

cuz I have a hard time believing you people actually exist.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. I have always thought that three towers collapsing in a rapid sequential manner

as a result of 3 random events was highly improbable.

The fact that many eyewitnesses reported secondary explosions and the video record is consistent with this.
The fact that eye witnessed squibs were also taped
And the fact that many people reported what they believed to be persistent and abnormally high temperatures in the rubble leads me to believe more than planes and fire were involved in the collapses.

If the government gave me access to the crime scene and the evidence, as well as a budget to hire some help, I could get to the bottom of this.

Until then, i remain suspicious of an investigation where as far as we know, no investigators ever even tested for the possibility of high explosives (HE) or accelerants

[hack89]

8. How does thermite create high temperatures

in the rubble pile? Why after 5 years has no one been able to present a mechanism to explain this?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Get me the funds, the evidence and the access and I can rule it in or out

for you.

Ask Jones about the mechanism. It's his hypothesis. I think it's a better hypothesis than the NIST hypothesis, but neither have been proved. And neither may end up being proved. We will see.

It's interesting. Jones claims to have evidence of thermite like residue, but he's got problems with the chain of custody of the evidence.

NIST claims the steel in the towers reached 600f but they have no steel from the fire floors that show that it reached 600f, in fact they have samples that reached only 250f.

So both of these entities make claims but both have problems with the physical evidence.

And that's the first problem. Why didn't they secure the evidence from the get go? They wrecked a perfectly good crime scene, NIST and other investigators had major problems getting access to evidence.

So we have all the elements of a cover up.

Makes me suspicious. Why hide it if there's no good reason?

[Grateful for Hope]

14. This fact

"So both of these entities make claims but both have problems with the physical evidence.

And that's the first problem. Why didn't they secure the evidence from the get go? They wrecked a perfectly good crime scene, NIST and other investigators had major problems getting access to evidence."

should make everyone suspicious. Not only did removal of evidence prevent NIST from performing a thorough analysis based on real evidence that might have resulted in some real answers, it also contributed to the speculation that surrounds the events of 9/11.

[piobair]

9. Do you agree with Nebula

that the tower could stand with all the support beams cut?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I think if you cut all the support beams, it would drastically lower the possibilities

that the tower would stand. However, it might matter where the beams were cut. For instance, I would imagine that if you cut every beam at the top of the top floor of the building, it might not be very significant to the standing ability of the rest of the building. Do you mean cut every beam in the whole building in each floor? What do you mean by "support beam"? The core? The parimeter?


Do you agree with Max Cleland that the 9/11 Commission was compromised? Thanks in advance. i tried to answer your question and I hope you will answer mine.

[William Seger]

57. "Squibs"

Have you ever compared videos (not stills) of the tower "squibs" to videos of actual demolition charges?

[hack89]

7. So you are saying that the plotters

spend weeks preparing the WTC for demo and were not noticed? That must have required hundreds of people - care to give some detail on how you think it was done?

[nebula]

15. They were noticed

but no one is going to question what they were doing. As far as anyone can tell, they were no different than any of the hundreds of maintenance and repair crews who do work at the WTC.


The Twin Towers had been fully government-funded and owned since it was built. Do you believe it to be pure coincidence that WTC ownership changed hands to a private party just THREE MONTHS before 9/11? And the new owner, three months before 9/11, decides to replace the personnel by putting Marvin Bush (GW's brother) in charge of World Trade Center security?

God almighty, that's some coincidence.

[Grateful for Hope]

18. I normally agree with a lot of what you say

but this statement:

"And the new owner, three months before 9/11, decides to replace the personnel by putting Marvin Bush (GW's brother) in charge of World Trade Center security?" I believe has been debunked here in this forum.

[nebula]

51. Thanks for the correction

Marvin Bush was head of WTC security only up until 2000. He then became a principal in an insurance company that covered WTC property up until 2002.

[Grateful for Hope]

52. You are welcome.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Except the Marvin story is different than you portray it. In fact the truth is even

more interesting and suspicious than you portray it. Marvin was out of the security company a couple of years before the attacks.

I forget who wrote the definitive story on the Marvin angle. She's a very good writer.

Maybe someone will post it and you can become more knowledgeable and effective.


The "Marvin was head of security story" is a red herring, false, and tends to cover -up the more interesting true story of the security arraignment for the WTC.

[SidDithers]

20. It would be a coincidence...

if any of it were true.

The WTC's were still owned by the Port Authority, Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder. He was to pay $102 million per year rent to the Port Authority. I believe he is still responsible for this rent, even tho the buildings are gone. I may be wrong on this detail, however.

Marvin Bush was not in charge of WTC security. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=113081&mesg_id=113081

Please, truthers, try to get some truth into your posts.

Sid

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Maybe the accused hijackers had confererates at the airport who loaded

explosives on to the planes. And then they fell down the elevator shafts washed down there by the rivers of kerosine/jet fuel that were also apparently flowing down the elevator shafts, according to some hypothisis.

Do you know if the FBI tested for high explosives or other accelerants just to rule them out? Or is that none of America's damn business?

[mirandapriestly]

21. Please put that one to rest

*There were a number of empty floors .
*Weekends and after-hours would have lowered the likelihood of anyone hearing or seeing anything.
*Hand drills and other equipment are not going to raise that many eyebrows going in and out of the WTC.
*There were remodeling projects going on in the WTC as well, anything they were doing could have been under the guise of remodeling projects, safety regulations, etc... no one would have given it a second thought even in hindsight.
As you know, NYC is a very noisy place where buildings are constantly going up going down, being remodeled and no one thinks about it. I doubt the guys would be wearing uniforms that said: "Joe's NewWorldOrder Demolition Service". If they were making these kind of preparations, concealing it would be not much of a problem.
*Who knows who was running a lot of those businesses in the towers (and of course we know who was in wtc7)?
I posted under the WKJO Dr DeBug thread awhile ago that the DEA had been operating in one of the towers under the guise of a investment trader a sting operation on someone who was using the world trade center as the base of a multi national drug running business. No one had a clue that it was a "fake" investment company, and they were well respected within the trading community according to the NYTimes and they weren't even real. They caught the supposed drug sellers, but my point is: Who knows who was in the World Trade Center? Every tenant list I see is different and as I just demonstrated, a government sting operation just before 9-11 was posing as a investment company there and no one had the slightest idea!
(here is the post,#124, from the NYTimes)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97987#124887


So this is a non-issue

[hack89]

37. So occupied spaces were not extensively wired

for explosives? Why hasn't any 911 researcher linked the sequence of the building's collapse to the unequal distribution of explosives? I thought that explosives were required to pulverize the contents of each floor - since everything was pulverized doesn't that mean that there were explosives on every floor? Or are you saying that the PE of the building was responsible for the pulverization of some floors? And how many floors would that be (ie how many floors were not packed with explosives?)

Do you have any idea how bulky explosives and detcord are? This stuff was laying around for weeks and no one noticed?

And how many people do you think were in on this? Not only to install the explosives but to turn the other way as tons of explosives were bought into the building? You really expect us to believe that everyone involved would remain silent?

[hang a left]

83. "Joe's NewWorldOrder Demolition Service"

:rofl:

You funny Miranda

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. They had 8 years

and most of the work was done by people who had no idea the 'dual' purpose of some of the renovations they were making to the buildings. After the 1993 Bombings major renovations were made to WTC 1, 2 and 7.


BTW: Everything on 9-11 was done on a need to know basis only. Only a handful of planners knew what was really going on.

[hack89]

38. So explosives and detcord are "dual purpose" ? nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Did I say that's what they used?

There are other ways to blow things up.

[hack89]

40. Since no 911 researcher has even attempted to present a detailed scenario

on how the WTC were wired for demo, would you like to take a shot at it? Or are you just asking questions? Or waiting for a real investigation? Just wondering.

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. I don't think they 'wired' anything

more likely they piped in what they needed.

The other possibility is that the explosives, bombs or weapons were delivered 1-3 days before the attack. The Towers had freight elevators going all the way to the top. All you need are a few ready made 'crates' that you deliver to the mechanical floors (stamp them AC equipment or something), or just leave them in the elevators right before the attack. The express freight elevators in both towers were both out of service at the time of the attack.

[hack89]

50. The problem with that particular idea is that ...

instead of thousands of small explosions you are arguing for a much smaller number of much bigger explosions. There are several obvious problems as far as I see:

1. High explosives produce a powerful shock wave - that is how they destroy things. Big explosions create big shock waves. Show me any evidence of shock waves on the towers. With all the smoke they would be obvious.

2. The pulverization of the concrete floors is evidence of explosives yet you are now telling me that there were floors that not only had no explosives on them but were sheltered from any blasts by all the floors between them and the explosives. How were those floors pulverized? Wouldn't we expect uneven pulverization of floors?

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Maybe some sort of FAE?

Fuel-Air Explosives

The elevator shafts and some of the mechanical floors (which didn't have windows) could have been blown out. One fly in the ointment was the antenna on WTC1. I think it was a factor in having to start the collapse higher up in the building. Which was not the ideal place and presented a couple of problems. One of which was a much messier collapse. The other was evidence of a major explosion is more visible on floors with windows that blow out.

The video below shows signs of a major explosion taking place inside of the building at the start of the collapse.

.html

[hack89]

72. FAE produce massive shock waves too ..

they kill by over pressure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

86. There was an interview with a fireman

who was in the North Tower lobby when the South Tower fell. (It was part of a program that aired on the History Channel called 'an American Vesuvius"). The fireman described how he was lifted off his feet and thrown into the air. I would say his story is evidence of that there was a shock wave.

[MervinFerd]

47. The opinions of true experts, who know their arses from holes in the ground.

http://www.implosionworld.com

Their paper on the subject:
http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

Refute this, or admit you can't.

[William Seger]

64. "Expert Tom Harris"

That same quote from the HowStuffWorks.com site keeps coming up -- notably in Dr. Jones' infamous paper -- and it's always been irritating to see that one line about "this sort of blast is the easiest to execute" being misrepresented as meaning that it's easy to make a building fall over like a tree. (Obviously, that will depend on whether the building is rigid enough to hold together, and also on whether the columns on one side can support the whole building while it falls over.) But anyway, I decided to finally track down his credentials. After pages of references to that same article on dozens of "truther" sites and forums, all of which invariably referred to him as a "demolition expert" or "authority", I finally found this on the HowStuffWorks.com site itself:

About Tom Harris

Tom Harris is a writer for HowStuffWorks. He holds a bachelor's degree in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was elected into the Phi Beta Kappa society. Since he joined the HowStuffWorks content team he has written articles on a wide range of topics, including file compression, Halloween, boomerangs and backhoes.

So, where did Harris get the information for that article? Brent Blanchard at Implosion World.

[nebula]

48. Regardless

Nothing short of a CD could have brought down those towers, period.

The OCT is even more pathetic when we know that WTC7 wasn't touched by any airplane, and yet comes crashing down in the manner of a perfect CD.

And yet the spin doctors will keep spinning until the cows come home.

[William Seger]

54. But how did you reach that conclusion?

> Nothing short of a CD could have brought down those towers, period.

And what is your argument against engineers who say you are wrong?

[nebula]

58. What engineers?

You mean the FEMA engineers who wrote the following in their reports?:

It appears that the collapse was due primarily by fire, rather then any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

-FEMA Intro 5.1

but then the report goes on to admit that, quote

...Although the total diesel fuel on the premises conatianed massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence.


-FEMA Report Introduction 5.1

:rofl:



Even FEMA says the OCT is crap.

[William Seger]

61. That's WTC 7, not the towers

... and we'll have to wait to see what the final NIST report says about that. If you can pull yourself together for a few minutes (and give that smiley back to dailykoff), please address the question I asked about your statement, which I'll repeat:

> Nothing short of a CD could have brought down those towers, period.

And what is your argument against engineers who say you are wrong?

[nebula]

63. I would tell them to go read the OP

and other comments I made in this thread. I don't like repeating myself.


What is your argument against sources such as Fire Engineering, the nation's oldest firefighting journal, who wrote that the official story is 'a half-baked farce?'

[William Seger]

65. I asked you a direct question about a direct statement

... and I asked it because nowhere in this thread have you given any explanation for your statement that didn't amount to, "I don't understand it, so it couldn't happen." I was offering you a chance to leave a better impression by making a reasonable argument. If you don't have one, that's OK; I just wanted to make sure that was the case.

Read the entire article that you just blatantly misrepresented. He certainly didn't say anything like "the official story is a 'half-baked farce'." That was how he characterized the FEMA investigation up to that point, and he was upset because he was certain that fire did indeed play the final role in bringing down the building, and he wanted an investigation that would lead to better fire prevention in public buildings. And he was right. And that article probably did result in a better investigation. And, if you'll search a little farther, you'll find that he wasn't at all happy about "truther" bullshitters taking his remark out of context to imply he was upset that FEMA wasn't looking for evidence of controlled demolition. And, keep searching, you should find an article saying he was satisfied with the final FEMA report.

[nebula]

66. dupe

..

[nebula]

68. I have already laid out my argument

You have done nothing to debate any of the points I made.

You have done nothing so far but repeat your meaningless, non-specific questions.

[William Seger]

71. "Argument from personal belief" is the name of the fallacy

> You have done nothing to debate any of the points I made.

That's an extremely disingenuous assertion, since my posts are right up-thread for everyone to read. No points for chutzpah. Specifically, in the context of the particular question I asked here, I gave you a link to Dr. Greening's paper showing a dynamic analysis of the collapse. You claim to have a much better understanding of these things than Dr. Greening, yet all you've offered is a fallacious "argument from personal belief" and a couple of fallacious analogies.

No need to reply if that's the best you've got.

[dailykoff]

80. Funny, I noticed the same thing.

This seems to be a pattern.

[William Seger]

84. "Funny" I've noticed a very different pattern

Not "funny, ha, ha" either, but definitely a pattern. I call it the "imploding, pancaking, collapsing-into-its-own-footprint truther school of engineering" pattern.

[Kingshakabobo]

67. You wouldn't be taking a Fire Engineering article out of context, would you?

Since CTers have an aversion to links, I will have to assume you mean THIS article:

Selling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225



Snip:

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Or this article:



A Call To Action

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Snip:

Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.


There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


No way a controlled demolition CTer would take an article out context and then not link to it.

Their position is clear that it was fire that brought down the buildings. Their problem seems to be that the officials are not admitting that the buildings may have been unsafe. They are worried about the other 2000 plus building in existence that COULD be subject to similar temperatures. They, IN NO WAY, are advocating any kooky demolition theory.

It wouldn't be the first time the government ignored an inconvenient truth for the sake of business interests. That's a far cry from proving, or even being able to allege, murder of 3000 American.....at least based on this article.

[nebula]

69. Let's stick to the original subject brught up in the OP

If you want to debate what Bill Manning said, start another thread.

Typical tactic of some OCTers: hijack the thread, change the subject when you can't debate the subject at hand.

[Kingshakabobo]

70. What the hell are you talking about?

You brought up the article....and used it out of context.

Here. This is what YOU said:

"What is your argument against sources such as Fire Engineering, the nation's oldest firefighting journal, who wrote that the official story is 'a half-baked farce?"

You asked a question and got an answer. maybe not the answer you wanted but you got one.



edit:punctuation

[William Seger]

73. Hey, he was "just asking questions"

Literally.

[nebula]

74. I don't know which Bill Manning to believe at this point

I was going by his original article, where he is clearly very upset about the 'rapid pace of destruction of WTC evidence,' and calls the official investigation 'a half-baked farce.'

In his follow-up article, which I have seen for the first time today, he inexplicably states that "no doubt fires were responsible for the WTC collapse." The only attempt he makes to support this conclusion is that supposedly "Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center." And says nothing more to support the fire theory.

How the hell can Manning now say that he unquestionably supports the OCT, when he thought of the investigation that lead to it as a 'half-baked farce?'

So for me this guy is NO LONGER a credible source of info about anything regarding 9/11. What a shame. Manning has discredited himself on the subject of 9/11.

[William Seger]

75. Baloney

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts (althought admittedly not the short odds that used to be) that you became aware of Manning's article from a "truther" site that also took those couple of lines out of context to misrepresent what he clearly said in the rest of the article.

[nebula]

77. And I say you're full of it

Manning inexplicably did a 180 and totally contradicts himself in his follow-up article.

It seems to me another whistleblower has caved into the political pressure and has finally drank the Kool-Aid.

[William Seger]

82. It's right there, in black and white

Kingshakabobo posted parts of BOTH articles and even bolded the part where he said the same thing: fire brought down the buildings. In the first article he said the "official investigation" was a "half-baked farce" and clearly said why that was unacceptable: "More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In the context of a discussion of the collapse, I asked what your response was to engineers who didn't buy your "impossible" bullshit, you distorted that quote to say Manning thought "the official story is 'a half-baked farce'," clearly trying to imply that Manning didn't agree that a plane crash and subsequent fire brought down the building.

Then, when confronted with your attempted deception, you claim:

> It seems to me another whistleblower has caved into the political pressure and has finally drank the Kool-Aid.

So, free clue for you: Nobody has to even leave this thread to see which one of us is full of it.

[Kingshakabobo]

76. He shouldn't be deemed 'not credible' just because YOU misread him.

The 'farce' quote you reference IS in the article I linked. If you have another article I would like to see it.

It appears he has always been alleging a potential cover-up of inadequate design AND fireproofing of the WTC........but more importantly the potential for loss of life in the 2000 similarly constructed/fireproofed buildings that he says are in existence.....Buildings he says COULD be subject to similar heat loads as the WTC.

[Kingshakabobo]

78. BTW, the article I linked "$elling Out the Investigation"

Is from January 2002......yes it's the article to which you were referring.

[nebula]

79. I know exactly what he said in both articles

In his follow-up article regarding 9/11, Manning inexplicably does a 180 and completely contradicts himself. It almost sounds like a different person altogether. As if he has 'a gun pointed to his head' (so to speak) in the 2nd article.

[Kingshakabobo]

81. I posted both articles. You misread him.

There is no other article.